The Beatles

Rock & Roll Hall of Famer

Category: Performer

Inducted in: 1988

Inducted by: Mick Jagger

Nominated in: 1988

First Eligible: 1988 Ceremony

Inducted Members: George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 1988 (ranked #1) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Please Please Me (1963)
With The Beatles (1963)
A Hard Day's Night [UK] (1964)
Beatles For Sale (1964)
Help! [UK] (1965)
Rubber Soul [UK] (1965)
Revolver [UK] (1966)
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
Magical Mystery Tour [US] (1967)
The Beatles (1968)
Abbey Road (1969)
Let It Be (1970)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Love Me Do (1962)
All My Loving (1963)
I Want To Hold Your Hand (1963)
She Loves You (1963)
I Saw Her Standing There (1963)
Please Please Me (1963)
Twist And Shout (1963)
Can't Buy Me Love (1964)
I Feel Fine (1964)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Eight Days A Week (1964)
Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) (1965)
Help! (1965)
You've Got To Hide Your Love Away (1965)
Day Tripper (1965)
Nowhere Man (1965)
In My Life (1965)
Yesterday (1965)
Ticket To Ride (1965)
Paperback Writer (1966)
Taxman (1966)
Yellow Submarine (1966)
Tomorrow Never Knows (1966)
Eleanor Rigby (1966)
A Day In The Life (1967)
Hello, Goodbye (1967)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band / With A Little Help From My Friends (1967)
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (1967)
All You Need Is Love (1967)
Penny Lane (1967)
I Am The Walrus (1967)
Strawberry Fields Forever (1967)
Blackbird (1968)
Happiness Is a Warm Gun (1968)
Hey Jude (1968)
While My Guitar Gently Weeps (1968)
Helter Skelter (1968)
Revolution (1968)
Back in the U.S.S.R. (1968)
The End (1969)
Here Comes The Sun (1969)
Get Back (1969)
Something (1969)
Come Together (1969)
The Long and Winding Road (1970)
Let It Be (1970)
Across the Universe (1970)

The Beatles @ Wikipedia

The Beatles Videos

Comments

801 comments so far (post your own)

How did no one comment them I'm 13 and I love em and I'm into metal/rock/alternative/hardrock they're as good as they look funny I wonder what they think of themselves their ####ing great they deserve better than rock hall of fame

Posted by Lucas on Saturday, 03.17.07 @ 04:09am


This band is the greatest band of all time. Words can't describe their influence. I'm glad they're in.

Posted by Seth on Saturday, 03.17.07 @ 10:23am


I think the beatles ar the greatest rock band of all time. They have so many good songs. Tgey should be credited as the best band ever.

Posted by Platipus on Wednesday, 04.4.07 @ 15:29pm


Over 20 #1 singles in under 6 years (and that's not counting songs that reached #2 or #3).

No band will ever be as prolific as the Beatles.

Simply the Greatest of All Time.

My favorite is Abbey Road, but they're all great.

Posted by Randy on Friday, 10.5.07 @ 12:27pm


"No band will ever be as prolific as the Beatles."-Randy

Bull. Mike Patton alone is more prolific than the four of them together. The Mountain Goats released four albums at a grand total of 78 tracks in the space of a single year. There are many groups more "prolific" than the Beatles were.

Posted by William on Friday, 10.5.07 @ 15:01pm


gosh, william. have you forgotten that Ringo narrated Thomas the Tank?

Posted by liam on Friday, 10.5.07 @ 15:06pm


"Bull. Mike Patton alone is more prolific than the four of them together. The Mountain Goats released four albums at a grand total of 78 tracks in the space of a single year. There are many groups more "prolific" than the Beatles were."

But how many have been more successful?

Posted by Jace on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 00:51am


"But how many have been more successful?"-Jace

Completely tangential. We were discussing proliferation. A person would have to lose a digit off his IQ to fall for a bait-and-switch that blatant.

Posted by W on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 02:17am


"Bull. Mike Patton alone is more prolific than the four of them together. The Mountain Goats released four albums at a grand total of 78 tracks in the space of a single year. There are many groups more "prolific" than the Beatles were."

Agreed - there are many more writers and groups have had written more or recorded more crap than the Beatles. The key word is "CRAP". The Beatles put out more memorable music; songs whish are as strong and meaningful now as they were 40 plus years ago. I understood what you were saying, but for someone as intelligent as you try and come off as, I am sure you knew exactly what these people meant.

The Beatles started out as a great little RnR band who learned from those before them and built upon it to a point where RnR became the new popular music. Then starting with Rubber Soul and Revolver, they took it all to a new level.

When it comes to RnR, it all starts and ends with the Beatles and George Martin. That doesn't take away from what the Stones, Dylan, The Who and The Yardbirds brought to the table, but it was because of the Beatles that this new table existed. And don't take my words (starts and ends) literally - you know what I am talking about.

Thank you Little Richie, Buddy Holly, Elvis and all the Blues artists for inspiring these 4 musicians who changed the world.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 03:05am


"but for someone as intelligent as you try and come off as, I am sure you knew exactly what these people meant."-Dameon

No, I really don't see how I'm expected to assume that people mean something different from what they when they don't so much as imply it. If he meant they had the greatest number of memorable songs, well then he could've typed out the seven extra letters that would have taken and saved the trouble of a mistranslation. Considering that greater than 90% of speech is nonverbal, it's best to be as close to literal as possible anyway.

And anyway, arguing that the songs are more memorable or meaningful than something else is a bad line of thinking to begin with. It's not too hard to be "memorable" when you have the advantage of 40 years' worth of mass advertising, but that aside, arguing the amount of meaning in relation to other songs is like trying to explain why your favorite food just tastes better than something else.

Anyway, I go in for the Piero Scaruffi line of thinking:
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

Posted by W on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 03:20am


Anyway, I go in for the Piero Scaruffi line of thinking:
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

W - Thank you so much for introducing me to this site. I found the ideas of the writer to be quite enlightning; considering it has nothing to do with what we are talking about on this site. Who here is comparing RnR to Jazz?

As for Scaruffi, who is he and why do I care what he has to say? But then, who really gives a crap what I have to say? You want to think like him, go right ahead, but don't try and make someone feel stupid by throwing Mike Patton's name out there. I think he is amazing and I will always be grateful that a friend turned me on to him and Faith No More. But I am afraid that most people don't know who he is outside of Faith. And I have a feeling that you know that as well. As for me and the Beatles, I will do what most music fans do, sit back and appreciate it for what it is, beautiful music. And when I am in a bit of a mood, I will then put on some Jazz.

In the world of Rock and Pop, there are the Beatles and then there is everyone else. If you wish to go along and scream the importance of Jazz, I suggest you do so to another reading audience. If you want to discuss the merits of Stan Getz, Charlie Mingus, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, etc., etc., then please find me a blog and I will be more than happy to discuss the merits of Jazz and its absolute importance to music with you.

As for Rock and Pop, as far as I am concerned, starts with the Beatles. Although I do not question that they were influenced by the music before them, they are the "Standard Bearer" and I for one have no problem admitting that I am still a gigantic fan.

No, I really don't see how I'm expected to assume that people mean something different from what they when they don't so much as imply it. If he meant they had the greatest number of memorable songs, well then he could've typed out the seven extra letters that would have taken and saved the trouble of a mistranslation. Considering that greater than 90% of speech is nonverbal, it's best to be as close to literal as possible anyway.

William - you certainly knew what they were saying. I have read your comments on other artists and you know exactly what people are trying to say or insinuate and your responses in return are usually well calculated. It is almost like you want the general population of this site to challenge you; this way you can then go off on your own self-importance and disagree with what you believe is an inferior musical audience. And then someone like Liam chimes in trying to be cool. The problem with Liam is that he will usually show his true colors and start ranting F -this and F-that. At least you have charm and wit in your style.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 06:20am


I've just looked up that Scaruffi guy, and Wow - that's ALOT of reviews!

Posted by l i a m on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 07:28am


Actually, I never said I wanted to compare rock with jazz, nor did Scaruffi. He compared rock criticism with jazz criticism (and classical criticism) and found the former lacking. This line in particular sums up the whole problem:

"Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers."

And I think that's perfectly valid. I happen not to agree with Scaruffi on a number of bands, but his opinions are always insightful simply because he has done his homework. The amount of music out there is so staggering that most people will never even consider it. That's why people refer to "modern music" as if there were only about ten bands in existence, or "the past" as if Rolling Stone has charted all of rock history and there's nothing else worth learning. Complacency is human nature. People don't bother learning musical history for the same reasons they don't bother learning political history until forced: they are less interested in learning than in presuming to know. They are less interested in history than in getting by in life without much friction. So when Rolling Stone, which people assume is an authority of that sort of thing, says stuff like "Jimi Hendrix is the greatest guitarist ever," they generally don't argue. A few people might already have their own favorites picked out, but if they don't already think they know something better, they won't bother to learn or to test the popular consensus.

As Scaruffi himself has said, you can read the same list of facts and come out with different opinions. I happen to enjoy the Beatles' music, I think their importance is wildly overstated. The whole tirade above is not so I can bully everyone into agreeing with me. I could really care less what group of people you decide to nod heads with, me or anyone else. In fact, I'd rather you stepped away and stopped nodding altogether. Read, learn, and get back to me with something I haven't heard before. I'll try to do the same.

As for my mentioning Patton, he wasn't picked to make someone "feel stupid." He was my first choice because he is the musician who most readily comes to mind when I think "prolific." The guy just plain does more in the space of a year than most full bands will accomplish over the course of their careers. I never said or implied that being more prolific made his music better.

Posted by William on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 12:23pm


After re-reading what I just typed, let me quickly say that I'm using "you" in the general sense, and not specifically directed at anyone.

Posted by William on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 12:26pm


I must agree with you that people do tend to listen to what is only at their immediate grasp or what the so-called experts have to say. It would be nice if everyone tried a little bit of everything, both obscure and or historical. But I harken back to something which I have mentioned a few times and that is the entertainment part of music. Some people just want to be entertained and not look for anything that might have to make them work a little. As I turn 50, I find myself not wanting to look too hard for any new music that might interest me. So I stick with what makes me happy now, besides I am not sure that I would be able to relate to what a 20 y.o. musician has to say, unless of course he/she is singing about "fun".

I take nothing you said personal. Have a good New Year.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 12.31.07 @ 12:48pm


The Beatles influenced more people than any other band, and that includes Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and The Rolling Stones. They were the most brilliant songwriters of the 20th Century. If you have ever listened to the White Album, you would know this. They're music was as complex as most classical music.

Posted by Zach Tankersley on Wednesday, 01.23.08 @ 14:34pm


Way to go out on that limb, Tankersley!
The Beatles are definitely an underappreciated band! Finally.. someone has the balls to stand up and talk about these guys who have been under the radar for years! Nice job!

Posted by Blue on Wednesday, 01.23.08 @ 15:42pm


"The Beatles influenced more people than any other band"-Zach

Patently false. If you're looking for "most influential," you'll have to go back farther than the '60s.

"They're music was as complex as most classical music."-Zach

Not even remotely close. Where are you getting this?

Posted by William on Wednesday, 01.23.08 @ 16:43pm


"The Beatles influenced more people than any other band"-Zach

Patently false. If you're looking for "most influential," you'll have to go back farther than the '60s.

Actually, I think the Beatles did influence more people than any other band; just not musically. They did influence a whole generation worldwide. Of course they had help from their handlers (B. Epstein), but they are the ones that pulled it off. I don't think any of the classical composers or great Jazz musicians influenced pop culture as the Beatles did. Changes in fashion and attitudes for a whole decade are attributed to them. As far as music is concerned, the Beatles are credited by RnR/Pop bands through the decades as one of the first influences in their lives.

"They're music was as complex as most classical music."-Zach

William is absolutely correct in saying that Beatle compositions are nowhere near as complex as Classical Music. It doesn't come close to Jazz either. And much of the complexity that their music did have had as much to do with George Martin as the Beatles themselves.

But in my opinion, they are still the greatest group!!!

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.23.08 @ 18:03pm


Actually, I think the Beatles did influence more people than any other band; just not musically. They did influence a whole generation worldwide.

I should have said immediate influence on people. Their influence happened as they were happening. Over the course of a couple of hundred years, it is probably correct to say that the Classical Composers such as Bach and Mozart had a larger influence. Perhaps, over time, the Gershwin Brothers had at least as much influence. Who knows what type of influence the Beatles will still have over popular music and culture by the end of the century. I have a feeling that it still will be somewhat substantial. And considering the art form known as RnR, I think that is fairly amazing.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.24.08 @ 07:15am


I was actually referring to early '50s RNR and blues-rock musicians, any of whom would be much more influential in the long run than the Beatles.

Posted by William on Thursday, 01.24.08 @ 12:46pm


I felt the influence myself in the late 60's, early 70's when I started learning music, first accordian (it was an Italian thing)and then the guitar. The impact and influence of American Blues is so extreme in what we refer to as RnR that no one can dispute this. However, the influence was the overall sound, attitude and beat of the music as a whole; Robert Johnson, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, etc. As individual performers I am not sure that their influence was a great as the Beatles. The influence of Elvis, Holly, Cochran, Little Richard, etc. was also huge, especially on the Beatles. Even the Beach Boys and Motown had an influence on the Beatles. But for all this, the influence took time to show itself, 5 - 10 years. I have a feeling that the Beatles caused more kids to pick up the guitar than any of these other musicians, bands. And the Beatles did help end the reign of the safe Elvis clones (Fabian, Anka, Avalon, etc.)

IMO, the Beatles influence was immediate and overwhelming:

Just the fact that they wrote their own songs was a defining issue with the British Invasion. It was the Beatles that basically gave the notion to all that they could write and record their own material; Jagger/Richards, Townsend, Eric Burden, etc. have all stated this. The record labels wanted bands that could write their own music. Perhaps it was a competitive thing between the musicians, I am not sure. If I am not mistaken, I believe I have seen several old interviews with Dylan where he states that listening to the Beatles showed him song structure and melody. I think Dylan and Lennon fed off each other for a brief time. But it is in the culture itself where the Beatles had such an extreme influence. The Beatles had help accomplishing this, no doubt (Epstein, Martin and Richard Lester to a lesser degree).

I have always said that musically, the Beatles were not all that innovative, although Revolver goes to places that had never been seen before at the time. And the medley on Abbey Road is amazing. I certainly credit George Martin with a lot of what the Beatles accomplished, but I have to give credit where it is due and John, Paul, George and Ringo deserve that.

Whether someone agrees or disgrees with the level of impact of the Beatles is really not such a big issue. The fact is that the Beatles left an undeniable mark on music and pop culture. I don't believe that can be denied.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 05:43am




There are unfortunately many young people who have a lot of misperceptions about The Beatles. And there are some people who say they like The Beatles but they mistakenly believe they are "overrated".I find it very disturbing that someone especially someone who claims to like The Beatles music posted a link and gave undeserved attention to that idiot Piero Scaruffi and his totally inaccurate ignorant terrible hateful garbage about The Beatles!

Scaruffi says the most stupid,false,ignorant inaccurate garbage about The Beatles on his popular web site. I have read discussions of his terrible article on other message boards including non-Beatles fan sites,and everybody said even people who said they were never much of a Beatles fan,that he's obviously an idiot about The Beatles and that what he's saying is a bunch of drivel and bullsh*t!

I emailed a guy named Tim after I read his post on a message board where someone had linked to Scaruffi's stupid article on The Beatles,and Tim had said on the message board,that the article on The Beatles was a horror,and that he never wanted to visit that site and read that garbage again! He emailed me back and he said, Yeah his entry on The Beatles is really bizarre.

Unfortunately there are young people who might like The Beatles a little or are just staring to get into them and who don't know much about them and are believing the total false ignorant garbage he says.And the poster who promoted his garbage here is helping to do this!


On The Beatles Links forum they had a discussion off and on from 2002 until the early 2007 about the garbage this guy writes about The Beatles. And so many were saying that they read just the beginning and they knew he's a moron,and one fan said what bothers most Beatles fans on the site most is not his Beatles bashing(although that bothers me a lot it's all part of his same garbage about them) they said it's that what he says are falsehoods.He's obviously one of these people who hates and resents any group or music artist that is very popular and critically acclaimed because his favorite groups and artists are not,and since The Beatles are the most critically acclaimed,popular and covered group and music artists ever even 38 years after they broke up,they are going to get it the worst from him!

Some people said similar things as this on other message boards including The Steve Hoffman music forum,where a guy said I think we can all agree this guy is a colossal idiot,and another guy said that his article was so silly he couldn't belive it was getting so many responses!


Another guy said given that an actual musicologist music professor Walter Everett who wrote a two volume set The Beatles As Musicians describing the extensive musicial innovations of The Beatles he would say this guy is talking nonsense.Another poster said ,Wow it's been awhile since I've read such an enormous load of unmitigated drivel and he said such a big pile of wrong isn't really worth responding to beyond noting the hubris monumental inaccuracies such as his stupid inaccurate claim that none of The Beatles musical contemporaries praised them and couldn't understand why they were held in such high regard,and I strongly demonstrated by the interviews with many well known respected popular musicians including Bob Dylan recently, that this is totally false!

Another poster said nothing he has ever read on this fine forum for almost the past two years has made my blood boil as much as this biased ignorant,erroneous flat out piece of garbage by a misanthrope who wouldn't know reality if it hit him in the face.Etc Etc

By the way I emailed this ignorant author of this piece of garbage back in 2001 and he told me I was the most intelligent Beatles fan he ever comunicated with because he claimed that all of the other Beatles fans he heard from just said that The Beatles are great because they sold a lot of albums and I didn't do that.But I don't believe that many other Beatles fans didn't give him a lot of strong evidence that debunks him like I did,it just goes in one ear and out the other,because he has an irrational bias and hatred of them. He wrote me back 3 ignorant responses and then I just gave up,I should have given up after the first or second inorant reply!

I'm going to post strong information that totally debunks Scaruffi's nonsense about The Beatles. One of the countless falsehoods he says is that none of THe Beatles contemporaries praised them and couldn't understand why they were held in such high regard,wel I'm going to demonstrate how totally untrue this is!

Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 06:54am


Dameon you claim to be a Beatles fan and then you go and make a stupid inaccurate comment that you never thought The Beatles were that innovative musically! WRONG they were Extremely innovative,creative and prolofic in the recording studio! And if you read the excellent thorough book The Beatles Recording Sesions by Mark Lewisohn which has all of their recording engineers and tape operators interviewed,and it demonstrates just how innovative,and creative they were!

You think that George Martin had as much to do with their music and it's complexity,well George Martin himself has said that John and Paul created most of it and he has produced many other music artists and yet he still says that he has never known or worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles! And yes their music even their early music had clever subtleties in them and unusual and interesting chords even in She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand that Bob Dylan,The Byrds Roger McGuinn and many music critics pointed out such as The London Times music critic William Mann did in 1963!

And in December 1963 The London Sunday Times music Richard Buckle called John Lennon and Paul McCartney the greatest composers since Beethoven after they composed music for a ballet called Mods and Rockers.And Paul McCartney wrote his first song at only age 14 and he wrote the beautiful song I'll Follow The Sun at age 16 and John Lennon who was writing heavy deep emotional poetry when he was a teenager,started writing songs when he was 18 long before they knew they would make it big and they weren't making any money from it yet!

Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 07:36am


As The All Music Guide says in their excellent Beatles biography,"So much has been said and written about The Beatles and their story is so mythic in it's sweep that it's difficult to summarize their career without restating cliche's that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans.To state the obvious,they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era,and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century,moreover they were among the few artists of *any* discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did,*and* the most popular at what they did Relentlessly imaginative, and expermintal The Beatles grabbed a hold of the international mass consciousness in 1964 and never let go for the next 6 years always staying ahead of the pack in terms of creativity but never losing their ability to communicate their increasingly sophisticated ideas to a mass audience.Their supremacy as rock icons remains unchallenged to this day decades after their breakup in 1970."

"Even when couching praise in specific terms, it's hard to convey the scope of The Beatles achievements in a mere paragraph or two. They synthesized all that was good about early rock &roll and changed it into something orginal and exciting. They established the prototype of the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed it's own material. As composers their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none and key to the evolution of rock from it's blues R&B- based forms into a style that was far more eclectic but equally visceral. As vocalists John Lennon & Paul McCartney were both among the best and most expressive vocalists in rock;the groups harmonies were intricate and exhillarating."

"The Popularity Of The Beatles as a unit proved eternal. In part this is because the group's 1970 split effectively short-circuited the prospects of artistic decline;the body of work that was preserved was uniformly strong. However it's also because like any great works of art,The Beatles records carried an ageless magnificence that continues to captivate new generations of listeners. So it is that Beatles records continue to be heard on radio in heavy rotation,continue to sell in massive quanities and continue to be covered and quoted by rock and pop artists through the present day"

Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 07:50am




As I posted on here,Bob Dylan actually gave the ultimate praise to Paul McCartney and John and George in a Spring 2007 Rolling Stone interview! He said he's in awe of Paul McCartney and that he's the only music artist he's in awe of! He said that Paul has the melody,he's got the rythym,he can sing the ballad really good,and he can play any instrument and that he's so darn effortless! Bob Dylan also said that George Harrison was a very good song writer in his own right and that he would have emerged big anyway but he was stuck behind John and Paul,and Bob said who wouldn't get stuck behind them! He also said there are no greater singers than John Lennon and Paul McCartney!

Even, Ozzy Osbourne said in an online 2002 Bender Magazine interview that The Beatles Are The Greatest Band To Ever Walk The Earth! He's been a huge fan since he's been a teenager and he says not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen! The Rolling Stones were very good friends and fans of The Beatles and Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with them! Also,The Beatles even wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits with the song, I Wanna Be You're Man in late 1963.


And The Beatles Were *NEVER* a boy band at all not even in their 1963,1964,1965 and 1966 period. The Beatles started out playing 8 hours a night for two years in a row in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany wearing tight black leather jackets and pants ,smoking,drinking,cursing and taking speed pills to stay awake and going to bed with a lot of young women groupies. There were a lot of rough German thugs that came into those clubs and if The Beatles didn't play good live they would have beaten the crap out of them playing for 8 hours a night for two years,instead they became the most successful and popular group in Hamburg even with a lot of competition from other German and English groups playing in those clubs. The Beatles cleaned up image was a totally fake image created by their manager Brian Epstein which John hated and resented the most.And The Beatles also played successfully at The Cavern Club in Liverpool for several years before their manager Brian Epstein discovered them. too.

And John and George hated Beatlemania the most,and they had no life because of it,they had to live trapped in hotel rooms most of the time. And George Harrison said in the great Beatles Anthology video series that the fans gave their money and their screams and The Beatles kind of gave their nervous systems. He also said that the world used them as an excuse to go mad and then blamed it on them.And in a recent online interview with Roger Daltry he was asked if THe Who had screaming teenage fans and he said after Can't Explain they did. He said it was the era of the sreaming teenage girl fans,and that every group had one on the way up. Roger said that it was fun but the trouble for the performer when you're that young and inexperienced,you start to judge your performance by the amount they scream it's nonsense which is why Lennon gave up.Roger Daltry also says that their new manager in the mid 1960's changed their image to mods overnight,similar to The Beatles fake cleaned up image created by their manager.


As for the other inaccurate comments that some people say The Beatles didn't even stay together for 2 decades,well they didn't have to because they did about 50 years worth of innovative,creative,diverse,prolific great critically acclaimed popular songs and albums in just a remarkable 8 year recording career! The Beatles are in The Song Writing Hall Of Fame &The Vocal Hall of Fame,and As The All Music Guide says in their excellent Beatles biography,"So much has been said and written about The Beatles and their story is so mythic in it's sweep that it's difficult to summarize their career without restating cliche's that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans ,to start with the obvious,they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era ,and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century." "As vovalists John Lennon & Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive in rock and the groups harmonies were intricate and exhillirating."


And music critics as well as brilliant classical composer Leonard Bernstein called John & Paul the most brilliant song writers of the 20th century when they were still a band . As for The Beatles playing live,they sounded pretty good playing live considering that when they were playing in 1963,1964,1965,and 1966 the sound systems back then were very limited and primitive,they only had 100 watt amplifiers,no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves play and sing,yet they amazingly played in tune and in sync anyway,and at the August 1965 Shea Stadium concert which was the first big outdoor rock concert with over 55,000 fans,they were plugged into the PA system that they announce baseball games with plus the screaming crowds drowing out their great music! Can you imagine The Rolling Stones and The Who playing on these very limited primitive sound systems? They wouldn't have sounded much better! Thats why they gave up touring,because they were serious music artists,composers,and musicians and they wanted their great music to be heard and valued. It would be like Beethoven playing on these limited primitive sound systems and screaming crowds! Also they were now writing music that was too complex to reproduce on stage at that time. I also forgot to mention two more great Beatles rockers, Paul's Get Back and John Lennon's great 1968 rocker Hey Bull Dog.


On the roof top concert in The Let It Be Film,they sounded great,because by January 1969 the sound systems had improved somewhat(although not anywhere near the 1970's,1980's,1990's and especially today's!) and they had changed and people had changed so there were no more screaming crowds so they could be heard.When I was a teenager I met 3 people who saw The Beatles in concert two of them were teachers who saw them in 1966 and he and she told me they were great,and my cousin saw them at age 16 at The Baltimore Colsieum in 1964 the year before I was born,and she said they were great. Former Kiss guitarist and grammy winning producer Bob Kulick who made the heavy metal Beatles tribute album Butchering The Beatles last year,says in an online interview,that he saw The Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1966 and that he could only make out pieces of the songs because of the screaming,but he could make out the songs Baby's In Black and Paperback Writer and he said they sounded amazing! He also calls The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever!


George Harrison at only age 14 would stay up playing his guitar until he got all of the chords exactly right and his fingers wer e bleeding! And One of The Beatles engineers Geoff Emerick says that in early 1966 when The Beatles were recording John's song I'm Only Sleeping,George Harrison played backwards guitar the most difficult way possible even though he could have taken an easy way,and it took him 6 hours just to do the guitar overdubs! He then made it doubly difficult by adding even more distorted gitars and Geoff says this was all George's idea and that he did all of the playing! Eric Clapton said in a 1992 interview when he and George were asked what they admired about each other during their Japan tour,that George is a fantastic slide guitar player. He and George were very good friends and they obviously admired and respected each others guitar playing and George played guitar on Cream's song Badge. Roger McGuinn of The Byrds says The Beatles used unusual folk rock chords in their early music and that they invented folf rock without even knowing it! He started to play a 12 string guitar after he saw and heard George Harrison playing one in The Beatles great film A Hard Day's Night in early 1964.


In an online Eric Clapton interview called,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that John Lennon was a pretty good guitar player and he would have known since he played live in concert with John as a member of John's 1969 Plastic Ono Band! On an excellent site called,The Evolution Of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Dennis Alstrand Stanley Clarke,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,Sting,George Martin,and John Lennon are all quoted saying what a great,melodic,influential bass guitar player Paul McCartney has always been! The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide calls Paul a remarkable bass player and rightfully calls John &Paul the 2 greatest song writers in rock history! Both Phil Collins and Max Weinberg both Beatles fans and both praise Ringo's drumming and Phil Collins says that Ringo's great drumming on A Day In The Life can't even be repeated even by him!


Also on Rankopedia The Beatles are # 1 Greatest Rock Band,# 1 Greatest Most Innovative Rock Band,John &Paul are # 1 Greatest Rock Song Writers,John &Paul are on The Greatest Rock Male Vocalist list,and Paul McCartney is # 2 after John Enwistle as Greatest Rock Bass Players,John Paul Jones is # 6,and Bill Wynman is # 20! And on Digitaldreamdoor where many musicians post,The Beatles are # 1 Greatest Rock Artists,John &Paul are # 1 Greatest Rock Song Writers,they are both on The Greatest Rock Male Vocalists list,and Paul McCartney is # 8 out of 100 Greatest Rock Bass Players,John Paul Jones is # 21,and Bill Wynman is # 95! George Harrison is # 54 On The Greatest Rock Guitarists out of over 100.


And there are many music professors teaching music courses at good universities on the brilliance of The Beatles especially of John &Paul,including by award winning music professor and composer Dr.Glen Gass,who has been teaching a course on The Beatles and rock music at Indiana University since 1982. On his web site for his course it says the main purpose of this course is to get students to have a better appreciation of this extraordinary group and their remarkable recordings. Dr.Gary Kendal's Beatles course is the most requested course at North Western University. And a music professor by the last name of Heinonen teaches a Beatles course at JYVASKYLA University in Finland,and the university of California also teaches a Beatles course etc.


Also check out Ken's Classic Rock n Roll Site he also runs a Rolling Stones &John Lennon fan site. And he made a Top 10 List and voted and the fans voted. He voted John &Paul # 2 after Bob Dylan as Greatest Rock Song Writers,the fans voted them # 1! He voted Paul McCartney # 2 after John Entwistle as Greatest Rock Bass Player,the fans voted Paul # 3. He voted John Lennon # 2 after Keith Richards as Greatest Rock Rhythm Guitarist,and the fans voted John in a tie with Jimi Hendrix and Brian Jones at # 4 ! He voted John Lennon # 1 in a tie with Elvis as Greatest Male Rock Vocalist and the fans voted John # 1,he voted Paul # 6 and the fans voted him # 7. Ken says Darn The Beatles were one great group in his review of The Beatles album 1967-1970,and he also says that John on Get Back showed why he should have played lead guitar more often because he did such a good job! He also said that John on their hard rocking great 1968 single Revolution,played one of the first and best acid guitar parts.And he also said that John played a pretty good slide guitar on George's For Your Blue. And he says in his review of The Beatles 1962-1966,that if you don't love or at least like The Beatles and their music than you are not a true rock fan and more than likely will never get it.


And Brian Wilson said on a 1995 Nightline TV Beatles tribute show,that Sgt.Pepper is the single greatest album he ever heard,and he played With A Little Help From Friends on the piano and he said I just love this song. He also said he thinks John Lennon &Paul McCartney were the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century! He also said when he first heard The Beatles great 1965 album Rubber Soul,that he was blown away by it,he said all of the songs flowed together and it was pop music but folk rock at the same time,and this is what he couldn't believe. He said this inspired him to make Pet Sounds. Elton John said in a 1991 CBS morning news show,when he was asked who he musically admires,he said You can talk about your Rogers &Hammerstein but for the quality of quanity songs that Lennon &McCartney did in that short period of time,they were the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century! Most music artists want to believe and want the public to believe that *their* the greatest so when they say other music artists are the greatest it really means a lot!


The Beatles are also the most covered music artists of all time with everyone from Motown,jazz,classical,and even heavy metal music recording their great diverse music! And in 2001 VH1 had a panel of well known musicans and music critcs,that voted The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever,and in 2004 Rolling Stone did the same thing and several people said on message boards that Rolling Stone had a recent pael poll like this and The Beatles were voted # 1 again and for darn great reasons too! Nobody created as much innovative,creative,quality,critically acclaimed,popular diverse songs and albums in such a short amazing period of time as The Beatles and thats why most people know that The Beatles Are The Greatest Rock Band That Ever Was Or Will Be!!!!


Oh and A Day's Night is a great pop rock album!!!! And even Bob Dylan said decades ago about The Beatles early music,that their chords were outrageous,and the harmonies were wonderful and they were doing things in music that nobody had done before,and music critics of The London Times were praising their interesting and unusual chords that they used even in early songs like She Loves You &I Want To Hold Your Hand. Which were not as simple as they seemed and had clever subtleties in them.Infact Bob Dylan said in a Rolling Stone interview this Spring that he's in awe of Paul McCartney and he said he's the only one he's in awe of. He said that Paul has the melody,he has the rhthym and he can sing the ballad very good,and he can play any instrument. He also said there were no better singers than John Lennon &Paul McCartney and he said if George wasn't stuck in the shadow behind John &Paul and he said who wouldn't get stuck,he would have emerged as a great song writer in his own right anyway.


And by the way I have read some people saying on message boards that they don't think The Rolling Stones were the best technical musicians,and many even some fans have said they haven't done anything good in 35 years, and that their overrated and I have also found many people saying they hate or don't like The Rolling Stones and many people say the only Rolling Stones song they like is Paint It Black! Oh and by the way,in every major poll of The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones,The Beatles always win as # 1 even on sites and message boards that are not Beatles fan sites!


And when we look at the solo career comparison of Mick Jagger's and Keith Richards solo careers with John,Paul &George's,the facts are John Lennon's first brilliant solo album,and his second great album Imagine are rightfully critically acclaimed, and I love John's Walls &Bridges album and Paul McCartney's first solo album McCartney is very good,and he played every instrument all by himself at age 27,and he played so many different instruments great! Wings 1975 Venus &Mars is a great rock album too! And he and Denny Laine are the only musicians on Paul's great 1973 Band On The Run album,which is critically acclaimed and popular,and he played every instrument by himself again on McCartney 2 in 1979,and most of the instruments on his 1997 Flaming Pie album,and his 2 recent acclaimed popular albums,Chaos And Creation In The Backyard,and Memory Almost Full.And John Paul Jones,David Gilmore,John Bonham &Pete Townsend all played on 2 songs with Paul and Wings on the last Wings album Back To The Egg, in 1979,and they played in the last Wings concert too in December 1979. You know I have found over 50 former Beatles haters on many message boards and web sites that are noe HUGE Beatles fans and many say they are now their favorite band and that they were the Greatest Band Ever! I didn't communicate with these people but they said in their posts that they had a lot of inaccurate misperceptions of The Beatles and they hadn't even heard most of The Beatles great songs and albums! Most people don't hate The Beatles in the first place,most people of all ages all around the world love or at least like their music,but it's really something for former haters to turn into big fans and it just goes to show how Great The Beatles music is!!!!




Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 07:56am


Easy there Fab4Fan. Look at what I wrote - musically, what they did was not so extraordinary. They did not jump musical barriers at warp speed. What they did do was combine melody and song structure in a way that captured several generations. you can still hear that influence today. This is what I believe is the extraordinary part of the Beatles. They were amazing lyricists and structured their words and music beautifully. I do believe that they influenced more people than anyone else. They are my favorite band.

As for Paul's bass playing - he is not John Enthwistle. I have seen countless interviews by Sting and other musicians who credit many as being an influence. It is rare that you just have one. Of course George Martin will be quoted like he is. His whole career was jump started by the Beatles. They were an excellent team. Again, look at what I said - I believe that The Beatles more than any other RnR or Pop band caused more young people to pick up the guitar than anyone else.

I have read all the books. but I do understand when someone has a differing opinion.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 07:58am


Another thing I want to debunk is that many people have a misperception that The Beatles were a pop band and not a rock band.But this is not true at all,The Beatles were mostly a great innovative,creative,diverse prolific *ROCK* band *not* a "pop" band! John Lennon always aid he just really loved rock n roll and he and Paul wrote plenty of great rock n roll in The Beatles and in their early solo careers! It really would have been news to John that he wasn't the founder and leader of a true rock band!

The Beach Boys were a true pop band because all of their hits were that beach surfing sound. Even The early Beatles had a harder electric guitar sound than The Beach Boys and I have never heard a Beach Boys song played on classic rock stations only oldies stations, But many classic rock stations still play The Beatles! And The Beatles are rightfully categorized as a *rock* band by most rock and music critics and rock journalists,and Rock On The Net says few could argue that one of the best if not the best rock groups was The Beatles. And The Wikipedia the free online encyclopedia as well as the Websters College 2000 Dictionary defines The Beatles as a British Rock Group. And most record stores classify The Beatles correctly as the rock band they were.And a guy on the web site Votenumber1.com said of course The Beatles were a great rock group he said they were the greatest rock group ever and he said he can name about 100 great rock Beatles songs!

And I and many people understandably feel that John Lennon had the best rock voices ever! George Martin said John's voice was one of the best he ever heard,and in May 1967 when The Beatles were recording their song,Baby You're A Rich Man,two recording engineers said they were always fascinated with the sound of John Lennon's voice,and they always wanted to record it live and when they heard him singing this song live they said they couldn't believe how great his voice was and that anyone could sing that well live.

The Beatles wrote many great rock songs that were pretty rocking for the time,John's great song You Can't Do That from early 1964 which he played lead guitar on for the first time,Paul's great blues rocker,She's A Woman from late 1964,John's I Feel Fine from late 1964, with the first use of feedback guitar,and one of the first songs to have a great guitar riff,a year before The Rolling Stone's Satisfaction came out,Paul's screaming hard rocker especially for 1965,I'm Down which they played even louder and more screaming at the August 1965 Shea Stadium concert, and as The All Music Guide says I'm Down was one of The Beatles most frantic rockers,and they said they did a really wild performance of this at The Shea Stadium concert. The All Music Guide also says The Beatles showed they could rock really really hard with their early songs,John's I Feel Fine,Paul's She's A Woman,and the peerless I'm Down.

Plus Day Tripper,Paperback Writer,She Said She Said,And You're Bird Can Sing, Taxman,all with heavy electric guitar sounds,John's 1968 hard rocking single Revolution,Yer Blues,Birthday,Back In The USSR,While My Guitar Gently Weeps,Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me &My Monkey,Get Back,He Bulldog,Polythene Pam,She Came In Through The Bathroom Window plus Paul's Helter Skeklter which as many people have pointed out was the first heavy metal songs,plus John's I Want You She's So Heavy on Abbey Road which many people have also pointed out was one of the first heavy metal songs,plus his great rocker Come Together,Paul's Oh Darling,You Never Give Me Your Money,and the hard rocking jam of Paul,George,and John on the song The End,etc!! So anyone saying THe Beatles were not a rock band You Are Wrong!!


The Rolling Stones were very good friends and fans of The Beatles and Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with them! The Beatles even wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits with the song,I WAnna Be You're Man in late 1963.

Mick Jagger was such a big Beatles fan that when The Beatles were recording their song,Baby You're A Rich Man in May 1967,he came there and stood on the sidelines just to watch and listen to them record it and his name was on the tape box because he likely sang at the end verses.

The Rolling Stones could also be considered a pop band since they too were very popular,had many hit songs and albums and some of their songs could be classified as pop,Ruby Tuesday,Angie,She's A Rainbow,Lady Jane,As Tears Go By,Waiting On A Friend their bad imitation of disco songs,Miss You, and Emotional Rescue, their whole Sgt.Pepper rip off Their Satanic Majesties Request and they also put out many greatest hits albums.

Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:00am



As I posted on here,Bob Dylan actually gave the ultimate praise to Paul McCartney and John and George in a Spring 2007 Rolling Stone interview! He said he's in awe of Paul McCartney and that he's the only music artist he's in awe of! He said that Paul has the melody,he's got the rhythm,he can sing the ballad really good,and he can play any instrument and that he's so darn effortless! Bob Dylan also said that George Harrison was a very good song writer in his own right and that he would have emerged big anyway but he was stuck behind John and Paul,and Bob said who wouldn't get stuck behind them! He also said there are no greater singers than John Lennon and Paul McCartney!

Even, Ozzy Osbourne said in an online 2002 Bender Magazine interview that The Beatles Are The Greatest Band To Ever Walk The Earth! He's been a huge fan since he's been a teenager and he says not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen! The Rolling Stones were very good friends and fans of The Beatles and Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with them! Also,The Beatles even wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits with the song, I Wanna Be You're Man in late 1963.


And The Beatles Were *NEVER* a boy band at all not even in their 1963,1964,1965 and 1966 period. The Beatles started out playing 8 hours a night for two years in a row in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany wearing tight black leather jackets and pants ,smoking,drinking,cursing and taking speed pills to stay awake and going to bed with a lot of young women groupies. There were a lot of rough German thugs that came into those clubs and if The Beatles didn't play good live they would have beaten the crap out of them playing for 8 hours a night for two years,instead they became the most successful and popular group in Hamburg even with a lot of competition from other German and English groups playing in those clubs. The Beatles cleaned up image was a totally fake image created by their manager Brian Epstein which John hated and resented the most.And The Beatles also played successfully at The Cavern Club in Liverpool for several years before their manager Brian Epstein discovered them. too.

And John and George hated Beatlemania the most,and they had no life because of it,they had to live trapped in hotel rooms most of the time. And George Harrison said in the great Beatles Anthology video series that the fans gave their money and their screams and The Beatles kind of gave their nervous systems. He also said that the world used them as an excuse to go mad and then blamed it on them.And in a recent online interview with Roger Daltry he was asked if THe Who had screaming teenage fans and he said after Can't Explain they did. He said it was the era of the sreaming teenage girl fans,and that every group had one on the way up. Roger said that it was fun but the trouble for the performer when you're that young and inexperienced,you start to judge your performance by the amount they scream it's nonsense which is why Lennon gave up.Roger Daltry also says that their new manager in the mid 1960's changed their image to mods overnight,similar to The Beatles fake cleaned up image created by their manager.


As for the other inaccurate comments that some people say The Beatles didn't even stay together for 2 decades,well they didn't have to because they did about 50 years worth of innovative,creative,diverse,prolific great critically acclaimed popular songs and albums in just a remarkable 8 year recording career! The Beatles are in The Song Writing Hall Of Fame &The Vocal Hall of Fame,and As The All Music Guide says in their excellent Beatles biography,"So much has been said and written about The Beatles and their story is so mythic in it's sweep that it's difficult to summarize their career without restating cliche's that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans ,to start with the obvious,they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era ,and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century." "As vovalists John Lennon & Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive in rock and the groups harmonies were intricate and exhillirating."


And music critics as well as brilliant classical composer Leonard Bernstein called John & Paul the most brilliant song writers of the 20th century when they were still a band . As for The Beatles playing live,they sounded pretty good playing live considering that when they were playing in 1963,1964,1965,and 1966 the sound systems back then were very limited and primitive,they only had 100 watt amplifiers,no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves play and sing,yet they amazingly played in tune and in sync anyway,and at the August 1965 Shea Stadium concert which was the first big outdoor rock concert with over 55,000 fans,they were plugged into the PA system that they announce baseball games with plus the screaming crowds drowing out their great music! Can you imagine The Rolling Stones and The Who playing on these very limited primitive sound systems? They wouldn't have sounded much better! Thats why they gave up touring,because they were serious music artists,composers,and musicians and they wanted their great music to be heard and valued. It would be like Beethoven playing on these limited primitive sound systems and screaming crowds! Also they were now writing music that was too complex to reproduce on stage at that time. I also forgot to mention two more great Beatles rockers, Paul's Get Back and John Lennon's great 1968 rocker Hey Bull Dog.


On the roof top concert in The Let It Be Film,they sounded great,because by January 1969 the sound systems had improved somewhat(although not anywhere near the 1970's,1980's,1990's and especially today's!) and they had changed and people had changed so there were no more screaming crowds so they could be heard.When I was a teenager I met 3 people who saw The Beatles in concert two of them were teachers who saw them in 1966 and he and she told me they were great,and my cousin saw them at age 16 at The Baltimore Colsieum in 1964 the year before I was born,and she said they were great. Former Kiss guitarist and grammy winning producer Bob Kulick who made the heavy metal Beatles tribute album Butchering The Beatles last year,says in an online interview,that he saw The Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1966 and that he could only make out pieces of the songs because of the screaming,but he could make out the songs Baby's In Black and Paperback Writer and he said they sounded amazing! He also calls The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever!


George Harrison at only age 14 would stay up playing his guitar until he got all of the chords exactly right and his fingers wer e bleeding! And One of The Beatles engineers Geoff Emerick says that in early 1966 when The Beatles were recording John's song I'm Only Sleeping,George Harrison played backwards guitar the most difficult way possible even though he could have taken an easy way,and it took him 6 hours just to do the guitar overdubs! He then made it doubly difficult by adding even more distorted gitars and Geoff says this was all George's idea and that he did all of the playing! Eric Clapton said in a 1992 interview when he and George were asked what they admired about each other during their Japan tour,that George is a fantastic slide guitar player. He and George were very good friends and they obviously admired and respected each others guitar playing and George played guitar on Cream's song Badge. Roger McGuinn of The Byrds says The Beatles used unusual folk rock chords in their early music and that they invented folf rock without even knowing it! He started to play a 12 string guitar after he saw and heard George Harrison playing one in The Beatles great film A Hard Day's Night in early 1964.


In an online Eric Clapton interview called,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that John Lennon was a pretty good guitar player and he would have known since he played live in concert with John as a member of John's 1969 Plastic Ono Band! On an excellent site called,The Evolution Of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Dennis Alstrand Stanley Clarke,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,Sting,George Martin,and John Lennon are all quoted saying what a great,melodic,influential bass guitar player Paul McCartney has always been! The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide calls Paul a remarkable bass player and rightfully calls John & Paul the 2 greatest song writers in rock history! Both Phil Collins and Max Weinberg both Beatles fans and both praise Ringo's drumming and Phil Collins says that Ringo's great drumming on A Day In The Life can't even be repeated even by him!


