The Beatles vs Chuck Berry?
It's a variation on my comment to Brauser on classical music vs rock music. These are apples and oranges. Or, in this case, maybe apples and pears.
As noted by Ee3, The Beatles themselves often contended that the highest point of Rock n Roll came from Chuck Berry. Berry's achievement was minimalist, primativist art. When The Beatles added their craftsmanship, mastery of melody and harmony, and expanded the structure and vocabulary (remember the sitar?) of Berry's music, they created something different; more varied, more nuanced, and much more universally admired. OTOH, it's also fair to observe that, for the purist, they merely diluted the original.
Some prefer The Stones precisely because they never strayed as far from the "pure" RnR ethos as did The Beatles. When they expanded their vocabulary, they tended to look more towards Country and Funk - other tributaries in the minimalist musical stream. I always figured that this was the basis of The Stones vs. The Beatles debate through the last 40 years or so. At heart, it's the same argument.
It's also worth mentioning that Berry, Little Richard, et al. had their own antecedants. Louis Jordan and Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown were working the blues side before Berry and there was a rockin' Gospel movement prior to Little Richard. So maybe some of the credit should stretch back further in time.
You might also want to consider Brian Wilson's (acknowledged) contribution to the evolution of rock music. He, too, brought the same innovative approach to structure, harmony and vocabulary (remember the theremin?) that The Beatles provided. Even though his body of work can't IMHO touch that of The Beatles, he should get credit for much of the musical innovation that forms the basis for a lot of Beatle worship.
In short, the evolution of rock music had a number of touchstone artists. Berry, Little Richard, Brian Wilson and The Beatles (and surely some others) all qualify. I just think people tend to rank them according to their own priorities, rather than on the priorities of the respective musicians who created the music. The Beatles had a firm grasp of that principle when they lavished praise on Berry, et al.
Marty
It's a variation on my comment to Brauser on classical music vs rock music. These are apples and oranges. Or, in this case, maybe apples and pears.
As noted by Ee3, The Beatles themselves often contended that the highest point of Rock n Roll came from Chuck Berry. Berry's achievement was minimalist, primativist art. When The Beatles added their craftsmanship, mastery of melody and harmony, and expanded the structure and vocabulary (remember the sitar?) of Berry's music, they created something different; more varied, more nuanced, and much more universally admired. OTOH, it's also fair to observe that, for the purist, they merely diluted the original.
Some prefer The Stones precisely because they never strayed as far from the "pure" RnR ethos as did The Beatles. When they expanded their vocabulary, they tended to look more towards Country and Funk - other tributaries in the minimalist musical stream. I always figured that this was the basis of The Stones vs. The Beatles debate through the last 40 years or so. At heart, it's the same argument.
It's also worth mentioning that Berry, Little Richard, et al. had their own antecedants. Louis Jordan and Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown were working the blues side before Berry and there was a rockin' Gospel movement prior to Little Richard. So maybe some of the credit should stretch back further in time.
You might also want to consider Brian Wilson's (acknowledged) contribution to the evolution of rock music. He, too, brought the same innovative approach to structure, harmony and vocabulary (remember the theremin?) that The Beatles provided. Even though his body of work can't IMHO touch that of The Beatles, he should get credit for much of the musical innovation that forms the basis for a lot of Beatle worship.
In short, the evolution of rock music had a number of touchstone artists. Berry, Little Richard, Brian Wilson and The Beatles (and surely some others) all qualify. I just think people tend to rank them according to their own priorities, rather than on the priorities of the respective musicians who created the music. The Beatles had a firm grasp of that principle when they lavished praise on Berry, et al.
Marty