Also on Rankopedia The Beatles are # 1 Greatest Rock Band,# 1 Greatest Most Innovative Rock Band,John &Paul are # 1 Greatest Rock Song Writers,John &Paul are on The Greatest Rock Male Vocalist list,and Paul McCartney is # 2 after John Enwistle as Greatest Rock Bass Players,John Paul Jones is # 6,and Bill Wynman is # 20! And on Digitaldreamdoor where many musicians post,The Beatles are # 1 Greatest Rock Artists,John &Paul are # 1 Greatest Rock Song Writers,they are both on The Greatest Rock Male Vocalists list,and Paul McCartney is # 8 out of 100 Greatest Rock Bass Players,John Paul Jones is # 21,and Bill Wynman is # 95! George Harrison is # 54 On The Greatest Rock Guitarists out of over 100.


And there are many music professors teaching music courses at good universities on the brilliance of The Beatles especially of John &Paul,including by award winning music professor and composer Dr.Glen Gass,who has been teaching a course on The Beatles and rock music at Indiana University since 1982. On his web site for his course it says the main purpose of this course is to get students to have a better appreciation of this extraordinary group and their remarkable recordings. Dr.Gary Kendal's Beatles course is the most requested course at North Western University. And a music professor by the last name of Heinonen teaches a Beatles course at JYVASKYLA University in Finland,and the university of California also teaches a Beatles course etc.


Also check out Ken's Classic Rock n Roll Site he also runs a Rolling Stones &John Lennon fan site. And he made a Top 10 List and voted and the fans voted. He voted John &Paul # 2 after Bob Dylan as Greatest Rock Song Writers,the fans voted them # 1! He voted Paul McCartney # 2 after John Entwistle as Greatest Rock Bass Player,the fans voted Paul # 3. He voted John Lennon # 2 after Keith Richards as Greatest Rock Rhythm Guitarist,and the fans voted John in a tie with Jimi Hendrix and Brian Jones at # 4 ! He voted John Lennon # 1 in a tie with Elvis as Greatest Male Rock Vocalist and the fans voted John # 1,he voted Paul # 6 and the fans voted him # 7. Ken says Darn The Beatles were one great group in his review of The Beatles album 1967-1970,and he also says that John on Get Back showed why he should have played lead guitar more often because he did such a good job! He also said that John on their hard rocking great 1968 single Revolution,played one of the first and best acid guitar parts.And he also said that John played a pretty good slide guitar on George's For Your Blue. And he says in his review of The Beatles 1962-1966,that if you don't love or at least like The Beatles and their music than you are not a true rock fan and more than likely will never get it.


And Brian Wilson said on a 1995 Nightline TV Beatles tribute show,that Sgt.Pepper is the single greatest album he ever heard,and he played With A Little Help From Friends on the piano and he said I just love this song. He also said he thinks John Lennon &Paul McCartney were the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century! He also said when he first heard The Beatles great 1965 album Rubber Soul,that he was blown away by it,he said all of the songs flowed together and it was pop music but folk rock at the same time,and this is what he couldn't believe. He said this inspired him to make Pet Sounds. Elton John said in a 1991 CBS morning news show,when he was asked who he musically admires,he said You can talk about your Rogers &Hammerstein but for the quality of quanity songs that Lennon & McCartney did in that short period of time,they were the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century! Most music artists want to believe and want the public to believe that *their* the greatest so when they say other music artists are the greatest it really means a lot!


The Beatles are also the most covered music artists of all time with everyone from Motown,jazz,classical,and even heavy metal music recording their great diverse music! And in 2001 VH1 had a panel of well known musicans and music critcs,that voted The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever,and in 2004 Rolling Stone did the same thing and several people said on message boards that Rolling Stone had a recent pael poll like this and The Beatles were voted # 1 again and for darn great reasons too! Nobody created as much innovative,creative,quality,critically acclaimed,popular diverse songs and albums in such a short amazing period of time as The Beatles and thats why most people know that The Beatles Are The Greatest Rock Band That Ever Was Or Will Be!!!!


Oh and A Day's Night is a great pop rock album!!!! And even Bob Dylan said decades ago about The Beatles early music,that their chords were outrageous,and the harmonies were wonderful and they were doing things in music that nobody had done before,and music critics of The London Times were praising their interesting and unusual chords that they used even in early songs like She Loves You & I Want To Hold Your Hand. Which were not as simple as they seemed and had clever subtleties in them.Infact Bob Dylan said in a Rolling Stone interview this Spring that he's in awe of Paul McCartney and he said he's the only one he's in awe of. He said that Paul has the melody,he has the rhthym and he can sing the ballad very good,and he can play any instrument. He also said there were no better singers than John Lennon & Paul McCartney and he said if George wasn't stuck in the shadow behind John & Paul and he said who wouldn't get stuck,he would have emerged as a great song writer in his own right anyway.


And by the way I have read some people saying on message boards that they don't think The Rolling Stones were the best technical musicians,and many even some fans have said they haven't done anything good in 35 years, and that their overrated and I have also found many people saying they hate or don't like The Rolling Stones and many people say the only Rolling Stones song they like is Paint It Black! Oh and by the way,in every major poll of The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones,The Beatles always win as # 1 even on sites and message boards that are not Beatles fan sites!


And when we look at the solo career comparison of Mick Jagger's and Keith Richards solo careers with John,Paul & George's,the facts are John Lennon's first brilliant solo album,and his second great album Imagine are rightfully critically acclaimed, and I love John's Walls & Bridges album and Paul McCartney's first solo album McCartney is very good,and he played every instrument all by himself at age 27,and he played so many different instruments great! Wings 1975 Venus & Mars is a great rock album too! And he and Denny Laine are the only musicians on Paul's great 1973 Band On The Run album,which is critically acclaimed and popular,and he played every instrument by himself again on McCartney 2 in 1979,and most of the instruments on his 1997 Flaming Pie album,and his 2 recent acclaimed popular albums,Chaos And Creation In The Backyard,and Memory Almost Full.And John Paul Jones,David Gilmore,John Bonham & Pete Townsend all played on 2 songs with Paul and Wings on the last Wings album Back To The Egg, in 1979,and they played in the last Wings concert too in December 1979. You know I have found over 50 former Beatles haters on many message boards and web sites that are noe HUGE Beatles fans and many say they are now their favorite band and that they were the Greatest Band Ever! I didn't communicate with these people but they said in their posts that they had a lot of inaccurate misperceptions of The Beatles and they hadn't even heard most of The Beatles great songs and albums! Most people don't hate The Beatles in the first place,most people of all ages all around the world love or at least like their music,but it's really something for former haters to turn into big fans and it just goes to show how Great The Beatles music is!!!!




Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:04am



Also if anyone with an open mind really wants to have this stupid myth that The Beatles are overrated debunked,than please get from your library,The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn. It's an excellent very thorough detailed music diary of their amazing just 8 year recording career!

Many of their recording engineers and tape operators are interviewed in this book including Geoff Emerick,Norman Smith who was one of their early recording engineers and who went on to produce Pink Floyd,Ken Scott who went on to work with David Bowie, and Alan Parsons who was a highly impressed Beatles fan was one of their recording engineers on their last two albums Abbey Road and Let It Be. And some of the recording engineers were innovative as well. They all describe just how truly innovative,creative and prolific The Beatles really were in the recording studio especially John Lennon and Paul McCartney.

A 15 year old guy said on a message board that he read this book and he's been loving The Beatles ever since! A musician who reviewed this book on amazon.com said that he finds Mark Lewisohn's portrayal of The Beatles genuis (especially that of John Lennon and Paul McCartney) to be completely thorough, accurrate,as well as insightful. Bass Player Magazine recently also voted Paul McCartney the # 5 Greatest Bass Player of All Time and # 2 creator of the best and creative inventive bass lines!

On Yesfans.com they had the topic,Are The Beatles Overrated? going on from 2004-early 2007 and 75% of Yes fans voted the first option,NO Of Course Not How Dare You Question Their Greatness!Many Yes fans said that they couldn't even believe that this is a serious question and one said it's weird! Another Yes fan asked is Beethoven Overrated too then?

Infact one Yes fan said The Greatest Band Of All Time Overrated? Phuck No! Another Yes fan quoted him and said exactly what he just said! And one Yes fan had posted his own quotes from a year before saying he thought The Beatles are overrated,now he posted an emoticon holding a lame sign under his old quotes,and he said "Lame thats just what I was, how did I ever post that? I love The Beatles time changes everything I guess ."

Also there is an excellent online article by musician and song writer Peter Cross called,The Beatles Are The Most Creative Band Of All Time.And Bassist and music teacher Andrew Pouska lists Paul McCartney first on his website Houston Bass Lessons and he says,The impact The Beatles had on music history is stupendous,likewise the impact The Beatles bass player Paul McCartney had on rock bass was huge too,his basslines are very melodic and intelligent,one of the best.


Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:15am


TOP TEN ROCK DRUMMERS

As voted on by fans (Week of June 4, 2007)
1 John Bonham 1 Keith Moon
2 Charlie Watts 2 Charlie Watts
3 Keith Moon 3 John Bonham
4 Jim Gordon 4 Ginger Baker
5 Neal Smith 5 Neil Peart
6 Kenny Jones 6 Stewart Copeland
7 Alex Van Halen 7 Phil Collins
8 Jim Keltner 8 Ringo Starr
9 Dave Clark 9 Alan White, Cozy Powell (tie)
10 Mitch Mitchell 9 Alex Van Halen, Lars Ulrich (tie)

Obviously Keno's list has zero creditability - I don't see Carl Palmer on the list of drummers. I also saw that Ray Manzarek is rated #1 on keyboards over Keith Emerson. And Keith Emerson is not even rated on the Piano list. I don't think that makes much sense.

Fan - please stop now with the copy/paste. You are not telling anyone anything that they don't know yet or haven't read yet. I appreciate your admiration of the Beatles, but no one can take you seriously with these insane posts.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:42am


Dameon,

No one can take me seriously when I posted Bob Dylan,Wilco's John Stirratt,Stanley Clarke,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,Roger McGuinn,Eric Clapton, British composer Howard Goodall, all praising THe Beatles brilliance when that idiot Scaruffi claims non of The Beatles peers did so? Information about The Beatles winning over 20 prestigious Ivor Novello awards The important great book,The Beatles REcording Sessions award winning music professors teaching college courses at good universities on what brilliant song composers John and Paul were etc is to be taken seriously by people with any sense! Please eventually really read the great information and great sources I got them from.

Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:50am


And I forgot to mention Sting was also one of the bass players praising Paul McCartney's bass playing. And no a lot of people don't know a lot of this information and some are posting Scaruffi's ignorant false hateful garbage instead! I hope some people will appreciate my information that debunks him.

Posted by fanofthefab4 on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:56am


Fan - I read the Scaruffi site. William had pointed it out to me. Scaruffi is not so high on the Beatles - big deal. I don't think you personally need to debunk his story and website. I doubt whether Paul and Ringo care and I certainly don't think it is causing John and George to rollover in their graves. They are in the Hall of Fame (Shame), so let it go. But no one is going to read these endless posts of yours, so you are not really helping the arguement. Please, just relax a little.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 09:20am


Whether someone likes them or not. Nobody in the world can deny The Beatles influence in Rock n' Roll and Popular Music. I acknowledge their creativity and greatness of the form of art called Music.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 10:34am


Most people, yourself likely included, could not name 5000 bands if they were given a solid week to think about it. Scaruffi has reviewed and catalogued a great deal more than that. Calling him an "idiot" over a difference of opinion is ridiculous, particularly when you react exactly as he describes:

"I receive at least one email a week from someone furious because that page is "full of mistakes" - i simply reply "which mistakes?" - guess what: never an answer (or an answer that simply states his opinion that the Beatles were great). You know why? They begin writing the list of "mistakes", and check this or that encyclopedia, and sentence after sentence they find out that those are not "mistakes", they are facts. Then they would rather not write back and admit "I did not find a single mistake in your page on the Beatles". Obviously my judgement follows from the facts that I mention. If the facts are correct, you can have a different opinion than mine (it's in the constitution) but you should be aware that it is only an "opinion" not a "mistake" of mine. You are entitled to think that writing a 3-minute ditty with a few seconds of sitar is more relevant than writing a 20-minute raga (you are perfectly entitled to that opinion), but you cannot claim that it is a "mistake" that i write "they were writing 3 minutes ditties when others were experimenting with 20-minute compositions"."

So if you want to summarize that giant pile of tl;dr into refuting the stated facts (particularly by telling me what their "innovations" were that absolutely no one else had done before them, I welcome it.

Posted by William on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 20:58pm


William - is it that you are dismissing the Beatles as one of the most important entities in the history of RnR and Pop culture or that you just feel that although they may be important, they are just not the end all? Or perhaps you think there have been far more important bands in the last 50 years and the Beatles are just middle of the road. I am not quite sure where you actually stand and I am just being curious. I know how much importance you place on American Blues, Jazz and the pioneers of Rock, Elvis, etc. I am really interested in those bands that you feel are more important.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 01.26.08 @ 00:23am


They're important for their influence, particularly on pop music, but not for their (lack of) innovation.

Posted by William on Saturday, 01.26.08 @ 00:25am


I wish someone would show me pure innovation in RnR. I have my ideas - Queen! I would like to hear from others who they would include on this innovation list.

Posted by Eric on Saturday, 01.26.08 @ 11:37am


Liam - your posts are being deleted pretty damn fast. Maybe you should just apologize for the vulgar language and promise that you will not use it again.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 01.27.08 @ 08:43am


as far as i am concerned, the Beatles should have been the first inductees into the HOF. their music, style, and influence is incomparable. no other band has done what they did. there are many facts i could use to back this up, but it would take too much time. Elvis had his place, but the Beatles went beyond him.

and personally, the RnR HOF should be for ROCK and ROLL only. isn't that what it is named for "Rock and Roll"? why are there rap groups in here? rap is a lazy way of expressing one's self and they steal other popular music for their background. it is not music and should not be in the HOF. it is a shame to think otherwise.

Posted by clair on Saturday, 03.8.08 @ 16:03pm


"no other band has done what they did."

Apart from the 50s blues/rock n' roll musicians that The Beatles took influence from. And The Beach Boys.

You just forgot to mention that, right?

"and personally, the RnR HOF should be for ROCK and ROLL only. isn't that what it is named for "Rock and Roll"?"

No, it got called "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" because "Rock n Roll" is a catchy phrase and would be bound to pull in visitors.

"rap is a lazy way of expressing one's self and they steal other popular music for their background. it is not music and should not be in the HOF. it is a shame to think otherwise."

Yeah, just like playing simplistic three chord progressions. Like the (early) Beatles, I guess.

Go and pick up a Kinks album, at least, kid. I'd ask you to get informed with music, but, in reality, it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 03.8.08 @ 16:11pm


"it is a shame to think otherwise."-clair

Bob Dylan thinks otherwise.

Posted by William on Saturday, 03.8.08 @ 20:37pm


"The best, most innovative, most influential goup to exist evaaaar!!"

Or so many people would like to think. I actually cannot stand their pre-Revolver work, and I'm surprised anyone else can, really.

Harrison is probably one of the crappest guitarists of his generation, and is beaten handsdown by Dave Davies, Keith Richards, Pete Townsend and many others. Every other Beatle was/is just terrible.

Probably the most overrated musicians the world has ever seen.

(I haven't even mentioned the awful, awful solo careers that John, Paul, George AND Ringo unleashed upon the world. "Imagine" is just sh*t!!!)

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 13:27pm


^^^ Uh-oh... Liam is drunk-posting again. Put down the bottle, Liam, put down the bottle.

Posted by mel on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 15:46pm


Liam is such an idiot!!

I love mel's reply. HaHaHaaaaaa!!!!

Posted by Linda on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 18:56pm


"Best" is an opinion. A crappy one, but an opinion nonetheless. "Most innovative" and "most influential," however, are facts, either true or false with no room for opinion. In this case, they are false.

A real "idiot" is someone who can't back up his or her arguments, or even bother to make any. Epic failure, do not pass go, please don't let the door hit you, etc.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 01:09am


Have to agree with William on innovation. Although they did experiment quite a bit in the studio with the assistance of George Martin.

From 1963 to present, they are the most influential pop/rock band. And let's not forget their cultural influence on the whole of a decade.

Rock and Roll was influenced by the American Blues -

Liam - what can I say about your comments? I just feel so lucky to be able to read your thoughts on the history and present day landscape of music on this tiny planet of ours.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 05:26am


While they are not the most innovative or influential band, they deserve their place in history.
Some of us don't agree that all the Beatles were crappy, terrible musicians and I for one think there was nothing wrong with John Lennon's solo career.
I am sick and tired of the awful awful sh*t Liam unleashes on this site. There is a way to make your point with out being bitter, nasty and obnoxious!!!! Go ahead and keep trashing the Beatles, Led Zeppelin or any other band that deserves their place in rock history. It's really pathetic. He is no better than the people that say "they are the best band everrrrr".!

Posted by Linda on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 05:31am


Nearly, mel: I actually had the biggest possible hang-over yesterday.

But I just LOVE the amount of attention that some of my comments receive! All I have to do is slam a group like The Beatles or whoever and I'm BOUND to get some sort of retaliation!!!

Let it go, people. Let it go... :D

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 05:42am


Actually Dameon, even though they aren't strictly pop/rock, I'm pretty sure The Velvet Underground has more influence than The Beatles, as do many others.

So, Linda, I'm not allowed to voice my opinion simply because it's negative about things you deem positive (eg because it disagrees with yours)? If you'll look carefully, I actually LIKE both groups.

All your doing, Linda, is demonstrating how over-protective I know fans of both groups are capable of being.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:15am


Actually Dameon, even though they aren't strictly pop/rock, I'm pretty sure The Velvet Underground has more influence than The Beatles, as do many others. - Liam

You know I start out trying to write a well structured response to your comment, but then I ask myself why. I am certainly not going to sway your opinion, nor do I want you. So you think like you do and the thousands of musicians that have named the Beatles as an influence will think like they do. Revolver is considered one of the most influential albums ever recorded.

You once made a comment on another bands message board basically saying that the world would see who was still remembered more in the future. I think you were comparing Oasis to some other band. I will use your words. Although we will both be long dead, in a hundred years, I have a feeling that the Beatles will still be spoken of while the VU are not just a name in history.

Just one mans opinion.




Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 07:18am


"So you think like you do and the thousands of musicians that have named the Beatles as an influence will think like they do. Revolver is considered one of the most influential albums ever recorded."

I never denied that The Beatles were highly influential. I just believe that they are less influential than the majority likes to think.

One of the reasons why I don't think that The beatles will ever be THE most directly-influential group ever is because of their lack of innovation. They were nowhere near the first to do what they did, and so I'm sure many musicians look further back in time and take influence from those who influenced The Beatles (and I haven't even mentioned the workings of indirect influence).

"I have a feeling that the Beatles will still be spoken of while the VU are not just a name in history."

Even though The Velvets have much, much more innvation?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 07:29am




Again, I find myself writing a even paced response but then I stop myself. There is no point. Think like you do Liam. Go and make the case for the underground, Brit-Pop and Alt. bands who you think are so important to the music world. Just ask yourself the same questions that you have posed here regarding the Beatles when making that arguement.

FYI - Innovation does not make you more influential.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:12am


"One of the reasons why I don't think that The beatles will ever be THE most directly-influential group ever is because of their lack of innovation. They were nowhere near the first to do what they did, and so I'm sure many musicians look further back in time and take influence from those who influenced The Beatles (and I haven't even mentioned the workings of indirect influence)."

Wow, a lot of bad reasoning in there.

What does innovation have to do with direct influence exactly? If you're so sure "many musicians look further back in time," who is a greater direct influence? Elvis? I doubt it.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/22/scholarsSpeakOnInfluenceOfBeatles

As for indirect influence, no argument there. Of course, that's getting ridiculous though.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:19am


Liam,
You obviously are very knowledgeable about music and people could learn a great deal from you, if they didn’t have to pop a valium after reading some of your comments! Do you have to be so obnoxious? I am not a huge fan of either band, but I like their music and I just can’t understand how they can all be shitty musicians and make such a huge impact on rock music. You are allowed to have an opinion, but some of the awful awful comments are really annoying. The only salvation is people like “mel” who make me laugh so hard that I forget about your original comment.
You and William should get a room and start you own RRHF and then you could ban anyone that doesn't have any knowledge of the VU, Stooges or Captain Beefheart!

Posted by Linda on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:22am


Actually, for artists who are part of the same sub-genre/lineage, innovation DOES make you more influential. If you got somewhere/did something first, even if one of your followers goes on to have more DIRECT influence on musicians, their followers will still be (at least) INDIRECTLY influenced by you.

The reason that you (general sense) can't make an argument for The Beatles being the most influential group ever is simply because it isn't at all true. People like to argue that their high sales give some sort of end-all to the argument, but sales rarely have anything to do with the number of followers.

Really, I'm open to any argument you may have, but unless you a least make some effort, then my view won't change.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:26am


The trick is, Linda, to only ever take my comments as the half-hearted, semi-serious joks that they often are/contain.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:31am


Liam, now you're backtracking and changing your argument.

There are plenty of sources that say the Beatles are the most influential band of all time (starting with allmusic.com -- about the best source that we can have). You're not exactly showing us where someone will argue who is more directly influential.

Within sub-genres there are arguably more influential artists, but in rock as a whole? It's the Beatles, son. Hand down.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:43am


How am I backtracking, then?

Allmusicguide is a good-ish source of information, but some of the mistakes it has made, especially the ways in which the star-score given to albums rarely match with the review itself, damage its reliabilty.

Try looking at the facts and making your own opinion, rather than relying on sources like AMG to think for you.

I'd really like you all to read Scaruffi's writings on it (it's pretty much my opinion, both on The Beatles and Rock Critisism):

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

No, The Beatles are not the most influential rock artist of all time, and I've already demonstated why.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 08:51am


You haven't demonstrated anything. You claimed that the Beatles "will never be the most directly influential group" because they lack innovation. But then you went on to say that the innovators are usually INDIRECTLY influential. That's beside the point. We're talking DIRECT influence.

I've read Scaruffi and think the makes a decent case against the Beatles. But you're just trying to distract from your unwinnable argument (and frankly, I think you're just looking for a fight, you don't really believe what you're saying).

You still haven't listed a more influential group in the history of rock, because there isn't one.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 09:12am


Oh, and I have to give allmusic.com a little more credibility than some hungover limey. But that's just me.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 09:22am


I was hung over yesterday, idiot, and could clearly make my case better than you or AMG even if I was. You think AMG is 100% trustable? Go and see their reviews of Pink.

You failed to specify that you were talking about direct influence only. Now, since I'm all for giving you the respect of assuming that you can articulate your thoughts properly, where was I supposed to get that from?

Not that The Beatles are the most directly influential group ever. Want some examples of those who COULD be considered the most influential ever? How's about Kraftwerk, The Velvet Underground, R.E.M., Brian Eno, Bob Dylan, Captain Beefheart or Pere Ubu?

Now, I'm sure you'll be wanting to make some lunk-headed argument about sales...

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 10:15am




Forget about sales. And you have not made one point supporting your belief.

You like to name bands but don't explain why. You want us to explain the Beatles influence, but you don't do the same for these bands you named. How is REM more of an direct influence than the Beatles? One can make the case that REM is clearly the result of influences that started with the Beatles; song structure, chord and key change, pop sensibility, irony in lyrics. Dylan himself has named the Beatles as an influence for the way they structured their songs with melody. Changed his way of putting a song together.

Who is really the bigger influence, The VU or Andy Warhol? Lou Reed says himself that without Andy, the VU would have gone nowhere. They knew it then, which is why they gave into him regarding Nico.

Kraftwerk influenced a sub-genre, not the whole ball and wax. You can hear the Beatles in the music that you love so very much (Brit-pop). Hell, I would venture to say that Brit-pop doesn't exist without the Beatles, Kinks, The Who, etc. Beatles being the first one on the list.

Eno was different, innovative and talented, but that didn't make him more influential.

You have not given one reason why the Beatles should not be considered the most influential. Don't just name bands, back it up with your opinion so we at least know where you are coming from.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 12:10pm


"One can make the case that REM is clearly the result of influences that started with the Beatles;"

The Beatles didn't start anything. This is exactly why I find this one of the most uniquely frustrating arguments I'm ever likely to find: the fact that people see The Beatles as the "Root of all Rock and Pop", when in fact they aren't.

Now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of knowing who The Beatles' influences were.

Seriously, I've even heard people who think that The Beatles innovated. I hope to God that you aren't one of them, Dameon.




"back it up with your opinion so we at least know where you are coming from."

I'm yet to see anyone do so for the other argument, as all I've seen people do here is give a load of unproven hearsay.

I only gave a few examples because I fully expected that you would all be aware of each one's significance. But if you really want/need (probably the latter) me to give you a full essay on each one, then I will do so, eventually.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 12:22pm


You know I am fully aware of who influenced the Beatles. Don't even try and be witty with me. What we are saying is that they took what influenced them, changed it around, added their own spices and you had a different sound which changed the course of Pop/RnR. It is not the first time it happened and it won't be the last. But it's impact seems to have been the loudest (and I am not talking about sales).

I only gave a few examples because I fully expected that you would all be aware of each one's significance. - Liam

This is a B.S. answer. If we tried that, you would go off on one of your rants. Explain the significance of REM and the rest of the crew you named. I know what my beliefs are when it comes to the importance of REM and the rest you named, but I would love to hear yours.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 12:30pm


Liam, what kind of proof are you looking for? I've offered an esteemed website (allmusic) and rock historians. Is it really necessary to list all of the bands who were influenced by the Beatles too?

Doesn't sound like there's any proof that is good enough for you anyway.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 12:31pm


It's funny, because I've read that entire AMG article, and all it offered me was hearsay, without actually GIVING EXAMPLES.

Here is an example of an example of innovation: The Velvet Underground were the first group the experiment with the purposeful use of distortion in song-writing.

Also, I forgot to mention that the guy who wrote it sounds like the biggest fanboy on the planet.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 12:44pm


Here is an example of an example of innovation: The Velvet Underground were the first group the experiment with the purposeful use of distortion in song-writing. - Liam

That is great, but what has that got to do with influence? We are not talking about innovation right now. And guess what, although distortion is great, it is not the beginning and end of a song. It is an attachment to a song, like a guitar solo. Songs - melody, instrumentation and lyrics when wanted.

I am not disputing the VU or any other band you named. What I am waiting to hear is how you think these bands are more influential than the Beatles.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 12:58pm


"That is great, but what has that got to do with influence?"

Straaaaaaaaw Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! If you'll look carefully, I said it because I was looking for examples of The Beatles' influence and (supposed) innovation.

"And guess what, although distortion is great, it is not the beginning and end of a song. It is an attachment to a song, like a guitar solo. Songs - melody, instrumentation and lyrics when wanted."

?

Oh, this isn't an other case like post-punk, is it?

"What I am waiting to hear is how you think these bands are more influential than the Beatles."

I'm yet to hear any argument FOR them being the most influential. Examples, people, examples...

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:05pm


I've already given reasons for why The Beatles weren't (and aren't) the most influential or innovative group ever. I'm sick of having to repeat myself.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:07pm


Liam, I'm sure you'll want to edit this wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_influence_on_music_recording

It's all wrong, right?

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:11pm


No, it's just a total shame, since none of it actually proves, or even helps, your original point (that The Beatles were/are the most influential group of all time).

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:16pm


I've already given reasons for why The Beatles weren't (and aren't) the most influential or innovative group ever. I'm sick of having to repeat myself. - Liam

Then please stop and go to the bar.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:31pm


Christgau: "The Beatles created what we think of as the rock audience. They pushed the age range in both directions, so that some people started buying records as kiddies and hung on into college and after. They won back most of the arty, ornery, snobbish, weird dropouts from rock and roll many of whom were already buying LPs by Joan Baez and other folkies in patterns and quantities that presaged the rock album market. And they made enthusiasts out of mere consumers at a time when teenagers' spending cash was at an all-time high."

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 15:50pm


Very nice work, mel. Did you copy that from somewhere?

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 18:54pm


Nothing in that paragraph even remotely mentions their influence on music, merely consumers. "People were buying this, but then they were buying that." It's almost like you're trying to employ the wrong arguments, rather than simply being bad at understanding and making a point.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 03:23am


William, you're missing the point (probably because you don't agree with it). The reason the Beatles have had the most direct influence on rock is exactly because they were so pervasive. Among those millions of consumers were tens of thousands of musicians. Many of them changed their sound in response to the Beatles, either to sound more like them, or as an intentional reaction away from them. Were they the first to do what they did? Not necessarily, but they were the amplifier.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 08:19am


It seems like your trying to use a straw man argument, Mel. That's surprising.........

Mel, the reason that William can't see your point is because it isn't there.

"Among those millions of consumers were tens of thousands of musicians."

Sales give little, and, in most cases, no indication of musical influence.

You're comment tries to make a link between large sales and large musical influence that simply is not there. By that logic, Bon Jovi and Duran Duran must therefore be among the most influential groups of all time, right?

But wait, they AREN'T among the most influential grous of all time! Shock!

And more importantly, it must be noted that the theory of "Large Sales = Large Musical Influence" cannot be reversed ("Small Sales =/= Small Musical Influence").

Groups such as The Velvets, Gang of Four and The Smiths managed to gather literally countless followers (each one's number of followers grows yearly), and yet for the most part they failed to make any sort of chart impression whatsoever.

Hope that helped!

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 09:57am


Liam/William -- where would you then rank the Beatles on a list of artists who had the most direct influence on rock music?

I put them at number 1.
Velvets are in the top 10.
Gang of Four maybe squeaking into the top 100.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 11:21am


Let me have a think... Kraftwerk definitely get in the top five, if not #1.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 11:29am


Go4 get in the top fifty (at least) for the constant ripping off of their punk-funk idea.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 11:35am


Kraftwerk greatly influenced a segment of rock music, but it isn't broad enough... and it's probably more indirect than direct.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:03pm


Kraftwerk were and are THE influence on electronic music. I think their direct influence is somewhat less to what it was initally, but Kratfwerk's initial impact was SO huge.

Elctronica isn't broad enough? What do you mean?

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:11pm


EDIT: somewhat less now...

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:13pm


You can almost say that every band in every subgenre of rock in every era since the 60's is intimately familiar with the Beatles catalog. You can't say the same thing about Kraftwerk.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:14pm


Not really. Plenty of bands have come and gone, taking no direct influence from The Beatles. Joy Division took no influence from The Beatles. Captain Beefheart took no influence from The Beatles. Many others (cba making lists) didn't take influence from The Beatles, and grous continue to do so today.

Kratfwerk were the first and most influential electronic group.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:32pm


I think New Order had more direct influence in electronica than Kraftwerk.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:46pm


edit: not just electronica -- but electronic music.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 13:51pm


The Beatles turned rock and roll into what it is: the music of bands. They weren't [Someone's Name] & the Beatles. Each person was considered an equal member in terms of musicianship, songwriting and even singing, which was a completely original idea at the time (although it was quickly picked up on by groups like The Who). Without The Beatles, there would never have been a romantic notion about being a member of a band. And without this development, it would have been impossible for rock and roll to continue as it has. In addition, they were the cause of the British Invasion, which brought rock and roll out of its infancy and allowed it to become the artform at the centre of the most significant cultural revolution in history.

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 14:09pm


Kraftwerk is going in the Hall next year... We are the robots!!!

Posted by Joe-Skee on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 14:28pm


"The Beatles turned rock and roll into what it is: the music of bands. They weren't [Someone's Name] & the Beatles."-Metalsmith

Lennon had this little group called The Quarrymen before he started his Beatles career.

"Each person was considered an equal member in terms of musicianship, songwriting and even singing, which was a completely original idea at the time (although it was quickly picked up on by groups like The Who)."-Metalsmith

So why exactly were they contractually bound to sign all written songs "Lennon/McCarthy" when they were not in fact all written by Lennon and McCarthy? George and Ringo didn't get much songwriting glory even late into their career.

"In addition, they were the cause of the British Invasion, which brought rock and roll out of its infancy and allowed it to become the artform at the centre of the most significant cultural revolution in history."-Metalsmith

How exactly is crafting pop songs around a chorus and a melody, something that wasn't new by a long shot, making it into art? There were a lot of groups trying to elevate music to art before and during the run of the Beatles, and they had already accomplished that by the time the Beatles timidly dipped their toes into experimentation. Sgt. Pepper came out in '67. Zappa's "Freak Out!" had been out for five months before they even started recording.

"Without The Beatles, there would never have been a romantic notion about being a member of a band. And without this development, it would have been impossible for rock and roll to continue as it has."-Metalsmith

I'm tackling this last because it is the most ridiculous item on the list. Even if you ignore the decades of popular musicians that romanticized the notion of music in general, people had already fallen in love with the image of the rock star with guys like Elvis and Roy Orbison. The claim that this is some sort of important linchpin in all of rock history is not only unfounded, it's borderline psychotic. Why bend over backwards to praise the fictional accomplishments of a band that, for complete lack of any sort of innovation, still managed to become influential? Yes, they were influential. I do not deny it. Most influential? No. As you've proven, they certainly manage to get credit for a whole lot more than they actually did.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 15:09pm


Listen, punk, you just demonstrated that you know nothing about The Beatles. It's McCartney. Not McCarthy. Knowing their names might help your argument. No one was contractually obligated to sign all songs Lennon/McCartney. If you look at a Beatles album, it says Harrison on George Harrison's songs and Starkey on Ringo Starr's. Lennon and McCartney had a spoken agreement to give one another credit on each of their songs. You did get a good job of looking up John Lennon and seeing the words "The Quarrymen" but it has nothing to do with your point at all. A lot of people looked up to Elvis, to be sure, but no one ever aspired to becoming Elvis's bassist or drummer. It took The Beatles to make the idea of being a band member seem cool. There, you've made me repeat myself. I hope you're satisfied. It's obvious from your past comments that you're not the sort of person who likes The Beatles, so there's no point in pursuing your hateful commentary any further.

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 15:35pm


"Listen, punk, you just demonstrated that you know nothing about The Beatles. It's McCartney. Not McCarthy."-Metalsmith

Or it could be a slip. I've worked in record stores. We've sold plenty of Faul's crappy new records (correct that one if you want).

"You did get a good job of looking up John Lennon and seeing the words "The Quarrymen""-Metalsmith

There's also the slightly more obvious and simple explanation that I actually knew what I was talking about. Occam's razor. This also ignores the little point that you were more or less completely wrong about The Beatles "creating" the concept of the band. They were not the first, and that accomplishment is about as meaningful as a name can be, which is not much. Lots of bands call themselves by a uniform name, but that doesn't make them all equals inside the band anymore than having a frontman with his name in the title made them a one-man show. The Beatles didn't have a frontman because they were following in the stylings of the vocal groups before them, rather than the rockers. You say they were the first to share singing duties? Not even. You'll grasp at spelling straws rather than confront my arguments, then turn around and make up crap that's completely and demonstrably wrong.

"It's obvious from your past comments that you're not the sort of person who likes The Beatles"-Metalsmith

It's funny how you can't mentally separate subjectivity from objectivity at all, and how you love talking out of your hindside. I've taken pains to explain that there does not have to be any direct connection between liking a band and that band being important. I like a lot of unimportant bands. I dislike a lot of important ones. I'm making an objective case here, not judging sounds. They sounded fine, which was part of the reason they were so popular. Not the whole reason, though. You're trying to make this personal. You are a terrible, awful debater.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 16:03pm


Every time I try to say something positive about someone, you have to come in and run me down and you say the same thing every single time. "They weren't influential." "They weren't the first." "You're not being objective." "They weren't as good as Joy Division." You have nothing to say, William. You're a broken record. Just butt out.

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 17:08pm


Find me one post on this site where I compared any band to Joy Division.

And I sure have filled up a lot of pages with all of my "nothing to say."

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 17:17pm


You certainly have.

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 17:23pm


Metalsmith - it is not William who brings Joy Division into these conversations. That would be your buddy Liam

William - bringing Zappa into the conversation here is excellent. Kudos! He was an amazing artist. And you certainly make a point with Freak Out and Pepper, but I would dare to say that the Beatles started entering the waters of experimentation prior to Pepper and Freak Out. Perhaps not to the extent of Zappa; he always had a jazz sensibility to him, but experimentation none the less. Pepper is not even considered the best of the Beatles, Revolver is. My personal favorite is Rubber Soul which is the album that you can clearly start hearing the change.

I think this Beatles conversation is becoming a bit too much. As I have stated, the Beatles took what influenced them, added their own spices and created a sound that was a bit unique and quite commercial and accessible to both the masses and the budding musician. When they were forced into the stuidio because of Beatlemania, they certainly took it to another level. Others may have surpassed that level, but the Beatles certainly were a large part of a musical generation that changed the landscape. I personally think they were the bridge that brought us from the 50's to the 60's, but that is just my opinion. Understanding that Rock and Roll exists because of the Blues, I would say that The Beatles were the ones that killed the "Safe Elvis Clones" and allowed the rawness of the Blues to be reintroduced. The Stones were better at it. I sometimes wonder if the Beatles would have been as big as they were here if it weren't for the Kennedy assasination. Or perhaps it was The Beatles who took "young America" out of mourning. Who knows. I still believe the biggest impact the Beatles had may not have been musically. It may very well have been the influence on the culture that sprouted afterwards.

Liam - I know you love your bands, but if you cannot hear the Beatles in many of these bands, then I wonder if you are really listening to them. Obviously the Beatles were not an influence on everyone, but there is a good chance that the bands who influenced the bands you love were influenced by the Beatles. I am not stating this as a fact, just as an observation.

The fact remains that if it was not for the Beatles success here in the States, it is quite possible that the British Invasion of 64-65 does not happen with the same type of impact. The theory is that if you were to go back in time and change just a small piece of history, perhaps things turn out completely different. Who knows what would have happened if the Beatles didn't hit like they did. It is 45 years later and we are still talking about them as if it were yesterday (Sorry for the cliche).

Go Yankees!

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 18:41pm


I can't recall seeing a single comment where William even mentions Joy Division's name. Either mistaken identity, or you were trying it on.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 11:15am


"I think New Order had more direct influence in electronica than Kraftwerk."

I see where you're coming from: New Order pretty much single-handedly formed UK's electronica scene, and managed to kick-start the club scenes. NO's work probably has more longevity than Kraftwerk's, which is why (I imagine) there are more contemporary artists who cite New Order than Kraftwerk.

But Kraftwerk were just an absolute milestone in music. Imagine taking them out of the picture, and what happens? Many New Wavers (Talking Heads, New Order, Depeche Mode, Human League, pretty much anyone who laid their hands on a synth.....) just vanish.

Kraftwerk get quite overlooked nowadays, but no one can deny their huge inital impact on music.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 11:49am


The Beatles : Chuck Berry :: New Order : Kraftwerk

Posted by mel on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 11:55am


Uh....I don't see what you're saying....

Actually, I kinda do, but could you please explain it for us?

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 11:58am


"The Beatles turned rock and roll into what it is: the music of bands. They weren't [Someone's Name] & the Beatles."

So The Beach Boys don't count then?

Not that there is anything relevant about this statement - I just felt I needed to call up your mistake (yet again).

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 12:22pm


"Liam - I know you love your bands, but if you cannot hear the Beatles in many of these bands, then I wonder if you are really listening to them."

Never claimed they weren't. Wouldn't care to do so.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 13:23pm


You're just amazing:

"Every time I try to say something positive about someone, you have to come in and run me down and you say the same thing every single time.

You're arguing a completely different point. William wasn't arguing that you couldn't be positive at all: he was actually arguing that your points were factually incorrect (learn to read).

""They weren't influential.""

No one ever claimed they weren't. Putting words into people's mouths isn't a good thing. Stop it.

""They weren't the first.""

And no they weren't.

""You're not being objective.""

And no, you're not.

""They weren't as good as Joy Division.""

He's never mentioned Joy Division. Ever. I think we all know who Eric Draven is, now.

"You have nothing to say, William."

...Says the guy who thinks alternative began in the '90s and that The Sex Pistols had only one hit.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 13:33pm


Who are you talking to Liam? I can't follow your comments because they are running one after the other.

Uh....I don't see what you're saying....

Actually, I kinda do, but could you please explain it for us - Liam

Not that there is anything relevant about this statement - I just felt I needed to call up your mistake (yet again). - Liam

And the last one is all over the place.


Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 13:59pm


"...Beach Boys..." = To Iron Maiden's cover of Just Like Heaven (aka Metalsmith....geddit? Metal Smith, as in Robert)

"....Uh, I don't see..." = To Mel

The really long one is to the big alternative fan.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:03pm


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

I had no idea if you were directing anything at me; except the one which I picked up on immediately.

And thank you for giving a nod to Keith Emerson and Pete Townsend when it comes to the Synth and RnR. Should probably give a nod to Rick Wakeman as well. I don't recall if Tony Kaye, who was the original keyboard player for Yes was incorporating the Synth into their music back in 1968 - 1971. I am sure there were a few others that I just can't name right now.

My question to you, William or whoever else may want to answer it. Since we can point at these musicians for paving the way with the Synth, therefore "Electronic", can we then say that Kraftwerk were not as innovative or as influential as previously thought? I have my opinion, but I want to see what the rest of you think.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:13pm


"Electronica" refers to more than simply the usage of synths/keyboards. It's an entire genre, with its own style and characteristics (I know you're aware of their sound, so I don't need to explain!).

I don't see how the fact that Kraftwerk were pipped at the post of being the first to use a synth detracts from influence at all, though.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:18pm


If it had been The Beatles, you would have said they weren't the first, so they weren't influential.

Posted by Metalsmith on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:34pm


Metalsmith, please could you specify where your comment is aimed at and what exactly it's supposed to be saying. It's unclear left on its own.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:42pm


Excuse me. My previous comment was directed at Liam, who was saying that the fact that Kraftwerk were not the first to use a synthesiser does not detract from their influence. I am trying to point out that if an instance had come up in which The Beatles' originality had been called into question, this same Liam would have said that since they were not the first, they were not influential. In other words, a double standard exists for Liam's comments about certain artists.

Posted by Metalsmith on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:47pm


"I am trying to point out that if an instance had come up in which The Beatles' originality had been called into question, this same Liam would have said that since they were not the first, they were not influential. In other words, a double standard exists for Liam's comments about certain artists."

Grasping at straws again. Kraftwerk invented a sound and genre, a sound and genre that had not been done by any artists before them, so they were originals.

The fact that Kraftwerk weren't the first to use a synth doesn't change anything, because that doesn't affect the fact that Kraftwerk invented their own sound.

I never said or even implied that Kraftwerk were the first to use a synth, and wouldn't do so, because it isn't true. I never claimed that Kraftwerk's use of a synth was the area of originality, because it wasn't (I've vaguely explained what does make them original further up this comment).

"this same Liam would have said that since they were not the first, they were not influential."

Stop trying to stuff words into my mouth, I'm eating.

I never said that lack of originality resulted in no influence. I'm coming closer and closer to a conclusion that you have some sort of reading difficulty.

You really are an astoundingly bad debater.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 14:59pm


That's because I didn't come here to debate, Liam, you did.

Posted by Metalsmith on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:16pm


Arguing, debating, making our our voices and opinions heard.... whatever we're going to call it, you're absolutely terrible at it.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:19pm


I didn't start this argument with you, Liam. You chose to antagonise me. If you don't like my debating, leave me alone.

Posted by Metalsmith on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:21pm


I wasn't antagonising you at all. Your claims were wrong, and clearly made to antagonise (and, I'll bet, insult) me.

I'm sure you've noticed, but this is an open-forum. If you want to be left alone, don't make contributions of any sort.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:24pm


Before you started quoting me, Liam, I wrote a simple entry explaining what I felt to be the importance of The Beatles. It was not addressed to you in any way. If someone claims that The Beatles are an important band, they are not talking about Liam. The only reason you were ever involved is because you hastily started arguing with everything it said, just as you always do because it makes you feel important when you belittle people. Please try to curb your conceit.

Posted by Metalsmith on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:32pm


I'm aware of that passage, and it contained numerous factual statements which were incorrect, all of which William has already called you up on.

It doesn't matter who it's addressed to, as this is an open forum. Do you need an explanation on how they work, or something?

The only reason I was ever involved is because you made numerous factually incorrect statements and I decided to call you up on.

I didn't belittle you at all, just your comments. I do have conceit, but only for people who say things that aren't true (I do hate other people, but that's not relevant).

People like you, for instance.

If you felt belittled by a simply because you said something wrong and I corrected you for it, then I'd recommend growing up.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:42pm


If people actually valued growing up, there would be no need for rock and roll.

Posted by Metalsmith on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:46pm


So all rock n' rollers are immature? No, not at all.

Another great false statment from Metalsmith.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 15:50pm


Stop guys; these arguements are repetitive.

Here is the deal; although we can agree that the Beatles for couple of albums were a bit schmaltzy, they had a sound that was different than anything previously heard. I am not saying that it was completely new and innovative, but it was different. And in 63, it was a major change. They did not sound like Elvis, Holly, Cochran, Fabian, Beach Boys or 4 Seasons. It was distintively different even though we could here what influenced them. They were the start of the British Invasion. I view 1963 as the year of major change in the music scene. The music of the Who and the Kinks or whoever you want to mention was somewhat different, but they rode on the coattails of the Fab 4 when it came to America. I did not grow up in England, so I cannot comment regarding this and it's impact there. I can only go by what I read. Obviously there were other bands and other takes on the Blues. The fact remains that 45 years later, the Beatles are considered by most Rock musicians, critics and fans as the beginning of the change and a major influence. Whether you want to call it a brand new sound, innovative or whatever, music was changed for the better because of them. At least that is my opinion.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 18:59pm


"So The Beach Boys don't count then? Not that there is anything relevant about this statement -I just felt I needed to call up your mistake (yet again)."

It was not a mistake - while the BB may have been important to the development of rock, any idiot knows the Beatles were MORE important.

Posted by Starr on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 22:45pm


"It was not a mistake - while the BB may have been important to the development of rock, any idiot knows the Beatles were MORE important."-Starr

You missed the part where he said The Beatles were responsible for making rock about bands rather than individual members as exemplified by not having a member's name in the title, followed by him being completely wrong. So yeah, it WAS a mistake. You just have poor reading and reasoning skills.

And considering how much the Beatles borrowed from the Beach Boys (especially Pet Sounds), I'd say if the Beatles are important, then the Beach Boys must be moreso.

Posted by William on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 22:58pm


Anyone that denigrates the most influential music group (on both culture and music) of all time is pretty much a person just looking for an argument. So, you would put the BB ahead of the Beatles in importance and influence?

Posted by Starr on Thursday, 04.3.08 @ 23:12pm


I don't see how any but the most ignorant could call the Beatles the "most" influential with a straight face. Buddy Guy alone has more far-reaching influence on rock than the Beatles, and that's one example of many.

If you don't want an argument, don't argue. Don't whine about people "looking for an argument" in an open forum.

And yes, I'd say The Beach Boys trump the Beatles in overall importance, and are at least as influential. Brian Wilson also didn't need a whiz like George Martin to do all his arrangements and production: He did it himself. And Martin was probably the single most important person to credit with the Beatles' compositions (that's the power of a good producer).

Posted by William on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 02:39am


I don't see how any but the most ignorant could call the Beatles the "most" influential with a straight face. Buddy Guy alone has more far-reaching influence on rock than the Beatles, and that's one example of many. - William

I don't think anywhere in these conversations has it been mentioned that the Beatles were more important than any Blues Artist when it comes to creating what has become RnR. And Buddy Guy's direct influence is clear to those who listened to and Rock. His recording in the 60's clearly influenced all the great Rock guitarists of the time. Hendrix, Clapton and Beck all name him. However, I think Buddy Guy's direct influence was more to the guitar player and not to the song.

And yes, I'd say The Beach Boys trump the Beatles in overall importance, and are at least as influential. - William

There can be no understating the Beach Boys; let me take that back. There can be no understating Brian Wilson. Pet Sounds is ranked along with Revolver as one of the two greatest albums. Depending on what rag you are reading at the time, they flip-flop @ 1 & 2. I think Pet Sounds was more of solo album that a Beach Boys collaboration, but I guess the same could be said for the White Album. But let's not forget that it was Rubber Soul which influenced Brian Wilson to record Pet Sounds (I am almost positive that he was quoted with saying that). Prior to P.S., the Beach Boys were still all about cars and chicks. The Beatles had already moved away from there little pop formula with the recording of Help and other tunes which were to be the bridge between Yeah, yeah, yeah & Rubber Soul.

I personally don't see the B.B. being more important or influential than the Beatles, but I am certainly not going to argue the point. If I had to name the 10 most important RnR bands since 1960, The Beach Boys would be on that list.

Can we move on to other bands now.


Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 05:05am


I cited Guy because he's typically seen as the founder (or one of the founders) of blues-rock, and not merely a pure blues player. And I'd rank the development of blues-rock as the most wide-reaching development in the genre, a true cornerstone that looms over almost everything since.

On the second point, I will concede that Brian Wilson was inspired by Rubber Soul, but similarly the early Beatles (before their "experimental" phase) had been drawing on the early Beach Boys since near the beginning. My main point was that I think the Beatles took more from the Beach Boys than vice versa.

Posted by William on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 05:50am


Being a guitarist and knowing all of what Buddy Guy did, not just in blues, but in rock, I will always cite him. His work in bringing blues and rock together was amazing and as influential as you get.

I guess we will agree to disagree as far as who is more important. I certainly think the Beatles picked up on the group harmonies from the B.B., but not the overall sound and structure of the music. One thing is for sure, they were both certainly aware of each other.

As I have always stated, the Beatles may have equals as far as their musical importance, but I don't think any of these bands can match the Beatles influence over the whole culture. It is here where I think they sit on top of the ladder.

What is the next band on tap; this Beatle conversation is making me feel really old.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 06:27am


"Cultural impact" (which can be roughly interpreted as "Large Sales") doesn't make a jot of difference here because this is a music discussion site.

But surely Elvis matches The Beatles as far as that goes?

Posted by Liam on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 06:46am


"Cultural impact" (which can be roughly interpreted as "Large Sales") -Liam

That statement couldn't be more wrong. Mariah Carey has sold a boatload of albums without any cultural impact. The Beatles is in a completely different league. How old are you Liam? You really don't understand what the Beatles meant to the 60's? You need some learnin'.

Posted by mel on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 06:51am


As an after thought, I just want to state that the RnR which we have all listened to from 1963 - present is an ever-changing organism (not always good). Some of us have been lucky enough to hear it from its inception. I would suggest to those who have not made themselves aware of the Blues and Jazz to do so. I guarantee you will all be very happy that you did.

RnR cannot be attached to one single band or artist. There have been so many that have been at the forefront of the changing landscape. We have discussed the Beatles and Beach Boys here. I would also like to state that for those who have not listened to everything out there, give an ear to the following bands and artists, especially their first 2 or 3 albums:

Dylan
The Who
The Kinks
Yardbirds
The Rascals
Cream
King Crimson
Procul Harum
Deep Purple
Black Sabbath
ELP
Roxy Music
David Bowie
Queen
Alice Cooper
The Stooges
NY Dolls
The Ramones

There are many more, but these 18 bands/artists along with the Beatles and the Beach Boys, at least in my opinion sit at the top of the mountain when it comes to hard core influence on the RnR scene. Zep Fans, don't start screaming - just remember that when Zep first went on tour, they were billed as the "New Yardbirds". And Pistol/Clash fans, my list takes us to the beginning of Punk as I knew it. If I was to add another 5 bands to this top 20 list, all three of them would be there. Everyone mentioned started recording between 1960 - 1974 and covers the Folk/Rock fusion, Surf, British Pop, Blues Based Rock, Progressive Rock, Hard Rock, Glam Rock and Punk Rock. I think it is fair to say that although these bands may not have been the actual starting points of these genres (many were), they are the fruitation of them. There are so many bands that kicked started a lot of things after 1975, but IMO, everything has to have a starting point. For me, it was the death of the safe Elvis clones. Thank you Mr. Dylan; thank you Fab 4. Thank you Yardbirds for causing me to look back at what came before and helped me find the Blues.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 07:10am


"Cultural impact" (which can be roughly interpreted as "Large Sales") doesn't make a jot of difference here because this is a music discussion site. - Liam

You just have this need to disagree. Cultural impact does not have to mean sales. If you don't understand the point I made, then I don't know what to say. Hair styles changed because of the Beatles, clothing styles changed, pop art came more to the forefront. "All you need is love and all that crap". Music used to be an accessory, now it was the focal point. That is a direct influence from the Beatles.

And this is not a music site, it is a HoF site! And when viewing possible inductees, I would bet that impact on culture is looked at as one of the criteria.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 07:18am


Mel, I said so because I've seen it happen. I've known people claim Bon Jovi to have "cultural impact". Britney Spears is a "cultural icon", according to others.

But yeah, I'm actually that much of a hermit that I can't see the fact that The Beatles were the social cement of the '60s.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 07:26am


Liam - Fanboys claiming that one band or another having cultural impact and history books saying that one specific band had a major cultural impact are two different things. I know you are well aware of that. So let's not bring Bon Jovi (thank you for making me ill) and Britney Spears (now I need to go to the hospital) into this conversation. I don't think Spears or BJ will be a major point of conversation 38 years after they end their careers as the entity that they are now. But I will bet that at the end of this century, they will still be discussing the Beatles.

I don't even think Elvis had the cultural impact that the Beatles had. Close, but not quite.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 07:42am


"Cultural impact" (which can be roughly interpreted as "Large Sales")

No, I was not referring to sales at all. If I was, I would have said so. And, I do not see any cultural impact of Jovi at all. As for Btittany, she is a cultural icon of sorts, but really just a mockery of herself.

Yes, William I agree this site is apparently to "debate" issues within rock, but I have been persuing these posts as a newcomer and you and Liam seem to be quite oppositional and disputatious. Just an observation.



Posted by Starr on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 16:42pm


"Here they are ... THE BEATLES!!"

Electrifying. Simply the BEST!!

Posted by Tom in Kalamazoo on Tuesday, 04.22.08 @ 13:58pm


When it comes to musical application, I would not agree that VU were more experimental or innovative than the Beatles. I agree some Beatles songs were very poppy but I like pop music also. I don't hear the Doors or VU using Indian Modal "Norwegian Wood", Love You Too etc or Folk Modal I'm A Loser. I think these songs are on the level or surpass the level of sonic experimentation and of course use of harmony than say Zappa, the Velvet Underground, The Doors and Pink Floyd. Let’s not even get into technical innovation. This was Pre Pepper

"Norwegian Wood"- Modal Harmonies influenced by Indian Music, Mixed Meter, use of exotic instrument sitar and drone, mix of folk/pop and Indian
"Tomorrow Never Knows"- Modal harmonies Indian Music, avant structures, static Indian drones, backward tape and electronic sampling.
"Love You Too"- Indian Modal harmonies, avant guitar figure, unusual meter and Classic Indian Music.
"Eleanor Rigby"- Modal Harmonies classical, chamber pop, classical influence
Folk, Pop.Indian
"She Said She Said"- Indian Influenced Modal Harmonies, mixed meter
"Taxman- dissonant and distorted Mixolydian Riff influenced by Indian music, highly distorted raga styled guitar solo

Posted by kahutz on Wednesday, 06.18.08 @ 14:56pm


The Beatles differed even when they did blues music. The old blues masters were
content to create entire songs out of multiple repetitions . As songwriters in the Tin Pan
Alley/Brill Building mold, Lennon and McCartney weren't comfortable
with that degree of formal repetition--at least they weren't in 1964
when they started incorporating the 12-bar blues pattern into their
songwriting--so they ended up creating something more complex. In the
verses they'd follow the 12-bar, 3-chord blues pattern, but in the
bridge they'd use a chord pattern more appropriate to a pop ballad
(incorporating minor ii, iii, and/or vi chords). The result was a kind
of blues/pop hybrid. I'm not sure that there was any precedent for
the mixture of styles heard in Can't But Me Love, You Can't Do
That, and She's A Woman.

A somewhat similar approach is taken in The Word (though there the
bridge is more rock than ballad) and in Birthday (where the bridge is
sort of bubblegum). For You Blue and (strangely enough) Flying are
closer to pure blues insofar as they rely on repetitions of the 12-bar
pattern exclusively, unmediated by a bridge of any kind.
Paradoxically, Yer Blues, which would seem to be the most
"authentic" blues song the Beatles did, doesn't quite meet the
strict definition because Lennon deviates from the standard chord
pattern in the third phrase.

The Beatles launched folk rock also
” They were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll"- Roger McGuinn on why he went the folk rock route.

What did Brian Wilson say when he first heard "Strawberrry Fields Forever". It's time to pack it in the Beatles have beaten us. Enough with this revisionist history. The Beatles have been the biggest influence on rock music.


Posted by Kahutz on Wednesday, 06.18.08 @ 15:28pm


I'd like to bring up the name of Buddy Holly for a minute. I will not say that Holly surpassed the Beatles in any way, but I've always felt that his contributions have been slighted in the avalanche over the Beatles. Holly obviously pre-dates the Fabs in the writing of material and the use of strings on a rock record. An argument could easily be made that Holly beat the Fabs to the whole notion of a blues-pop hybrid, especially on the bluesier sides like "Not Fade Away" and "Think It Over". Another interesting element is the Tex-Mex border sound, which outside of the Holly-influenced "P.S. I Love You" the Fabs never seemed to use in any original fashion.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 06.18.08 @ 18:00pm


I would have added this to the earlier post, but it never really occured to me to note this until I heard it first. Just now I had the radio on in the background, and they finished playing something from 311. Now under no means would I suggest they were better than the Fabs. What got me was Kahutz comments that the Fabs are the biggest influence on rock. While I agree w/ that, I might be moved to add to that, "up till now". What got me was the fact that 311 clearly has a heavy hip-hop & reggae element, forms of music that the Fabs had no real contact w/ in any way. Many modern acts have either these particular elements or others that the Beatles had no real influence on. I'd like to say that while the Beatles remain #1 now in influence, perhaps... just perhaps... in the near future we might not neceasarily be saying that.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 06.18.08 @ 18:15pm


I think the Beatles influenced many artists in different ways. If you listen to the Moody Blues album "In Search Of The Lost Chord" (particularly "Visions Of Paradise" and "Om" both songs have a sitar. If the Beatles weren't brave enough to incorporate the sitar into their music, I don't think the MBs would have lasted long. Also, "Rubber Soul" had great lyrical depth about relationships gone wrong, which was the first time that subject was explored in pop music. Stevie Wonder has cited the Beatles musical growth as inspiration for his own. ("Music Of My Mind" was SW's "Revolver" while "Talking Book was his "Sgt. Pepper")

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Wednesday, 06.18.08 @ 20:45pm


Cheesecrop - I would agree that as the years and generations pass, other bands may wind up having monumental influence over the coming generations of musicians. But I would add that when looking at the Beatles, we need to accept that when you add influence plus complete domination of a musical generation as the Beatles did, then everyone else will always come in second place when it comes to Pop/Rock. It has been like this for the last 45 years and I don't see it changing anytime soon. And here is the really special thing about them; they did it in a relatively short time frame. Many here like to say that much of the early stuff was generic and boring; but in 1963 and 1964, it really wasn't. And it is the constant progression from one album to the next that sets them apart from so much of the field. They were never satisfied as a band.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 06.19.08 @ 08:58am


Interesting this is for Cheesecrop the "Beatles Tomorrow Never Knows" was basically acid house or psychedelic big beat for it's time. There is no rock track in its time that was like that.
Muzik Magazine The 50 Most Influential Records of All Time.

The 50 Most Influential Records of All Times
Chosen and written by Ben Turner, Frank Tope, Rob da Bank, Calvin Bush, Dorian Lynskey, Tom Mugridge and Michael Bonner

The most important music of the 20th Century. The records which have shaped the music we hear today, from trance to trip hop, from big beat to Basement Jaxx. Everything starts with these...

1) The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" (EMI 1966)
(Revolver L.P.)

Every idea ever used in dance music exists in this song. The first track recorded for the epochal Revolver L.P., Tomorrow Never Knows (the title lifted from the Tibetan Book of the Dead) was an acid-soaked masterpiece of prime psychedelia. Distorted guitars, Lennon's treated vocals, endless overdubs and the backwards drum loops all prefigure in some way the idea of sampling technology, while the group's interest in transcendental meditation - letting yourself be transported, disorientated, tripped out lies at the heart of everyone's club experiences. Recorded amazingly, only three years after the saccharine pop of She Loves You, this is untouchable genius.

The Chemical Brothers, The Beta Band

2) James Brown "Funky Drummer" (King 1969)
(7")

Funky Drummer is, on the face of it, a pretty boring record. It's one of those loose funk jams that the Godfather used to make up pretty much as he went along, but somehow managed to sound planned. James must have notice that drummer Clyde Stubblefield was laying down a pretty heavy lick, because he calls for the band to hold back, then counts the drummer off - "one, two, three, four" - and what follows is pure hip hop history. The crispest, funkiest beat ever laid on wax. One of the very first sample time capsules was buried, ready for hip hop's archaeologists to plunder.

Hip hop, indie dance

I think this is interesting because "Tomorrow Never Knows" sort fits in lot of what todays music is about. "Tomorrow Never Knows" has sampling used as a background music and it's bass and loud drums are repetitive. The Chemical Brothers have a made a living off this record concepts. Beck is another one who basically copied this on New Pollution. "Strawberrry Fields Forever" uses (backward cymbals)Beastie Boys. "Rain" has backward vocals on a forward pop record. I think the Beatles were more forward thinking than some people want to let on.


Posted by Yesstories on Friday, 06.20.08 @ 10:20am


There is one or two differences betweeen Buddy Holly and the Beatles. Buddy Holly was the focal point of Buddy Holly and the Crickets. The Beatles had no obvious leader, they were self-contained even the Beach Boys much of the instruments they were supposed to play were done by outside musicians, and the Beatles thought the albums was just as important as the single. Even Holly went to music publishers for songs. The Beatles never did. They did covers like everone else thats it.

In my opinion and I agree many people separate 50's rock and roll and rock music now. The Beatles were this unique hybrid of pop and rock. Take for instance "I Don't Want To Spoil the Party" it combines pop/rock and country. Later the Byrds would do the country rock thing but where is the pop influence on Sweetheart in the Rodeo.

In my opinion I agree with Kahutz, "Not Fade Away" is still rooted in rockabilly with blues. "You Can't Do That" blues in its verses and pop in its structure in it's bridge. "You Can't Do That" is basically jangle pop blues.

Cheesecrop you do know the Beatles did influence one Tex Mex group.
In 1964, Doug Sahm's Markays found themselves sharing the stage with Augie Meyers' Goldens, both opening for British headliners the Dave Clark Five. For several years, Sahm had been pestering producer Huey P. Meaux, nicknamed the "Crazy Cajun," to record him. Meaux, feeling successful with acts like Barbara Lynn and Dale And Grace, was not interested. However, the producer soon found himself without a market when Beatlemania hit America. The story goes that Meaux, not to be outdone by a bunch of British upstarts, headed for San Antonio where he shut himself away in a hotel room with a bountiful supply of Thunderbird wine and every Beatles' record he could find, determined to discover what made them sell. His conclusion: "The beat was on the beat, just like a Cajun two-step." He then called Sahm, told him to grow his hair long, form a group, and write a song with a Cajun two-step beat. Doug assembled a band composed of members of his own Markays and Augie's Goldens. Meaux gave them an English sounding name, the Sir Douglas Quintet and, in 1965, scored an international hit with "She's About A Mover," an infectious blend of Texas pop and the Beatles' "She's A Woman." The song was recorded on January, 14, 1965, and proved to be their all-time biggest hit.

Posted by Yesstories on Friday, 06.20.08 @ 10:58am


In the
verses they'd follow the 12-bar, 3-chord blues pattern, but in the
bridge they'd use a chord pattern more appropriate to a pop ballad
(incorporating minor ii, iii, and/or vi chords). The result was a kind
of blues/pop/rock hybrid. I'm not sure that there was any precedent for
the mixture of styles heard in Can't But Me Love, You Can't Do
That, and She's A Woman.

Sorry Cheesecrop I meant to say blues/pop/rock hybrid. Which I don't think is what "Not Fade Away" is really.

Great book on the Beatles chord progressions is "The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles". The Beatles were no three chord garage band these guys had unique chord progessions. I should know I cover a lot of their songs when my band plays out. Like Bob Dylan said when he first heard "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" "No one were doing what the Beatles were musically their chords were outrageous and their harmonies makes them vaild. They are pointing toward the future of music."

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon once the Beatles started playing the jangle 12 string guitar. The Byrds, The Hollies, The Who etc for example started playing 12 stringers. Roger McGuinn based his jangle sound on the tick-tocking jangle fadeout of "A Hard Days Night".

Posted by Kahutz on Friday, 06.20.08 @ 11:44am


Yessongs - You got me w/ the Sir Douglas Quintet. I COMPLETELY forgot about those guys!

In regards to "Tomorrow Never Knows", I have a little problem here. While I readily admit the song is both impressive for it's day, and very good to boot, the fact is Lennon never planned it to come out that way. From what I've heard (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong here) he wanted a chorus of chanting monks to form the backing for the number. In addition, the track is something of a one off in regards to the Beatles careers. I acknowledge they fiddled around w/sound collages of a sort later on, but they never attempted to return to the "Tomorrow Never Knows" style.
I never had an issue w/ crediting them for the many Indian music excursions they took aong the way, but I really do fail to see how a one shot track that wasn't even planned to go that way could serve as nothing more than an intriguing early footnote, especially in regards to dance/hip-hop/whatever.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 04:32am


I really cba getting into this conversation, but I'll point out The Red Krayola's "Hurricane Fighter Plane" and "Transparent Radiation" to everyone, aswell as the fact that their Parable of Arable Land is miles ahead of Revolver in terms of innovation, mostly for its pre-dating of New Wave and post-punk by about ten years, aswell as some weird, weird stuff that's only becoming apparent right about now, thanks to the Animal Collective mostly.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 08:14am


First of all, most, if not all modern music has dripped off of something from the past...been that way since the beginning! The Beatles' biggest all-time hit wasn't "She's A Woman"...that distinction goes to "Hey Jude". The first album of the Beatles to hit the states was almost ALL cover songs! Roger McGuinn was heavily influenced by Chet Atkins and Merle Travis...and played that Rickenbacker twelve-string BEFORE "A Hard Day's Niight" was released. Just because something sounds the same doesn't always mean there was a direct "influence". "Not Fade Away" was heavily influenced by Bo Diddley...not a lot of "rockabilly" in that particular song (not to say Buddy Holly wasn't "rockabilly").

Influences don't always come from where you think...which is what makes "Rock & Roll" so much fun!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 08:47am


Wow, haven't heard about the Red Crayola for a while...kinda remind me of Captain Beefheart and maybe Syd Barrett.

Liam, I'd have to say that's a pretty fair statement!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 09:04am


Yesstories...upon further review, I see your comment was about the song "She's About A Mover", not "She's A Woman". My apologies!!!

It was either that or "Mendocino", can't recall which ended up charting the highest. I liked "Mover" better, though...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 12:51pm


Gitarzan, Roger McGuinn purchased the electric 12 string because of George Harrison. From the horses mouth. The Byrds even went and got every instrument the Beatles were playing in 1964.

The artful Roger: in The Folk Den with Roger McGuinn from Sing Out!

The Beatles had exploded onto the American charts. Captivated by their skiffle beat, mellifluous chord progressions, and infectious melodies, he instinctively knew that melding those distinguishing characteristics with his own tried-and-true folk sensibilities and training would yield a pretty unique sound.

"When the Beatles had come out, the folk boom had already peaked," McGuinn notes. "The people who had been into it were getting kind of burned out. It just wasn't very gratifying, and it had become so commercial that it had lost its meaning for a lot of people. So the Beatles kind of re-energized it for me. I thought it was natural to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music. And in fact, I heard folk chord changes in the Beatles' music when I listened to their early stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.' I could hear the passing chords that we always use in folk music: the G-Em-Am-B kind of stuff. So I really think the Beatles invented folk-rock. They just didn't know it." 12-string Rickenbacker 370--a sonic embellishment he had picked up while watching George Harrison's guitar work during the Beatles' stage performance in the movie, A Hard Day's Night. "I saw the six extra pegs sticking out of the back of the headstock of George's Rickenbacker, and I had to get one," McGuinn offers. "I went, 'Oh man, that's so cool!' I immediately traded in both my Gibson acoustic and my five-string Vega banjo for the Rickenbacker, and boy, what a difference in sound!" Just read this article and you too Liam.

The artful Roger: in The Folk Den with Roger McGuinn from Sing Out!
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1197/is_3_50/ai_n16729058/pg_3




Posted by Yesstories on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 13:29pm


I don't recall George playing an electric 12-string, but now that I think about it, the solo in "A Hard Day's Night" had to be one...nothing else sounds like that. I saw a guitar special on Public TV where McGuinn said something a little different, but I guess that's to be expected sometimes. He's a travis picker, where George played a lot of arpeggios and a lot of leads off of chords.

Two very good and precise players, though!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 13:44pm


Their is the 12 string all over the Hard Day's Night album such as "You Can't Do That", If I Fell, "Can't Buy Me Love" etc. "I Call Your Name" and "What You're Doing" are other pre- Byrds songs with that jangle sound.

Posted by Yesstories on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 14:23pm


The solo on "A Hard Day's Night" is a twelve string solo. If you hear the demo version of that song on Anthology 1 you will be amazed on how much it sounds like the future sound of the Byrds.


Cheesecrop, what's the big deal that the Beatles never attempted something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" again. That does not take away that many people think its 20 years ahead of it's time or it predates many modern dance forms. Or it has influenced everyone from Syd Barret to the Chemical Brothers. Does it matter that they could not get 1,000 monks on the song instead innovated the vocals through a Leslie trick that everyone from Hendrix to Black Sabbath would use later. Many songs change through its process. The Beatles used sound collages with groove beat on "I am the Walrus".

For Liam, The Beatles in terms of melodic and harmonic invention musical versatility trump artists like the Velvet Underground or Red Crayola.

Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. It is not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles. Their unorthodoxy on this point made it so difficult for other groups — especially for those with a blues background — to cover their songs. It still is responsible for the ongoing debate on which chord is which in a specific Beatles' song.



Seasoned professionals still are baffled by their chord progressions. I play music for a living and please don't compare the Velvet Underground two chords droning to the medieval modes the Beatles were writing that prevail on Revolver. Even their Beatles beat the Velvet Underground on the based on one chord droning minimalism of "Tomorrow Never Knows". Please don't compare the Red Crayola to the Beatles that is an insult to me as a musician and too many of us. The Beatles were using modal music with blues influence and Indian scales.

The Beatles were using guitar drone in 1964 even beating the Kinks and feedback before the Velvet Underground were a band. Most of progressive rock early heavy hitters like King Crimson, Yes and Genesis as a heavy influence. The Beatles basically opened the doors for those progressive rockers.

Everyone uses something from the past to make a new sound or style. No one starts music from scratch. Rock and Roll is basically elements from other genres. I listen to what the musicians say that what holds weight to me. You might have heard of Syd Barret or Pink Floyd you know the Beatles are their biggest influence. Syd was highly influenced by Revolver and "Strawberry Fields Forever" and based his psych pop leaning songs "Arnold Layne" and "See Emily Play"

Posted by Yesstories on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 14:29pm


I am sorry; I meant to say The Beatles were using modal music with folk influence and Indian scales. Many rock songs use modes but it's usually associated with blues rock songs. Peace

Posted by Yesstories on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 14:38pm


I find it amazing that someone would doubt "Tomorrow Never Knows" influence and musical innovation. Go ahead find a rock song like this in 1966.


The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" its many of its musical concepts are alien to what their popular peers were doing at the time and forget pop music. The Chemical Brothers, Brian Eno, Beck and others have been influenced by this song.

Tomorrow Never Knows"
Simple verse form: a single eight-measure structure played nine times with no chorus.

Lyrics are from the Tibetan Book of the Dead—spiritual advice to those facing death

The adaptation of the text was from Timothy Leary's book The Psychedelic Experience

Accompanying music is a static authentic Indian single harmonic drone. First in a rock record

Sounds in the recording are made from tape loops/electronic sampling used as a musical backdrop. First use of this kind in a rock record?

Tape loops were often used by 1950s and 1960s avant-garde classical music composers

The song was mixed in real time, rendering a repeat of the mix impossible (also an art approach) First of this kind in a rock record?

There is no harmonic movement.The band is playing one chord. Only a sampled orchestal note makes this a two chord song
.
The drum and bass are repetitive.

Backward distorted guitar solos for the first time

Automatic Double Tracking for the first time

Vocals put through a leslie amp for the first time.

Maybe I am missing something.



Posted by coldplay2002 on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 15:25pm


The Rickenbacker 370 definitely has a unique sound...there's no mistaking it. When I saw McGuinn interviewed, he made the comment that he was looking for an instrument that would make a "Coltrane"-like sound (he used "8 Miles High" as an example)...don't know that he accomplished that (it actually sounds like something John Mclaughlin would do). I'm not crazy about that particular guitar myself.

Experimenting is usually how music evolves, along with the commitment (and usually the resources) to release it to the public. If you remember correctly, not everyone was crazy about it when the Beatles changed the way they made music, but now it's what they're most identified with. I'd like to see (and hear) a little more pioneering.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 15:38pm


I can't say that I've heard anything exactly like "Tomorrow Never Comes" (which could be a good or bad thing, depending on who you're talking to), but people did take bits and pieces of what they were doing and applied it to their music.

The cool thing about that song is that I've heard it re-done at least three times (Hendrix, Michael Hedges, and Phil Collins), and those musicians all put their own stamp on it...lots of different ways of being "innovative".

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 16:01pm


The problem with singling out 1 song like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is that it's just a snapshot in time. There were plenty of other innovations taking place before and after that. I'm not saying the song isn't one of the most interesting and important rock tunes ever made, but look at what else was going on during the years from say 62-67 and you can find plenty of other examples of innovation as much or more on the cutting edge than what the Beatles were doing at the time:

"Green Onions" by Booker T and The MGs, 1962
"Louie, Louie" by The Kingsmen, 1963
"She's Not There" by The Zombies, 1964
"Eve Of Destruction" by Barry McGuire, 1965

and, of course, one of MY personal favorites

"I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night" the echo-filled , acid guitar two-tracked vocal masterpiece of psychedellia by The Electric Prunes, 1966

What tends to happen in these situations is the artists tend to feed of each other as the artform continues to develop over time, so I like to focus on this time from 62-67 as a whole as being THE most fascinating productive era of rock and roll rather than looking at 1 or 2 artists in particular.

Posted by classicrocker on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 18:26pm


I think classicrocker partially got where I was coming from in regards to "Tomorrow Never Knows". I would personally toss in the 13th Fl. Elevators into the mix circa 1966 as well.

Coldplay2002 mentioned not being able to find any song like it in 1966. I absolutely agree w/ you on this. I would also state here that the same arguments could be made about Link Wray's 1958 hit "Rumble". I have heard fans and rock writers try to make the case for Link as some kind of heavy metal godfather figure on the strength of the song. I think everyone out there would agree though that suggesting Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" or Sabbath's "Paranoid" were influenced by "Rumble" is a bit of a stretch. I guess what I'm getting at is this: that certain songs can be incredibly influential on particular artists, but also be nothing more than stand-alone tracks. It does nothing to diminish the songs or the innovations put forth; merely it is to say that a band may have to commit themselves further to it then mere dabbling (Fabs did much more flok rock/indian than sound collages). I'll close out the B. Holly connection by simply stating that Holly once recorded four big band #'s (though I cannot recall ever hearing them), but this doesn't make him Artie Shaw or Harry James than the few sound collages make the Fabs = Chem. Bros.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 20:33pm


In crediting the Beatles w/ so much innovation, my last post listed them as heavyweights in the field of "flok rock".

Folk Rock - The Beatles

Flok Rock - Everyone who rushes to this page to
discuss them.

My illiteracy knows no bounds.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 20:45pm


Cheesecrop...as with most legendary bands, the thing with the Beatles is you simply either love them or hate them, no one ever says "I can take 'em or leave 'em". People have strong opinions about them on both sides of the fence.

I guess that's what "influence" is all about!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 06.21.08 @ 21:04pm


I think John Lennon explored the subject of transvestism before Ray Davies did. "Polythene Pam" (Abbey Road, 1969)had these lyrics:

Well you should see Polythene Pam
She's so good looking though she looks like a man
Well you should see her in drag with all her polythene bags/Yes, you should see Polythene Pam
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah
Get a dose of her in jackboots and kilts
She's killer diller when she dressed to the hilt
She's the kind of a girl that makes the News Of The World
Yes, you could say she was attractively built
Yeah, yeah, yeah

The Kinks' "Lola" didn't come out until nine months after "Polythene Pam"

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 01:15am


The reason why the Beatles are talked about is because many consider them to be the most influential rock/pop artists of all time. When you add they were musically doing things differently than pop/rock artists and they did this in seven years.

Progressively though, the Beatles drifted away from the rock'n'roll style over-used and endlessly repeated by most of their counterparts and began exploring new musical avenues. Nothing was left aside in this exploration: harmony, orchestration and rhythm were all revived and transformed by the Beatles's genius. In 'Eleanor Rigby', they used a quasi-Baroque string orchestration. The construction of 'Penny Lane' is based on a systematic and very unusual change of keys. In their later albums, they successfully incorporated traditional Indian music harmony "Love You Too" and Avant-garde techniques used by classical musicians, such as the use of distorted tape loops in studios to create new sounds "Tomorrow Never Knows" or aleatoric music "A Day in the Life".

The Beatles could not read music but Irving Berlin, Jimi Hendrix, Brian Wilson and many others could not either. These musicians were self made musicians they were constructing music with their rules not bound by conventional music thinking. When you see a typical Hendrix guitar solo you say to yourself who else but him could make this music up.

The Beatles rhythms was also unique they used half bars, switches in time signature, sections constructed from odd numbers of bars.

In my opinion there were many people back then doing great stuff The Byrd’s being my second favorite group. I think the Beatles were more innovative for examples, Authentic Indian Instruments, drone, harmony, modal music, classical avant techniques, chord progressions and more.

Posted by Kahutz on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 09:01am


The other reason why the Beatles are discussed is plain jealousy. The Beatles were able to merge Pop/Rock with non rock sources like Indian Music, Musique Concrete, Avant, symphony orchestras with ease. That could be their biggest innovation The Beatles were able to merge Pop/Rock with non rock sources. Examples of this are "Norwegian Wood", "Rain", "Eleanor Rigby”,”Strawberry Fields Forever" and others. The Stones, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd and others tried this approach. If you want to know how many musicians The Beatles have influenced say compared to Elvis or Dylan. Just check out the Beatles followers list.

www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles


Posted by Kahutz on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 09:26am


...or maybe they did all that stuff because it sounded good! Just a thought...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 09:52am


www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

uh-oh. Liam is not going to like this site. I am sure he will list why it is inaccurate. I would guess that unless Pitchfork is not writing about it, then it cannot be true ;-D

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 12:32pm


I went on to www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles the amount of artists that cite the Beatles as a influence is startling. I remember reading that Robert Fripp said the Beatles were the reason he went into rock music. Holger Czukay of Can after hearing "I am the Walrus" also went the rock route because of the Beatles.

I agree with Kahutz the Beatles were able to merge Pop/Rock with non rock sources. "I Am the Walrus" is a great example of mixing avant structures with somehow keeping a melody or some sort of pop influence. It's sort of some twisted version of pop music they had.

If you want an interesting comparison of the Beatles influence compare it to the Rolling Stones which I found.

www.answers.com/topic/charlie-watts

Posted by Coldplay2002 on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 17:47pm


Irrelevant comment: reading all this, I just understood Hornby's High Fidelity. It actually makes more sense than one could imagine...
LOL @ you guys.

Posted by FNT on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 07:13am


In a good way, of course.
Great discussion, really interesting.

Posted by FNT on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 07:14am


The comments on this board are quite interesting and enjoyable. I love when musicians get into the discussion. And it seems that the detractors of the Beatles, most notably William and Liam have stoppped commenting here. I wonder why.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 09:32am


Because Beatles fanatics are a stupid, tasteless bunch of assholes. No doubt you'll want to place yourself into that demographic by doing something irredeemably stupid like calling Sgt. Pepper the greatest album of all-time, or something.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 10:16am


So this is what you turn to when you have no arguement to put forth. I didn't say anything derogatory against you. All I did was ask why you hadn't chimed in with this interesting conversation regarding specific influence by the Beatles.

From the first comment I ever read of yours right up until now, I had you figured as a loser. You are a no nothing wanker who can't find his own pud to pull, so you come here and try to be something you're not, like intelligent just so you can get off.

By the way, there is no greatest album in the world. As for my favorite album, that would be Fun House by the Stooges.

And remember Liam, Asswipes should never call anyone an asshole because in the end, you will be the one they use to clean themselves.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 12:30pm


The reason I didn't "chime in" with this conversation is because I've heard it all before multiple times. The Beatles aren't a band I find all too fascinating, really, so I'm obviously not always going to be fantastically keen on getting into a lengthy conversation about them.

Interestingly, I never outright insulted you. In fact, your original comment is easily more insulting than mine, so you really don't have a leg to stand on. And no, you didn't ask me or William for our reasons at all. You gave some arrogant commentary of the situation, obviously as an attack at us.

Next time I want psychological analysis of myself off of some wuss who doesn't even have the bottle to sign their real name on the internet, I'll ask for it. Which will be never.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 12:43pm


Aerosmith, Pat Benatar, Motley Crue and U2 have all recorded "Helter Skelter" but one person who hasn't recorded or performed "Helter Skelter" live is Robert Plant. If you listen to "Helter Skelter" it has all the elements of Zep:
Loud distorted guitar
Frenzied drumming
High pitched screaming

I wonder if anyone ever asked Robert Plant if "Helter Skelter" inspired his vocal histrionics. Also "What Is And What Should Never borrows its chord progression from "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" although in a different key. (Led Zeppelin II came out three weeks after Abbey Road)

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 13:48pm


"And it seems that the detractors of the Beatles, most notably William and Liam have stoppped commenting here. I wonder why."-blah-blah-blah

Well for one, I'm busy. For two, I've said pretty much everything I had to say and don't really care to repeat it all for the convenience of people who can't be bothered to read.

Posted by William on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 18:53pm


I can't really say I was a "fan" of the Beatles per se. They did influence me to want to play the guitar, though. Being 9 years old and having never heard anything like them, they did leave quite the impression on me...which of course led to other things...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 19:37pm


This thread ,that I just began to read, started by discussing Scaruffi's problems with common sentiments about the Beatles being the greatest band because they were hyped so much.

Growing up in the punk era, I know exactly where that is coming from. Everything said on this blog (and there is a lot) supports Scaruffi's contention - the only support people come up with for the Beatles has to do with their popularity or influence upon others - now that has nothing to do with the music, does it? You could make some fine sociological analysis of the role of the Beatles in 1960s culture (both mass culture as well as counterculture), but again that would have nothing to do with the music.

Let us not forget that Lennon tried hard to approach the way Dylan treated the song, but never got close, yet Dylan did not receive the same adulation. The Beatles were not even the first Mersey band, as Scaruffi correctly points out. And then when you think of the most important musicians from rock from the 1960s, like the Doors, Grateful Dead, Velvet Underground, Love, Captain Beefheart or Zappa, and then consider the status of the Beatles in people's minds, you realize that the hype has gotten hold of them to some degree - these musicians were miles ahead of the Beatles musically.

When I grew up in the punk era, I do appreciate now as an older person that we probably exaggerated our stance on the inflated status of the "boring" stadium bands - we all know that Johnny Rotten first impressed McLaren with his writing "I Hate" over his Pink Floyd T-Shirt. But of course Pink Floyd really was exceptionally of genius material, especially the works from Barrett's days to Dark Side of the Moon. And many of the prog-rock bands of the early 1970s were really very imaginative, as were the Canterbury bands. In the end, which is I think Scaruffi's point, we must judge the music on its own terms, from the perspective of what it contributed musically.

I spent last weekend replaying most of the Beatles albums made from 1965-1970, and I end up agreeing with Scaruffi. Most of the songs are really dull. Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road really are the most imaginative albums that they made, as Scaruffi points out, but the music is not that advanced compared with hundreds of other musicians of their time. That does not mean they were completely trash, and some of it was actually really quite good, but overall their "status" does not match their work, that is simply a matter of putting their music into perspective. Surely that is what all musical analysis does - putting works into perspective, separate from the marketing hype of the day, so that as time moves on and listeners lose the cultural context the way we still do today, they can at least come to appreciate each work for what it was, which is Scaruffi's point - with works from the Doors or Miles Davis or Coltrane or the first two Nico albums or the complete work of Tim Buckley standing in a very special light while the Beatles, while surely more sophisticated than some of the poppier works from their time, may not quite measure up to the exaggerated way they are normally conceived of. Scaruffi never doubts their talent with melodies and pop style, he only has problems with the exaggerated claim made of their music.

Posted by danny on Thursday, 07.3.08 @ 23:07pm


danny, I also think that their eponymous album is very good, just greatly in need of some trimming (not "Revolution #9" though, that one's cool!). I like Magical Mystery Tour quite alot too, even if it's a little derivative of Sgt. Pepper, and Revolver is a very good pop record. None of their albums are perfect, however, and I'll elaborate only if asked to do so.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 07.4.08 @ 10:13am


Liam...doesn't seem like you would need to elaborate. I think that's the cool thing about music...the diversity of both the artists and people listening. Like I stated before, I was very young when the Beatles first came to the states, so that was my first "Big Bang" of popular music. My musical tastes have certainly evolved over the years, but some stuff has stuck with me.

Concerning the Beatles, it has been so much the group as a whole, but a song here and there. I am glad thay came along and spawned my interest in playing. Of course someone else would've eventually done it too, I suppose.

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.4.08 @ 11:05am


...meant "hasn't been so much the group as a whole".

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.4.08 @ 12:13pm


The Beatles were way more complicated than the Velvet Underground. One VU would never duplicate the Beatles vocal harmonies. VU were musically a static band not much use of chords. The Doors, Frank Zappa were not using Classical Indian Harmony. The Doors was not using jazz harmony. The Grateful Dead were not using classical avant music. The Beatles did all that with and never lost their melodic genius.

They were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll"- Roger McGuinn

No actual rock band was like this. I don't think Danny boy is a musician. The Beatles already in 1964 were doing folk rock, jangle pop, country rock and basically invented power pop before the Who and Byrds made it big. The Beatles were already using Indian tonal concepts on "Ticket To Ride" before the Kinks. Liam and Danny Boy crack me up and so does Scarzoid.



Posted by Jonas on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 12:58pm


Funny the Beatles are the most critically musicians of all time according to Acclaimed Music which gathers up all critics list. It seems the Beatles to me were miles ahead of the Velvet Underground and everyone else on

"Tomorrow Never Knows" electronic sampling over a techno style drum beat;
" Tomorrow Never Knows one chord and droning minimalism

the Beatles sucessfully incorporated traditional Indian music harmony and Avant-garde techniques used by classical musicians, such as the use of distorted tapes in studios to create new sounds into pop/rock music.

Rock-meets-world music (Love To You with it's pre-Sgt. Pepper sitar/tabla workout)

Tomorrow Never Knows Psychedelic/ Electronic Rock fusion was the most radical departure from previous Beatles' recordings for its skeletal bass/drums propulsion enhanced only with tape loops (contributed by all four Beatles and added in the mix-down process), more backwards guitar, mellotron and an eerie John Lennon vocal. Experimental music based on Indian music with Tomorrow Never Knows (which also contains the opinions according to the first rhythm of techno music history).

Aleatoric approach toward creating orchestral crescendos in "Day In A Life"

Steam calliope 'wash' used to help create circus atmosphere in "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" tHI

The backwards guitar and doubling of backward guitar parts in I'm Only Sleeping.


Aleatoric methods such run-off groove of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band).

Tomorrow Never Knows uses electronic avant sampling

Strawberry Fields Forever" began the new approach to creative songwriting
Lyrics describe a fantasy-like place from his childhood
New instruments used to create a dreamlike ambiance
Cellos, inside-the-piano playing, reversed-tape sounds, Mellotron
Mellotron: an early sampling keyboard that uses taped sounds to create orchestral sounds
Strings, choral voices, and a recorder ensemble
Studio tape manipulation techniques were used to create backward sounds
Two different takes were recorded and spliced together using variable tape speed techniques
Different tempo and different keys
Different instruments
The song ends, then fades back in with a backward segment that fades back out

"I Am the Walrus" was one of the strangest and most avant-garde Beatles songs. For all its weirdness, however, it wasn't devoid of some conventional melodic pop appeal, I Am the Walrus" is the densest and most symphonic track from the Beatles' psychedelic period, with so many layers of sounds and effects that it takes quite a few listenings to get to the bottom of them. Sung and written by John Lennon (although credited to Lennon- McCartney), the ominous mood of the song is established by the opening two-note riff, inspired by the sound of a police siren. Swooping strings then embellish the sense that listeners are about to embark on something resembling a bad acid trip. The very first line is fair warning that listeners are not going to sit back and be entertained by a straightforward story, with its almost nonsensical string of pronouns, as if Lennon is taking absurdist revenge on all those 1963 Lennon- McCartney lyrics in which the composers determined to use as many "you" and "I" pronouns as possible. "I Am the Walrus" is, in fact, a stitching together of several fragments that could have been developed into entirely different songs, but what could have been a mess flows together quite well, aided by the esteemed producer George Martin. In the verses, Lennon cleverly alternates between similar, but not exactly similar, melodies in which the surreal images fly at a furious rate. It's free association which does not make sense — and Lennon always said they weren't intended to make sense — like sitting on a cornflake, penguins singing "Hare Krishna," and, most unforgettably, the yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye (the last of which was actually adopted from a British school children's rhyme). There's the brief sexual reference (about a girl letting her knickers down) that showed up in many a mid-'60s Beatles song, and what may be the first deliberate reference to another Beatles song ( "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds"); "I Am the Walrus" itself would later be referred to in another Beatles track ( "Glass Onion"). At one point, "I Am the Walrus" suddenly derails into a burst of white noise jabber — as if a radio tuner has suddenly switched channels — and mournful strings introduce a dreamy line about sitting in an English garden that has no apparent melodic or lyrical relation to anything else in the composition. That detour is quickly steered back to the chorus, as if it's a miniature break from the nightmare (or from the absurd reality of life?). And what a strange chorus it is: Lennon declaring that he is the eggman, whatever that is, and is also the walrus, ending with a nonsense lyric, as responsive harmonies follow the ascending melody like a chorus of ghouls. The lengthy fade-out is no less weird than the rest of the track, with those ghoulish harmonizers (actually the Mike Sammes Singers) sounding like a children's nursery rhyme run amok and the memorable addition of dialog from a BBC broadcast of Shakespeare's King Lear (a snippet of dialog also appears earlier in the song)

Posted by Jonas on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 13:21pm


"The Beatles were way more complicated than the Velvet Underground."

Just like Sister Ray said.

No way in shit were the Beatles more complex musicians than the VU. My God, have you even listened to "Sister Ray"?

"VU were musically a static band not much use of chords."

It's not all about how many chords used. Dumbass.

Go back to your filth music like Please Please Me, that absolute piece of populist garbage.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 13:33pm


I guess you know more than Roger McGuinn. Bob Dylan even said the Beatles chord progressions and harmonies were outrageous. The Velvet Underground could not approach the Beatles music. Imagine them singing the vocal harmonies of "Because" lol or the pre Frank Zappa polyrhythmic time signatures of Happiness is A Warm Gun.

The facts are while the Beatles experimented with static harmony 'Ticket to Ride" and others. The Beatles were using Indian modal music "Love You To"; "Within You without You" is much more complicated than VU. Deal with it those are the facts.

The Beatles using half bars, switches in time signature, sections constructed from odd numbers of bars, non recurring linear tryouts, Lydian mode and the Dorian Mode. Please the Velvet Underground was doing none of this. Even John Cale said recently the Beatles were zeroing musically what he wanted to do. The song he was talking about was “She Said She Said”. It's obvious you are not a musician. Let's see the Doors or VU come up with the chord progressions on " I am the Walrus".

Posted by Jonas on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 14:44pm


Typical response from you Liam. You are becoming way too predictable. As musicians alone, VU is squat. It was there ideas that made them stand out.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 14:50pm


Have you heard the time signature on "Here Comes the Sun" with repeating 11/8, 4/4, and 7/8 passages in the chorus. The Beatles' expert ability to shift in and out of tempos, time signatures, and moods with stealth and ease. For another one of their all-time best examples of this, refer to the 4/4, 3/4 change in We Can Work It Out.

Go look at Progarchives.com The Beatles are listed as proto-prog.



Posted by Kahutz on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 15:14pm


I don't understand the arguments concerning the Beatles. Their place in rock history is pretty secure, And from the beginning I think that anything they did different from anyone else was thought of by them as just being "clever". As far as theory goes, collectively they weren't real on the ball, but they experimented a lot. They took what was probably a cacaphony to them, lined it up and made it work. Key word...experimented. They were bold enough in every step of the way to put it out to the public and say "this is what we're about now". I don't think it was ever anything complicated, and a lot of it was probably by accident. However, that's what being innovative is all about.

They also had George Martin. Don't think that having him didn't make a difference!

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 18:30pm


Read a comment in here from Jonas that states the Doors never used jazz harmony. The one thing the Doors definitely had going for them was the use of jazz. Densmore's drumming and Manzarek's keyboard were soaked in jazz style. I appreciate the myriad styles the Beatles put forth, but if questioned, this is one place where I could never come up w/ an adequate defense. When it comes to jazz (at least) the Doors have the Beatles beat at every length.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 07.8.08 @ 18:50pm


The Beatles Definitely NOT a jazz band, yet as youngsters they had to cover standards. And if you look at their own compositions, you see many elements of 'jazz' harmony.. People are still trying to figure out their chord progessions. So I disagree with Gitarzan especially on musical theory. The Beatles were way ahead of someone like the Stones or Dylan.

The Beatles You'll find lots there: standard progressions, line cliches, passing diminished chords, rudimentary substitutions.... Understand why they chose the chords they did in songs like "If I Fell" and "Something", and you'll understand why they used jazz harmony

Other than the Beach Boys who was using jazz harmony in 1963-1964. I have to agree with Cheesecrop the Doors were using jazz elements with rock. There is some raga influence with the Doors also.

I think the Beatles have been the biggest influence on rock and pop music the past 45 years. They are my biggest influence in music.

Posted by Kahutz on Wednesday, 07.9.08 @ 06:14am


I don't get Scaruffi article on the Beatles it's nothing but opinion and most of it's not factual. Its worst hatchett job I have ever read.

The Beatles were a spin-off of the Quarrymen 1957 before Gerry and the Pacemakers 1959. The Beatles had Merseybeat first hits "Love Me Do" and Please Please Me was a number one hit at least on the NME chart before anyone who knew Gerry and the Pacemakers.

The Beatles roots were skiffle so of course their is a lot of folk influence in their music. That’s why the Bryds went the folk rock route they heard in their music. Who was not influenced by Chuck Berry and who on earth does not have influences. If anyone was a copycat band it was the Rolling Stones. Everyone was listening to the Beatles Pierre.

Who was using the psychedelic arrangements the Beatles were using. "Tomorrow Never Knows" tape loops, backward guitar, Indian Instruments, mellotron, or Strawberry Fields Forever. The Electric Prunes never did anything like these two songs. Are you serious Pierre? The Yardbirds never utilized the sitar they just tried it out and used a guitar instead. The Beatles used sitar, tamboura, and tablas.

The Concept/rock opera bug of 1968 was very influenced by the Beatles Sgt Pepper. The Beatles already did concept thing on Pepper so I don't get the criticism on Abbey Road. The Beatles were already doing Psychedelic and Avant music prior on Revolver. The 1967 albums of the Doors, The Byrds, Hendrix, Floyd actually make them late in comparison to the Beatles.

The Beatles played mostly on Supermarkets well I guess he does not realize that the Beatles are played on classic rock, some alternative rock stations, oldies and some adult contemporizes

The last time I checked Sgt Pepper has two songs over five minutes and the album was linked with no pauses.

No one said nice things about the Beatles. Go ask the Byrds and Brian Wilson. Pet Sounds was inspired by Rubber Soul. Dylan was rumored to be influenced by the Beatles to go electric.

The Beatles were not a blue rock band but they did some prior to Cream for example “Taxman” and “I Feel Fine”

Some college did a study on the Beatles music recently. They choose 158 Beatles song and two thirds of their songs show chord progression not common in rock or pop music.

So what if the Beatles were incorporating underground music with melodies. So The Beatles were incorporating avant music with melodies. That’s a sign of great innovation because no one else thought to do it. This guy is eccentric.

By the way there is no feedback on “Hard Days Night" or avant influence "Fixing a Hole" or "Hey Jude" a psychedelic blues jam. I had to chuckle on that one.

Posted by Jonas on Wednesday, 07.9.08 @ 11:20am


And before I go:

"Everyone was listening to the Beatles Pierre."

I imagine it would have been difficult not to listen to the Beatles when their singles were being played ad nauseum.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 07.9.08 @ 11:59am


Maybe you should go Liam this is about celebrating the Beatles. You add really nothing to the table. Pierre it's great to be you and change history to your liking. The Beatles are the wrong band to be picking on.

Yes, The Beatles didn't invent rock'n'roll. Yes, there were/are better musicians out there. Yet was there anyone really like them musically? Combining non rock sources with a strong melodies.

But just because Joe Q.Public rates The Beatles instinctively by received wisdom it doesn't follow that they've all got it wrong!

For one thing, its said that George is a poor guitarist compared to many of his peers...that doesn't stand up to scrutiny...it's just that his role in the band wasn't to be flashy but to play IN the band, to add cool melodic guitar parts to great songs--he fulfills his role perfectly, and if he's NOT a good guitarist what can you say about the solos on "All My Loving", "A Hard Day's Night", "I Feel Fine" etc...you KNOW them all...and you can't say that about Jeff Beck or Dave Davies (both great guitarists) etc. His solo's are great because they catch the ear with grace and melody...I don't think The Beatles would have been a better band if they had Clapton playing lead, or whoever...it was a GROUP, not a combination of soloists competing with each other...And if you want a flashy solo, Paul could always add one!

I found the essay pretty ridiculous in its discussion of "Hey Jude"...it's not a psychedelic blues jam, it's a gospel/soul tune with a long coda/fade-out...they weren't influenced by the lengthy jam-outs of other bands on "Hey Jude" (the outro of "Its All Too Much" far better fits that category...and who's that playing all the amazing psych-guitar on it...oh, it's George!!!) they just wanted a long, communal singalong ending...

But in getting it wrong, Pierro shows how weak his hand really is...he doesn't really see how The Beatles fit in to the whole scheme of things...its true they soaked up the influences around them, but its also equally true that EVERY other band from the poppiest to the freakiest were watching The Beatles like hawks to see what they would do next (and sometimes, as with "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" or ""Sgt Pepper" it STUNNED them)... Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd used to sneak into the other Abbey Road studios when they were recording to try and find out what they were doing in there, Jimi Hendrix played the "Sgt Pepper" title track live the week it came out...you can't imagine them showing the same intense interest in The Dave Clark 5, can you?

Not all of us think a little trumpet = genius psychedelia. But look at "Strawberry Fields Forever"...mellotron, backward tapes, the whole track being slowed down to change the sound, John's grammar-mangling poetry, George's indian scales..that's not candyfloss psychedelia, and it was made by the biggest "showbiz pop" band of the time!
It's cool to question The Beatles...but dismissing them is, in my opinion, intellectual snobbery...but the absolute best quote I've ever read about them is...

"We were just a band who made it big, that's all"

Posted by Jonas on Wednesday, 07.9.08 @ 12:28pm


Jonas - this is an open forum and no matter how annoying Liam can be, he certainly has a right to express his view, no matter how silly he may sound ;-) And once again Liam, you were not around between 63-69, so you are commenting on something that you have only read about. The fact is that unlike today, there was only one or two radio stations in each city that might play the Beatles. There was no internet, no MTV or cable televsion. And at the time, there wasn't really a music scene to speak of, so if those stations played the Beatles a lot, it was because there really wasn't much else to play.

As for Scaruffi, it is just one's man opinion on a subject that has been commented on by thousands. I think in this case, the majority has it right. The Beatles were special - end of conversation.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 07.9.08 @ 15:56pm


In my honest opinion and many share this point of view the Beatles really started progressive rock.

The Beatles wrote dozens of songs without a refrain by 1967 namely "There's a Place", "It Won't Be Long" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" The Beatles use of harmony by 1965 was influenced a lot by non Western form. There is basically one song that has a standard 12 bar blues progression and that is "Flying" in their 1966-67 recordings.

The Beatles experimental timbres, rhythms, tonal structures heard on Rubber Soul and Revolver influenced legions of bands that were to create Progressive Rock. The Beatles Revolver and Sgt Pepper went away from the Western Pop norms of melody, harmony, instrumentation, formal structure and rhythms.

"Love you to” and "She Said She Said" middle sections are in contrasting meters. The complexed mixed meters of "Good Morning Good Morning" was basically unheard of in rock music. The eastern scales used in "Love You To" and "Strawberry Fields Forever". The use of Lydian mode in "Blue Jay Way" and Dorian Mode in "Eleanor Rigby Mixolyodian mode in a number of tracks including "She Said She Said"". The authentic use of avant styled tape loops of "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I am the Walrus". The use of drone in it's Indian context and instrumentation ranging from "Norwegian Wood" to the Indian orchestra of " Within You Without You". The Gamak or Eastern styled melodies of “Rain with it backward vocal outro and "I Want to Tell You".

I advise in reading Walter Everrett “The Beatles as Musicians Revolver through the Anthology”. He has great sections on what the Beatles peers were doing musically at the time namely the Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, Zappa, Pink Floyd, Cream and many others. Of course the Beatles section on what they were doing between 1965-1967 is a great read.

Posted by Yesstories on Friday, 07.11.08 @ 11:06am


Wow Liam comments are puzzling. The Beatles are most likely the most covered songwriters not only in rock music but in all music the last 50 years. "Yesterday" at last count has about 3,000 cover versions.

The Beatles actually were recording and were on the charts before Gerry and The Pacemakers and their Merseybeat peers. They put Merseybeat on the map and they paved the way for the Rolling Stones and other British acts in the world largest market in America. McGuinn basically changed his career because of the Beatles chord changes. Wilson went onto create Pet Sounds after hearing Rubber Soul.

The Beatles concepts towards Psychedelic Rock and Avant Rock differed from everyone else at the time. The Beatles were using vocal processing, backward tape, Indian instruments, tape loops on "Tomorrow Never Knows" On "Strawberry Fields Forever they used avant sounding string arrangements along with backward tapes and Indian instruments to create their brand of Psychedelic Rock.

Along the way bands like Pink Floyd and King Crimson were tuning into what the Beatles were doing. I realize the Beatles did not play 5 minute guitar solos but that does not mean they were not progressive or experimental. They played music and man were they able to be catchy and being overtly experiemental at the same time.

Posted by Darren on Tuesday, 08.19.08 @ 15:10pm


Although they are good I find them overrated

Posted by Derek on Saturday, 08.23.08 @ 17:44pm


The Beatles songs are still being played on the radio, numerous musicians cite them as a influence and their songs covered by musicians in every genre. I can't say that about Elvis, Led Zeppelin, The Kinks and the Stones.

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 08.25.08 @ 08:26am


Kahutz - what is your point? Most people agree with this, some don't but it is moot as far as discussions regarding the Hall are concerned. They are in, so there is nothing left to say. We have already discussed and argued this point a hundred times already. Let it go now.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 08.25.08 @ 08:45am


Jonas wrote something interesting about two-thirds of the Beatles chord progressions not related to the usual rock chord progression. That's because they started as a skiffle group. Their early song chord usage were very folkie with some fair amount of jazz harmony.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" would not sound out of place in 2008. God bless the Beatles

Posted by Roger on Tuesday, 09.2.08 @ 13:58pm


Is there anyone else out there who thinks "Dear Prudence" and "Across the Universe" are two beautiful songs? Simple, yet elegant. I guess no gimmicks needed there.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 09.21.08 @ 13:25pm


Dameon...yep, they're both great songs...

Posted by Gitarzan (aka Cousin Itt) on Sunday, 09.21.08 @ 13:41pm


If a current Rock and Roll artist is said to be influenced by The Beatles or was influenced by somebody who was influenced by The Beatles.. How is this more important than a Rock and Roll artist before The Beatles influencing them and in turn influencing somebody after them (did that make any sense)?

When I hear recent songs I don’t always hear a Beatles influence, I often hear sounds that were around before The Beatles.

Not that The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a measure of greatness., that’s a whole different topic. If you look at the inductees for 1986 and 1987 there is reason why these artist were inducted prior to The Beatles. The 25 year rule plays a factor, but not with artist before 1971.

The passing of time and the lack of some technology are a factors in lack of information about early Rock and Roll.

In my opinion, Gene Vincent should have been inducted a lot earlier than 1998 and not to include The Blue Cap is a little puzzling. Cliff Gallup played a mean guitar and influenced many Rock and Roll guitarists.

A little later Johnny Meeks played guitar with Gene and wasn’t pretty good too. He was also known for his triple neck electric guitar, one neck was a 12-string, one neck was a 6-string and one was sort of a ukulele type instrument.

Posted by Cat and Roll on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 15:59pm


I got the above statement about 1986 and 1987 a little screwed up. Please ignore, sorry.

Posted by Cat and Roll on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 18:02pm


I got the above statement about 1986 and 1987 a little screwed up. Please ignore, sorry.
Posted by Cat and Roll on Wednesday

Been there done it myself often

Posted by Denise on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 18:20pm


If a current Rock and Roll artist is said to be influenced by The Beatles or was influenced by somebody who was influenced by The Beatles.. How is this more important than a Rock and Roll artist before The Beatles influencing them and in turn influencing somebody after them (did that make any sense)?

Posted by Cat and Roll on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 15:59pm
--------------------------------------------------
It isn't. The Beatles themselves are at least partially the sum total of what came before them. The length to which they expanded these formats represents the other half of their musical sum.

You are slightly confusing in what your trying to say. I'm not sure if you mean an act from 1964 onward, or whether you are trying to refer to a 50's act influencing the Beatles, who then influence someone else (let's say the Grateful Dead as a quicky example). Let me know if this example get's to the bottom of what you wish to say. There is one act that is the absolute greatest (& I mean superior to any act not in the Hall - and I MEAN EVERYONE) that has never been acknowledged. This is the Elvis Presley band. No one ever says that Elvis (rhythm), Scotty Moore (lead), Bill Black (bass), and D.J. Fontana (drums) are an official band. Never mind I've just described the Beatles band lineup there. An argument could easily be made that the Presley band influenced the Beatles, who then influenced the Dead. Eventually this might end up w/an act like Phish, yet no one will ever say that Presley influenced Phish - it always starts w/the Beatles. If that's what you're saying, then yes this is problematic in my viewpoint. If it's not, then please elaborate further.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 19:27pm


I am aware and understand what you are saying, I am coming from the perspective of hearing Rock and Roll before The Beatles. I read an article about what I mean and it also talks about what you are saying. I’ll try to find it and post it.

I completely agree about the band behind Elvis. Early on when they were with Sun records they were billed as Elvis- Scotty and Bill, they were a band in that sense. D.J. was more involved with the RCA records. I think they even had plural name for the band. Of course the Jordanaires harmony vocals behind the band should not be forgotten and were given credit on the records, supposedly at the request of Elvis.
The Sun material and the first few RCA records I really like. From there on I think it is hit or miss, although “King Creole” has one of my favorite Elvis’ songs, “Crawfish” The Clash paid a nice tribute to the first Elvis lp with their “London Calling” lp. If somebody thought that lp had a nice cover they really thought the Elvis lp had a nice cover.

Bill Black’s Combo was nice little group from the late 50’s on and after his passing. I believe The Beatles wanted Bill Black’s Combo to back them on their U.S. tour.

I don’t know enough about Phish to make a comment, I know most of the well known Grateful Dead songs.
This probably isn’t the best example of The Grateful Dead but when “Go To Heaven” was released and “Alabama Getaway” was on the radio. I bought the 45 not because it sounded like The Beatles. I bought it because it reminded me of good old Rock and Roll.

I know the concept of Rock and Roll bands jamming has been around a very long time. Some of the Rhythm and Blues Bands were pounding the beat. Not a lot of it made it to records.
The Johnny Otis Band was well know for long jams during their concerts. I prefer their pre-late 50’s material. Probably most know for “Willie and the Hand Jive”1958, which bring Bo Diddley into the picture. The Bo Diddley/Chuck Berry 1964 album titled “Two Great Guitars” contained a 10 min. song “Chuck’s Beat” and a 14 min. song “Bo’s Beat” I personally think the cover of the record is better then than the songs on the record.

Preston Epps had hit in 1959 with “Bongo Rock” and in 1960 released the lp “Bongo Bongo Bongo.”
which contained the song “Call of the Jungle”, described as “an exciting 13 minute continuous session”.
The jacket sys over 40 musicians, arrangers, singers , engineers and producers were involved. Not including the animals. It really is a nice jam session.

Dion wrote about how while on tour with Buddy Holly they would they would jam and sing Doo-Wop over Buddy Holly and his band. The Book Dion’s Story in interesting read, about his drug addiction and the music scene in 50’s.

A little more modern, when I heard Wolfmother, the word was they sound like Black Sabbath and Cream.
When I listen to Wolfmother, I hear a modern day Little Richard with long ago influences of Mississippi John Hurt. The drummer Earl Palmer just passed away about a week ago. He was on a lot of the early Little Richard songs . His Drumming can be heard and felt on thousands of Rock and Roll songs to this day.
Well known is Little Richard’s “Keep A-Konckin’ ” and Led Zeppelin’s “Rock and Roll”.

When I heard the band Lesley, the reviews were they sounded like The Beatles and The Hollies. I hear The Crickets, Buddy Holly solo, Bobby Vee and The Everly Brothers. For me this completely leap frogs The Beatles Influence.
The Everly Brothers influence is another story all together, a little too much to type hear.

Getting back to Gene Vincent a little bit, when the band The Cult hit big in the 80’s all of the talk was how much Ian Astbury resembled Jim Morrison. I saw a resemblance to Gene Vincent. It’s been written that Jim Morrison was a huge fan of Gene Vincent and they used to hang around together. Gene Vincent had an definite influence on The Beatles.
Gene Vincent’s constant touring in the late 50’s and early 60's which included most of Europe, Japan, Australia, South America and of course North America certainly made an impact on the shape of Rock and Roll.
There are some goods books about the mayhem that followed Gene Vincent. One really cool picture is Gene with John and Paul all dressed in their black leather.

I never want to say who was the first and I don’t know if anybody knows but sometimes an artist can be completely bypassed as an influence including The Beatles. I don’t really dislike any band, just might not listen to certain artists for one reason or another.
I only wish there was more film of the early rockers so it could be seen what was going on back then.

Posted by Cat and Roll on Thursday, 09.25.08 @ 16:52pm


Cat and Roll...if you go to youtube (not saying you don't), you'd be amazed at the scores of videos there are of the likes of Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, etc... I even found a video of Larry Collins (the Collins Kids) playing a rather fierce duet with Joe Maphis. Great stuff....

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 09.25.08 @ 16:58pm


Thanks Gitarzan,
I have check out many of those videos. I just wish there were more films of full concerts, but I doubt many exist.

Bear Family in Germany released many of the Town Hall Party Videos. Bear Family Records is a blessing for vintage Rock and Roll and other early music. I have few including the Gene Vincent and Eddie Cochran along with Johnny Cash, Bob Luman etc.
The Gene Vincent and The Blue Caps songs which are about eight of them are cool. The rest you can see how out of place Gene Vincent is singing his songs. If you look at songs with Johnny Meeks on guitar and the camera pans out so you can see the drum set. You can see the triple neck electric guitar leaning in front of the amp.

I have the Alan Freed movies but I think they don’t really catch the artist in their element. Gene Vincent was also in a few movies centered around his band.

One movie I know is out there I just haven’t bought it yet was the U.K. film “Don’t Knock the Rock”, different from the U.S. movie of the same title.
The last time I saw it on T.V. was about 20 years ago. Gene Vincent, The Animals, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and some others. That was pure Rock and Roll.

Television shows are where most of the early videos are from, I wish the American Bandstand shows were readily available.

Joe Maphis, what a picker and double neck guitar too. How about the song “Flying Fingers”
Bear family again released some cool Joe Maphis material. The cd “Flying Fingers is a nice collection of his songs. Plus there is a cool picture of him standing behind Larry Collins both playing the double neck guitar.

Earl Hooker and the Guy From Bill Haley and His Comets ( name escapes me at the moment) both played the double neck. Again, I wish there were films of these cats in their prime.

Posted by Cat and Roll on Thursday, 09.25.08 @ 18:24pm


Cat and Roll...if you noticed I added a video of Wanda Jackson on here. She seems to be a footnote in this nomminee list, but she really was a powerful performer. If they didn't like Elvis doing it, how dso you think they felt about a woman...???

I wish people would at least look before making comments about her. You seem to know your stuff...it's a pleasure talking to you!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 09.25.08 @ 18:33pm


Cat & Roll -

Wanna talk early influence on rock? Link Wray. Wray is not in the Hall, yet "Rumble" has to be easily on of the top 10, if not even top 5, influential recordings ever in rock. The list of guitar icons he influenced:

pretty much everyone after 1958

It's astonishing to hear the volume he's getting out of the guitar during the late 50's and early 60's. "Jack the Ripper" in 61 was arguably the loudest rock song until the Kinks did "All Day & All of the Night" in 65. As far as I can tell the only person who ever paid a tribute of sorts was Townsend, who allegedly fell to his knees upon meeting Wray and thanked him for recording "Rumble". Yet still no sign of him in the Hall. How do you figure that one out.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 09.26.08 @ 05:08am


Blah -

Caught your Beatle post AFTER I posted a second time on the Dylan page. I've jumped over here since I felt it was rude to Dylan fans to clutter up the page w/Beatle posts. First off, I never commented on the songs listed, but rather the "you had to be there" logic.

I imagine I've never really made myself clear in regards to how I view the Fabs. My bashing may be seen as just that, senseless bashing. Not the case. I do not own every Beatle album, but I do have Rubber Soul, Revolver, Pepper, and the White Album. What gets me is the notion that these works should be set in stone as being the best EVER. It is the same as when I posted w/Philip over Hendrix. I noted that I would never fall into the "accept it as the best, accept it blindly, and just shut up in regards to anything else" mode. My own challenges to the Beatles resulted in this:

1. Initially accepting Pepper as best, due to RS bias against it (93-96)
2. Purchasing White Album (94), loving portions of it, realizing portions were better than Pepper, and wishing to remake it in some fashion.
3. Getting Revolver (96) initially being blown away by it, convinced RS was off it's rocker.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 05:47am


Wanted to post all the way through, but my computer has been acting funny lately (somethings up). Do not be angry please, this is not a Coven-styled attempted take over of site.

Blah - Little story. I purchased Revolver on vinyl initially, and wanted to egt "Tomorrow Never Knows" guaranteed. My player was shot, so I recorded album "B-Side" first. Has anyone out there attempted to listen to Revolver in this manner over a period of time? You begin to hear it in a different light. She Said, She Said could easily have replaced Tomorrow as the finisher. Once read that G. Martin always said open & close strongly. When I got Rubber Soul(99? I think) I thought it was good, but not up to par w/others. At one point I tried to pull a mental White album and re-tape them as I would. Suddenly I found myself liking R. Soul all the more. I then tried my little Revolver stunt of recording them B- Side first and listening to them over again. I found myself mentally altering everything on Pepper/White Album/Revolver, but nothing at all on Rubber Soul. My challenges have revised my stance completely on R. Soul, and I can never doubt it's superiority to Revolver any longer.

I feel the need to challenge the band as a whole against modern acts in just the same way. It has led me to embrace modern music in a whole diff. light, while still loving the chance to question why I find R. SOul superior to other albums. Trusting any band's legacy,even those I really like, is to me a short-cut that takes away from hidden pleasures I might find on their albums. It's also a short-cut to dismissing anything new today.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 06:03am


Actually, on a personal level, I am in agreement with you on Rubber Soul. I think that album is the absolute bridge from Pop to Rock and not just for them, but for the scene in general. It is the album that inspired Pet Sounds. I never thought that Pepper was as special as R.S. or Revolver. I don't think it was as special musically as it was special in its overall production.

It is good to personally challenge that which we have been force fed to believe was the best. For years, I constantly searched and listened to every band that made any kind of noise. And yeah, the Fab Four were the band that introduced me to RnR. The Ed Sullivan Show is one of my earliest and most vivid childhood memories, so I will always be partial in my opinion towards them. But getting past my own prejudices is simple when it comes to them. I always listened to what the other musicians have to say. And when musicians who first picked up the guitar in the 80's and 90's state that the Beatles, the Who, or one of the other earlier bands were a major influence on them, I have to respect that opinion more so than any writer.

I am old now and I don't feel the need to look for new music anymore. And unless something strikes me over the head, I am more than content to spend the rest of my days listening to that music which still makes me feel good. The Beatles are one of those bands.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 06:53am


This is from the Zimmerman page, but it's more appropriate here:

"And Piggies and Bungalow Bill were great songs, but you had to be there. And you weren't. Stick with what you know Liam." - Dameon

"You have no emotional connection to the music, thus you don't appreciate two mediocre pieces of pap," in as many words.

Got to agree with Cheesecrop and his quotation on this one. I think a more affective come back to classic rock bashers would be "Well, that's your opinion, which I don't share," instead of the typical "Of course you wouldn't geddit, you weren't around at the time!" There's plenty of young people out there whose favourite music was created before they were born.

"I think other than the George Harrison tunes- Abbey Road is full of potholes....unfinished tripe about policeman jumping out of bathrooms and old men with bad manners. And Maxwell's Silver Hammer is just plain dreck." - classicrocker

Gotta disagree: it's my favourite Beatles album. Come on, even *I* would say that "You Never Give Me Your Money" is as close to a masterpiece as pop music ever got. Miles ahead of Sgt. Pepper, that's for sure...

"The Beatles were clearly the most consistent band of the last 45 years."

All depends on how you view their music really, as well as how you view that of other artists, doesn't it? And they were only around for ten years which must have helped their consistency a lot, since you can hear how downhill they were going on Let It Be... I mean, if, say, Sparks had done nothing during the 1980s or 1990s, surely they'd qualify?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 09:58am


The main difference between the Beatles and Elvis is that the Beatles have a much more direct influence on Modern Rock Music. Nirvana, Oasis, Blur, Dream Theatre, The Killers, Jet amongst many cite the Beatles as an influence. Sorry but their is a difference between Rock and Roll and Rock Music and Elvis and Chuck Berry were Rock and Roll not rock music

The Beatles were influenced by Elvis, Berry and Holly but they were also influenced by folk and pop music also. They took that influence and took it completely away from 50's Rock and Roll. I have to laugh when someone who likes Elvis and comments with this logic, “if say the Beatles influenced Nirvana that means Elvis influenced Nirvana because the Beatles were influenced by Elvis”. That logic is flawed in so many ways. One the Beatles wrote their own songs. Elvis was not creating anything remotely like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "A Day in the Life". The Beatles were an albums band. The Beatles were fusing Avant and Indian music with Rock amongst many huge musical differences. Please Elvis had nothing to do with Folk-Rock, Progressive Rock or even Proto Metal "Helter Skelter".

I am not bashing Elvis but he was displaced by the Beatles.

Posted by Nirvana91 on Friday, 10.3.08 @ 06:23am


Hey Cat & Roll I'm a musician you could easily influenced by the Beatles and not Elvis. I think in fact Elvis has hardly any influence on any of the major Rock Acts of today. The Beatles went way beyond their early influences and thus bridging the gap between Rock & Roll and Rock Music. I never understood why old-timers need to defend the likes of Elvis when the Beatles are mentioned. They were musically night and day go listen to “Strawberry Fields Forever", the pre Techno of “Tomorrow Never Knows" or the atonal “Wild Honey Pie".

I will add to Nirvana 91 comments by saying the Beatles musically was way more complex than their mentors. For example they were experimenting with songs with Multiple Parts Divided by Tempo Changes:
"A Day in the Life" and” Happiness is A Warm Gun". Even their chord progressions, melodic style influenced the Byrd’s and others to go electric.

The Beatles were a rock band who wrote and played their own songs which is completely different than what Elvis was even if he was backed by a band. In fact this is annoying as a musician that this is even discussed. The Beatles were probably the first Prog-related pop/rock group.



Posted by Kahutz on Friday, 10.3.08 @ 07:56am


If you have read the posts I've tossed up here, you will know that while I can be critical of the Beatles, I do like a great deal of what they did. That being said, I think much of the confusion comes from people either younger (like myself) or a few older (not sure who) who perceive a rewriting of history going on here. There is no doubt in my mind that at least a few boomers privately wish Elvis & Little Richard never existed, so that the Beatles & Stones really could miraculously invent rock & roll (or at least alter the song Michael J. Fox does in Back to the Future). I know that criticizing Elvis because he did not write his own songs is a little troubling, especially if you want the Monkees in. On the Monkees page I noted that as late as 66, Cream was using the words of poet Pete Brown on "I Feel Free". In addition, Brian Wilson collaborated w/Tony Asher, an former ad exec, while putting "Pet Sounds" together (talk about selling out beginning in the 80's!). Probably the most bothersome thing is this: If you want to say that Lennon/McCartney were better than Elvis because of the writing credits, your really not dealing w/ Elvis, but rather w/ someone like Otis Blackwell.

For anyone to suggest this raises the rather interesting argument that two white English kids could write rock & roll songs better than an African-American at the same time. I promise not to even comment futher on this, and I'll leave myself open to any potshots you feel like taking. I Relish the amount of spin-doctoring it's ging to take to put this one over!!!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.3.08 @ 17:49pm


Cheeseman...I've always thought that there are a handful of artists, a precious few if you will, that are a direct influence to anyone who plays rock & roll. The "originals", the ones who were there at the beginning and did their thing and took all the initial backlash (which could get downright dangerous at times) but still kept it going who are the same artists who the Beatles look to as influences.

One thing that rock music did back then was discourage segregation, which certain factions of society frowned on and they were pretty boisterous about their feelings about it. Listening to what some of the opinions of rock were back then is absolutely appalling. Add that to PTA groups, church gropus, civic leaders with their own ideas, and you had an era where music actually caused a certain amount of instability within society...which was not all that common.

...but they kept on ROCKIN"!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 10.3.08 @ 19:53pm


I am young and a musician. If you are talking about direct influence on today rock bands then the Beatles have it over Elvis, Chuck Berry and Little Richard easily. I don't even think it's debatable. Elvis not writing his songs hurts because the Beatles had great melodies and their own unique style of chord usage. No one is trying to sound like "Jailhouse Rock" or "Good Golly Miss Molly" and I mean no disrespect.

The more progressive musicians like Dream Theatre and Radiohead are going to be more attracted to the Beatles. It's no different than what King Crimson and Yes did back in the late 60's that were influenced by the mid to later Beatles. The Beatles were experimenting with Raga Modes, Avant Music and borrowed chords. By Rubber Soul and songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" you would think they were never influenced by Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly.

Where the Beatles score points in my generation are songs like "Norwegian Wood", "Rain", "She Said She Said", and "I'm Only Sleeping". It doesn’t take much to look at today’s Indie rock scene to seen where The Beatles mark has remained strong. Take in obvious Beatle-influenced acts like Blur, Oasis, Jet, The Fratellis and others

Or even listen to the garage revved sounds of bands like The Hives, The Strokes, Elastica, The White Stripes and the Darkness and then revisit the White Album with songs like "Helter Skelter" and you may be surprised at how little things have really changed.

I have not even gotten to songs like “Tomorrow Never Knows” or “Flying” and it’s influence on Beck or the Chemical Brothers.


Posted by Tyler on Thursday, 10.9.08 @ 17:01pm


Tyler...since you're young and a musician, please read the following quote;

"Before Elvis there was nothing."- John Lennon.

If you play Rock & Roll at all, you were influenced directly by a handful of originals, whether you realize it or not. There's more than just "writing songs"...there's a whole body of history that helped influence me and made me a better player.

When Elvis walked into Sun Records for the first time to make a record for his mom, the receptionist asked him who he sounded like. His response was "Ah don't sound like nobody, ma'am." That statement says a lot about the roots of rock.

Another opinion...free of charge!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 10.9.08 @ 18:17pm


So what the pupils can't easily better their mentors and extend the branches where everyone else follows. Sorry I am not influenced at all by Elvis. He has nothing to do with songwriting or genres basically very influenced by the Beatles like Indie Rock or even Alternative Rock.

Indie Britpop, Progressive Rock, Alternative Rock, Power Pop, Indie Rock all popular music scenes in the last 10 years owe way more to the Beatles. Elvis had no influence on those genres.

It doesnt take much to look at todays Indie rock scene to seen where The Beatles mark has remained strong. Take in obvious Beatle-influenced acts like Blur, Radiohead, Coldplay, Oasis or even listen to the garage revved sounds of bands like The Hives, The Strokes, Elastica, The White Stripes and the Darkness and then revisit the White Album.

My question to Gitarzan is it hard for you to admit the Beatles have been a big influence on many musicians? It's no big secret that practically every major rock artist of the past 20 years have been more influenced by the Beatles than Elvis.


Posted by Tyler on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 06:35am


I was heavily influenced by the Beatles, learned to play the guitar listening to them (I was around during their heyday). But then the question arose with me..."who influenced them??"

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 07:19am



I think someone was debating if Elvis had a greater direct influence than the Beatles on today's music. If you hear songs like "Rain" or "Across the Universe" are very Indie sounding songs. I give Elvis his props but Elvis has nothing that I would say is Indie like or Progressive Rock like.

I think the Beatles along with others were pointing where future music was going and I think they got their very early with "Norwegian Wood" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". I think Dylan said that about the Beatles.

The Beatles had an innate skill to fuse pop music with rock, experimental and progressive music. I don’t hear that in the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, and Bob Dylan. That’s why I think the Beatles translate too many musicians. They had all those traits. “A Day in the Life” and “Strawberry Fields Forever” is great examples.

The music that influenced the early Beatles I hear a mix of folk, R&B, Pop, some jazz and the rock and roll of Berry, Holly and Presley. The Beatles used more chords.

Any musician could tell some major fundamental differences from the start. The Beatles used more chords; even many of their diatonic progression where unique, they were louder, very melodic driven, less blues based a lot of unison vocal harmonies. I admit the Beatles were influenced by Elvis and Berry. The question is Buddy Holly the Beatles biggest early influence? Buddy Holly seems to get dissed on this and I don't get that.

Posted by Tyler on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 08:06am


Tyler -

You're picking on the wrong person here. If anything, Gitar has defended the Fabs in many a post, if you read closer. I am one of the people who you would be more likely to have an issue with.

First off, I agree w/you on Holly, and in fact I brought it up several months ago how Holly is the wellspring of several early innovations that have been forgotten.
--------------------------------------------------
So what the pupils can't easily better their mentors and extend the branches where everyone else follows.

Posted by Tyler on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 06:35am
--------------------------------------------------
I definitely agree w/you on this. What get's me is that your comment isn't always appreciated when it comes to acts after the Beatles. It's o.k. to suggest that the Beatles passed by Elvis, but to suggest someone passed the Fabs is tantamount to cultural heresy in certain circles. Could you not say that everyone from the Smiths to Nirvana has an influence on Radiohead as well? If so, how much of the sound belongs to the Beatles? You could say that it all flows from the Fabs, but if that's the case, then how does that get the Fabs off the hook regarding Elvis, Holly, etc.?

You're right when you say the pupils passed the master, re: Beatles vs Elvis. Several other pupils passed the master re: everyone from 70 onward vs the Fabs.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 13:42pm


Initially the Beatles were influenced by Elvis, Berry but if you hear their sound it went way beyond "Love Me Do" and "I Saw Her Standing There". They incorporarted tape loops, feedback, Classical Indian, backward guitars, vocals and other experimental aspects into pop/rock music.

I respect Buddy Holly more than Elvis. Even their the Beatles innovate Buddy Holly "Words of Love" into a jangle sound that the Byrds would be famous the following year.

You know what I am 23 and I don't think Radiohead or Coldplay have matched songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or the second side of Abbey Road. Also the Beatles were recording on four track technology. You are talking to someone who thinks Radiohead is already more influential than U2 or The Rolling Stones right now.

Some Radiohead songs that show strong Beatles influence "Karma Police" from "Sexy Sadie" and "Paraniod Andriod" from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"

Posted by Tyler on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 14:30pm


I knew here would be the perfect place. I'm not commenting on the Beatles I'm gonna challange Cheesecrop to a contest on this page and I want you to you guys to comment and say who won. You choose 10 bands and put them in all-time best list.
1.Led Zeppelin
2.The Beatles
3.The Jimi Hendrix Expeience
4.AC/DC
5.Aerosmith
6.Black Sabbath
7.Rolling Stones
8.Pink Floyd
9.Grateful Dead
10.Guns N' Roses

Your turn Cheesecrop.




Posted by Mike on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 16:40pm


Tyler...It's called perpetuation of the music...the Beatles picked up the ball and ran with it in a big way, there's no denying that. Buddy Holly's contributions in his short career are enormous, he was an incredible talent. Most guitarists I know hold him in high esteem. His experimenting in recording, songwriting, and lead/rhythm technique are truly legendary.

Understand, as a young guitarist, I pecked around all these artists' styles. Listening to the Beatles was my first endevour into teaching myself. Scotty Moore, who was Elvis' guitarist in the 50's, and James Burton (Ricky Nelson and Elvis) not to mention Chet Atkins (who played with everyone from Hank Williams to Elvis), were Travis pickers, which is a unique and very involved style of playing, and no one applied it to Rock & Roll until they did. All three are in the RRHOF as sidemen, and have influenced such players as Mark Knofler, Brian Setzer, and John 5...just to name a few.

So the point I'm making is that the impact and influence of those original rockers branch out a lot and are very far-reaching. I give them all their due.

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 18:06pm


Mike (round 2) -

I need to come up w/ a top 10 list here? O.K. I'll give it a shot.

1. Beatles
2. Ramones
3. Zeppelin
4. Stones
5. Sabbath
6. AC/DC
7. Van Halen
8. Nirvana
9. Metallica
10. Who
--------------------------------------------------
I do like your list. You put in the Dead at 9, so I'm wondering - am I dealing w/ a casual Deadhead here (never heard anyone who had the courage to put GNR next to the Dead) or are you at least semi-hardcore here? You can't be total hardcore cause you wouldn't even have a list beyond them at #1.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 18:55pm


Also the Beatles were recording on four track technology.

Posted by Tyler on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 14:30pm
--------------------------------------------------
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Beatles were using 8-track as early as "Paperback Writer". There were advancements studio & instrument-wise in their day.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 18:59pm


Who were The Beatles? I've never heard of them

Posted by Fat Man on Saturday, 10.11.08 @ 16:23pm


Wow thats sad Fat Man.

Posted by Mike on Saturday, 10.11.08 @ 17:45pm


What kind of voting is this? You change one of your acts, then let your boys come on the site and do a ballot stuff? I love how a staggering flurry of votes all come in at exactly the same time! This ain't the 2000 elections! You can't be pulling this George W. crap on everyone!

I'll lay it out for you here. Floyd is awesome live (at least they were in 94 - don't know about now), the Dead is too cliquish, and you can't be switchin' acts on people. My list is quite inclusive, and represents something from every decade except the current one.

If all else fails, you'll just have to accept that I win cause I'm a sexy b****, and that's all there is to it.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 10.11.08 @ 18:54pm


Mike..I think Fat Man was being sarcastic

Posted by Keebord on Saturday, 10.11.08 @ 21:00pm


What ever Cheesecrop.

Posted by Mike on Sunday, 10.12.08 @ 05:23am


MY TOP TEN BANDS:

1.The Rolling Stones
2.The Beatles
3.Guns N' Roses
4.AC/DC
5.The Greatful Dead
6.Aerosmith
7.Led Zeppelin
8.Black Sabbath
9.Iron Maiden
10.Sex Pistols
There's mine, I don't care what you think about #3 anybody else??

Posted by David on Sunday, 10.12.08 @ 17:49pm


In my world
1- The Beatles
2- The Rolling Stones

After that all rock bands are in great debt to these two bands.

Back to the Beatles I always thought George Harrison experimentation with Classical Indian Music in form and instrumentation had to be big risk by the Beatles. Other than Frank Zappa I can't find a more radical departure in what rock musicians were doing than songs like "Love You To" or "Within You Without You" a song Zappa would cover later.

If Harrison's solos for "Im Only Sleeping" were an example of his guitar innovations, his three compositions for the album were evidence of his wider development. "Love You To" was the first attempt in the rock world to marry the structures of Indian music with a grinding rock rhythm. Here Harrison is still playing the sitar like a guitar player, using blues and rock 'n' roll bends rather than the intensely intricate Indian equivalents. The recurring motif first heard at 0:55 on the track was essentially an adaptation of a blues lick, and the melodic form of the sitar solos and commentary were the product of George's Western roots. However the song is nothing less than a revolution, not only as the first mixture of pop-rock and Indian music but also in the sincerity and understanding of the music that Harrison displayed.
While Harrison's achievements were of little interest to the rock press, Asian music commentators wrote with clarity about it: "One cannot emphasize how absolutely unprecedented this piece is in the history of popular music. For the first time an Asian music was not parodied utilising familiar stereotypes and misconceptions, but rather transferred in toto into a new environment with sympathy and rare understanding."



Posted by Tyler on Monday, 10.13.08 @ 19:02pm


George Harrison was one of the most precise guitarists I'd ever seen...he was very innovative and fit that group as perfectly as I'd ever seen.

He was definitely a big influence on my playing...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 10.13.08 @ 19:13pm


Tyler -

You mention how you are a young musician. Could you please tell me who you listen to now, and who you used to listen to in high school, providing there's any change. I promise you this is not an excuse of any kind to ridicule you. If you want to, you'll see I asked this serious question to a Backstreet Boys fan a few months ago, and I didn't pick on her afterwards. I'm merely interested in finding out just what younger folks are listening to, and have been listening to, for the past decade or so.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 10.14.08 @ 05:34am


All the Beatles should be in the RHOF including GEORGE MARTIN...Heck if Spector and Philps are in Martin should be in ...He was and is light years a head of all producers in ROCK with out him it would of been BEATLES Who? He was and is the true sound master of the Beatles..

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 10.14.08 @ 07:27am


Cheesecrop

I listen to Oasis, The Strokes, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Radiohead, Jet, The Beatles, Coldplay, Raconteurs, Nirvana, Jimi Hendrix and Yes. I like Metallica, and lot of club music. I used to listen to Soundgarden, The Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, Blur and maybe I will get back into them. Right now I am into Pink Floyds "Piper and the Gates of Dawn" and even though it sounds dated it's my favorite album at the moment.

When it comes to the Beatles for me and my mates it's from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road. Many people like the Beatles psychedelic and harder edge music. In reality many wish it was more "Helter Skelter" and less "She Loves You". Led Zeppelin has a lot of followers.

Who are my main influences it's the later Beatles, Hendrix and Led Zeppelin. Most of my friends who play music are either influenced or somewhat influenced by the Beatles.

The Backstreet Boys they were popular 8 years ago but are they still selling records no? These things sort of weed out in time. How many acts from the 60's and 70'S still huge amount of records? The answer is the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.

Posted by Tyler on Tuesday, 10.14.08 @ 08:16am


I love the Beatles and they have influenced Radiohead if you hear tracks like "Paraniond Andriod" and "Karma Police". The Beatles mainstreamed so many things in pop music like backward vocals, looping, feedback, drone, avant pop, progressive pop, British Rock at least in North America and they are still very influential directly.

Some might say what about Elvis of Chuck Berry. Please let's be honest how many bands are really playing fifties rock and roll?

Here are two songs that I feel revolutionized Modern Rock and Pop Music.

"I Feel Fine"- first rock song that combines feedback, distortion, and guitar riff as its central theme. About 90% of all rock songs today have that.

"Tomorrow Never Knows"- electronic music, sampling, looping, processed vocals, backward music, drone and repeated syncopated drum beats is basically the blueprint for various genres of music.



Posted by Karmapolice on Friday, 10.24.08 @ 06:31am


""I Feel Fine"- first rock song that combines feedback, distortion, and guitar riff as its central theme. About 90% of all rock songs today have that."

So I take you've never listened to "You Really Got Me"?

""Tomorrow Never Knows"- electronic music, sampling, looping, processed vocals, backward music, drone and repeated syncopated drum beats is basically the blueprint for various genres of music."

And I'm sure they were very grateful to Edgar Varese for pioneering the majority of those techniques for them.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 10.24.08 @ 07:05am


David-

Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Aerosmith, and Black Sabbath are better then Guns N' Roses.

Posted by Mike on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 13:43pm


So I take you've never listened to "You Really Got Me"?

Really, Liam listen to what Karm said. Its not really incorrect is it. "I Feel Fine" the combination of feedback, distortion on start and the guitar riff are common elements of Hard Rock. There is no feedback on "You Really Got Me" is there. What really ironic the Kinks "I Need You" in 1965 starts off with a introductory feedback like in tribute to "I Feel Fine'

And I'm sure they were very grateful to Edgar Varese for pioneering the majority of those techniques for them.

So what Liam do you think Jimi Hendrix invented distortion, or the Velvet Underground invent drone or feedback. Did the Rolling Stones invent a recurring guitar riff. Every genre has combinations of elements that were from the past.

Ok you can't accept the concept of combining sampling,looping, and a repetitive drum and bass line thats on "Tomorrow Never Knows" is basically common in Modern Music. Though one thing was invented with the Beatles insistance and that's Automatic Double Tracking, which is a common recording technique of pop music.




Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 14:24pm


Many people would say that one of the first rock recordings ever - "Rocket 88" (1951) by Jackie Brenston - is the pioneer of distorted guitar. From what I understand the amplifier was damaged when it fell off the back of a truck (Ike Turner's, I think), and a pre-Elvis Sam Phillips wadded tissue paper into the speaker cone, producing a sound that was listenable, but at the same time slightly fuzzed out.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 17:45pm


"There is no feedback on "You Really Got Me" is there."

...You have to be kidding on that one. You have listened to the song, right? It's got about five times more prevalent distortion than "I Feel Fine."

"So what Liam do you think Jimi Hendrix invented distortion, or the Velvet Underground invent drone or feedback. Did the Rolling Stones invent a recurring guitar riff."

Use some question marks and maybe I'll answer your questions.

"Ok you can't accept the concept of combining sampling,looping, and a repetitive drum and bass line thats on "Tomorrow Never Knows" is basically common in Modern Music."

Find me a quotation and I'll bite. Somehow, though, I doubt you're aware of anything above maybe 5% of "Modern Music."

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 10.28.08 @ 09:51am


Liam simple is there feedback on "You Really Got Me" and the answer mate there is no feedback on "You Really Got Me" No one is disputing their is distortion on "You Really Got Me' but there is no feedback. If you want to hear some real dirty distortion that predates the Kinks go listen to the Beatles live version of "Money (Thats What I Want)live in Sweden 1963.


Think Hip-Hop Started in the Bronx? Ha! Rappers Give
Props to the Notorious Beatles

www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,588111,00.html

50 Most Influential Dance Records of All Times Muzik Magazine

50 Most Influential Dance Records of All Times
1) The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" (EMI 1966)
(Revolver L.P.) www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/muzik.htm
Every idea ever used in dance music exists in this song. The first track recorded for the epochal Revolver L.P., Tomorrow Never Knows (the title lifted from the Tibetan Book of the Dead) was an acid-soaked masterpiece of prime psychedelia. Distorted guitars, Lennon's treated vocals, endless overdubs and the backwards drum loops all prefigure in some way the idea of sampling technology, while the group's interest in transcendental meditation - letting yourself be transported, disorientated, tripped out lies at the heart of everyone's club experiences. Recorded amazingly, only three years after the saccharine pop of She Loves You, this is untouchable genius.
The Chemical Brothers, The Beta Band




Posted by Karma Police on Tuesday, 10.28.08 @ 10:32am


Karm certainly raises some interesting points of view on the Beatles. The Beatles did not invent backward music. That does not mean they were not influential or innovative.

The Kinks did not invent distortion or feedback yet what they did with it was innovative.Its no different in what the Beatles did with looping or backward music.

Page, Clapton and Hendrix were not the first to play the electric guitar are they considered less influential because they were not the first to play the electric guitar. Some people here honestly need to open their eyes.





Posted by Modern79Rocker on Friday, 10.31.08 @ 08:19am


hello, thanks authors. exellent post

Posted by cialis on Friday, 10.31.08 @ 14:02pm


Hey Roy Artelo. We don't need your spamming

Posted by FitzDy on Friday, 11.7.08 @ 17:05pm


If John McCain did not pick Sarah Palin as vice president and George Bush did not do that bad as president then yeah probably McCaine would probably win.

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, 11.11.08 @ 09:21am


I have changed my tune on the Beatles. I always knew they were a huge influence on Modern Music. I have now gotten to like their harmonies and chord sequencies. think Bacharach or Jobim - but which was not considered all that 'hip' to a pop/rock audience because it was cloaked in the sort of string drenched arrangements associated with 'easy listening/MOR'.

One of The Beatles successes from around '63-64 was to bring some of those more complex chord sequences into pop/rock whilst keeping the sense of being a pop/rock group. They were, of course, quickly emulated, leading to the rich period of music that stretched to the early/mid-70s. Harmonic adventurousness was one of the qualities jetisoned by the back-to-basics movement that took control at that point. The later group who most effectively, to my mind, exploited some of the Beatles experiments were XTC.

I really admire how they managed to use influences that were not really not common in rock music and still to be able to be very pop. I have to agree "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a great example of Avant-Pop with very up front drum 'n' bass sound. Wow using samples with up a up front drum 'n' bass sound. I wonder if anyone knew this would be the sound over 40 years ago.





Posted by ModernRocker79 on Wednesday, 11.12.08 @ 12:05pm


There is news the Beatles will be releasing the 14 minute unreleased track "Carnival of Light". Wonder what people here think about that?

Posted by Kahutz on Tuesday, 11.18.08 @ 13:23pm


This song being released all depends on Ringo and the widows of John and George. Supposedly it was a truly experimental track at the time. I think any release of unheard material by the Beatles cannot be a bad thing, even if the track sucks. It just gives additional insight into what they were doing at the time. Their images certainly were controlled a bit, so it might be interesting to hear what they were doing when they let their hair down.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 11.18.08 @ 13:56pm


I know I would like to hear this, if only to see how far out it really is. Question is, how experimental are we talking here? And for that matter will the leap forward be something great or a disappointment? If it sounds like Gary Numan or A Flock of Seagulls, that's one thing... for 1968? 69? whenever this is coming from. I'd hate to think this was the musical version of "Mystery of the Wax Museum", and have the hype lead to a partial letdown.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 11.18.08 @ 17:47pm


Cheesie...so what's wrong with a Flock Of Seagulls???? I woke up many a morning when my hair was longer looking just like that...ROFL!!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 11.18.08 @ 18:42pm


My friend say's the Stones are better then the Beatles. I think it's bull but what do you think?

Posted by Mike on Thursday, 11.20.08 @ 19:21pm


If you like Psych or Progressive Rock I think you will be more likely to like the Beatles. The Beatles are great songwriters of pop and rock music, as well as being an important act in the introduction of world music and avant-garde composition styles to the mainstream.

If you like rootsy music the Rolling Stones would be the choice. The Stones are also great songwriters of pop and rock music as well. They seemed to be more influenced by the Beatles. Like Led Zeppelin I don't think either band is that innovative.

Posted by Kahutz on Thursday, 11.20.08 @ 22:07pm


If you like rootsy music the Rolling Stones would be the choice. The Stones are also great songwriters of pop and rock music as well. They seemed to be more influenced by the Beatles. Like Led Zeppelin I don't think either band is that innovative.


Posted by Kahutz on Thursday, 11.20.08 @ 22:07pm
--------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily innovative, but influential - Stones

More influential than many realize - Zeppelin

The Stones will always remain the gold standard for a certain style of blues-based hard rock. Lots of people complain that they never did anything to move beyond it. Whose to say that's necessary though? If you follow the Stones, they most closely resemble a quarterback who sits in the pocket knowing full well he can move if he wants to. The Stones tried a little country, a little world musc, a little disco. Even though they sit in the pocket permanently after a while, you get a body of work that includes "Paint It Black', Honky Tonk Women", and "Miss You", which if you played them back to back would sound like a very experimental outfit, rather than a plodding, predictable blues act.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 06:14am


Posted by Kahutz on Thursday, 11.20.08 @ 22:07pm
--------------------------------------------------
I'm doing this in two stages because I want to split Stones & Zep.

Zep was innovative, but in a way few think about. It all has to do w/song structure. Think about it this way, if you might. None of the Beatles were master musicians, but all were very good. That, combined w/the ability to structure a song correctly, put them over the top. On the flip side you've got Cream, 3 staggering musicians who, when they got together and were on the same page, could kick anybody's butt. Problem is they were very rarely on the same page. With Zeppelin, you got the best of both worlds, namely a kick-*** guitarist and three very good musicians in the deal, all of whom new how to build a song structure wise. For me it's the reason why even stuff like "Fool in the Rain" projects as heavy; you knew if someone messed w/them they could tap into a stockpile of plutonium grade riffs and blow everybody's *** away. Zeppelin gave heavy bands a whole other sense of breathing room to work with.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 06:27am


"With Zeppelin, you got the best of both worlds, namely a kick-*** guitarist and three very good musicians in the deal, all of whom new how to build a song structure wise." -Cheesecrop

Most of their song structures were stolen from earlier blues artists and credit wasn't even given.

Posted by prognosticator on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 09:56am


prognosticator, you are a tough critic! we are talking about rock songs, aren't we? (not classical sonatas.) its true Led Zeppelin ripped off other artists, most notably Willie Dixon. and Dixon collected handsomely for it out of court. still, as a teenager back in 1969/70 it was all new to me. and I had not heard anyone quite like Led Zeppelin, never. they sure didn't sound much like Willie Dixon, not that I would have known.
and speaking of Cream (Cheesecrop), Clapton gladly cops to using Robert Johnson's stuff - "Crossroads", "Sweet Home Chicago", etc. - but where did Johnson get the stuff in the first place? he 'borrowed' at least some of it!
go ahead and knock Led Zeppelin for plagiarism if you want, but nonetheless when they arrived on the scene, they blew folks minds with a fresh sound.

Posted by benny on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 11:12am


The Pope and the Vatican have finally forgiven John and the boys for the comments which were made in 1966 "We are bigger than Jesus".

Now isn't that special.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 07:39am


I did not put alot of thought into it but heres my top 30 bands (no paticulear order):

1. AC/DC
2. Led Zeppelin
3. Jimi Hendrix Experience
4. Black Sabbath
5. Def Leopard
6. Boston
7. Queen
8. Eddie Van Halen
9. Creed
10. Guns N' Roses
11. Black Crowes
12. Montey Crue
13. Iron Maiden
14. Nazareth
15. Jefferson Airplane
16. Papa Roach
17. Yardbids
18. Rolling Stones
19. Styx
20. The Who
21. The Sex Pistols
22. The Beatles
23. Nirvada
24. Buckethead
25. Lnyrd Sknrd
26. The Scorpians
27. The Sky Liners
28. Metallica
29. Aerosmith
30. The Stooges

Posted by Mike on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 14:07pm


Cream and Hendrix were really the pioneers they did basically everything Led Zeppelin did earlier.

Here I would cover the Beatles vs the Rolling Stones.

The Beatles covered a lot more styles than The Rolling Stones, from some of the most famous and infamous pop songs of all time, psychadelic rock, proto-prog rock, world music and even soundcollages through Lennons heavy avant-garde influences.

The Rolling Stones stressed the blues and when they bracnched out they were playing catch up to the Beatles. The Beatles were more experimental without losing their sense of melody and strange chord progressions in rock music. You always here the term Beatlesque and never hear the term Rolling Stonesque.




Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 16:15pm


Well something must be wrong with me Kahutz, because I've never heard the term Beatlesque.

Posted by Guoguo on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 19:38pm


Hey Mike? I'm really hoping that that list was a joke. Styx? Styx? Styx should never be on any list EVER. Styx is awful, and The Beatles should top every list of "The Greatest Artist of All Time". Because duh? The Beatles influenced more people than the bible. They covered just about every genre, and did all of it well. They never came out with a bad album (Yellow Submarine doesn't count). Don't ever put styx on a list like that again, and don't put Creed, or Scorpions, or any of those bands who are awful. The Beatles should top it, top it everytime. You can argue, but you'd be wrong.

Posted by Calzone on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 14:30pm


I'm Making This Because Some People can't make Credible Lists.

1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. Led Zeppelin
4. The Jimi Hendrix Experience.
5. The Beach Boys
6. Bob Dylan
7. The Who
8. The Velvet Underground
9. The Byrds
10. Chuck Berry
11. Elvis Presely
12. Pink Floyd
13. Cream
14. The Kinks
15. The Grateful Dead
16. James Brown
17. Marvin Gaye
18. Otis Redding
19. Stevie Wonder
20. The Doors
21. David Bowie
22. The Eagles
23. Billy Joel
24. The Clash
25. The Sex Pistols
26. The Ramones
27. The Stooges
28. Queen
29. Bruce Springsteen
30. Neil Young
31. Lynyrd Skynyrd
32. U2
33. R.E.M
34. Micheal Jackson
35. The Band
36. Simon and Garfunkel
37. Prince
38. The Pixies
39. Aerosmith
40. AC/DC
41. Black Sabbath
42. ABBA
43. Roxy Music
44. The Jam
45. The Smiths
46. Sonic Youth
47. Nirvana
48. Metallica
49. Elivis Costello
50. Joy Division
51. Run DMC
52. Beastie Boys
53. The Police
54. Public Enemy
55. Van Halen
56. Elton John
57. Madonna
58. Red Hot Chili Peppers
59. The Smashing Pumpkins
60. Pavement
61. Eminem
62. Radiohead
63. Fleetwood Mac
64. Talking Heads
65. Bob Marley
66. Oasis
67. Dr. Dre
68. Rage Against the Machine
69. The Stone Roses
70. The Zombies
71. The Yardbirds
72. Crosby, Stills, and Nash
73. CCR
74. Jefferson Airplane
75. Steve Miller Band
76. The White Stripes
77. Coldplay
78. The Strokes
79. Spoon
80. Arcade Fire
81. Guns N Roses
82. Motley Crue
83. Pearl Jam
84. Nine Inch Nails
85. ZZ Top
86. The Damned
87. New Order
88. Green Day
89. Interpol
90. OutKast
91. Modest Mouse
92. The Bee Gees
93. Rod Stewart
94. Buffalo Springfield
95. Sam Cook
96. Aretha Franklin
97. Jeff Beck Group
98. The Allman Brothers Band
99. Blur
100.Stevie Ray Vaughn
101. Patti Smith
102. Deep Purple


Obviously there is a lot more, but that's the basic outline of the Greatest Artists of All Time. Also, I kind of listed as artists came to my mind, so this is completely not in any order. These are just the greatest artists of all time. And, I would like too see other people do this, too see your opinions, adding and subtracting what you see fit.

Posted by Calzone on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 15:01pm


Calzone...Someone of a different age could make a list, and half of your list would be omitted. Without Elvis, Chuck Berry probably wouldn't have gotten a lot of airplay. A lot of people would argue that, but it's a fact. He's always going to be in the top 2-3. When you're talking the "greatest of all time", that is really a mouthful...I wouldn't even attempt to come up with a list like that.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 15:15pm


Calzone -

In RE: Your List

What Gitar said!

You did hit a fair amt. of targets though


To the fine ladies & gents of this board, let me toss this one out there. We all know how the Beatles are considered to be the originators of what is termed "world music" these days. I got to thinking that perhaps this might be an error. Shouldn't Dick Dale have that honor? After all, his surf guitar incorporated Middle Eastern arrangements before the Beatles became popular.

Good Call/Bad Call on this one?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:24pm


. We all know how the Beatles are considered to be the originators of what is termed "world music" these days. I got to thinking that perhaps this might be an error. Shouldn't Dick Dale have that honor? After all, his surf guitar incorporated Middle Eastern arrangements before the Beatles became popular. Call/Bad Call on this one?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:24pm

Not a bad call but ..Bosa Nova, rock Cajun rock { Calypso rock .. years before Dick.. Nice try..lol

Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:55pm


ot a bad call but ..Bosa Nova, rock Cajun rock { Calypso rock .. years before Dick.. Nice try..lol

Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:55pm
Also Cha Cha Cha and Mexican rock.. all came out wave before Dick...
Surfs UP RU..?

Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:59pm


what do you mean half the list would be omitted? Which Half, the Older ones or Newer Ones? Either Way, The New Artist I don't think could be ommitted is Radiohead. And The Older artist is Obviously Elvis.

Posted by Calzone on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 21:21pm


Calzone...I guess it depends on who you're asking...that's how subjective this all is. When it comes down to it, it's just the members of the committee's "opinion", too.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 07:05am


k, i'm asking you gitarzan. Who should be ommitted?

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 15:42pm


Calzone...consider that I'm about as old as R&R. Bands like Radiohead and the White Stripes are very good, but they really haven't withstood the test of time. Outside of the originators (which Run-DMC were early, but not really originators) such as Grandmaster Flash, Gil-Scott Heron, Curtis Blow, etc..., I don't know that there's a lot of rappers that will be remembered 25 years from now. Over the years, there's been so many "next best thing"s that you'd have trouble counting them all...bands that initially come on like gangbusters...then nothing. If you would've asked this question 30 years ago, bands like the Knack would've most assuredly been on it.

Your list is good, no doubt. Like I said, I really don't know that I could put together a list or, outside of the top 10, know what order to put them in.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 16:07pm


Are we jumping back onto the top bands of all time game again? My ears hear the urge for rankings again. Calzone drops a list that he claims is off the top of his head, but asks for comments. You got me here, so I'll make the first move. In order to do this, everyone has to be willing to stay in one place (like the Beatles page here). I'll post 10 names from the 50's through to today from each decade. Anyone interested in this is welcome to agree or disagree. I'll not put them in order - YET. Each day we can move further towards a consensus as we whittle down who should be on a top 100 for this site - Providing the Site Administrator is willing to go along with an uprising amongst us natives.

50's - Elvis, Little Richard, C. Berry, B. Holly, F. Domino, J.L. Lewis, B. Diddley, Danny & the Juniors, Coasters, E. Cochran

60's - Beatles, Stones, Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Byrds, Doors, CCR, G. Dead, Sly/Family Stone

70's - Zeppelin, Sabbath, Bowie, Eagles, E. John
Chicago, Ramones, Clash, S. Pistols, F. Mac

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 16:53pm


I split this into 2 posts since large scale postings cause Spam complaints - this is an extension of the last post:

80's - Van Halen, M. Jackson, Prince, U2, REM, Def Lep, GNR, Metallica, Smiths, Replacements

90's - Nirvana, Pearl Jam, S. Pumpkins, Green Day, NIN, Radiohead, STP, AIC, Soundgarden, Oasis

00's - Coldplay, W. Stripes, Incubus, QOTSA, Linkin Park, Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, Godsmack, Disturbed, Audioslave

Yes, I Know some of this seems a might commercial, but I figure you'd have to start commercially & work your way out to get something coherent. Those are 60 acts listed there. Anyone interested in this should pick up the thread, tell me who you'd replace with whom, and tomorrow I'll note it and re-arrange what I have here. This is unless someone else wants to pick up the whole thing themselves & take over. If not, I'll try to piece it together.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 17:05pm


Cheesie...for the 50's, let me add Johnny Burnette & the Rock & Roll Trio and Gene Vincent.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 17:53pm


Well, Radiohead I think has proved too be more than "Coming Out Like Gangbusters.. then nothing". They have never came out with a bad album since Pablo Honey. They have pushed the very boundaries of what it means too make popular music an artistic statement. They've influenced countless artists, and many more will come that have been heavlily influenced by them. THEY, will stand the test of time, i believe. True, all the other "Modern" Artists have much more too prove, although The White Stripes don't have much more.

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 20:42pm


I'm liking this Cheesecrop, I'm Liking this. We come up with a consensus list, it'd be amazing. Here, Let's narrow down the top ten first, then let's go on.

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presely
3. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Bob Dylan
6. Buddy Holly
7. Led Zeppelin
8. The Beach Boys
9. The Who
10. The Velvet Underground


Agreed? Tell me any changes you want made, Cheesie and Gitarzan.

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 21:17pm


Calzone...agreed!!! Those bands are definitely headed in the right direction. I just wish there were more of them right now.

As far as your list goes...good top 10. Now is when it gets a little harder...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 21:57pm


I'm thinking 11-15 includes Jimi Hendrix, and The Byrds at least. Who do you want included in 11-15?

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 22:15pm


Zep can't be top 10. They plagiarized too many old blues tunes. Replace them with The Kinks. The Allman Brothers should be #11.

Posted by prognosticator on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 22:38pm


I don't know, I think Zeppelin deserves to be top ten. But I will put Allman Brothers somwhere 11-15, thanks Prognosticator.

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 22:39pm


11. Jimi Hendrix Experience
12. The Kinks
13. The Byrds
14. Allman Brothers Band
15. Bill Haley

What Are you thinking about that? Any Changes?

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 22:44pm


Gentlemen: With the additions you suggested I now come out w/64 bands total:

Elvis, Little Richard, C. Berry, B. Holly, F. Domino, J.L. Lewis, B. Diddley, Danny & the Juniors, Coasters, E. Cochran, R & R Trio, G. Vincent, Beatles, Stones, Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Byrds, Doors, CCR, G. Dead, Sly/Family Stone, Kinks, Allman Bros., Zeppelin, Sabbath, Bowie, Eagles, E. John, Chicago, Ramones, Clash, S. Pistols, F. Mac, Van Halen, M. Jackson, Prince, U2, REM, Def Lep, GNR, Metallica, Smiths, Replacements, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, S. Pumpkins, Green Day, NIN, Radiohead, STP, AIC, Soundgarden, Oasis, Coldplay, W. Stripes, Incubus, QOTSA, Linkin Park, Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, Godsmack, Disturbed, Audioslave

Follow this onto next post please -

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 04:51am


I opted not to rank anyone immediatly, inasmuch as I think we may wish to get 100 names here, if in fact that is how far we are going. Allow me to suggest 6 more names to bring it to an even 70 right now:

Everly Bros., Dick Dale, Deep Purple, Cocteau Twins, Beck, & Velvet Revolver

Once again, one from every decade. In addition, I have noted who suggested a top 10, + any changes wished -

Top 10 (tentatively)

1. Beatles
2. Elvis
3. C. Berry
4. R. Stones
5. B. Dylan
6. B. Holly
7. L. Zeppelin/Kinks
8. Beach Boys
9. Who
10. V. Underground

I wish not to mention 11-15 just yet - Personally I feel there is at least one band from every decade who coul be placed where the Allman's are tentatively (14), so let's not jump the gun just yet - anymore names to get us closer to 100?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:03am


How about Ray Charles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Beach Boys, Bob Marley, Little Richard, Queen, Velvet Underground, Kraftwerk, Madonna, Sam Cooke, Bruce Springsteen, Otis Redding, Neil Young, Frank Zappa, and Pink Floyd?

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:05am


Allman's could also be at #11 - sorry bout that one prognosticator -

11. J. Hendrix/Allman's
12. Kinks/?
13. Byrds
14. Allmans/?
15. B. Haley

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:06am


Got you Claw - Some have been brought up already - let me continue adding here:

Elvis, Little Richard, C. Berry, B. Holly, F. Domino, J.L. Lewis, B. Diddley, Danny & the Juniors, Coasters, E. Cochran, R & R Trio, G. Vincent, Beatles, Stones, Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Byrds, Doors, CCR, G. Dead, Sly/Family Stone, Kinks, Allman Bros., Zeppelin, Sabbath, Bowie, Eagles, E. John, Chicago, Ramones, Clash, S. Pistols, F. Mac, Van Halen, M. Jackson, Prince, U2, REM, Def Lep, GNR, Metallica, Smiths, Replacements, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, S. Pumpkins, Green Day, NIN, Radiohead, STP, AIC, Soundgarden, Oasis, Coldplay, W. Stripes, Incubus, QOTSA, Linkin Park, Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, Godsmack, Disturbed, Audioslave, Everly Bros., Dick Dale, Deep Purple, Cocteau Twins, Beck, & Velvet Revolver, Ray Charles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Kraftwerk, Madonna, Sam Cooke, Bruce Springsteen, Otis Redding, Neil Young, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Queen...

We are now at 84 & counting - if we go over 100, that's o.k., we can work it out as we go along. If anyone wants to keep counting during the day, you'll have to pick it up by yourself... I have to clear out, but I will return later this evening.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:14am


vis, Little Richard, C. Berry, B. Holly, F. Domino, J.L. Lewis, B. Diddley, Danny & the Juniors, Coasters, E. Cochran, R & R Trio, G. Vincent, Beatles, Stones, Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Byrds, Doors, CCR, G. Dead, Sly/Family Stone, Kinks, Allman Bros., Zeppelin, Sabbath, Bowie, Eagles, E. John, Chicago, Ramones, Clash, S. Pistols, F. Mac, Van Halen, M. Jackson, Prince, U2, REM, Def Lep, GNR, Metallica, Smiths, Replacements, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, S. Pumpkins, Green Day, NIN, Radiohead, STP, AIC, Soundgarden, Oasis, Coldplay, W. Stripes, Incubus, QOTSA, Linkin Park, Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, Godsmack, Disturbed, Audioslave, Everly Bros., Dick Dale, Deep Purple, Cocteau Twins, Beck, & Velvet Revolver, Ray Charles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Kraftwerk, Madonna, Sam Cooke, Bruce Springsteen, Otis Redding, Neil Young, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Queen...

We are now at 84 & counting - if we go over 100, that's o.k., we can work it out as we go along. If anyone wants to keep counting during the day, you'll have to pick it up by yourself... I have to clear out, but I will return later this evening.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:14am


OMG...
what a list Where are the Animals..Wray Link,Sandy Nelson, the Surfaris,,
and Sublime...???? I hate to say it but some of those picks are strange Heck you forgot Madonna and U2 LOL

Posted by mrxzy on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:33am


This is an impossible list, but I will give it a go. Missing artists that I clearly see without even thinking:

Queen, Aerosmith, AC/DC, King Crimson, ELP, Procul Harum, Genesis, The Stooges, NY Dolls, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, Temptations, 4 Tops, Supremes, Ike and Tina Turner, Aretha Franklin, Janis Joplin, Joy Division, The Cure, New Order, The Police, The Cars, Cheap Trick, The Yardbirds, The Animals, Lyn Skynd, T-Rex, Faith No More, Anthrax, Megadeath, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Alice Cooper, The Faces, Rod Stewart (first 4 solo albums), Guided By Voices, Blur, Motley Crue, Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Television and there are probably another couple of dozen bands that I can think of if given a few minutes. Blondie and The Talking Heads, B-52's are very important to the late 70's, early 80's Nu Wave/Pop scene. FYI - I hate the T. Heads.

Bands listed who belong there but not so high Byrds, CCR, Eagles, and several others. IMO, Fleetwood Mac is no more important than Peter Frampton.

Bands listed that I completely disagree with:

Nickelback, Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, W. Stripes, Incubus, Linkin Park, Godsmack, Fats Domino, Coldplay and a few others. Hell, I would rate Coven over some of these bands. KISS is far more important that any of those bands and I hate KISS.

I repeat, you cannot have a top 15 list without Queen. Good luck compiling your new list.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:38am


I hate to say it but some of those picks are strange Heck you forgot Madonna and U2 LOL

Posted by mrxzy on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:33am

Stand corrected you have Madonna LOL

carry on..????lol


Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 05:40am


Oooops - U2 and the Animals(thnx mrxyz), The Runaways (incl. Joan Jett and Lita Ford's solo output). Our international brothers, Scorpions, UFO and Rush. If we are going to include Madonna and M. Jackson, then you must add in ABBA (I cannot believe I just typed that). I don't see CSN & Y on your list either. Also, very important groups prior to The Beatles - 4 Seasons and Dion and the Belmonts.

It is easier to come up with a top 10 than top 100.

Only kidding about Coven, but they are certainly more important than Audioslave. You cannot have Audioslave without Rage Against the Machine (another band I hate).

More bands that just popped in my head that have more significance than many listed so far: Foo Fighters, Hanoi Rocks, Kings X, Marshall Tucker Band, James Gang, Ozzy's solo career, Janes Addiction, Santana, Smithereens, Queensryche, Zombies, Skid Row and Tesla.

I think now you have the makings of a top 200. And I am not just listing bands. All of them have far more importance to the perpetuation of the RnR than bands like Godsmack, Nickelback, Beck and others listed.

I see you did have Queen listed on the bottom of the list - sorry. I repeat, when you look at the history of RnR, Queen is more important than almost everything that followed and as important as anything before it. They were completely different. Besides, they had the greatest singer/frontman ever. There is Freddie and then there is everyone else. Morrison, Jagger, Plant and even Daltry (my personal fav) run a distant second to Freddie.

good luck Cheese!

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 06:12am


Sorry Texas - ZZ Top!

Did I see Pink Floyd on the list?

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 06:14am


You all forgot Tool, Misfits, Danzig and The Damn. You might also want to think about the Dead Kennedys, Blag Flag & M. Manson.

And for all the moaning about Steve Perry, doesn't Journey's catalogue at least bring them into the discussion? Especially when talking about Nickelback.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 06:32am


Cheesecrop, on your top 64 list, you have omitted 'The Police'. I think that's a mistake.

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 06:38am


oh don't you worry about pink floyd or the police, as long as i'm here they'll be in the top sixty. Pink Floyd will be in the top 25. It seems like you guys want to do some soul right now... so should we do it all in one swipe?

16. James Brown
17. Ray Charles
18. Aretha Franklin
19. Otis Redding
20. Marvin Gaye

Thoughts?

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 06:55am


Forgot all about Marvin Gaye - good pick-up Calzone.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 07:03am


Oh sh*t....Roxy Music

Ask Bowie, Jagger and Lou Reed.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 07:36am


I have thought hard on this top 50 as far as importance is concerned and it is in no specific order:

Beatles Hendrix Deep Purple
The Who Pink Floyd Aerosmith
The Stones The Ramones Joy Division
Yardbirds The Stooges Sex Pistols
Beach Boys Bo Didley NY Dolls
Dylan Chuck Berry Temptations
Cream Elvis Aerosmith
Queen Alice Cooper Chuck Berry
REM Led Zep Doors
Clash Black Sabbath Kinks
Pink Floyd V.U. King Crimson
The Police Metallica Supremes
Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder Bowie
Nirvana Guns and Roses Pearl Jam
The Belmonts T.P & HeartBrkers Buddy Holly
Allman Bros CSN&Y Prince
Aretha Franklin Oasis

Honorable Mention:

Ike and Tina Turner, CCR, Def Lep, Iron Maiden, AIC.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 08:36am


Oasis? Nirvana? Police? GnR? Uhhh, no.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 09:11am


This is all so...wrong...

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 09:23am


Of course it is all wrong. You could never come up with this kind of list. It is purely subjective.

By the way - we forgot 'The Band'

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 09:55am


If we're talking about "importaance" (WTF):
- Oasis are britpop which isn't important
- Nirvana are like bottom-tier grunge
- Police are one of the least important new wave bands
- GnR were hairmetal which means they CANNOT be important.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 11:06am


Didn't see any of you mention Creedence Clearwater Revival anywhere unless I missed it.

Posted by Keebord on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 11:10am


Kee....CCR is mentioned on a couple of the lists.

Oasis...I cannot say whether any one sub-genre is more important than the other. But as a band, Oasis was excellent and caused many kids to pick up the guitar for the first time.

We all know that Nirvana is not the beginnning of Grunge and they certainly were not the best of the Seattle bands, but the cards fell into place with them. And as the history of RnR is written as the years pass, they will be considered the most important of that scene.

The Police brought a fusion of other styles of music to their own and allowed a whole new listening audience to get a taste of it. Again, they dominated a scene.

GnR are not a hair metal band. And even if they were, your comment about the genre being unimportant is off-base since it did dominate a whole decade. And GnR certainly were the kings from 87-92.

Jack - you certainly can and should disagree, but you have yet to name any of your choices.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 12:00pm


"We all know that Nirvana is not the beginnning of Grunge and they certainly were not the best of the Seattle bands, but the cards fell into place with them. And as the history of RnR is written as the years pass, they will be considered the most important of that scene." - Blah

Yes, unfortunately I think your right. It's too bad really, cause I think Nirvana has been way too overrated (I'll get back to my reasoning behind this later). And I see CCR now , thanks, I didn't read carefully enough.

Posted by Keebord on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 12:04pm


k, back on TRACK of this top one hundred list thing... So, 15 - 20? Soul guys? Is that cool? Anyway, Pink Floyd has to be coming up. And I want you guys to come up with the 20-25.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:23pm


oh, and by the way. Our list, as it stands right now is

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presely
3. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Bob Dylan
6. Buddy Holly
7. Led Zeppelin
8. The Beach Boys
9. The Who
10. The Velvet Underground
11. The Jimi Hendrix Experience
12. The Kinks
13. The Byrds
14. The Allman Brothers Band
15. Bill Haley and the Comets
16. James Brown
17. Ray Charles
18. Aretha Franklin
19. Otis Redding
20. Sly and the Family Stone (Forgetting Marvin Gaye, cause i was told too)

For you newcomers, help us out. We are making one big consensus list of the greatest artists of all time.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:29pm


The Beatles
2. Elvis Presely
3. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Bob Dylan
6. Buddy Holly
7. Led Zeppelin
8. The Beach Boys
9. The Who
10. The Velvet Underground
11. The Jimi Hendrix Experience
12. The Kinks
13. The Byrds
14. The Allman Brothers Band
15. Bill Haley and the Comets
16. James Brown
17. Ray Charles
18. Aretha Franklin
19. Otis Redding
20. Sly and the Family Stone (Forgetting Marvin Gaye, cause i was told too)

For you newcomers, help us out. We are making one big consensus list of the greatest artists of all time.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:29pm


So where is LITTLE RICHARD FATS also Ricky Nelson...???

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:43pm


I see a whole lot of stuff has come down since I was here this morning. That's all well & good, but for everyone to have a proper say in this, it will take a couple of days and at least some semblance of order. I'd like everyone interested in this to at least hear me out. I will use two posts to describe what I am saying.

What I was thinking about was choosing 10 acts every night - 1-10,11-20,21-30, onward - till we get to 100. We could hash out 10 names a night till we figured out who we wanted where. Let anyone choose up till midnight of a particular day. The next day, if yopu would like, I (or one of us) can note how the list is progressing. Since not everyone will be able to agree on who should be where (and I already see that happening here to an extent), I suggest letting everyone jointly submit lists of who they believe belongs 1-10,11-20, and so on, and whenever we have something questionable, let the dissenter state his or her viewpoint.

Follow this to next post please

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:49pm


I want to play.

Your list is very weak for true Rock and Roll bands that actually played Rock and Roll.

Top-Ten All time Rock and Roll game changers.

Buddy Holly
The Beatles
Jimi Hendrix
Led Zeppelin
Black Sabbath
Van Halen
U2
Metallica
Rush
The Ramones

Think about it.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"
Rush

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:49pm


I agree Cheesecrop, and since me and you and Dameon and
Gitarzan are really the only ones trying too collaborate, let's just listen to OUR posts, our anyone who is actually working towards this 100 list thingy, not just arguing just too argue.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 15:57pm


Actually, please disregard the last post. I have no clue if this will devolve into a senseless screaming match between us all, but at the same time I don't want to be seen as hijacking this thing. Already some folks are complaining about my choice of including modern acts, I see. I already disagree w/some of the top 20 suggested, but I'll wait & see what happens. SOMEONE HAS TO COME UP W/SOME KIND OF ORDER

IF NO ONE WANTS TO, I HAVE AN IDEA, BUT WILL NOT PROPOSE IT TILL I KNOW I WON'T BE YELLED AT.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:00pm


My Top 10:

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Bob Dylan
6. Buddy Holly
7. The Who
8. The Beach Boys
9. Smokey Robinson and The Miracles
10. The Kinks

Posted by prognosticator on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:02pm


bro, perfect top ten. Except replace Smokey Robinson with Zeppelin, and we're good. Cheesecrop, any ideas?

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:04pm


Top Ten:

1. Beatles
2. Elvis
3. Rolling Stones
4. C. Berry
5. Zeppelin
6. B. Holly
7. B. Dylan
8. V. Underground
9. Beach Boys
10. James Brown

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:05pm


k, now let's try to mix all the lists.

Let's put zeppelin on there, because me and cheesecrop both agree on that one, but let's leave James Brown off. Um, I say Velvet Underground too, so let's put him on there. So let's try this

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presely
3. The Rolling Stones
4. Chuck Berry
5. Bob Dyaln
6. Buddy Holly
7. The Who
8. The Beach Boys
9. Led Zeppelin
10. The Velvet Underground

how bout that?

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:08pm


Not bad Calzone, not bad at all. Are you prepared to acknowledge other top 10's as well? Everyone should have a say, in the interest of all that's fair. How about letting anyone who wants to put a top 10 together do so up till midnight. Tomorrow we can look at it and see where there are differing opinions.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:11pm


k, great idea Cheesecrop. Tomorrow we'll just collaborrate all of em then?

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:12pm


Bingo. Each day we can do 10 or 20, however many you feel would be o.k. Everyone should be able to join in - I know Claw was interested when I was here this morning. Let all cast a top 10 or 20, and the next day we can hash out wherever we are.

What do you think - 10 a day or 20 a day?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:15pm


10 a day, at least for the top 50 for sure.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:18pm


Okay - Top 15 - I will try and be as objective as I can. I will start by saying my opinion of the Velvet Underground is not even in the top 25. Other than that, I think we are close. Here goes:

1)Beatles
2)Dylan
3)The Who
4)The Kinks
5)Buddy Holly
6)Chuck Berry
7)Queen
8)Hendrix
9)Cream
10)Temptations
11)Led Zep
12)Bo Didley
13)James Brown
14)Smokey and the Miracles
15)Bo Didley

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:20pm


Great. You've seen my 10 for today. If you'd like, I'll get up tomorrow morning & try to tally up everyone's votes from now till midnight. If not we'll do it tomorrown evening.

Do you want me to do it - yea or nea?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:22pm


do it cheesecrop, it you want too. That way we can figure this out faster.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:25pm


Do it, but keep the V.U. off of that list.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:31pm


ha ha ha ha, we'll see dameon. And My Top ten is already up there too cheesie.

Posted by Calzone on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:33pm


Cool. Taking into account everyone who has suggested a band in anyone of the top 10 spots, this is what it looks like at 6:30 P.M.

1. Beatles
2. Elvis / B. Dylan
3. R.Stones/Who
4. C. Berry/Kinks
5. B. Dylan/B. Holly
6. B. Holly/C. Berry
7. Who/Queen
8. Beach Boys/Hendrix
9. Cream/Led Zep/Smokey & the Miracles
10. V. Underground/Temptations/Kinks

This covers the combined postings of Calzone 7 myself, Dameon, & prognosticator. I know that Space Trucker put down a list, but it has no #. I will sort out everyone's list & we can thrash it out tomorrow, but PLEASE enumerate for my sake. I'll coun anyone's top 10 till midnight & add it up tomorrow. It will be sitting there tomorrow for you to see, 7 anyone w/a bone to pick can air it out then.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:39pm


One final thing - all those 7's are "&" signs - apparently in all this excitement I lacked the dexterity to hit the shift key.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:41pm


I make these lists on a regular basis, but I'm rarely satisfied with them. My ten greatest artists (for now):

1. The Beatles
2. Bob Dylan
3. Chuck Berry
4. Ray Charles
5. The Rolling Stones
6. James Brown
7. The Beach Boys
8. Elvis Presley
9. Jimi Hendrix
10. Bob Marley & The Wailers

And even right now I'm wondering why I didn't include Buddy Holly, Aretha Franklin or The Who.

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:52pm


Beatles
The Who
Bo Didley
Led Zeppelin
The Stooges
Beach Boys
Black Sabbath
Queen
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Buddy Holly

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:53pm


Okay...here goes;

1)Elvis
2)Beatles
3)Buddy Holly
4)Dylan
5)Little Richard
6)Led Zeppelin
7)Hendrix
8)Temptations
9)James Brown
10)Queen
11)Cream
12)Yardbirds
13)Chuck Berry
14)The Who
15)Bo Diddley
16)Johnny Burnette & the Rock & Roll Trio
17)Eddie Cochran
18)Aerosmith
19)Gene Vincent
20)The Rolling Stones

Note: I have the Stones so low simply because they never had much of an effect on me, but I won't deny their importance.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:55pm


It's cool to see the diversity in these lists. It really does go by everyone's view point, but a lot of the same names keep popping up...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 16:57pm


I've been reading everybody's list and I would like to add mine.

1.Elvis
2.Beatles
3.Chuck Berry
4.Led Zeppelin
5.Rolling Stones
6.Bob Dylan
7.Buddy Holly
8.Jimi Hendrix
9.Bruce Springsteen
10.The Who

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 18:25pm


Humor me for a minute,

Everyone that is contributing to the list take a minute or how ever long it takes and if you can choose the one band, your go to band, the one band that if it was the only rock and roll band or artist you could listen to the rest of your life, you know the desert island thing, who would you choose?

Be honest and pick the one band or artist. Just post the name of the band or artist with no comment.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 18:34pm


Simple - Beatles

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 18:41pm


Zeppelin

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 19:01pm


Beatles

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 19:25pm


I've consulted Arthur Guinness and he tells me that the Top 10 looks like this:

1 Elvis
2 Bob Dylan
3 The Beatles
4 Led Zeppelin
5 Rolling Stones
6 Jimi Hendrix
7 Kraftwerk
8 James Brown
9 The Velvet Underground
10 The Stooges

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 01:53am


FWIW, my top 10:

1) Beatles
2) Chuck Berry
3) Stones
4) Kinks
5) CCR
6) Elvis
7) Bob Dylan
8) The Who
9) Aretha Franklin
10) Led Zeppelin

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 05:41am


To anyone who voted yesterday in an attempt to come up w/a top 10, we got some major issues here. This is what it looks like right now (the #'s next to the names indicate how many votes in that particular position):

1. Beatles(7),Elvis(2)

2. Elvis(3),Dylan(3),Beatles(2),Who(1),Berry(1)

3. Stones(3),Berry(3),B.Diddley(1),B. Holly(1),Beatles(1)

4. Zep(3),Berry(2),Kinks(2),R.Charles(1),Dylan(1),Stones(1)

5. Stones(3),Dylan(2),Holly(1),Stooges(1),L.Richard(1),CCR(1)

6. B. Holly(2), Berry,J.Brown,B. Boys, Dylan,Zep,Hendrix,Elvis - all (1)

7. Who(2), Queen,B.Boys,Sabbath,Holly,Hendrix,Kraftwerk, B.Dylan - all (1)

8. B.Boys(2),Hendrix(2),Elvis,Queen,Temptations,J.Brown,Who - all (1)

See next post for #9 & 10, plus a comment or two

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 06:12am


Continuation from last post -

9. Hendrix(2), Zep,Cream,Smokey&Miracles,Springsteen,J.Brown, Velvet Underground,A. Franklin - all (1)

10. VU, Zeppelin,Temptations,Kinks,Holly,Marley,
Who,Queen,Stooges - All (1)


This is officially insane. One person cannot total all this up & at the same time be responsible for everyone's votes unless it is the Site Administrator. When this was talked about several months ago a few people suggested asking the Amdministrator for something like this. I recommend either asking for an arbitrary figure to assist (namely the Admin.) or else just stopping here. That is, unless someone else thinks they can handle the vote tally - & it's only going to get crazier as we go further down the list.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 06:23am


You need someone to write up a quick program in Access which will allow you to enter band name and vote and it will do the rest. Unfortunately, I am computer stupid when it comes to that.

It was a good try Cheese. I think what we have come up with is that 7 out of 10 dentists recommend Dentyne and The Beatles. We have also learned that at least in the minds of many, the 60's still rule the roost.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 06:37am


1. The Beatles
2. Chuck Berry
3. Bob Dylan
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Elvis Presely
6. Led Zeppelin
7. Buddy Holly
8. The Who
9. Jimi Hendrix Experience
10. The Beach Boys


:) That's the top ten

Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 08:39am


Are you sure? With my calculations, this list came out. Same names, different order:

1. The Beatles (96 points, 10 votes)
2. Elvis Presley (65 points, 8 votes)
3. Bob Dylan (59 points, 9 votes)
4. Chuck Berry (52 points, 7 votes)
5. The Rolling Stones (49 points, 7 votes)
6. Led Zeppelin (35 points, 7 votes)
7. Buddy Holly (34 points, 7 votes)
8. The Who (29 points, 6 votes)
9. Jimi Hendrix (19 points, 6 votes)
10. The Beach Boys (17 points, 5 votes)

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 08:57am


I see some took the time to try and add it all up. Claw, very interested in how you came up w/points total. Did you use baseball mvp voting system for points?

I have to say that I jumped the gun on the issue of totaling things up. It CAN be done, if you would like to do it, all the way to 100. I was honestly overwhelmed initially, but part of this was due to oversleeping this morning. I had a chance to copy down everyone's list up to the Paul in KY post. This is what I came out with, in terms strictly of how many votes were cast for each person:

1. Beatles - 9
2. Dylan - 7
3. Elvis - 6
Stones - 6
Berry - 6
Holly - 6
Zeppelin - 6
Hendrix - 6
9. Who - 5
10. Beach Boys - 4

Hence my interest in finding out how you got a point system, Claw. I have to clear off, but I will be back by 6:30. It can be done, & if anyone wants to really go ahead and try 11-20, I AM UP FOR IT. Sorry for being overwhelmed this morning.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 15:11pm


I counted the votes from prognosticator, Calzone, Dameon, blah-blah-blah (assuming his list of ten artists was a ranking), Gitarzan, Brian, DarinRG, Paul in KY, yours and mine.

It's somewhat like the the mvp. #1 gets ten points, #2 nine, #3 eight etc. The Beatles were first on seven "ballots", second on two, and third on one, which means they got 7*10+2*9+1*8=96 points. That's the way I would make such a list. I'm interested in the way Calzone calculated it.

I have a 11-20 list ready, but I'd only post it if everyone agrees this is the cumulative top ten.

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 15:39pm


Claw-

I'm in if that's the way you want to do it. Whoever's interested, feel free to post 11-20.

Here is my 11-20:

11. James Brown
12. CCR
13. The Velvet Underground
14. Little Richard
15. The Ramones
16. Link Wray
17. Black Sabbath
18. Van Halen
19. Pearl Jam
20. Cream

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 16:49pm


Okay! Off course, the leftovers from my first top ten will end up on top of this list.

My 11-20:

11. Ray Charles
12. James Brown
13. Bob Marley & The Wailers
14. Aretha Franklin
15. Little Richard
16. Queen
17. David Bowie
18. The Velvet Underground
19. Sam Cooke
20. Bruce Springsteen

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 17:32pm


Cheese & Claw...you already have my 11-20, so I'll wait for everyone to catch up. This is good stuff....

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 17:56pm


Do you want us to give you our 11-20 based on our own top ten or based on the consensus top 10 of this little vote from yesterday? Did I spell that right?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 18:14pm


based on the consensus list... Dameon.

11. The Kinks
12. The Velvet Underground
13. The Bryds
14. Pink Floyd
15. Cream
16. The Doors
17. The Clash
18. The Ramones
19. The Sex Pistols
20. David Bowie.

Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 18:36pm


Gitarzan, if I'm correct, your top 11-20 would look like this:

11. Little Richard
12. The Temptations
13. James Brown
14. Queen
15. Cream
16. The Yardbirds
17. Bo Diddley
18. Johnny Burnette & The R&R Trio
19. Eddie Cochran
20. Aerosmith

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 18:49pm


Looks good to me...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 19:30pm


Based on this top 10 list:

1. Beatles - 9
2. Dylan - 7
3. Elvis - 6
4. Stones - 6
5. Berry - 6
6. Holly - 6
7. Zeppelin - 6
8. Hendrix - 6
9. Who - 5
10.Beach Boys - 4
-------------------------------------------------
11. Queen
12. Cream
13. Bo Didley
14. Temptations
15. Black Sabbath
16. Aerosmith
17. Pink Floyd
18. The Clash
19. The Yardbirds
20. Deep Purple

Posted by Gameon on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 19:32pm


Oooops - cannot even spell my name.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 19:33pm


Damn - I am slow tonight - I missed the Kinks. Forget my last post.


11. Queen
12. Kinks
13. Cream
14. Bo Didley
15. Temptations
16. Black Sabbath
17. Aerosmith
18. Pink Floyd
19. The Clash
20. The Yardbirds

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 19:44pm


here is my 11-20

11.Black Sabbath
12.CCR
13.The Doors
14.Johnny Cash
15.Jerry Lee Lewis
16.Beach Boys
17.Aretha Franklin
18.Van Halen
19.James Brown
20.Queen

Posted by Brian on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 20:43pm


Continuing from my list as originally compiled, no rewrites for me....

11. Little Richard
12. The Grateful Dead
13. Frank Zappa
14. The Allman Brothers Band
15. Ottis Redding
16. The Velvet Underground/Nico
17. The Stooges
18. Pink Floyd
19. The Doors
20. The Temptations

Posted by prognosticator on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 20:53pm


Here be my 11 - 20:

11. Bo Diddely
12. Marvin Gaye
13. The Yardbirds
14. Allman Brother's Band
15. Otis Redding
16. Cream
17. Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
18. Sly & the Family Stone
19. The Doors
20. Pink Floyd

My thanks to all the contributors.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 05:41am


The following is the full updating of our list, w/points placed next to the 11-20 names:

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Bob Dylan
4. Chuck Berry
5. The Rolling Stones
6. Led Zeppelin
7. Buddy Holly
8. The Who
9. Jimi Hendrix
10. The Beach Boys
11. Little Richard - 33
12. James Brown - 29
13. Cream - 26
14. The Velvet Underground - 25
15. Queen - 23
16. Bo Diddley - 21
17. The Kinks - 19
18. Black Sabbath - 19
19. Creedence Clearwater Revival - 18
20. The Doors - 17

The tie-breaker between the Kinks & Sabbath went to the Kinks - more #1 & #2 votes. Some who received over 10 pts. but fell short included A. Franklin, R. Charles, P. Floyd, Temptations, Yardbirds, Allman Bros., & O. Redding.

continued on next post -

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 12:05pm


continuation from last post -

I think everyone knew who the first 10-20 were going to be, though there are a few suprises. Let me ask this of anyone who's been part of this already: now that we've gotten out of the obvious top 20, is this thing more of an Innovation & Influence sort of list, or are we going w/a gut feeling vibe here?

I've got to be honest, it might affect how this thing turns out. I'm definitely tossing in 21-30 tonight, but I'd just like to hear how a few of you are viewing this. So far it's all pretty cool.

Anyone else who wants in, just look at the list and do a little mental computation. Who would you say belongs in a top 100 rock artist list, minus who's already listed? 21-30 tonight.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 12:23pm


Cheese - I think it is a combination of all. I think almost everyone is attempting to be somewhat objective, no matter how difficult that is. The surprise I see so far is how well regarded the V.U. is. Although I agree that they are a top 100 band, I certainly don't see them as a top 15. Anyway - here is my next list.

21) Temptations
22) Aerosmith
23) Pink Floyd
24) The Clash
25) Yardbirds
26) Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
27) The Ramones
28) Allman Bros
29) REM
30) NY Dolls

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 12:51pm


I'll drop my 21 - 30 list too:

21. James Brown
22. Buddy Holly
23. Bob Marley & the Wailers
24. The Byrds
25. The Temptations
26. The Animals
27. Lynyrd Skynrd
28. Janis Joplin
29. The Eagles
30. The Police

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 13:13pm


21. Otis Redding
22. The Clash
23. David Bowie
24. The Eagles
25. Aerosmith
26. The Grateful Dead
27. The Ramones
28. U2
29. The Sex Pistols
30. Bill Haley and the Comets

Posted by Calzone on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 15:21pm


Replace "Otis Redding" With "The Bryds" :)

Posted by Calzone on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 15:22pm


oh, and too cheesecrops question? This is definitely an objective list for me.. If it was just my opinion, Radiohead would number 2. :)

Posted by Calzone on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 15:27pm


21. Ray Charles
22. Bob Marley
23. Aretha Franklin
24. David Bowie
25. Sam Cooke
26. Bruce Springsteen
27. Kraftwerk
28. U2
29. Marvin Gaye
30. Madonna

Posted by The_Claw on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 16:46pm


here is my 21-30

21.Little Richard
22.Roy Orbison
23.Elton John
24.Cream
25.Metallica
26.Bill Haley
27.Temptations
28.Everly Brothers
29.Kinks
30.Stevie Wonder

Posted by Brian on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 16:50pm


Gentlemen -

Some of us are listing people who are already in the top 20. Paul in Ky listed James Brown & Buddy Holly, & the Brian listed Little Richard, Cream, & the Kinks. I have no clue how to figure this out. If you could come back before tomorrow afternoon (like before 12:30 or 1:00 preferably) & change them so there are no overlaps, It'd be real cool.

21. Ramones
22. T-Rex
23. Van Halen
24. Pearl Jam
25. Sly & the Family Stone
26. the Byrds
27. David Bowie
28. Yardbirds
29. Nirvana
30. Santana

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 17:24pm


Cheesie...I was thinking that might happen. Some people haven't included some of those people on their list yet...which is what makes this so interesting. We might consider going low/high...a 1 means a number one vote, 20 means they were 20th on a list...low score is number one. Doing it this way, you're going to get to 100 a lot faster. Not trying to complicate things, but that might help it be more perpetual. People's list would be incomplete without some of those names. Your thoughts...?

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 17:36pm


Gitar -

I'm not sure I'm following what your saying. I probably know what it is, but if you could show me what you mean.

If you could paste the already decided top 20 & then show me the low/high method, it would be real cool.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 17:39pm


Okay...readers digest version...take everyone's top ten list (you will most assuredly have more that ten names...which is cool), add up their positions, and start from there. There will be some rearranging at first, but not a lot. As everyone's 11-20, 21-30, etc... comes in. just add the names that weren't there before and give them a tally, and if Elvis gets a 38 and it knocks him down a notch, then that's just the way it goes...you'll be at 100 before you know it. Keep track of the residual (101 and lower) in case they displace someone along the way. That way, there is a true concensus.

It is very important that everyone remains objective as possible...that's why I made the notation about the Stones. The point isn't who anyone's "favorite" artist is...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 17:52pm


Why not just tally the entire 100 using the same method already used for the top 10. Give everyone's #1 a score of 100 and so on down to a score of 1 for #100 for each person's top 100 list , then tally up the scores for each artist and rank the top 100 accordingly. I think that's the more scientific way. (It's also a HELL of a lot of tabulating, so I understand if nobody wants to do it!)

Posted by prognosticator on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 17:53pm


Cheesecrop, I have it the list is by "importance." Somewhere I know there was an honest attempt to add some soul to your list, but here's a name that trumps almost all outside the top 10. The King of Pop himself, Michael Jackson. Yes, he trumps many of your listed stars in terms of importance. I put him up at a level with Smokey Robinson. Reason is his dance artistry/originality changed and extended the soul and r&b genres. Sorry, but he must needs be on the list.

Posted by Worm on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 17:55pm


Worm...if you want him on the list, then you need to get involved. If no one lists him, then he won't get ranked.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 18:02pm


I'll be honest Gitar, I'm just not having a good night in terms of brain cells. You probably fully understand what you're talking about, but I am drawing a complete blank. It's not your fault at all, though, it's all on me! Personally I like what we have now, or else prognosticator's take on it.

Worm, jump in on it if you'd like - at some point Jackson will make it, cause I know I have a vote set aside for him.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 18:06pm


Gitar -

I am really sorry. I think I might have a clue as to what you are getting at. Don't get freaked out, cause you know it as well as I do that we all have nights where were thick as a brick, as Tull might have said. This is my night.

Please give me a 21-30 list like we were, and tomorrow I may be able to get a better grasp. I think (operative word here) I know what you're getting at - for instance, I said that Brian & Paul in KY repeated what they wrote. With the method you suggested, should I just ignore this factor and total up where everyone else's vote came in at?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 18:23pm


I was trying to figure out a way to devise a way to do it on Excel. If you took everyone's top 10 there would be 21 names on it, and number one would be Ray Charles with one 4th place vote and Little Richard would be second with one 5th place vote. Now if no one else votes for them (highly unlikely, but ya never know) it would finish like that...which kind of brings out a flaw in that way of thinking...LOL. Maybe your way is best.


WEB ADM...any suggestions to make this easier???

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 18:24pm


Worm - as much as I acknowledge M.J. and his two important albums, Off the Wall (great album)and Thriller, he never followed up with anything useful at all. Bad had to be one of the worst follow-up albums of all time and everything after that was pure schlock. It was like he just didn't care anymore. Yes, his influence on Pop muisc after Thriller is gigantic, but I can't see me ever putting him or Madonna in the top 100. They are more visual artists than anything else and I am going purely by the actual recordings and music. I would put Duran Duran in this same category. Anyway, it is just my opinion.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 18:29pm


You guys are breaking my heart, giving no love to the Four Seasons in any of your lists. Lol. I'll suffer on through, though. We Seasons fans are used to our boys not getting any love.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 19:06pm


Philip, nobody's excluding you from jumping in - PLEASE DO SO! We're not trying to exclude anyone!

Gitar, if you think you have an easier way of doing it, or perhaps a more truthful way to get at a consensus, I would be glad to drop the ball in your court. I don't know how anyone else feels about it, but I would do so myself w/no anger, no recrimintaions, & if you wanted to start back at the beginning, I would gladly do so.

The Claw has a perfectly acceptable way of doling out points, but if there is a superior way, I am all ears...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 19:32pm


Gitarzan,

Here we go again. Look I'm not trying to be a dick but can you please make me understand what being objective about music means and that it isn't about your favorites.

Break it down for me and tell me how to pick artists and bands for a list of all-times greats without involving favorites.

If I don't like the music a band or artist writes and records then how do I put them on my list? Because someone said or wrote that they are great?

I just don't understand what being objective about music means.

Again this is not to start an argument I truly would like your explanation regarding your statement.

Thanks,
SpaceTrucker

"They hung their dependant from the sky, like some heavy metal fruit"
Blue Oyster Cult

Posted by Space Trucker on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 19:41pm


Cheesecrop, I totally agree with the way The Claw did it. All I'm saying is just do it the same way for the whole 100. If you keep doing 10 at a time, it just becomes a voting contest every night instead of an objective analysis because people keep changing their lists since some of their choices have already been enshrined the previous night.

Posted by prognosticator on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 19:51pm


Space Trucker - there is no way to be 100% objective, but we can use some balance in doing this thing that we are doing. I am not a big fan of Joy Division, but I clearly understand their overall importance to music which is why they will be in my top 100. Also, objectivity is not a perfect entity. Most here have listed The Velvet Underground very highly and I understand that. It is based on the music and what other musicians and writers have said about them. Personally, I think they were about as inconsistent of a band as you can find. I think they were more hype than substance, but I do have to understand that some who make the music that I do enjoy think the VU is very important and I have to acknowledge that. I think Mott The Hoople are very important to RnR and are in my personal top 25. But in this case, they will not make the top 100 (I think). I don't know if any of this makes sense.

if we are going to change the rulez of the game, let me know and I will start putting together a top 100 (what a headache)

I warn everyone now, Runaways, Def Leppard, Queensryche and Tesla will be on my list.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 20:20pm


Philip - there is a place on my top 100 for the Jersey Boys

Posted by dameon on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 20:27pm


Trucker...to a greater degree, I guess I'd have to put it this way, and I quote;

"Just because I don't like something means it's in bad taste."

Now, that being said, there are just some artists whose general public perception of great influence and innovation I just don't get and probably never will. It's a rare occasion, but I'll be the first to admit it does happen. Like I mentioned with the Stones (who I put at #20), I've never cared for them that much, but they're definitely a vital part of Rock history. On the other side of the fence I have Madonna, which I won't continue to beat that dead horse other than just to say my perception of her will never change...period.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 20:43pm


Cheeseman...when I looked at my formula further, the only way it would work would be to have everyone rate the same 100 artists 1-100, and I don't want to start a conundrum...LOL!!

So, Claw....

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 20:46pm


Okay Dameon, thanks for your comments about MJ. And btw, I agree w/ you about Velvet Underground, they have been way overrated - a kind of reverse snobbery thing. I've watched many videos of them and find nothing compelling about them. But now as for MJ, the two (2) albums you mentioned were not just big, they were HUGE! You even admit his influence on Pop music was "gigantic" - I count him as a Rock star as well - I've seen his exhibit at the Rock Museum annex in NYC.

Cheesecrop disregard Dameon's opinion on this, put Wacko Jacko on the list. Since I'm late coming please allow me to just submit for 21-30:

21) Temptations
22) Michael Jackson
23) Aerosmith
24) The Clash
25) Yardbirds
26) Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
27) The Ramones
28) Allman Bros
29) REM
30) Pink Floyd

Hopefully this officializes Michael Jackson as an entry.

Posted by Worm on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 21:14pm


1 Beatles
2 C. Berry
3 Little Richard
4 J Lewis
5 Elvis
6 Rolling Stones
7 James Brown
8 Ray Charles
9 Hendrix
10 Dylan
11 Roy Orbison
12 Beach Boys
13 Led Zeppelin
14 Buddy Holly
15 A Franklin
16 Dwain Eddy
17 Dion DiMucci.
18 Everly Brothers
19 Bob Marley
20 Muddy Waters
21 Patsy Cline
22The Big Bopper
23Joan Baez,
24Link Wray,
25 Cliff Richard & the Shadows,
26 Sandy Nelson
27 Kinks
28 Animals
29 Peter, Paul & Mary
30 Mama Papas
31 Monkeys
32 Byrds
33 Love
32 Fats
33 The Chiffons,
34 Sonny and Cher
35 Jefferson Airplane
36 Band
37 Cats Steven
38 Van Halen
39 Righteous Brothers
40 Brenda Lee
41 Santana
42 Cream
43 Who
44 Kingston Trio
45 Steely Dan
46 Michael Jackson
47 Nat "King" Cole
48 Roy Orbison
49 Bee Gees
50 The Staple Singers
51 Temptations
52 Supremes
53 Ike and Tina
54 Simon and Garfunkel
55 Neil Diamond
56 Eddie Cochran
57 Creedence Clearwater Revival
58 Fleetwood Mac
59 Leonard Cohen
60 The Dave Clark Five
61 Ricky Nelson
62 Earth, Wind & Fire
63 Sex Pistols
64 David Bowie
65 Elton John
66 Go Go'S
67 “Weird Al” Yankovic
68 The Doobie Brothers
69 Three Dog night
70 The Carpenters
71 Ray Stevens
72 Nirvana
73Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
74 Eagles
75 Bo Diddley
76 The Four Seasons
77 The Ronettes
78 Van Halen
79 Bobby Darin
80 The Grateful Dead
81 John Denver
82 The Paul Butterfield
83 The B-52's
84 Jethro Tull
85 Big Brother
86 Velvet Underground
87 Can Heat
88 Stray Cats
89Buffalo Springfield
90 The Village People
91 Al Cooper
92 Joe Cocker
94 Association
95 Grass Roots
96 Surfaris
97 Kingsmen
98Bobby Rydell
99 Jackie De Shannon
100 Wilson Pickett
there are real many more that should be IN

Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 21:27pm


Thanks for your comments Gitarzan and Dameon,

I would love to see a list based on favorites because to me that would prove who the greatest bands truly are based on personal feelings about a band and what they mean to someone.

But it would take 1,000's of participants if not hundreds of thousands in order to pan out, anybody want to count the votes?...LOL.

You guys are kind of doing a right brain thing with a little left brain thrown in. If Gitarzan liked the Rolling Stones as much as he does Elvis and The Beatles I guarantee you they would be much higher than 20 on his list so....objectivity out the window.

I'm sure from reading my post's in the past you realize I love straight up rock music. You would never and I mean never see Madonna, Micheal Jackson, Aretha Franklin, or Rap or Soul or Pop on my greatest Rock and Roll list.

I don't care about influence or popularity if it's not guitar driven and played with attitude it's just not Rock and Roll.

When I submitted my list to me these are the big game changers in Rock and Roll, here it is again:

1 - Buddy Holly
2 - The Beatles
3 - Jimi Hendrix
4 - Led Zeppelin
5 - Black Sabbath
6 - Rush (My personal game changer)
7 - Van Halen
8 - The Ramones
9 - Metallica
10 -U2

SpaceTrucker

"Did you ever have that feeling in your life, that someone was watching you"
Grand Funk Railroad

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 23:20pm


I'm just listing my personal top whatever. You can meld it in as an opinion or not. That's why I have listed some artists lower than what Calzone had determined was the consensus.

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 05:50am


whoa.. what happened? are we just listing our whole shabang top one hundred now?

Posted by Calzone on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 07:06am


<i>We all know that Nirvana is not the beginnning of Grunge and they certainly were not the best of the Seattle bands, but the cards fell into place with them. And as the history of RnR is written as the years pass, they will be considered the most important of that scene.</i>

No they will not. They were an awful band, they influnced nobody of worth, they couldn't play for shit.

<i>The Police brought a fusion of other styles of music to their own and allowed a whole new listening audience to get a taste of it. Again, they dominated a scene.</i>

No, theydidn't. All they did was bring elements of reggae to New Wave -- something the Clash did better -- and this is far outshined by the works of Talking Heads and XTC.

<i>GnR are not a hair metal band. And even if they were, your comment about the genre being unimportant is off-base since it did dominate a whole decade. And GnR certainly were the kings from 87-92.</i>

Yes they were; no it didn't, only if you want to be a yuppie and look at sales figures; a ridiculous number of bands were better between those years.

Why would I name my choices? I have better things to be getting on with than making inconsequential lists for nobody.

Posted by Jack on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 07:54am


Calzone, I may have misinterpreted what you want to do. Could you explain how we are supposed to list.

If there is now a consensus top 10, do we make sure we don't have any of those acts in our list?

I didn't think there was a consensus top 10.

Plus, I just like listing my own. Gives everyone a better idea about who I think is great/influential & who I don't particlarily care for.

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 08:23am


You know what Jack - you know Jacksh*t. And if it is all inconsequential to you, then why bother here.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 09:51am


Here is my 'unauthorized' 31 - 40:

31. Jimi Hendrix
32. Stevie Wonder
33. Simon & Garfunkel
34. Johnny Cash
35. Elton John
36. The Beach Boys
37. Sam Cooke
38. Santana
39. The Jefferson Airplane
40. Jerry Lee Lewis

Hope everyone has a great weekend. Go Steelers!

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:22pm


Gentlemen -

Obviously there is a fair amount of confusion over this list. I only dredged this up due to the comments made between Calzone & Gitarzan last week. My thought process ran along the lines of what occurred several months ago (believe it was October) when there was a stink made about having a consensus list. At one point Gitar (I believe) stated something along the lines of "if we vote honestly & w/our heart" we might come to some sort of compendium.

My logic ran along the same lines. I assumed that as everyone saw 1-10 created, they would instinctively drop down to 11-20, going w/whoever they saw fit the bill. We all knew that certain ones wouldn't make the list, but logic dictated that if you voted for Little Richard, for example, & he didn't make the top 10, that the others on the site saw differently. We all know that every list has a level of subjectivity, & this is no different. I assumed that you'd vote again for Richard, & more votes might have been picked up along the way. I figured people would continue to vote w/both their hearts & their minds, & the placement would show it. (continued)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:32pm


Continued -

Clearly this has not happened. I readily admit this was an up-with-the-people moment, & the spontaneity of it may have caught up w/us. If anyone can come up w/a better way to do it, I will be glad to start over again, or continue onward from where we left off. That being if anyone gives a rat's a** any longer. For the record: this is what 1-30 would look like:

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Bob Dylan
4. Chuck Berry
5. The Rolling Stones
6. Led Zeppelin
7. Buddy Holly
8. The Who
9. Jimi Hendrix
10. The Beach Boys
11. Little Richard
12. James Brown
13. Cream
14. The Velvet Underground
15. Queen
16. Bo Diddley
17. The Kinks
18. Black Sabbath
19. Creedence Clearwater Revival
20. The Doors
21. Temptations
22. Aerosmith
23. The Clash
24. The Byrds
25. The Ramones
26. David Bowie
27. Bob Marley & the Wailers
28. The Yardbirds
29. Ray Charles
30. Smokey Robinson/Miracles

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:39pm


So are these list supposed to be your favorite bands/artists or who you think are the most important band/artists?

Posted by Gassman on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:43pm


Cheesecrop, I totally agree with the way The Claw did it. All I'm saying is just do it the same way for the whole 100. If you keep doing 10 at a time, it just becomes a voting contest every night instead of an objective analysis because people keep changing their lists since some of their choices have already been enshrined the previous night.

Posted by prognosticator on Thursday, 01.29.09 @ 19:51pm
--------------------------------------------------
Definitely a point. Perhaps a straight 100 list is what's necessary, if anyone really wants to go on w/it. It's up to you gents.

One thing though... if the cry of no consensus ever does break out again, just remember someone DID TRY to formulate a list.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:45pm


Gassman -

Not much more time to talk - It was meant to be top 100 artists as we saw them. Mostly a list of most important, but you know as I do it's impossible to not let a little favoritism seep through. The hope was that we could hold it in check & produce a consensus list.

If you're new to the site you'll see how crazy folks get on here. Just probe around...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:48pm


"I'm sure from reading my post's in the past you realize I love straight up rock music. You would never and I mean never see Madonna, Micheal Jackson, Aretha Franklin, or Rap or Soul or Pop on my greatest Rock and Roll list." - SpaceTrucker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SpaceTruck, I have read your past posts and know you are of the "feel" school. That's good. But you also got to be "real" school. If we're talking about Rock Hall of Fame criteria the bandwidth is now more broad than just axe-driven sound. Guitar is THE instrument of true Rock, but soul, r&b, even pop have become associated(?) genres - with and without guitar. I understand what you mean, but I still like the broader concept.

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 12:59pm


Cheesecrop,

I beleive Gitarzan to be of the school of objectivity, and there is nothing wrong with that. I myself was a part of Octobers discussion and the discussion of late that objectivity has no place in musical choice (who you like and who you don't like) their is no science to it.

As I posted last night I believe a true list of the all-time greats would have to come from the heart not the mind and that would be a list of the truest form, it would be what people actualy think about a group or artist not what they think they are supposed to do in regard to how you compile your list. Is this list going to be made up of what history had told us about Rock and Roll or is it going to be what each individual thinks about Rock and Roll and what it means to them? If it is going to be what history has told us about Rock and Roll don't bother because Rolling Stone Magazine has already done it and I see alot of their influence on the current list's.

I think people are not willing to make a list that is true to them because the bands they like might not be on it due to lack of votes so why not vote what you think everyone will do so your vote shows up? you know if you can't beat em, join em.

I believe that if a list were to be compiled by us some criteria would need to be discussed. And as I said it would take alot more participants to allow it to pan out. I see alot of people on this site complaining about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and how the fans should have a say but this attempt at what we thought should be a fans list had only a hand full of partcipants. Maybe people really don't care.

I myself am crazy passionate about Rock Music and I enjoy discussing it with you guys on this site because it gives me the chance to vent about what a joke the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is.

To me throughout the history of Rock and Roll their have been way to many great bands and artists that actualy wrote, recorded, and performed Rock and Roll to muddy it up with Soul, Pop, Dance, Rap, Country and everything else the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame needs to throw in there for thier own benefit. I would prefer a Rock Hall of Fame for the people and by the people.

SpaceTrucker

"Good Golly said little miss molly, as she was dacin' through the house of blue light"
Deep Purple

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 13:14pm


Worm,

This is what I speak of. I could'nt be anymore real school on my take on Rock and Roll. I speak strictly from my heart and nobody eles's rules or feelings influence my opinion. What you get from me is exactly how I feel about Rock and Roll. If real school to you means having to accept someone eles's take on music that is cool, I have no problem with that.

Again I believe there are no rules and no science to great Rock Music. What it does and means to each individual it different. If a band or artist affects two people the same and it grows from there you have the making of a potentially great band and sold out concerts. If that band can continue to move people and write, record and perform music that people love than that is the making of a great band and maybe a hall of fame band or they will fade into obblivion.

How does a band not continue to make great music? who nows. Do you think they don't want to? who wouldn't want to live the life of a successful musician. But for what ever reason most of the time it comes to an end, usually very quickly.

What ever reason you like a band is the right reason and nobody can tell you differently.

As I have said before I understand the place in Rock and Roll history that all the great bands of the past hold but if I don't like their music I won't listen to it and they won't be on my list.

That's my real school and if I am the only one in class that's cool, I will just keep rockin' out to the bands I love.

SpaceTrucker

"Is your mind so small that you have to fall with in the pack where ever they run"
Black Sabbath

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 13:50pm


"What ever reason you like a band is the right reason and nobody can tell you differently." - SpaceTrucker (Friday, 01.30.09 @ 13:50pm)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amen to that brother Trucker. But if your running a museum you need to have rules to govern the selection of the artists. Oddly enough my pitch is for broad criteria (less stringent rules), e.g., I think Wacko Jacko is a more interesting "museum piece" than say the typical 4-man standard "Rock" group, of which there are numerous examples. Also, as a practical matter, I want to attract people from a wide array of musical tastes(?) - you want to get fannies thru your doors! (fannies = money) sorry, but that's the way of things.

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 15:19pm


I'd love to make a list, but I'm SO heavily jaded towards Top 40 type oldies, that my list would look laughable. I do think the Four Seasons deserve a relatively high spot not just out of blind love for them, but also, IMO, they were (one of) the first real "working man's band." The people who used the radio to get through the dregs of the workday, those were the Four Seasons' audience, and I think they were a real pioneer in that regard for songs and bands to come.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 15:32pm


I'd like to see your list Phil. C'mon, don't be a chicken! What's not to love about the Jersey Boys anyway?

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 15:38pm


I think it's cool to submit lists of your personal all time favorite bands/artists, but it wouldn't worth combining since all it would amount to would be a "5 Guys On The Internet's Top 100 Favorites List." Big deal...

But on the other hand if 5 guys wrote their lists in as objective a manner as humanly possible, then it could be a "thought provoking" exercise. Obviously that's easy to say and not always possible to accomplish. If you don't personally like somebody's music, then chances are you won't know as much about it and thus not be able to objectively determine if it's worthy of making your list, which leads you to rely on the "hype-factor" which isn't always the best barometer.

With that in mind here is my attempt at an "objective" list of the top 40 "Rock" artists of all time:

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Bob Dylan
6. Buddy Holly
7. The Who
8. The Beach Boys
9. Smokey Robinson and The Miracles
10. The Kinks
11. Little Richard
12. The Grateful Dead
13. Frank Zappa
14. The Allman Brothers Band
15. Ottis Redding
16. The Velvet Underground/Nico
17. The Stooges
18. Pink Floyd
19. The Doors
20. The Temptations
21. Simon & Garfunkel
22. CCR
23. Stevie Wonder
24. Bruce Springsteen
25. The Young Rascals
26. Bo Diddley
27. The Moody Blues
28. Cream
29. Traffic
30. The Police
31. Roxy Music
32. The Talking Heads
33. The Byrds
34. The Supremes
35. Led Zeppelin
36. Black Sabbath
37. David Bowie
38. Bill Haley & The Comets
39. Sparks
40. Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Posted by prognosticator on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 16:03pm


prognosticator, I'm wearing my know-it-all hat today, so bear with me while I castigate you. Are you demeaning Cheesecrops' list project? What he is doing is called brainstorming, taking 5 (or however many) guys inputs and talking and hashing things out. That's the process (in microcosm) on this site. It's what folks do here. It's group-think. Combined intelligence. (refer to "Borg Collective" for further insight)

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 16:20pm


"I'd like to see your list Phil. C'mon, don't be a chicken! What's not to love about the Jersey Boys anyway?"--Worm

Enough apparently to keep them out of anyone's Top 40! lol We'll see if I can put something together a little later.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 16:25pm


I applaud the way you guys have been trying to get a concensus list here...but I have an idea I wanted to throw in. Let's take one of these top 100 lists (Rolling Stone's or whatever seems to work), Have everyone participating ADD a maximum of TWO artists they feel should be on the list. Then, starting with the top ten, have everyone give them a number ranking. then go to 11-20, and so on. To displace the two you add, give two artists you DON'T think should be on the list a big fat ZERO. Every number one vote gets a 100...high score wins!!! This way, we're not just limited to 100, per se. Plus, it would be easy to tabulate. Maybe the Web. Adm. would be willing to help tabulate and create a page called "FRH 100 Greatest" that would be just for votes.

Anyway, it would be a way for everyone to work off the same list...just a thought.

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 17:24pm


Worm - Thanks for defending my craziness.

Prognosticator - That looks cool. I'd like to toss in one of my own in a little while.

Gitarzan - Great call, if the Site Admin. is willing to leap into the fray. I could go w/it.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 17:35pm


Worm said:

"prognosticator, I'm wearing my know-it-all hat today, so bear with me while I castigate you. Are you demeaning Cheesecrops' list project? What he is doing is called brainstorming, taking 5 (or however many) guys inputs and talking and hashing things out. That's the process (in microcosm) on this site. It's what folks do here. It's group-think. Combined intelligence. (refer to "Borg Collective" for further insight)"

Maybe if you bothered to read this thread more than 5 posts back you would find I have contributed my time, my thoughts
on this project.....

Posted by prognosticator on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 17:42pm


Fine prognosticator. Well and good, I see you have contributed. But your remark "Big deal" came across as demeaning of the project.

Now as for putting all the input together. I'm not sure why the Web Admin would want to take that on. (guess you could always ask?) What I'm thinking is first off, limit the list to 40 or 50, not 100. I know some math, and the tabulations could get astronomical. Have each person submit their Top 40 in rank order. Cut and paste each into X-cell. Assign weights by rank # and then average it all out. Only thing is you will fill this page with a lotta data - why are you using The Beatles for this anyway!

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:34pm


The following is my own top 40 list. It is chosen looking at both the artistic & COMMERCIAL end of things. It is put together both objectively & subjectively. One other thing - it is put together from the vantage point of this year. It is the year 2009. Rock & Roll is still a living, breathing entity. This list attempts to take all of this into consideration.

1. Beatles
2. Elvis
3. Rolling Stones
4. C. Berry
5. B. Holly
6. Zeppelin
7. B. Dylan
8. J. Brown
9. Beach Boys
10. Byrds
11. Little Richard
12. Jimi Hendrix
13. Yardbirds
14. Link Wray
15. The Who
16. Velvet Underground
17. Ramones
18. T-Rex
19. Nirvana
20. Van Halen
21. Sly & the Family Stone
22. Pearl Jam
23. B. Sabbath
24. D. Bowie
25. Stooges
26. J. L. Lewis
27. Metallica
28. Alice Cooper
29. M. Jackson
30. Santana
31. C.C.R.
32. Temptations
33. S. Robinson/Miracles
34. Clash
35. S. Wonder
36. AC/DC
37. B. Springsteen
38. Aerosmith
39. Radiohead
40. Eagles

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 12:09pm


Awright Cheesecrop, I see your list. I will try and get my own Top 40 up before end of day.

Posted by Worm on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 12:53pm


Cheesecrop, I like your list, it is interesting and has some positive things going for it. My biggest criticism is that it has an emphasis on 70s Hard Rock (Sabbath, Van Halen, Aerosmith AC/DC) that detracted from Rock & Roll's origins in R&B and Soul (Where were Fats Domino or Sam Cooke? No Aretha Franklin?) Here is the beginning of my list, I've been formulating this for years, because this isn't a task to pull out of your ass in 1 day.
1) The Beatles
2) Bob Dylan
3) Elvis Presley
4) The Rolling Stones
5) Chuck Berry
6) The Beach Boys
7) Jimi Hendrix
8) Led Zeppelin
9) Buddy Holly
10) Little Richard
11) James Brown
12) Nirvana

Notice, my top 12 all appeared on your list, just in a different order. Feedback?

Posted by Jonny on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 13:21pm


Cheesecrop, I see we agree on the top 2 exactly (Beatles and Elvis) and have the same 7 artists in our top 10 (Beatles, Elvis, Holly, Dylan, Beach Boys, Berry and Stones)

We both have Little Richard at #11 and Velvet Underground at #16, but from there on we go our separate ways. I also find it interesting that we both put Stevie Wonder above the overhyped Springsteen.

Posted by prognosticator on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 13:53pm


For whatever it is worth, here is my personal top 40. List is created from my personal favs and those bands whom I think are absolutely important even if I was not their biggest fan:

1- Beatles............21- Pink Floyd
2- Dylan..............22- Ramones
3- Who................23- David Bowie
4- Kinks..............24- NY Dolls
5- Buddy Holly........25- Allman Bros
6- Queen..............26- Deep Purple
7- Bo Didley..........27- REM
8- Hendrix............28- Sex Pistols
9- Cream..............29- Cheap Trick
10- Temptations........30- King Crimson
11- Stones.............31- Alice Cooper Band
12- Led Zep............32- ELP
13- Beach Boys.........33- Lyn Skyn
14- Bo Didley..........34- Lil Ritchie
15- Chuck Berry........35- The Stooges
16- James Brown........36- T. Rex
17- Yardbirds..........37- Doors
18- Black Sabbath......38- Mircales
19- Aerosmith..........39- CSN&Y
20- Clash..............40- Joy Division

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 16:55pm


Okay ladies (if there are any) & gentelmen, here are my picks. I regret that at least 5 more incredible artists do not make this list but the limit is 40 so here they are:
1. The Beatles
2. Chuck Berry
3. Elvis Presley
4. Little Richard
5. Bill Haley
6. Beach Boys
7. Bob Dylan
8. Jimi Hendrix
9. James Brown
10. Michael Jackson
11. Rolling Stones
12. The Who
13. The Clash
14. Yardbirds
15. Ray Charles
16. Stevie Wonder
17. Bruce Springsteen
18. Led Zeppelin
19. Sam Cooke
20. Temptations
21. Smokey Robinson
22. Dire Straits
23. Pink Floyd
24. Cream
25. C.C.R.
26. Queen
27. The Police
28. Santana
29. Marvin Gaye
30. Four Seasons
31. Talking Heads
32. The Kinks
33. Allman Brothers
34. Tom Petty
35. Fleetwood Mac
36. Eagles
37. Black Sabbath
38. Boston
39. Supremes
40. Chicago

I demoted Elvis to #3 slot because Chuck Berry (my opinion) is a more "important" contributor to Rock music.

Posted by Worm on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 17:17pm


Let me amend my #40. Change Chicago to CSN&Y

Posted by Worm on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 17:23pm


Awshit, I left off Buddy Holly!

Posted by Worm on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 17:40pm


Just a head's up: The site will be undergoing some maintenance for the next few hours. Hopefully things won't go down, but they might.

Posted by FRH Administrator on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 17:51pm


I just got onto the site when this message popped up about maintenance. I want to talk about everyone's list, as well as how I came up w/my own picks, but I'm going to pass till I know this site is o.k.

Perhaps tomorrow, befor the Super Bowl - I know I never watch the pre-game anyway. Talk to you all tomorrow.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 17:56pm


Hello, world.

We are now Future Rock Legends.

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 19:13pm




Hello, world.

We are now Future Rock Legends.

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 19:13pm

I like that name better...101%

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 19:20pm


Notice, my top 12 all appeared on your list, just in a different order. Feedback?

Posted by Jonny on Saturday, 01.31.09 @ 13:21pm
--------------------------------------------------
Have to commend your list, especially the ranking of Nirvana at #12. Gutsy call, and one that I admit I wasn't even up to. I'd like to see more if you have the time, namely 13-30? 40? whatever amount.

prognosticator - we both agree, Springsteen is overhyped. He did help to put forward a different branch of rock, I guess. Certainly there's no Mellencamp or Seger (at least how Seger is known today) w/out Bruce. I don't know why, but I've always perceived Bruce as building a stage out of what was left of Creedence's working man's line.

I tend to agree w/most of the rest of the lists, to an extent. I do think they are 60's and 70's top heavy, but I imagine the slant must go that way... to a degree. I'll explain my logic for my choices in my next post.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 02.1.09 @ 12:48pm


Gents - I chose my list thinking about I & I, but decided to take it a little further. The top 10-15 were set pretty much from the outset, but it was after that, that I began to think about what it really means to have innovation & influence.

You see, my take is that certain bands should be ranked higher due to the kind of I & I they have. I separated it into two areas in my mind, namely those acts w/Direct influence & innovation, and those w/indirect I & I. For my $, I ranked those w/direct I & I more favorably than those who were more indirect. Hence the reason I place bands like Van Halen & Pearl Jam a little higher than some others here. You can disticntly hear the direct influence right from the moment they started out, & you can hear how long it lasted. Consider it against the perceptions of Black Sabbath, a very influential group, but the majority of whose influence is actually quite indirect ( in fact I can think of only the Misfits who may have taken directly from Sabbath while the original Ozzy line-up was still around). Would like to hear how you all came up w/your take on how they should be ranked, when you get a minute.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 02.1.09 @ 12:58pm


For anyone who is asking why Elvis is not on my list; it is simple - I forgot about him. Although I am not a fan of Elvis, I realize his importance. I would remove The Doors and put Elvis on the list.

Now the question is, why did this site change names. Is the Hall not happy with this site?

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 02.1.09 @ 13:15pm


"You know what Jack - you know Jacksh*t."

Woah, we sure don't pull any punches around this place, do we boys? And so original! Rough neighbourhood?

If I know "Jacksh*t" go ahead and say what I'm getting wrong factually, else I can't do anything but laugh at your baseless claims.

"And if it is all inconsequential to you, then why bother here."

No, it's inconsequential TO EVERYTHING. Get out of the house, kid.

Posted by Jack on Sunday, 02.1.09 @ 14:36pm


I already did, but all you replied with were no's and nothing else. Your comment alone on Nirvana shows exactly where you are coming from. Just about everyone here agrees that Nirvana was neither the beginning of Grunge or the best band from Seattle. But for one reason or another, the genre is associated with them. And if that hasn't changed since his death, it never will. Therefore, if and when they speak of Grunge 50 years from now, they will mention Nirvana first. Just because you hate a band doesn't mean they are not important. I hate the Doors, but I am certainly not going to write them off as a nothing band.

As for GnR; I didn't know one Yuppie who liked them and I live in the Capital of Yuppieville. Europe and Bon Jovi were Hair Metal - pure pablum. GnR are one of the bands who kind of reinvented what Aerosmith did with their first 4 albums. They didn't do it as well, but when it comes time to record the history of RnR 50 years from now, GnR will be noted. They were not Hair Metal.

Thank you for calling me kid.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 02.1.09 @ 18:50pm


Dameon...thanks for choosing The Miracles on your top 40 list (Thank you too, Cheesecrop) ...but that's M-I-R-A-C-L-E-S.

Posted by Bill G. on Sunday, 02.1.09 @ 23:57pm


Cheesecrop, I appreciated your response to my top 12 list, especially since I consider your comments on this site some of the smartest and most inspired. I will definitely take the time to map out my 13-40. I suspect it will be pretty similar to yours (although I won't be as favorable to Glam Rock artists, i. e. T. Rex. and N.Y. Dolls). I, mean, I know they're big time important, & I definitely advocate their Hall induction, but T. Rex at no. 18? Really? I'm interested in your explanation, perhaps I am just unaware of the extent of their importance and you can educate me. I would imagine David Bowie is more important overall and was surprised to see him below them. Also, I will rate Michael Jackson quite a bit higher. I'm not exactly a huge of his or anything, and must concede that he has become a freak of nature, but I think his Music's impact in the 80s was too great to be underestimated.

Posted by Jonny on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 00:36am


Cheesecrop, I have been reading comments on this board for months but have just started adding my own contributions. To give you an idea of my perspective, here is a list of 12 big oversights of Rock & Roll HoF, at the top of my head
1) Neil Diamond
2) The Moody Blues
3) Chicago
4) The Hollies
5) Neil Sedaka
6) Rush
7) The Monkees
8) Heart
9) Journey
10)Genesis
11)Doobie Bros.
12)Steve Miller Band

P.S. I doubt any of these artist will, however, appear on my top 40.

Posted by Jonny on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 00:45am


My list of twelve biggest oversights (as in never even nominated) is completely different:

1) Captain Beefheart
2) Deep Purple
3) Roxy Music
4) Joy Division / New Order
5) Alice Cooper
6) T. Rex
7) Tom Waits
8) Brian Eno
9) Genesis
10) King Crimson
11) John Mayall
12) Patsy Cline

Posted by The_Claw on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 04:45am


Dammit, I forgot about Link Wray. He'd be my number 1.

Posted by The_Claw on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 04:53am


"But for one reason or another, the genre is associated with them."

By whom?

"And if that hasn't changed since his death, it never will."

You have to show me where it has first. And I wouldn't sit so comfortably in that assumption.

"Just because you hate a band doesn't mean they are not important."

I don't hate Nirvana at all; they aren't worth hating. I'd restrain myself from accusing others of letting preference bias observation on this count, since all you're lists are just "Gee guys look at my favouritest bands ever!!"

"GnR are one of the bands who kind of reinvented what Aerosmith did with their first 4 albums. They didn't do it as well,"

They made half a competent album.

"GnR will be noted."

For what? Badly rehashing tried and tested styles of music? Dream on, bro.

"They were not Hair Metal."

Perhaps not but they rode the wave good and hard, and their original dress code was no farcry from that of contemporary hair metallers at the time.

Posted by jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 06:18am


Here's roughly what the top few ommisions should look like:

Captain Beefheart
Brian Eno
Can
Talk Talk
King Crimson
Link Wray
Minor Threat
Buzzcocks
Fall
Sparks
PiL
Joy Division / New Order*

*not necessarily a twofer induction

Posted by Jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 06:23am


General opinion among critics disagrees, Jack. Acclaimed Music (www.acclaimedmusic.net, the site that calculates what the general consensus is among critics, historians and journalists) places "Nevermind" as the third most acclaimed record of all time. "Appetite for Destruction" is #60, "In Utero" #138. Nirvana and GNR are really not thát easy to dismiss. They are generally nót seen as "awful bottomtiers that couldn't play for shit" (sounds like hating to me, btw) or "badly rehashers that made half a competent album".

Posted by The_Claw on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 07:26am


Jack - I don't necessarily disagree with you on some of your opinions and I am not defending either band, but history will not be written by you or I. It is what it is and there ain't squat one we can do about it. Where I will completely disagree with you is on your comment about clothing style. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Tight pants, leather jackets and long hair have been a part of RnR since day one. Hell, that is what the Beatles wore up until Brian Epstein got a hold of them. GnR were not a Hair Band! In fact, it was them, along with the mainstreaming of Metallica which signaled the end of the Hair Band dominance on the radio (Europe, Warrant and crap like that). I have said on this site all along that Guns was just rehashing early Aerosmith with a slight twist, but that is what RnR is all about.

Only a select few actually innovate something. But many bands pick up on that innovation and help influence what follows.

As for your list of ommissions, if you look at some of the earlier postings on this site, you will see that most of us agree on many of the bands you have listed, most notably King Crimson, Joy Division, Buzzcocks and Capt. Beefheart. When I was a teenager, I actually belonged to the Sparks Fan Club, but I accept the fact that in the scheme of things, history will only note them as a footnote and nothing else. You and I may not agree with that, but that is life.

No matter how objective we as fans attempt to be, subjectivity is going to appear and there is nothing wrong with that. And this statement is never more true when we see who the nominating committee of the Hall of Fame has been giving us for the last 5 years.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 08:25am


"General opinion among critics disagrees, Jack."

Couldn't care less. General opinion put Dubya into Presidency; look where that got us.

"places "Nevermind" as the third most acclaimed record of all time. "Appetite for Destruction" is #60, "In Utero" #138."

If I were feeling up to it I would easily write a list of 138 albums that trump those shitty albums.

"Nirvana and GNR are really not thát easy to dismiss."

They are among those of us who know good music when we hear it.

""awful bottomtiers that couldn't play for shit" (sounds like hating to me, btw)"

Oh, really? Good job I never said it.

Posted by Jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 10:05am


"but history will not be written by you or I."

If that's so, how can you make statements like "history will only note them as a footnote and nothing else"? I think you just contradicted yourself, you doddering old fool.

I have no idea why you're making such a massive deal over as useless a band as Gn'R. Hell, it's not as if I'm the only person in the world to ever consider them to have been "hair metal."

"I have said on this site all along that Guns was just rehashing early Aerosmith with a slight twist,"

What slight twists? They were completely generic.

"I actually belonged to the Sparks Fan Club, but I accept the fact that in the scheme of things, history will only note them as a footnote and nothing else."

Wrong, get a clue. They're easily in the top ten most influential pop bands of all time; just ask New Order, TMBG, Depeche Mode, Morrissey and the countless others who took influence from the Mael brothers.

"You and I may not agree with that, but that is life."

And you are wrong.

"No matter how objective we as fans attempt to be, subjectivity is going to appear and there is nothing wrong with that. And this statement is never more true when we see who the nominating committee of the Hall of Fame has been giving us for the last 5 years."

Just as irrelevant as Nevermind and Appetite For Deflation.

I can see that you allow personal preference to tamper with your observations on these matters -- I'm looking at your comment about not including the VU because you hate them -- so I don't think I have anymore time for you. We'll have to see how much chaff you fill your next comment with, won't we?

Posted by Jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 10:14am


Regarding some comments about 'The Velvet Underground', I just bought a greatest 'hits' ablum of theirs (the one with the banana on the cover) & after listening to it I was thinking 'how in the Hell did they ever get into the Hall!?'.

There were some good songs on there, mostly the ones where Lou Reed is singing (I did like the 5th song on the album, can't remember the name though). I could have taken my Velvet Underground with less 'Nico' than there was.

Maybe it's their name? Allows you to say 'velvet' in a non-gay manner? I don't know, but they are probably the poster child for 'influence', etc. that gets you in the Hall when most of your songs are mediocre at best.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 10:45am


"& after listening to it I was thinking 'how in the Hell did they ever get into the Hall!?'."

Because they were hugely influential and very innovative.

"that gets you in the Hall when most of your songs are mediocre at best."

Sorry, I noticed you praising Styx over on their page. I think you'd best shut your tasteless trap before you embarrass yourself even further.

Posted by Jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 10:57am


There were some good songs on there, mostly the ones where Lou Reed is singing (I did like the 5th song on the album, can't remember the name though). I could have taken my Velvet Underground with less 'Nico' than there was.

Maybe it's their name? Allows you to say 'velvet' in a non-gay manner? I don't know, but they are probably the poster child for 'influence', etc. that gets you in the Hall when most of your songs are mediocre at best.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 10:45am

I always like them From Heroin Waiting for my Man the Gift and Sister Ray.....etc
Yearly Junkie songs
I was lucky enough to do a few shows with them back in the days.. Lot of Beatniks /Hippies and other strange folks audience types ...They sounded good in a BEATNIK/PUNK wave...
Loved their Fiddle guy he was funny.. and Niko was a one of a kind typed of gal..LOl
I don't think the ever had a top 10 and didn't sell a lot but.. They are/were rock rule breakers.. I would put them in with Wray ,Surfaris Sandy Neson,Country Joe , Greatful Dead,,Hendrix , Sex Pistols.. When rules ment something... breaking them was chancey..
Early Rockers from Litle Richard took chances...
Now it is the thing to do ...LOL which takes the drama a way from it.. Now it is more HYPE than rule breaking...
Rock on!!


Posted by mrxyz on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 11:05am


Jack 'mighty arbitrer of what is Awsome in ROCK (tm)', I'm gonna keep giving my opinion, even if it conflicts with yours. After reading your drivel, I'd say that when one has an opinion at odds with yours, then one is probably on the right path.

I, personally, don't give a flip about 'influence'. The Hall does, evidently, and that's fine as it is their Hall & not mine. I do know good music & anyone who thinks Styx's best songs are worse than the best songs of The Velvet Underground is an effete little creep or deaf (IMO).

Now run along & play, the adults are talking.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 13:07pm


"I'm gonna keep giving my opinion,"

Awww, I was really hoping you'd quit...

"After reading your drivel, I'd say that when one has an opinion at odds with yours, then one is probably on the right path."

If I was so painfully ignorant as to have only heard the VU recently, I wouldn't be quite so lippy.

"I, personally, don't give a flip about 'influence'."

And you can't give a shit about innovation given your liking for generic Styx. So why, exactly, are you here? There's thounsands of plain music discussion boards you could frequent, so why choose one focused on innovation and influence when you care about neither?

"I do know good music & anyone who thinks Styx's best songs are worse than the best songs of The Velvet Underground is an effete little creep or deaf (IMO)."

Pioneering alternative rock, experimental/avant rock, noise rock, punk rock > boring, generic, garbage MOR.

"Now run along & play, the adults are talking."

I LOL'd at this. Even your insults are pitifully generic.

Posted by Jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 13:29pm


Hi, Jack.

I agree that Sparks is one of the most underrated unappreciated bands of all time. I ranked them at 39 on my list.
No one else bothered to acknowledge them. Now having said that, don't you think that Sparks were influenced somewhat by Roxy Music??

Posted by prognosticator on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 15:26pm


Not particularly. Roxy Music's sound was originally much more heavily rooted in art rock than most of Sparks' material. I wouldn't be shocked if they had been directly influenced by RM, but just listening to the music I feel it's too uncertain to say.

Posted by Jack on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 15:43pm


Jonny - Trust me on this when I say I am nowhere near the most inspired person on this site. If all you've read is the Beatles page, I might look good for trying to shape the consensus list, but that's a rarity for me.

My take on T-Rex is this: I talked about direct & indirect inspiration. T-Rex was w/out a doubt a direct inspiration for the British glam scene from 70-74. Pretty much anyone involved (Bowie, Mott the Hoople, G. Glitter, Sweet, etc.) are all comping something off Marc Bolan. There a later indirect influence on 80's pop-metal 9certainly folks like Ratt, Cinderella, etc were grabbing a little from the T-Rex bag). Finally they had an effect on 90's British rock, especially Suede, & to a lesser extent Pulp & Blur. I figure about 5 yrs of direct influence & nearly 20 yrs afterwards indirectly rates them pretty high.

Then again, you might as well know I own the 3 Stooges sing-along scrapbook album, so what does that say for my musical knowledge?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 20:06pm


You know, that Jack fellow sounds a heck of a lot like someone who used to post a lot on this site... in fact, his posts even look a little like the postings of a certain gentleman from Her Majesty's Isles...


Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 20:10pm


Yea, a skunk might change its stripes but the bad smell is still there

Posted by Brian on Monday, 02.2.09 @ 20:21pm


Jack, you're so cute when you stamp your little feet.

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 05:51am


"You know, that Jack fellow sounds a heck of a lot like someone who used to post a lot on this site... in fact, his posts even look a little like the postings of a certain gentleman from Her Majesty's Isles..."

Somebody hasn't been spinning The Good Son much as of late...

"Jack, you're so cute when you stamp your little feet."

I'll take it that you don't have anything of worth to say? OK.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 06:03am


You really have to have your head far, far up your ass to say that Sparks is among the top ten most influential bands of all time and then say "Nevermind" is irrelevant. Clearly someone with a very loose grasp on reality.

As a side note, if there's any group of music fans that can rival the classic-rock "Wooo Bob Seger that's real music I stopped listening to music in 1978" crowd for sheer annoyance, it's got to be the uberhip-yet-still-somehow-just-as-dinosauric British post-punk "I haven't listened to anything later than 1987" crowd.

Posted by MBI on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 06:29am


"You really have to have your head far, far up your ass to say that Sparks is among the top ten most influential bands of all time and then say "Nevermind" is irrelevant."

Sparks introduced new styles years before they became widely accepted by the masses and influenced tons of artists.

Nevermind had inferior melodies, was completely derivative and had nothing musically worthwhile on it; people praise it for making "alternative rock" commerically viable, but trends in buying tastes show that alternative rock's entry into the mainstream was a very gradual thing and not a sudden explosion caused by a crappy album. If it hadn't been Nirvana who became megastars it would have been R.E.M. or Soundgarden or Pearl Jam or the Pixies or Alice in Chains, my guess being the latter due to Layne Staley's morose drug addiction tales being on a similiar plain to Cobain's whining, pathetic, mumbled garbage.

If Sparks aren't in the top ten most influential pop bands feel free to offer ten alternatives with justifications, else all I can do is not take you seriously.

"it's got to be the uberhip-yet-still-somehow-just-as-dinosauric British post-punk "I haven't listened to anything later than 1987" crowd."

Good job I'm not in there with them then, innit?

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 06:41am


And plus, MBI, you do yourself no favours by saying that Nine Inch Nails "arguably created" industrial music, since nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 06:57am


Jack, you wouldn't be related to our good friend Liam by any chance, would you?

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 08:48am


Somebody's perceptive! Although not enough to notice this already got brought up elsewhere on the site...

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 09:02am


And while I'm here, here's a few artists missing from FRL:

Melt Banana, Blind Idiot God, Boredoms, .O.rang, Mark Hollis, Monstrance, Frodus, Bark Psychosis, Four Tet, Panda Bear.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 11:07am


Jack, why did you change your name from Liam? Get married?

Posted by uono on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 11:16am


Why have you?

Shriekback, James Blackshaw, Sunn o))) [not a typo], Autechre, Squarepusher, Robbie Basho, Earth, Opeth, Supersilent, Ricardo Villalobos.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 12:08pm


"If Sparks aren't in the top ten most influential pop bands feel free to offer ten alternatives with justifications, else all I can do is not take you seriously."

Okay, I'm going to take that "pop" label very seriously and try to keep this list as "pop" as possible, although that's a ridiculously nebulous term:

"Pop" bands more influential than Sparks:
1) The Beatles
2) The Byrds
3) REM
4) Van Halen
5) Steely Dan
6) U2
7) The Smiths
8) The Beach Boys
9) ABBA
10) Sly and the Family Stone

"Nevermind had inferior melodies, was completely derivative and had nothing musically worthwhile on it"

Blah blah blah whine whine whine. Generic, meaningless criticism to the word -- don't ever become a professional writer. That "Nirvana" doesn't meet your personal standard has no objective bearing on whether they're influential or relevant -- who gives a shit what you like? And yeah, perhaps someone else could have taken Nirvana's place if Nirvana hadn't been there. And perhaps someone else could have been the Beatles, or Elvis, or George Washington -- the point is, Nirvana had Nirvana's place in history. They changed the musical landscape and were the biggest band in the world and are even bigger now, whereas Sparks is a cult band whose cult is shrinking (notice how bands with a tiny initial following like The Velvet Underground, The Ramones, The Smiths (in America), Big Star, etc. are far bigger now than they were at the time.) It takes a truly bizarre mind to dismiss some of the biggest genres and most acclaimed of the past half century as "irrelevant" and then say Sparks is one of the most important of all time because they influenced They Might Be Giants. You're an obnoxious pedant defending very silly positions.

Posted by MBI on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 12:36pm


1) Beatles - well, duh.
2) Byrds - arguable.
3) R.E.M. - no. As important as R.E.M. were to alt rock's development, in no way does that trump Sparks' importance to the development of glam rock, New Wave and '80s synthpop.
4) Van Halen - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You know I was talking about pop in the *stylistic* sense? Even so, VH are not more influential than Sparks.
5) Steely Dan - hardly particularly influential.
6) U2 - no way in hell.
7) Smiths - marginally, yes.
8) Beach Boys - yes, although it's more down to Brian Wilson.
9) ABBA - no, they've influenced hardly anyone (and for pretty good reason).
10) Sly & the Family Stone - see Van Halen. Yes, they're more influential, but they weren't a pop band.

You justified exactly 0 of those, so it's a wonder I even replied. And where are the Kinks?

"who gives a shit what you like?"

Try tackling my points rather than namby-pambying around the ancient "all opinions are equal" garbage like you so blatantly are.

"the point is, Nirvana had Nirvana's place in history."

And my point is that their importance is wildly overstated.

"They changed the musical landscape"

Only commercially, which is something the HoF says it disregards and rightly should but doesn't'; their musical contributions had all been done before, and better.

"and were the biggest band in the world and are even bigger now,"

Yeah, there's an awful lot of whining sh*tbag teenagers across the globe.

"whereas Sparks is a cult band whose cult is shrinking"

Sparks' last three albums were met all met to large critical acclaim and are favourites among the internet music world. Their old hits still get fairly regular play on radio. You don't know what you're talking about.

"It takes a truly bizarre mind to dismiss some of the biggest genres and most acclaimed of the past half century as "irrelevant""

I never realised Nirvana was an entire genre.

You're an awful writer. Dismissing a crappy band like Nirvana does not = dismissing all the music associated with them.

"and then say Sparks is one of the most important of all time because they influenced They Might Be Giants."

They were, you're just incredibly ignorant. Go back to NIN, the forefather of industrial music. (*snorts*)

Posted by Jackhole on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 13:03pm


"I never realised Nirvana was an entire genre."

For clarity's sake, I should have pointed out that I was referring to your first post, when you dismissed both hair-metal and Britpop. I'm not in the mood to defend those maligned genres, but I would like to point out that the critical tide is turning back to hairmetal (and it wasn't too long ago that your precious new wave shared the same critical gutter).

"Try tackling my points rather than namby-pambying around the ancient "all opinions are equal" garbage like you so blatantly are."

How the hell is someone supposed to rebut assertions like Nirvana had "inferior melodies"? You're right, I should answer that: Nirvana's melodies were actually superior. Happy? Here's my rebuttal: Nirvana were a great band. Their lyrics were good and their music was good. Transcendent. Seminal. Primal. Blah blah blah.

Tell you what though, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more now. When you say "influence," what you're apparently talking about is innovation. An understandably important criterion for rock canonization, yes, but somehow, I have to feel that changing the pop landscape and making timeless, widely acclaimed, enduring music also should have something to do with it.

Tell you what, though, I am curious what specific sounds you think Sparks invented before the billion other glam rock, synth-pop and new wave acts who had far more success. I don't see how you can make the claim that they're more important than 10cc, Gary Numan or ELO, let alone Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Kraftwerk, Roxy Music, etc.

Posted by MBI on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 15:13pm


"I should have pointed out that I was referring to your first post, when you dismissed both hair-metal and Britpop."

Hair metal's garbage and I grew tired of britpop -- at least in its 90s-onward form -- a good while back.

"but I would like to point out that the critical tide is turning back to hairmetal"

Show me where.

"(and it wasn't too long ago that your precious new wave shared the same critical gutter)."

1. New Wave is hardly my favourite strand of rock music.
2. How so? Show me where.

"How the hell is someone supposed to rebut assertions like Nirvana had "inferior melodies"? You're right, I should answer that: Nirvana's melodies were actually superior. Happy? Here's my rebuttal: Nirvana were a great band. Their lyrics were good and their music was good."

Those are just opinions; say why you think those melodies are "superior" and I'll bite. The reality is, though, that all of the songs on Nevermind are tiresomely predictable by, oh, a minute in; all the electric songs work on a loudQUIETloud structure and all the acoustics remain the same throughout, pointing at a sever lack of diversity; all the songs work on the same one or two phrases, which is lazy.

"When you say "influence," what you're apparently talking about is innovation."

No I am not but the two go hand in hand more than I think you realise.

"I have to feel that changing the pop landscape and making timeless, widely acclaimed, enduring music also should have something to do with it."

Please, please, please, for one second realise that the commercial face of rock and pop music is NOT tied to the musical face of those two -- the latter referring to stylistic influence and innovation. Yes, Nirvana were among those responsible for bringing alt rock to the mainstream, but they were not responsible for anything new musically.

Wide acclaim means shit; most critics really know very little about rock and pop musicas a whole. Enduring music? I sold my copy of Nevermind on a while back.

"Tell you what, though, I am curious what specific sounds you think Sparks invented before the billion other glam rock, synth-pop and new wave acts who had far more success."

The eponymous debut, otherwise known as Halfnelson, released in 71, introduced a sound predating New Wave pop by a good 6 years -- that's before Roxy Music had done anything.

No.1 in Heaven, produced by Giorgio Moroder and released in 79, provided a sonic middle point between the early synth-pop of the producer and the eccentric glam of the band and proved a massively influential style to '80s acts such as Depeche Mode and New Order.

"I don't see how you can make the claim that they're more important than 10cc, Gary Numan or ELO, let alone Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Kraftwerk, Roxy Music, etc."

Tell me why not and I'll bite.

Posted by Jackhole on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 15:51pm


Is is Jack or Jackhole? -

I caught a contradiction.

Statement #1:

Nevermind had inferior melodies, was completely derivative and had nothing musically worthwhile on it; people praise it for making "alternative rock" commerically viable, but trends in buying tastes show that alternative rock's entry into the mainstream was a very gradual thing and not a sudden explosion caused by a crappy album. If it hadn't been Nirvana who became megastars it would have been R.E.M. or Soundgarden or Pearl Jam or the Pixies or Alice in Chains, my guess being the latter due to Layne Staley's morose drug addiction tales being on a similiar plain to Cobain's whining, pathetic, mumbled garbage.

Statement #2:

Those are just opinions; say why you think those melodies are "superior" and I'll bite. The reality is, though, that all of the songs on Nevermind are tiresomely predictable by, oh, a minute in; all the electric songs work on a loudQUIETloud structure and all the acoustics remain the same throughout, pointing at a sever lack of diversity; all the songs work on the same one or two phrases, which is lazy.

Considering Cobain has been quoted as saying all he wanted to do was make a record like the Pixies, does this not mean that your description of Nirvana also fits he Pixies as well?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 16:27pm


I remember Sparks doing some work with Giorgio Moroder in the mid-70's, and by the sound of it, I can hear where they may have had some influence on Depeche Mode or the Pet Shop Boys...stuff like that. They probably made more noise in the U.K. than they did here...I can't remember hearing about them much.

I guess the point of view here about Sparks would come from where you lived in their heyday...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 18:42pm


"I caught a contradiction."

Where?

"Considering Cobain has been quoted as saying all he wanted to do was make a record like the Pixies, does this not mean that your description of Nirvana also fits he Pixies as well?"

No, not at all, because Francis/Deal and Cobain are different people and different songwriters. The former were great melodists ("Debaser," "Trompe le Monde," "Monkey Gone to Heaven," "Where is My Mind?," "Caribou"); the latter wasn't.

Posted by Jack on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 09:38am


Yeah, I love the Pixies, far more than Nirvana, in fact, and saw them on their recent reunion tour and they were amazing -- but I really don't understand your criterion that they were great "melodists." "Monkey Gone to Heaven" has spoken verses and the melody of "Debaser" is just Frank Blank screaming at the same pitch over and over again.

So I'm not sure exactly know how you judge these things, and I don't want to try to argue them. However, I'd like to point out that, at least in this particular thread, your arguments are all based around sonic style, structure, melodies. Basically, you're judging rock music by the standards of classical music historians. And it is certainly your right to do so, but I can't help but feel that you're largely missing the point of popular and rock music if you listen to it while (apparently) not caring about message, attitude, tone and, most notably, lyrics. Music, particularly this style of music, is more important than just its structures and idioms, and your way of thinking seems very myopic to me.

Oh, and to answer a criticism way back, no, I should not have said Nine Inch Nails invented popular music. That was stupid of me, and I know better than that.

Posted by MBI on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 11:26am


"but I really don't understand your criterion that they were great "melodists.""

It's about crafting intricate, effective, tuneful melodies, and generally keeping things as un-chordy as possible.

""Monkey Gone to Heaven" has spoken verses and the melody of "Debaser" is just Frank Blank screaming at the same pitch over and over again."

There's nothing inherently wrong with spoken verses or screaming. And those are just vocal melodies; melodies exist outside vocals.

"And it is certainly your right to do so, but I can't help but feel that you're largely missing the point of popular and rock music if you listen to it while (apparently) not caring about message, attitude, tone and, most notably, lyrics."

I trashed Cobain for his terrible lyrics (and, as such, messages. I do care quite a bit about those things; just because I'm yet to mention them here shouldn't be grounds to assume I never regard them.

"Oh, and to answer a criticism way back, no, I should not have said Nine Inch Nails invented popular music."

Good job you never did, then, isn't it? You aren't a terribly great writer, are you?

Posted by Jack H. on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 12:05pm


"I trashed Cobain for his terrible lyrics (and, as such, messages."

If you did, you'll have to point it out to me because I can't find it anywhere on this page. Admittedly, I am a bit hung over. Even if you did, it registers as very very low on your objections to Nirvana, who were most praised for their lyrics; you also dismissed The Police as unimportant on similar terms.

"I do care quite a bit about those things; just because I'm yet to mention them here shouldn't be grounds to assume I never regard them."

They can't be that high on your list, and even they are, you barely (if at all) mentioned them in an argument about relevance, suggesting that even if they matter to you personally, you don't find them particularly "relevant," so I think I've made a fair assumption here. You've dismissed all arguments of cultural relevance and you've restricted the discussion solely to song structures, and certainly everything about your taste in music suggests an inclination towards "sonic innovation."

Posted by MBI on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 13:00pm


"Cobain's whining, pathetic, mumbled garbage" - Me

"who were most praised for their lyrics;" - MBI

You are kidding, right? Cobain was a terrible lyricist.

"you also dismissed The Police as unimportant on similar terms."

Never did anything of the sort. You sure seem hungover.

"They can't be that high on your list,"

Why not?

"you barely (if at all) mentioned them in an argument about relevance, suggesting that even if they matter to you personally, you don't find them particularly "relevant,""

Generally, I use "relevant" as a way of describing artists who've influenced and innovated. As such, even if I and/or millions of people (not: not composers or musicians) enjoy them, they aren't necessarily "relevant."

"You've dismissed all arguments of cultural relevance"

Rightly so. Culture's dead.

"and you've restricted the discussion solely to song structures,"

No, I haven't. Have you read what I've been saying?

"and certainly everything about your taste in music suggests an inclination towards "sonic innovation.""

As much as innovation generally impresses me, it's not something that makes a great deal of impact on my listening choices.

Posted by Jack H. on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 14:10pm


"You are kidding, right? Cobain was a terrible lyricist."

Yeah, believe it or not, when I used the phrase "most praised," I was including the opinion of more than just one guy on the Internet. Not that it matters to you because after all

"most critics really know very little about rock and pop musicas a whole"

which would count as the most eye-rollingly pretentious thing I've ever seen on this board, if you hadn't already bested it with

"Rightly so. Culture's dead"

a clear frontrunner for Douchebag College Sophomore Statement of the Year. In five years, you're going to be embarrassed you ever said that, or at least I hope so, for your sake.

Getting way back to the original point, I posed the question to a bunch of Sparks fans to see if I was really missing something here -- Are they one of the most influential pop bands of all time? Mostly what I got was a lot of "I WISH they were that influential." They all regarded it as ridiculously exaggerated, but of course, I assume you think they don't know their music history either. Sparks' influence on Depeche Mode, They Might Be Giants, and New Order is explicit, of course, but I don't see how that one Giorgio Moroder record is supposed to make them "easily" one of the "top ten" pop bands, considering it came out alongside or after Blondie, The Cars, the Talking Heads, Tubeway Army, etc. As for your claim that their first album invented new wave, I've seen no evidence of that, but I'm legitimately curious to find out what you mean that they invented sounds never heard before. What sounds?

Posted by MBI on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 08:04am


"Yeah, believe it or not, when I used the phrase "most praised," I was including the opinion of more than just one guy on the Internet."

Britney Spears is one of the highest selling artists of all time; does this mean to say her music is somehow superior to that of, say, Husker Du?

"which would count as the most eye-rollingly pretentious thing I've ever seen on this board,"

It's absolutely true what I said. 99/100 critics are morons. Big Christgau fan?

"a clear frontrunner for Douchebag College Sophomore Statement of the Year. In five years, you're going to be embarrassed you ever said that, or at least I hope so, for your sake"

Yeah, of course. We live in a world where mainstream film is so terrible that Wall*E gets pretty much unabashed and unwavering praise when only the opening silent portion was notable; where mainstream music is one "revival" after another; where fat, greasy whitetrash teens praise Kurt Cobain as a master wordssmith; and where comedy is an oxymoron. I really have no place questioning culture.

"I posed the question to a bunch of Sparks fans to see if I was really missing something here -- Are they one of the most influential pop bands of all time?"

For all I know they don't exist and *they* are just a cheap ruse at defending a crappy argument.

"Mostly what I got was a lot of "I WISH they were that influential." They all regarded it as ridiculously exaggerated,"

1. Being a fan of a band doesn't mean to say you know their place in music's history.
2. Again, they are likely not to even exist.

"but of course, I assume you think they don't know their music history either."

No, because these aren't real people. Try defending your own arguments without falling back on lame "WELL THIS GUY AGREES!" clichés.

"but I don't see how that one Giorgio Moroder record is supposed to make them "easily" one of the "top ten" pop bands, considering it came out alongside or after"

What, so you admit you don't know what you're talking about?

"As for your claim that their first album invented new wave,"

Which doesn't exist. Again: you're a really, really bad writer.

"I've seen no evidence of that, but I'm legitimately curious to find out what you mean that they invented sounds never heard before."

Well, for one, you can't typically *see* music unless you suffer from among a plethora of mental disorders. Two, "invented" is terrible semantics in discussing such a grey area as innovation.

"What sounds?"

If you can't hear it I really doubt that you've even listened to the record; basically, it's Russel's falsetto and eccentric personality, Ron's keyboard-carried melodies and Rundgren's sparse, spare production.

Posted by Jack H. on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 08:48am


What made The Beatles so unique at the time was that they were truly a "band." Unlike Buddy Holly "and" The Crickets or Bill Haley "and" His Comets, or Little Richard, Elvis, etc., etc. The Motown groups were singers, not musicians. They sang and danced to choreographed moves. The Beach Boys used session players to play their instruments on Pet Sounds. The Beatles were "The Beatles." They wrote their songs (their best songs, imo were better than their covers), they played their instruments.

The Beatles were a huge influence on World Music in Rock. They main difference between the Beatles and Dick Dale or even the Kinks is the Beatles used traditional form in instrumentation and structure with western Pop Songs. The Kinks nor Dick Dale did anything remotely like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Love Yout To" and "Within You Without You" that is why they are credited with the World Music tag.

One side note the Beatles I think were the first rockers to use ska influences 1964 "I Call Your Name," for instance, has a ska break; a few years later, they would appropriate the reggae rhythm for 1968 "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da." If you check out the original "You Know My Name ( Look Up the Number) backing track recorded in 1967 it has a whole ska section.

Posted by Byrdsnix on Saturday, 02.14.09 @ 07:40am


I have compiled a top 60 list of all time* from the top 40 lists submitted by Cheesecrop, Dameon, MRXYZ, Paul in KY, Worm and myself. It was done by giving each #1 vote 40 points, #2-39 points and so on down. Then the points were added up. The tiebreakers were highest single vote, then #of votes. After #60, it became too hard to continue because there were ties where the same artist received the exact same total from just 1 vote; and I didn't want to be the sole decision maker in those cases like a 3 way tie between Dire Straits, Pearl Jam and The Big Bopper; or a 2 way tie between REM and Metallica.

Dameon, your list had Bo Diddley on it twice at #7 and #14-so I inserted Elvis at #7. If that's not where you want him, then I can change it. MRXYZ's list had an issue with using the same numbers 32 and 33 twice, so all the rankings after the first 33 were adjusted according to the order of the names on the list. If someone doesn't like how this was done, then by all means try doing it another way.

All in all, I think it's a better list then the Rolling Stone List on The Immortals page. The 1st 32 are in the Hall Of Fame-only 5 on this list aren't.



1) Beatles (240)
2) Elvis Presley (221)
3) Chuck Berry (218)
4) Bob Dylan (208) with one 2nd place vote
5) The Rolling Stones (208)
6) The Beach Boys (162)
7) The Who (160)
9) Buddy Holly (153)
10) Led Zeppelin (152)
11) James Brown (144)
12) Little Richard (142)
13) Jimi Hendrix (137)
14) The Kinks (128)
15) The Yardbirds (107)
16) The Temptations (98)
17) Smokey Robinson & the Miracles (87) with 5 votes
18) Cream (87) with 4 votes
19) Pink Floyd (82)
20) CCR (81)
21) The Allman Brothers Band (78)
22) Bo Diddley (72)
23) The Byrds (65)
24) Ray Charles (59)
25) Aretha Franklin (58) with one 9th place vote
26) Stevie Wonder (58)
27) The Clash (56)
28) Jerry Lee Lewis (53)
29) Otis Redding (52)
30) Queen (50) with one 6th place vote
31) Velvet Underground (50) with two 16th place votes
32) Black Sabbath (50)
33) The Stooges (46)
34) Bruce Springsteen (45)
35) Link Wray (44)
36) Michael Jackson (43) with one 10th place vote
37) The Ramones (43) with one 17th place vote
38) Sly And The Family Stone (43)
39) Marvin Gaye (41)
40) Bob Marley (40)
41) Bill Haley And The Comets (39) with one 5th place vote
42) David Bowie (39)
43) The Police (36)
44) Roy Orbison (30)
45) Grateful Dead (29)
46) Frank Zappa (28) with one 13th place vote
47) T Rex (28) with one 18th place vote
48) Simon & Garfunkel (28) with one 21st place vote
49) The Animals (28)
50) Santana (27)
51) The Doors (26)
52) Sam Cooke (26) Sorry Sam, total tie-2 same exact votes each; but I compiled this list, and I voted for The Doors-so this is my compensation for doing this...
53) Duane Eddy (25) with one 16th place vote
54) CSNY (25) with 3 votes
55) Aerosmith (25)
56) Dion (24)
57) The Everly Brothers (23) with one 18th place vote
58) Alice Cooper (23)
59) Nirvana (22) with one 19th place vote
60) Van Halen (22) with one 20th place vote


* For entertainment purposes only-not meant to offend, discriminate or cause emotional distress in any way...

Posted by prognosticator on Monday, 02.16.09 @ 15:42pm


The Beatles - Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) [Take 2] for Beatles fans It sort of foreshadows "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I'm Only Sleeping." I think I still prefer the one they went with, though. If you want to hear sound very early psychedelic. It's very trance like and 'avant-garde' sounding. I heard this track for the first time yesterday on You-tube it's very different from it's released form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...




Posted by Revolver on Monday, 02.16.09 @ 17:30pm


The Beatles - Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) [Take 2] Sorry this is the correct link

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYlmBNEXYt0

Posted by Revolver on Monday, 02.16.09 @ 17:37pm


Here is my list I've been working on, for what it's worth: 1) The Beatles
2) Bob Dylan
3) Elvis Presley
4) The Rolling Stones
5) Chuck Berry
6) The Beach Boys
7) Jimi Hendrix
8) Led Zeppelin
9) Buddy Holly
10) Little Richard
11) James Brown
12) Nirvana
13) The Who
14) CCR
15) Stevie Wonder
16) The Temptations
17) The Kinks
18) Ray Charles
19) Aretha Franklin
20) The Byrds
21) The Animals
22) Michael Jackson
23) Sly & the Family Stone
24) Bruce Springsteen
25) Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
26) The Allman Bros. Band
27) The Yardbirds
28) Simon & Garfunkel
29) The Clash
30) Pink Floyd
31) Jerry Lee Lewis
32) The Police
33) Fats Domino
34) Pearl Jam
35) Roy Orbison
36) R.E.M.
37) Bob Marley
38) The Eagles
39) Sam Cooke
40) Billy Joel
41) Otis Redding
42) Queen
43) The 4 Seasons
44) The Doors
45) U2
46) The Everly Brothers
47) Dion
48) Crosby, Stills, & Nash
49) Fleetwood Mac
50) The Bee Gees

Posted by Jonny on Monday, 02.16.09 @ 22:28pm


An interesting note about the prognosticator's cumulative top 60 list is there were only 5 who haven't been inducted in the HoF already: The Stooges, Link Wray, T. Rex, Alice Cooper, & Nirvana.
Nirvana, of course, hasn't been inducted because they are not eligible. But they seem like a band that the Hall will induct in their first eligible year.

Posted by Jonny on Monday, 02.16.09 @ 23:08pm


That's good work pronosticator. That you actually did the numbers crunching, and it turned out a pretty good list after-all.

Posted by Worm on Tuesday, 02.17.09 @ 10:11am


Nice call w/the list, prognosticator, but why? I thought we'd all dumped that a few weeks back?

Jonny - Interesting list. Wish you had been here for the whole thing when it was unfolding. Maybe an extra person or two could have kept us going, instead of having it descend into "the opinions of 5 or 6 people on the site", that made us cash in the chips.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 02.17.09 @ 17:58pm


Jonny - Especially liked bringing in more up to date names. It gave it a wider scope.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 02.17.09 @ 17:59pm


Cheesecrop, I regret that my final list came too late as well but oh well, the list that the prognosticator constructed looked pretty damn good in my opinion.

Posted by Jonny on Tuesday, 02.17.09 @ 18:20pm


Thank's for doing up that list, prognosticator. Looks really good.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 02.18.09 @ 06:25am


Beatles' ability to marry studio experimentation with a strong pop song structure is such a profound influence that it's taken for granted. I'd say it's their most important contribution. It's the very foundation of how music is still made, so I'd say their influence is very much evident today, even if not everybody knows it. I still say to this day the most prophetic record of the Sixties wasn't "Yesterday" or "Satisfaction" but "Tomorrow Never Knows," which sums up most of where music has gone. Minus the vocals, it's virtually an early hip-hop record that's as much Public Enemy as it is Philip Glass. Today's music is mostly about sound texture and the group that got us thinking about it the most is the Beatles. Some love to dismiss "Sgt. Peppers," and especially "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," but I'll be damned if all that random splicing up of tape and punching it into a song for sound effects can't be found in Kanye West or many hip-hop crews of the last 25 years or so.

Whether we're talking Radiohead, Coldplay, U2, L.A. Reid or Raphel Saadiq, to mention a few, they still mention or show the Beatles' influence. The Smithereens recently covered the entire "Meet the Beatles" album. Phish has performed all of the "White Album" in concert.

Don't know of a single band doing an entire Rolling Stones' album for release. Do you?

Posted by Zinnser on Monday, 04.20.09 @ 17:22pm


And here is a throwaway song or filler as some like to call them. This is why there is the Beatles and then there is everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOs2Snt62U&feature=related

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.24.09 @ 07:21am


And here is a throwaway song or filler as some like to call them. This is why there is the Beatles and then there is everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOs2Snt62U&feature=related

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.24.09 @ 07:21am
--------------------------------------------------
I've said it before & I'll say it again - advancements in technology + the ever present changing of the times have made the notion of the Beatles remaining at #1 forever to be, shall we say, highly questionable. Please don't make the mistake of being trapped in an unchanging past.

Perhaps an ever so slight change to the sentence may be in order. If I may:

"That is why there was the Beatles then, & everyone else now".

Feel free to unleash a 4-letter strafing if you wish.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 04.25.09 @ 10:10am


Cheese - I am always open to your view and how you read things. Perhaps your way of stating it is a bit more accurate. But I will say that even with all the new advancements in technology and the constant changing of the times, I still hear the Beatles in just about everything that has been put out in the last 30 years. And I have a feeling that you will continue to hear the Beatles in newer music over the next few lifetimes. I am sure that one day an artist will emerge that will takes its rightful place amongst the all-time greatest. But for now, Bach, Beethoven and the Beatles still sounds right to me.

I was watching a silly list show the other day on VH1 Classic. It was the greatest 100 Hard Rock Songs as voted upon by the public. And I have to say that this show only proves that the public cannot be trusted with lists. I could not believe some of the songs on this list. But what I really found interesting was the lack of one specific song - "Helter Skelter".

Helter Skelter was as hard, nasty and dirty a song as you could possibly hear back in 1968. The Beatles are never associated with Hard Rock/Metal and I don't understand why. I will put them at the beginning of the genre along with all the other notables.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 06:02am


You shouldn't talk about people who've already been inducted.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 06:22am


Why is that Roy?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 06:43am


IMO

Greatest Pop Band Rock related, Songwriters- The Beatles
Greatest Rock Band- Led Zeppelin
Greatest Rock and Roll Band- The Rolling Stones
Greatest Live Band- The Who
Most Underrated- The Byrds, The Kinks, and the The Yardbirds.
Greatest Rock Musician- Jimi Hendrix

As for the Stones and Beatles comparisons. The Beatles recorded over 200 songs that is still a lot of songs for any band even if they were around for seven years so there is plenty to go by for comparison.

The Beatles from the start were melody driven, vocal harmonies, with quirky chord progressions and lot of that was really folk/skiffle related. They augmented that style later with odd time signatures, and various non rock sources but the keen sense of melody, vocal, and pop music never really left.

The Stones roots were in blues, R&B, and rock and roll but they certainly changed their sound to a more of a pop sound was this a Beatles influence? Mic Jagger commented that Keith Richards was interested in the Beatles chord progressions and vocal harmonies. "Tears Go By", "Paint It Black", "Get Of My Cloud", "Lady Jane", and "Ruby Tuesday" are certainly pop songs.

Posted by Zinnser on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 09:08am


Who should we talk about then, Roy? That list of 1000 artists you keep bringing up that should be in the hall?

Posted by brian on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 11:27am


I was watching a silly list show the other day on VH1 Classic. It was the greatest 100 Hard Rock Songs as voted upon by the public. And I have to say that this show only proves that the public cannot be trusted with lists. I could not believe some of the songs on this list. But what I really found interesting was the lack of one specific song - "Helter Skelter".

Helter Skelter was as hard, nasty and dirty a song as you could possibly hear back in 1968. The Beatles are never associated with Hard Rock/Metal and I don't understand why. I will put them at the beginning of the genre along with all the other notables.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 06:02am
--------------------------------------------------
First thing first - don't trust those VH1 lists. Those things are dictated so much more by the staff at the stations than any write-in's. VH1 is top heavy on the 1980's, so having Guns N Roses over everyone else makes perfect sense to them. I'd have WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE in my own top ten for sure, but it wouldn't be #1. They're very much an 80's propaganda network at this point.

Secondly, while I would not necessarily put a lot of the Beatles work on a 100 Greatest Hard Rock Songs list, I would've given the nod to both HELTER SKELTER & REVOLUTION. Both of those songs are truly awesome hard rock tracks. The great thing is that they hold up even in today's world as hard rock. I hate it when an act is referenced that was once the definition of harder edged rock, but really can't cut it w/today's stuff. Those tracks definitely do.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 05.6.09 @ 17:12pm


I agree with you Cheese. I would never attempt to categorize the Beatles into some kind of sub-genre. Their music touched everything and everywhere. But no matter what direction they went, you can see how they influenced all who followed in these sub-genres.

Another song for consideration is "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except For Me and My Monkey". There are parts of that song which are played extremely fast and hard. Admittedly it is a bit of a silly song; but it was different.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 05.7.09 @ 07:55am


Another song for consideration is "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except For Me and My Monkey". There are parts of that song which are played extremely fast and hard. Admittedly it is a bit of a silly song; but it was different.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 05.7.09 @ 07:55am
--------------------------------------------------
Not everything the Beatles ever did holds up as hard rock in today's universe. A song like HELP may have seemed hard edged by 1965 standards, but obviously doesn't hold weight at all today as HARD rcok. I know opinions will differ, but I thought I ight put a little list together:

Honest to goodness hard rock (featuring full expressive guitar parts, hard & heavy drumming, & the kind of stuff that a younger generations recognize as an attempt at hard rock, even if it's not quite so hard today):

Paperback Writer
Taxman
She Said, She Said
I Am The Walrus
Back In The U.S.S.R.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Birthday
Yer Blues
Everybodys Got Something to Hide... (etc.)
Helter Skelter
Long Long Long
Revolution
Hey Bulldog
Old Brown Shoe
It's All Too Much
Come Togther

continued...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05.7.09 @ 18:09pm


continued...

Songs that contain elements of a heavier style and suggest harder, heavier rock, but don't quite make it for some reason or other:

Rain
Day Tripper
I Want To Tell You
Blue Jay Way
Glass Onion
Dear Prudence
I'm So Tired
Why Don't We Do It In The Road
Savoy Truffle
Get Back

I welcome any and all re-arrangements of the list. It's only my opinion, but I'm prepared to back it up as best I can.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05.7.09 @ 18:14pm


Good lists. One thing is for sure Cheese - the Beatles hand has reached across every path in popular music and Rock.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 05.7.09 @ 20:12pm


Great list Cheesecrop. Only one I would as 'I Want You (She's So Heavy);

Posted by Jonny on Friday, 05.8.09 @ 01:08am


Another song that has elements of hard rock is "Heppiness Is A Warm Gun"

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 05.8.09 @ 02:54am


This is the last straw!!!!! Earlier today I read a little blurb in the paper hailing an artist whose name I forget (that's not an issue here) for one of those family fairs/farms/picnic type outings that go on in the suburbs. They described this lady under the term "family rock artist".


"Family rock artist"???


"FAMILY ROCK ARTIST, GRACIE?????!!!!!"


JUST WHAT IN THE BLUE H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS IS GONG ON HERE!!! WHAT IS A FAMILY ROCK ARTIST???

Can't mommy & daddy accept the fact that they've gotten old and they're taking the kids to see a Sesame Street style show?

AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 05.8.09 @ 16:34pm


Now that I got that out of the way, on to something more pertinent:
--------------------------------------------------
Great list Cheesecrop. Only one I would as 'I Want You (She's So Heavy);

Posted by Jonny on Friday, 05.8.09 01:08am
--------------------------------------------------
I admit to missing that one. I also missed the song "Carry That Weight" (or "The Weight" or whatever it's called; I can never remember the title)
--------------------------------------------------
Another song that has elements of hard rock is "Heppiness Is A Warm Gun"

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 05.8.09 02:54am
--------------------------------------------------
It does indeed. The opening is a little slow, but in light of the build-up it makes sense. When Lennon hits the "Mother Superior" part, it honestly sounds like he's gonna turn everything loose & do some serious eardrum shattering, but then he gives us this wannabe doo-wop thing at the back that shoots down the middle. It's a pity; he never really unleashes until he get's to "Yer Blues" when you think about it.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 05.10.09 @ 21:16pm


"Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver has been covered and homaged by other artists. 801, a band formed by Phil Manzanera after the first breakup of Roxy in '75, has covered the song live. Phil Collins included a version of "TNK" on his debut solo album, "Face Value" Also, both the Fixx and Jellyfish have paid homage to the song's unusal drum beat on "Gypsy Feet and "The King is Half Undressed" respectively.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 05.15.09 @ 12:20pm


Their body of work is outstanding!

Posted by Bill on Monday, 06.29.09 @ 23:28pm


Madonna Fan...well, saying the "best song" is pretty subjective, but I'll tell you what some of my favorites are (even though their whole catalog is pretty amazing);

-I Feel Fine (it's still hard to comprehend where Lennon came up with that riff...)
-Dear Prudence
-The Night Before (from the "Help!" album)
-And Your Bird Can Sing
-Things We Said Today
-Strawberry Fields
-A Day In The Life

to name a few...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 19:20pm


Gitarzan, The rock purist, wrote:

"Madonna Fan...well, saying the "best song" is pretty subjective, but I'll tell you what some of my favorites are (even though their whole catalog is pretty amazing);

-I Feel Fine (it's still hard to comprehend where Lennon came up with that riff...)
-Dear Prudence
-The Night Before (from the "Help!" album)
-And Your Bird Can Sing
-Things We Said Today
-Strawberry Fields
-A Day In The Life

to name a few...

Ya, I do agree their catalog is amazing, maybe the most amazing
This is why I asked, to see the difference, I also love Beatles but I don't think those songs mentioned by you are among their best. My favorites would be:


Come Together
Strawberry Fields Forever
Money
Get Back
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band
Day Tripper
Drive My Car
Back In USSR
I Want To Hold Your Hand
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Mr Postman
Twist and Shout
Love Me Do
From Me To You
Across The Universe
Free As a Bird

etc

Posted by Madonna Fan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 20:51pm


Git... thank you for mentioning And Your Bird Can Sing.... floored me first time I heard it. Still my favorite Beatles song.

One of the more underappreciated, imo, is "The Ballad Of John And Yoko." I know it only had Paul and John on it, but heck, Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby only had Paul on them, and those are heralded Beatles' classics.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:01pm


I agree with you Philip, "The Ballad" is a great piece of work.

While I'm here it's a darn shame that the Madonna page has 1000+ posts while The Beatles page has only half that

Posted by Keebord on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:06pm


In terms of their covers, "Twist And Shout is the absolute classic, but for personal listening pleasure, I'd choose their take on "Roll Over Beethoven." That's one that I can't keep myself from singing along to.

And I gotta admit, I like their Tony Sheridan stuff, for the most part. Simple rock'n'roll to make ends meet. Something compelling about it.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:11pm


I'm surpised "Help!" has not been mentioned yet. It's my personal favorite Beatles song.

Posted by Dude Man on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:17pm


A song from their earlier days that I really liked was "Slow Down"...it took me forever to fing it just recently. Another favorite that I left off my list is "Tomorrow Never Knows" off of Revolver. I remember that song just blowing my mind the first time I heard it...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:19pm


For those of you who don't remember, this is "Slow Down" along with some kinda cool clips...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenAE4e6EE

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:24pm


They are the most amazing music act for sure, importantly, in both periods of their career,(artistic) youth and maturity
Madonna is also a pretty good artist, at least for me ):

Posted by Madonna Fan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:25pm


...and "The Night Before", which I'm sure a lot of people aren't familiar with. Ya know how a song just strikes a nerve with ya...???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TbLIzhwkP8

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:32pm


Yippy-ay-oh, yippy-ay-ey

Ghost riders in the sky!!!'n

xD

Posted by Carter on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 21:33pm


"Slow Down" isn't among my favorites. Don't know why, but it's a song I only hold to be okay. Not a great song, imo.

Help! is a seminal record in Lennon's writing, but I think just due to the fact it's been played so freaking much, I don't like it as much as I could have. From that album, I much prefer:

Another Girl
The Night Before
I Need You
You Like Me Too Much
I've Just Seen A Face

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 22:00pm


True, "Help!" has been over played, but it always picks me up when I'm feeling blue. Today every hit single will be over played thanks to the death of AOR.



Posted by Dude Man on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 22:09pm


Well, everyone's got a few songs like that. I was listening to "White Lines" from GF&TFF, and Timi Yuro's "Why Not Now" several times today. Those are two of those songs that'll do for me. More power to you, man.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 22:22pm


That's pretty wild, Philip...it seems you and I pretty much like the same songs from "Help". The title track just got overplayed while I was growing up (I think KOOL105 in Denver plays it 2 or 3 times a day...STILL).

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 22:55pm


I have an interesting story to tell you about the song "Slow Down" A big Beatles fanatic named Sheldon brought his custom made Beatles tapes to elementary school and played them in the schoolyard. Another student asked him if he had the song "She Loves You" he said "Yeah. But when he pushed the play button on the tape recorder, the noise John Lennon makes in the second chorus of "Slow Down" was heard, and we ended up laughing so hard and thought Lennon was saying "If you wanna learn to laugh" (The actual lyrics are "If you want our love to last")

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 00:02am


Did the Beatles with songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" take the roll out of rock thus creating rock music?

Posted by Leslie on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 09:44am


I've seen people say that, but I don't know if I agree with it. The Beatles had a lot to do with it, but so did the Stones, Hendrix, Cream, etc.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 16:06pm


There is still a roll in rock music and that's why so many bands still call the genre rock n roll, but then again that's just my opinion.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 16:17pm


Rock and Roll and "Rock" are the same.

"Rock" is the term that high minded, pompous intellectuals use to try and separate their 'artistes" from the fact that they are working in the same realm and "The Twist" and "Louie Louie".

"Come On Baby, let's do the Twist!"

& while were at it...

"See Jamiaca Moon Above!"

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 18:37pm


Cheesers...THANK YOU!!! "Rock"...short for "Rock & Roll"...plain and simple!!! People, quit trying to be so over-analytical!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 18:48pm


Exactly, rock = rock n roll!!!

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 19:32pm


"Rock and Roll and "Rock" are the same.

'Rock' is the term that high minded, pompous intellectuals use to try and separate their 'artistes' from the fact that they are working in the same realm and 'The Twist' and 'Louie Louie'.

'Come On Baby, let's do the Twist!'

& while were at it...

'See Jamiaca Moon Above!'

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with this. Is it right how we view everything through a "rock" prism? People tend to forget that what The Beatles were doing throughout their career wasn't simply "rock n roll". There was rhythm and blues, girl group, brill building, folk, etc. That's why that early stuff was so important; it took popular music on as a whole, not just as rock n roll. Why should this just be considered rock n roll music? Why does rock n roll suddenly get the rights to all of this? Why is it simply rock n roll when it clearly borrows substantially from other forms?

It doesn't have anything to do with snobbery. Correctly, it's all "pop music" anyway, not "rock n roll music". Their are boundaries to what these sub-terms mean, that's the point of them.

So what would the term "rock" mean then? It's "post-rock n roll", really; music made after the initial rock n roll explosion that expanded the boundaries and fundamentally reshaped what it was by cross pollinating with other popular music forms.

Really, we're just using antiquated terms that we're too lazy to reconsider.

It's not all rock n roll, it's all pop music folks.

Posted by Elastic Man on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 22:47pm


An interesting book just released deals with this topic on how the Beatles changed music "How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll" by Elijah Wald. Wald's thesis is that the Beatles not only pushed the focus away from live music to the craft of the recording studio. but inadvertently caused a musical split between black and white that has never really been bridge. I am not from the 60's so I don't know this to be true.

The "Twist" and 'Louie Louie' is good old rock and roll. The Beatles experimentation mixed with their great sense of melody was not at all related to good old rock and roll. When I read the Beatles stole from black artists I have to laugh. They were influenced by them early on but much of their music is far removed from the blues or old rock and roll. "Norwegian Wood", "I am the Walrus", "Helter Skelter, were just not at all related to Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly.

One song and it's been mention here "Tomorrow Never Knows". It's arguable that much of music is based on samples and looped effects in popular music. "Tomorrow Never Knows" does that and with a drum and bass groove right up front.

Posted by Midas on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 07:57am


It's evolution. The Beatles are a rock n roll band. Look at other music genres like hip-hop. Do GF&TFF sound anything like Lil' Wayne? Saying rock isn't the same as rock n roll is like saying rap isn't the same thing as hip-hop. Or look at rock n roll subgenres. Do Black Sabbath sound like Pantera? And no one would say that heavy metal isn't the same thing as metal. Rock is rock n roll, but that's my opinion.

Posted by Dude Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 09:12am


I don't know about Chuck Berry, but Buddy Holly was every bit as much into experimentation as the Beatles were (like finding a place for string orchestration and pizzicato in his music), although his resources were a bit more limited than theirs and certainly nothing compared with today. What people like the Beatles and Buddy Holly did (and I'm sure he would've continued to) is called "perpetuation of the artform"...which also is a criteria for the HoF.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 17:39pm


The "Twist" and 'Louie Louie' is good old rock and roll. The Beatles experimentation mixed with their great sense of melody was not at all related to good old rock and roll. When I read the Beatles stole from black artists I have to laugh. They were influenced by them early on but much of their music is far removed from the blues or old rock and roll. "Norwegian Wood", "I am the Walrus", "Helter Skelter, were just not at all related to Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly.

One song and it's been mention here "Tomorrow Never Knows". It's arguable that much of music is based on samples and looped effects in popular music. "Tomorrow Never Knows" does that and with a drum and bass groove right up front.



Posted by Midas on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 07:57am
--------------------------------------------------
Do not forget one thing about some of the Beatles influences: the nation of Britian itself. Britian in general has had a world view much greater than America's at a much earlier time. Remember the "sun never sets on the British Empire" jazz? Chances are, more English people knew about instruments such as sitars far earlier than Americans did. I have no exit poll to prove it, but I'll still wager the majority of even the hippest American rock fans, circa 65-66 had never had regular exposure to a sitar before.

Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr, even in Liverpool, probably had greater access to an encyclopedic world view than Berry/Penniman/Diddley ever did.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:07pm


BTW: I spelled Britain wrong, so don't look to me as an over-educated Yank.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:10pm


With all due respect to Buddy Holly the Beatles experimentation was pushing the limits of pop music. The Beatles were experimenting with loops, classical Indian music, avant electronics, changing time singnatures, backward music, drone, feedback, psychedelic use of studio as an instrument, vocals through amps, new guitar sounds, with pop music it's hard to compare Buddy Holly to the Beatles,

Progressive Rock and Experimental Music have a lot to thank the Beatles for popularizing those things with albums like Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Pepper. Zappa and the Velvet Underground might have been more experimental though I might argue the Beatles were more experimental than VU. The point is the Beatles had the record sales to create the trend in rock music.

Posted by Midas on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:15pm


Knocking Holly for not having the technology to do these things may be a mite unfair here. I'm not sure if it was here or on another page, but I noted the hype over the Fender guitar, popularized by Holly but mostly attached to Hendrix. I made mention of the fact that Hendrix may not have acheived the high praise given him if he had to work w/in Holly's limitations. Same thing for the Beatles.

Send the Sgt. Pepper version of the band back to 1957, take away the advanced multi-tracking studios of the mid-60's, take away things like the backward music & the feedback and the tape loops, and question how far they could have gone. Could they have re-created "Tomorrow" or "Rain", or any of these things?

Don't get me wrong - they still would have been very influential. The Indian element and time changes can be had in ANY era, so you'll get no complaint from me there. Just strip away what was then radical tech. (from the 60's) and send them back to the 50's (if you can, in your mind) and ask yourself just HOW radical would this have been?

On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 7 (if it were limited to 50's tech.)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:30pm


You have to remember that Holly's time of experimentation was about 10 years before the Beatles...which is forever by popular music standards. His use of unusual instruments (like the clavichord on the track "Everyday"), using classically trained musicians (a good example would be "It Doesn't Matter Anymore"), and the only one who did much over-dubbing on vocals (check out "Words Of Love") before he did was Les Paul (who basically created it)...and it was unheard of in Rock & Roll music.

The Beatles were heavily influenced by Holly (which they'd be the first to tell people that), and took a lot of his ideas and ran with them...which was good for us...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:30pm


O.K., Gitar, that last bit was quite creepy... we both post practically the same thing at the same time.

You bouncin' psychic waves off the Rockies? It's gotta be your end of the deal here, cause the only thing bouncing off the Delaware River is sludge.

Any psychic waves in the tri-state region invariably get sent to South Philly, where they are directed toward the sports complex... though things have been nicer here since the World Series, I might note.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:37pm


Instead of taking my word for it, find a documentary called "The REAL Buddy Holly Story". The narrator produced, collected all the data, conducted all the interviews (which were amazing), and spoke of how Holly influenced his band and how innovative he was. The narrator's name was...Paul McCartney.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:40pm


Yes, I've been known to have acute ESPN, thank you...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:41pm


I won't deny the impact of The Beatles (arguebly the most important band of all time) but I'd prefer the music of Buddy Holly or Roy Orbison anyday

Posted by Hamburger on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:49pm


acute ESPN, Gracie?



That one is...


Very Good.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:50pm


Nothing wrong with that, burgermiester...!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 18:54pm


Well the thing is backward music, loops, and sampling were done by avant musicians before the Beatles. The Beatles took those techniques and put it into pop/rock music and created their own innovations like backward guitar solos or those crazy psychedelic sounding loops on Revolver.

What's interesting the Beatles were the first to use Automatic Double Tracking a variant of double tracking which Buddy Holly I know used on his vocals. Look you don't have to convince me on Buddy Holly he was the role model for songwriter/musician for the Beatles something that is forgotten when Buddy Holly is compared to Elvis.

Posted by Midas on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 19:21pm


"It's evolution. The Beatles are a rock n roll band. Look at other music genres like hip-hop. Do GF&TFF sound anything like Lil' Wayne? Saying rock isn't the same as rock n roll is like saying rap isn't the same thing as hip-hop. Or look at rock n roll subgenres. Do Black Sabbath sound like Pantera? And no one would say that heavy metal isn't the same thing as metal. Rock is rock n roll, but that's my opinion."

But Grandmaster Flash and Lil Wayne share some very obvious, definitive characteristics of hip-hop music...This isn't the case with the wide world of rock.

Expansion time: Let's take the post punk band Young Marble Giants. The first song on their only album Colossal Youth is a kind of disembodied reggae...kind of like Kraftwerk mixing a reggae track. Reggae has roots in American rhythm and blues. It has the aesthetic properties of Kraftwerk's music: spareness, stiffness. There's nothing particularly "rock" about this Young Marble Giants track in form...yet it's considered a part of the rock genre. Why is that?

My point is that there's an inherent bias towards classifying things in light of rock n roll when formally there's nothing "rock n roll" about many of these artists and that there's a reason why the term rock n roll fell out of use in favor of plain "rock". Logically Radiohead's Kid A isn't by any imagination rock (minus one song), it's vantage point is from electronic music, but it's still considered "rock". No one would ever use the term rock n roll to describe that but they would use rock. There is a difference.

As it stands, rock is the entire tradition; it's beginnings, the evolution, etc. Rock n roll is a part of and the foundation of that tradition. I think we need to come up with a new way, a more critical way, to look at these things because rock isn't the be all end all of popular music. How would one start? The lens is popular music in its entirety, not rock.

You might have heard of concepts like "rockism". This is part of what I'm getting at and a lot of the best music criticism (Greil Marcus, Robert Christgau, Sasha Frere-Jones, Pitchfork...yes, Pitchfork) take this into account.

Posted by Elastic Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 22:28pm


Here's perhaps a clearer example of what I'm thinking: Instead of psychedelic "rock" why not just psychedelia? We would then examine how rock n roll plays into that music's development. We would do the same with heavy metal. Indie or alternative rock? No, just indie and alternative and we would then see how not just rock but how the various other forms of popular music have affected these two.

Posted by Elastic Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 22:51pm


No, GF and Lil' Wayne have thier differences. In a Lil' Wayne song there is autotune every three seconds. Also, early rap sampled mostly dance-type, funk, disco types of music. Wayne for example is sampling Slayer for heaven's sake.

There is a difference between psychedelic rock and psychedelic pop, love it or not, there is.

Rock is rock n roll.

Posted by Dude Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 23:12pm


Dude Man, the key word is "form". What do Wayne and Flash have in common? Rap, sampling of any type (Slayer is nothing new, Public Enemy did that), beats inspired by contemporary electronic dance music. This is still functionally the same as it was thirty years ago, the differences are superficial as far as substance goes.

"There is a difference between psychedelic rock and psychedelic pop, love it or not, there is."

This is actually in support of what I have to say. They're both psychedelia but they are informed by different areas of the pop music world. You can't just view things through a rock prism.

You didn't address anything else I had to say.

Posted by Elastic Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 23:27pm


I know most likely I am not the best suited at giving a rap history lesson with my backround, but this is how I see it. Ice T, NWA, and most of the "gansta rap" genre is far from early hip-hop. Much more aggression and it wasn't happy dance music. Different lyrical types, different image, and different origins. The only main similarity is the rhyming vocal delivery. Like it or not hip-hops later acts had very different stories to tell than that of the "old school" acts. It's evolution.

Same thing with rock n roll. It has progessed to the point where it is today. It has branched out, but it still has a connection to its beginning.

Posted by Dude Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 23:51pm


Yeah, but overall it's still basically the same form, just with distinguishing traits. The difference with rock music is that it seems to go in every direction at once; it literally sounds like 1,000 different things, many of them fundamentally different or perhaps entirely detached from the tradition of Chuck Berry.

The question is, why is rock treated differently? The Beatles approached popular music as a whole. Why should Tell Me Why, which is unarguably a girl group song, all of a sudden be called rock n roll? It isn't rock n roll and that doesn't make it inferior, they understood this. Much of their catalog is the same. Why don't we just call these things what they actually are, starting from the basic point of view of all popular music?

Posted by Elastic Man on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 00:06am


Bull. As mrxyz would say "all ya need are ears" to see that hip-hop has changed. Most of the roots are gone in today's hip-hop sound.

Rock n roll is a popular music subgenre and not all popular music counts as rock n roll.

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 08:17am


Most of the big time rappers will be the first to say that there's nothing Rock & Roll about hip-hop...a statement that I wholeheartedly agree with...

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 08:31am


"I Want To Hold Your hand"


The song was greeted by raving fans on both sides of the Atlantic but was dismissed by some critics as nothing more than another fad song that would not hold up to the test of time.
Cynthia Lowery of the Associated Press expressed her exasperation with Beatlemania by saying of the Beatles: "Heaven knows we've heard them enough. It has been impossible to get a radio weather bulletin or time signal without running into 'I Want to Hold Your Hand'."[12] Another critic declared that the Beatles were "really pretty boring to listen to. Their act is absolutely nothing," and that "[t]heir greatest asset is that they look like rather likable, almost innocent young fellows who have merely hit a lucky thing."[12]

Bob Dylan was impressed by the Beatles' innovation, saying, "They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid."[13] For a time Dylan thought the Beatles were singing "I get high" instead of "I can't hide". He was surprised when he met them and found out that none of them had actually smoked marijuana.[14]

Although the song was nominated for the Grammy Award for Record of the Year, the award went to Astrud Gilberto and Stan Getz for "The Girl from Ipanema". However, in 1998, the song won the Grammy Hall of Fame Award. It has also made the list in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll. In addition, the Recording Industry Association of America, the National Endowment for the Arts and Scholastic Press have named "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as one of the Songs of the Century. In 2004, it was ranked number 16 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest songs of all time.[15] It was ranked as #2 in Mojo's list on the "100 Records That Changed the World", after Little Richard's Tutti Frutti.[16] The song lists at #39 on Billboard's All Time Top 100.


Lol, they had critics like Gitarzan (mean *unts), even back than?

Posted by Borbo on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 16:13pm


Borbo...did I say something to personally offend you? If you don't like my opinion on something, great, no one said you have to agree. If you look at the bulk of my comments, you'll see I don't spend a lot of time personally attacking people on this site.

Oh, well...I guess some people just can't help themselves, huh?

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 16:20pm


Best 8 Beatles songs:

The Night Before
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Things We Said Today
Come Together
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Get Back
Money
Hard Day's Night

Posted by Borbo on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 16:41pm


No, I didn't forget, I'm not even a Beatles fan, I tried to be as objective as I could.
Therefore, in my opinion, those are the best Beatles songs ever

Posted by Borbo on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 16:54pm


My point is that there's an inherent bias towards classifying things in light of rock n roll when formally there's nothing "rock n roll" about many of these artists and that there's a reason why the term rock n roll fell out of use in favor of plain "rock". Logically Radiohead's Kid A isn't by any imagination rock (minus one song), it's vantage point is from electronic music, but it's still considered "rock". No one would ever use the term rock n roll to describe that but they would use rock. There is a difference.

As it stands, rock is the entire tradition; it's beginnings, the evolution, etc. Rock n roll is a part of and the foundation of that tradition. I think we need to come up with a new way, a more critical way, to look at these things because rock isn't the be all end all of popular music. How would one start? The lens is popular music in its entirety, not rock.

Posted by Elastic Man on Thursday, 07.2.09 @ 22:28pm
--------------------------------------------------
If you are considering "rock & roll" as only the music of 54/55 - 59, then the term is limiting. The real issue here is technology, which I harped on many months ago. What R & R really is, or what is the unspoken definition that differentiate's it from the past, is the factor of electricity. It is an electric medium, and as such, any music stemming from it will be classified as such. Compare it if you will to big band, Dixieland Jazz, Ragtime, et. al, whose basic modes are acoustic in nature (horns, strings, woodwinds). Yes there are electric guitars in big bands, but they are merely extra accompaniment most of the time.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 18:57pm


Elastic - Another question is, just how did rock & roll trun into "rock"? For that matter, how does it affect anyone who came before it?

I assume you will say it was the Fabs & Dylan that did the trick. If so, what of the Beatles covers of 50's songs? Do those automaticaly transform into "rock" just because the Beatles did them? I am wondering what magical form of trans-substantiation is occuring here.

One other example - Muddy Waters. Muddy had nothing to do w/50's rock, but in 68 he released "Electric Mud". This would have been after the change from r & r to rock. Does this mean Waters turned from a bluesman to a rock artist, w/out ever being touched by the hand of "rock & roll"? I'm ot knocking what you're saying, but I'm very interested in how this process would work.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 19:07pm


Maybe it was because just saying "rock" was easier to say...as with most abbreviations. I've heard it called "rock music" for as long as I can remember, and I'm 53...er, 39! Yea, 39...that's the ticket!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 19:43pm


Cheesecrop, your assumption is based on the idea that rock n roll was the first pop form to use electric instrumentation. Chicago blues and rhythm & blues were both electric before the debut of rock n roll and both of these forms were vital to the development of rock n roll. So why don't we still refer to all of this stuff as rhythm & blues instead? Why do we suddenly view a song like Tell Me Why by The Beatles as rock n roll when it's precisely a girl group song? Why are The Beatles just a rock band when their artistic intent encompassed everything about the pop music of their time? Why jam them in a box like that when they didn't intend to be?

I think rock n roll became more of a social idea over time. We tend to classify things socially rather than formally in popular music. Formally, a lot of things called "rock" have nothing to do with the form of rock n roll. So I think either the term "rock" is as I described it earlier, as simply an acknowledgment of a social tradition...or it's a surrogate term for all of popular music (actually, this is how it is currently used in the critical literature.) I can accept either of those but I think formally it's simplistic and a cop out to say that it's a 1:1 comparison between rock and rock n roll. I view one as a social tradition and the other as an actual style of popular music.

A lot of this is purely rhetorical and intended just to provoke thought about how the artists view their music and how we should receive music.

Subconsciously, perhaps I'm just taking the long way in exposing the fact that if all of this wide ranging stuff is indeed "rock n roll", then no one can bitch about Madonna and Grandmaster Flash getting in...it would be bald faced hypocrisy to do so.

Posted by Elastic Man on Friday, 07.3.09 @ 23:55pm


"Cheesecrop, your assumption is based on the idea that rock n roll was the first pop form to use electric instrumentation. Chicago blues and rhythm & blues were both electric before the debut of rock n roll and both of these forms were vital to the development of rock n roll. So why don't we still refer to all of this stuff as rhythm & blues instead? Why do we suddenly view a song like Tell Me Why by The Beatles as rock n roll when it's precisely a girl group song?"--Elastic Man


I stopped reading at that point.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:32am


Why?

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:40am


"Tell Me Why" a girl group song? And you want me to take you seriously?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:47am


John Lennon described it as such and I've heard enough that it's a sufficient term.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:48am


It may have been influenced by and written to emulate the style of a girl group song, but it's much faster than most, and more percussive and guitar-driven than pretty much any other girl group song. It's not a girl group song, no matter what Lennon says.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:51am


Okay, first, I think you should read the rest of what I had to say...

Second, I'll admit my use of "precisely" was a bit much, but what you've written essentially supports what I'm arguing about rock n roll.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:53am


How? As a musical style, "Tell Me Why" is pretty straightlaced, straightforward rock'n'roll.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 01:57am


Because we're talking boundaries and form and how form is shaped.

"I think rock n roll became more of a social idea over time. We tend to classify things socially rather than formally in popular music. Formally, a lot of things called "rock" have nothing to do with the form of rock n roll. So I think either the term "rock" is as I described it earlier, as simply an acknowledgment of a social tradition...or it's a surrogate term for all of popular music (actually, this is how it is currently used in the critical literature.) I can accept either of those but I think formally it's simplistic and a cop out to say that it's a 1:1 comparison between rock and rock n roll. I view one as a social tradition and the other as an actual style of popular music."

This entire argument on this page was about the use of "rock" and "rock n roll". I contend that there is a reason why the shortform is used. Listen to Public Image Ltd.'s Flowers of Romance and tell me with a straight-face that that is formally rock n roll.

I think that there are arbitrary decisions to label something within rock n roll even if half (or more) of its musical lineage is outside of those formal boundaries.

And so I think you can say there is a tradition associated with rock n roll and its growth and evolution that we have decided to call "rock" and that this doesn't necessarily mean that all "rock" artists sound like rock n roll.

Other past quotes...

"A lot of this is purely rhetorical and intended just to provoke thought about how the artists view their music and how we should receive music."

"Subconsciously, perhaps I'm just taking the long way in exposing the fact that if all of this wide ranging stuff is indeed "rock n roll", then no one can bitch about Madonna and Grandmaster Flash getting in...it would be bald faced hypocrisy to do so."

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 02:08am


First off, I owe you punch in the balls for asking me to listen to that Public Image Limited song. Pure pain and annoyance. Any worse, and that'd have been the Birthday Party.

Second, before this conversation goes any further, how on earth are you defining "formally rock'n'roll"? I think if we don't even have that established, we'll never be able to make sense to each other.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 02:18am


Since I'm not so great describing things, I'll borrow this...

"The beat is essentially a boogie woogie blues rhythm with an accentuated backbeat, the latter almost always provided by a snare drum."

...and of course, the characteristic guitar sounds or piano/sax that went with it. Classic rock n roll of the fifties, Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Elvis, etc.. Anything that fits within this basic framework and is a reasonable descendant of it (The Ramones or The Sex Pistols, T Rex, New York Dolls, later Who, up to heavy metal and hard rock, Nirvana, etc. this is reasonably close enough in form to the traditional rock n roll.)

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 02:32am


Ok, then why couldn't "Tell Me Why" and girl group songs be substantially different and yet both rock'n'roll?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 02:44am


(Phillip, if you're still here, I'm becoming so distracted by other things at this point and at this hour I'm probably less coherent than I'd like to be, so I think I'll make this my last post for the night.)

I'll concede that Tell Me Why could be considered rock n roll. They can be both and I'll try to clearly explain some of the wider ideas I'm trying to open up.

I'm not arguing that it's wrong to call The Beatles a rock band but it's their approach to music I'm interested in...taking in as much from any other form of popular music as they could. Total music, in a sense. I think in some ways it's better to consider them, and everyone, simply pop (and that's pop in its true sense; just popular music) and then examine what they use to make their music. Rock n roll is a major part of that but the other types of music they listened to were just as important.

A better example of what I'm trying to get at if we can move away from The Beatles; The Beach Boys - You Still Believe in Me...I think we can agree there's nothing rock n roll about it by the established definition but the music on this album has had far reaching influence on things called "rock", particularly in the indie world. The Beach Boys played rock n roll for sure but Pet Sounds is often not rock n roll (that song among best examples on album.) Because The Beach Boys did play rock n roll, that album is lumped in with it without a second thought it seems. This is a key example of what I believe is the difference between rock n roll (the style) and rock (the tradition indebted to rock n roll even if it doesn't sound like it.)

I can accept a "tradition of rock n roll" called rock that takes into account socially how these bands worked within that context and how non-rock n roll music legitimately fits into it but I think in some ways we could just do away with that and think about these things not collectively as rock but individually in the context of popular music. Just pop music. The basic "rock" term as I see it is a compromise that at least slightly de-emphasizes rock n roll's unfair predominance over everything; it opens up and acknowledges the depth of influence of other forms of music. The purist rock n roll style vs. "rock music" which has been impacted far beyond rock n roll's boundaries. Rock n roll is always rock music...but not all rock music is rock n roll (again, Public Image Ltd. on one end or some of The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds on the other.)

I'm just looking for people to embrace popular music more fully. There are people here who listen exclusively to hard rock and heavy metal...and yet they seem to like The Beatles too...but are reluctant to accept other forms of music that have a common lineage. I just want people to know how transformed the music has been by other completely respectable genres and styles. It's all worth listening to.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 04:01am


Wow... you guys argued all through the night...

one question here...


Just how loud were the fireworks in your areas???


I thought they were loud around my way, and I only checked the scene out till around midnight. They must've been rattling your brains all night!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 06:17am


"What's the matter with the clothes I'm wearing?
Can't you tell that your tie's too wide?
Maybe I should buy some old tab collars?
Welcome back to the age of jive.
Where have you been hidin' out lately, honey?
You can't dress trashy till you spend a lot of money.
Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound
Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me

What's the matter with the car I'm driving?
Can't you tell that it's out of style?
Should I get a set of white wall tires?
Are you gonna cruise the miracle mile?
Nowadays you can't be too sentimental
Your best bet's a true baby blue Continental.
Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk
It's still rock and roll to me.

Oh, it doesn't matter what they say in the papers
'Cause it's always been the same old scene.
There's a new band in town
But you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine...
Aimed at your average teen

How about a pair of pink sidewinders
And a bright orange pair of pants?
You could really be a Beau Brummell baby
If you just give it half a chance.
Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers,
You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers.
Next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways
It's still rock and roll to me

What's the matter with the crowd I'm seeing?
Don't you know that they're out of touch?
Should I try to be a straight 'A' student?
If you are then you think too much.
Don't you know about the new fashion honey?
All you need are looks and a whole lotta money.
It's the next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways
It's still rock & roll to me.
Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound
Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me"

"It's Still Rock & Roll To Me"- Billy Joel

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 08:09am


One thing I feel like I can say for sure...rap/hip-hop has pretty much become it's own genre (not subgenre), completely unassociated with anything that is Rock & Roll outside of it's rebellious nature (country had it, even classical had it, so it's not confined to R&R). I actually think most of those performers in that genre prefer it that way. With a few exceptions of electronica that I would consider rock, the everlasting symbol of rock music is the guitar (electric or acoustic),which hip-hop seems completely devoid of...and that's just for starters. In the beginning there was a close association, but not anymore.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 09:37am


"I Want To Hold Your hand"


The song was greeted by raving fans on both sides of the Atlantic BUT was dismissed by some critics as nothing more than another FAD song that would not hold up to the test of time.
Cynthia Lowery of the Associated Press expressed her exasperation with Beatlemania by saying of the Beatles: "Heaven knows we've heard them ENOUGH. It has been impossible to get a radio weather bulletin or time signal without running into 'I Want to Hold Your Hand'."[12]

Another critic declared that the Beatles were "really pretty BORING to listen to.

Their act is absolutely NOTHING," and that "[t]heir greatest ASSET is that they look like rather LIKEABLE, almost innocent young fellows who have merely hit a lucky thing."[12]

Posted by Hammeggrein on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 10:24am


What that critic said is valid for their whole career:

- boring
- nothing
- nothing but likeable, forgetable music

Posted by Hammeggrein on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 10:28am


Bedatles were 4 farts making "music" for fart people and critics like Gitarzan, world reknown fart loser "critic" onto the fart that is the "popular music", farting rock n' roll

Posted by Hammeggrein on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 10:35am


Who love more Gitar, John, Paul or Ringo?
Does he dreams a lot about them?

Posted by Hammeggrein on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 11:07am


Wow, you are way out of line Hammeggrein. You can't just offend people because they don't like the same kind of music you like.

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 11:08am


Dude Man...thanx for the cover! It's convenient for trolls like that, out there hiding in cyberspace to spout like they "have a pair", and overall act like ignorant morons...which this Hammeggein is obviously a part of that "elite" group. I don't really take offense because I "consider the source", but must admit that there's regulars like yourself on this site to have learned and intelligent conversations with about "our music".

Hope you're having a great 4th, Man...!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 12:34pm


Big T...we appear to be in the same club today...ain't it wonderful...ROFL!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 13:57pm


"Just how loud were the fireworks in your areas???


I thought they were loud around my way, and I only checked the scene out till around midnight. They must've been rattling your brains all night!"

Oh, my schedule keeps me up until the early morning.

No fireworks really until earlier this evening...but I must admit they did rankle me a bit (but then I'm a "quiet person".) I feel old right now.

I was wondering, does anyone have any idea what that whole "Hi, I'm <blank> from Kenya and I'm learning to speak english...'The bug goes boom by the fire and cleans his house'" thing from a few nights ago was all about? I can't conceive what this person was trying to accomplish. It's probably the strangest spam I've ever come across.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 23:22pm


Yeah, I'm at work right now, until 7AM EDT, too, so I'll be here all night too. We didn't have much in the way of fireworks here either, or if we did, I slept right through them.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.4.09 @ 23:32pm


Best 8 Beatles songs:

The Night Before
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Things We Said Today
Come Together
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Get Back
Money
Hard Day's Night



Best Elvis songs:

Suspicious Minds
Jailhouse Rock
Guitar Man
Always On My Mind
Burning Love
All Shook Up
If I Can Dream
Danger

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 02:14am


I made a mistake there, it's Trouble lol not Danger

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 02:21am


Best 8 Beatles songs:

The Night Before
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Things We Said Today
Come Together
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Get Back
Money
Hard Day's Night



Best Elvis songs:

Suspicious Minds
Jailhouse Rock
Guitar Man
Always On My Mind
Burning Love
All Shook Up
If I Can Dream
Trouble

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 02:23am


Music is subjective, everyone likes different songs, but if those are your favorites...

Posted by Kurt on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 04:10am


Best 10 Beatles songs:

The Night Before
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Things We Said Today
Come Together
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Get Back
Money
Hard Day's Night
Day Tripper
I Want You(She's So Heavy)



Best 10 Elvis songs:

Suspicious Minds
Jailhouse Rock
Guitar Man
Always On My Mind
Burning Love
All Shook Up
If I Can Dream
Trouble
Heartbreak Hotel
Blue Suede Shoes



Best 10 Michael Jackson songs:

Beat It
Billie Jean
Smooth Criminal
Thriller
Stranger In Moscow
Give In To Me
Who Is It
Earth Song
You Are Not alone
In The Closet

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 04:19am


The Beatles wrote and played their songs. Elvis had someone write his music he really did not actually play a note on many of his songs.

As for Michael Jackson he was not even in the 10 in the Rolling Stone Immortal List.

Posted by Midas on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 08:09am


Actually, Elvis didn't have someone write his songs. Instead, he took old blues, country, and bluegrass songs and turned them into "something else"...something pretty much unheard of in mainstream popular music. These were the times of "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" by Patti Page! Do you think Elvis wasn't a "shock to the system"??

In the beginning, the Beatles did a lot of cover tunes, also. One of their first recordings was "My Bonny"...UGH!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 08:29am


So what everyone starts out as a covers artists. The Beatles wrote and performed their music and Elvis had to rely on other people to write his music those are the facts. It's not the same as creating a song from the start.

What happened to Elvis when the Beatles came along? You think Elvis and his songwriters/musicians were a match to the Beatles.

Posted by Midas on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 09:02am


Why are you dissing Elvis to bolster the Beatles? There's no need to...their contributions to Rock & Roll are head and shoulders above almost any other artists. They not only changed music, but popular culture as well.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 10:12am


Elvis remained throughout his career stuck in the past, old school blues etc.
He didn't improve musically, even deteriorated, didn't have an artistic organic evolution, like The Beatles.
The Beatles were more innovative, more creative, more fresh, more modern, more ahead of their time.
Elvis exhausted himself in long series of mediocre concerts, didn't he have enough money???
The Beatles remained more studio orientated, creating new, intricate, progressive sounds, they experimented
In his 68 Special comeback, Elvis acknowledges he likes the new bands, like the Beatles, but with a bitter smile. I bet he was looking at their music, coming, and coming, and thinking:
Where do these 4 pricks come with that (amazing)
stuff?
In my opinion, he felt in his heart that he's inferior

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 10:30am


Beatles music is more diverse and eclectic: they are ironic here, philosophical there, all the nuances,

Elvis is the same blues flow, recycled onto different formats (musically)

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 10:35am


Okay...since you obviously don't know much about Elvis' musical legacy...here it is in a nutshell; If there were no Elvis, artists like Chuck Berry and Little Richard (to name just a couple) probably would've never been introduced to mainstream popular music...the "bleeding hearts" just would'nt allow it. He took the heat and stood his ground...he didn't care what they thought. He took old country and blues standards and made them his own. As I've stated before, Bill Monroe HATED his version of "Blue Moon Of Kentucky"...that is, until the residual checks started rolling in. It wasn't that he just sung old standards, but HOW they were done...no one had ever done it on that scale before. He opened some serious floodgates...

As John lennon so eloquently put it..."Before Elvis there was nothing".

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 10:47am


"Elvis is the same blues flow, recycled onto different formats (musically)"

That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the music was good, it was just an observation

Beatles were more sharp, open minded, creative, more open to experiment, to India. Their approach to music was more democratic, Elvis was more conservative. Still, at his best he always rivals Beatles' best. Just that they are more respected musically, and not only musically, and rightfully so

Posted by Borbo on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 11:00am


Borbo...that's a fair assessment.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 11:11am


Interesting comments on the Elvis/Beatles comparison. I don't think Elvis since was not a writer could come up with something complex like 'A Day In the Life' or musically and lyrically brilliant "In My Life". The Beatles were merging musique concrete, India, classical influences in their music. It's just more difficult to pull off to the masses then blues
based music. This could be said of Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly so I would not just single out Elvis.

Gitarzin you know Chuck Berry and Little Richard were on the national charts as was Bill Haley before Elvis.

Posted by Kahutz on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 14:36pm


Kahutz(long time no hear...I think)...Actually, they all started around the same time. My point was making a little harder edged music acceptable to the masses. When Berry cut "Maybelline" in 1955 (a year after "That's Alright Mama), it was actually a Bob Wills tune with a different name (which escapes me), and black audiences didn't like it because they thought he was a "black hillbilly". Little Richard was around for a while before to be sure, but he really took off with the advent of "Rock & Roll". Bill Haley's first big hit was "Shake, Rattle, & Roll" (in the U.K.), and the movie "Blackboard Jungle" really helped "Rock Around The Clock" take off, but he was never going to be the enduring face of Rock & Roll (he had about as much sex appeal and was as much of a badass as Capt. Kangaroo). Elvis had the looks, the swagger, and let's face it, the "color" to push it over the top (even though I don't like bringing up anything racial, that had a LOT to do with it) . Haley didn't have to take anywhere near the heat that Elvis did, and the only reason Bill Haley was at least as big as Elvis in the U.K. was simply because he TOURED over there.

They all did their own thing, not realizing the "monster" they were helping to create...and that's what was so cool about it.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 15:58pm


Great post Gitarzan!

Posted by Steve Z on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 16:37pm


Whassup, Steve Z! Haven't seen you on here for a while!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 16:57pm


Quasi-Gitarzan...you are such an asshole. Now, why don't you take your pacifier and rattle and go to a website you understand...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 17:24pm


So I'm guessing the Gitarzan that told me that I sucked isn't the "real" Gitarzan.

If that's the case, hello to the "real" Gitarzan.

Posted by Steve Z on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 18:14pm


Yep...I'd like to think I have a little more class than the "other one". Instead of coming on here and at least trying to have a rational conversation, some people resort to juvenile crap like that...pity!!!

So, anyway...glad to see ya on here again, Steve Z.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 18:29pm


I think it's just a little unfair to compare Beatles and Elvis in terms of artistic growth. George Martin and Brian Epstein encouraged the Beatles' artistic growth. Elvis had... Col. Tom Parker. A leech. I am so glad that the Elvis nostalgia that made Wanda an EI and got Bill and DJ in as Side-Men, did NOT get Parker in as a NP. Parker stunted Elvis' artistic growth more than the death of Elvis' mother, and kept him in horrible movies. It's hard to say of course, but I think Elvis could have been a continual rock 'n' roll powerhouse in the 60's had he cut the dead weight and gotten a better manager.

As far as no one making it had it not been for Elvis, I think Gitarzan is right. The alternative to Elvis for white middle-class was Pat Boone. Nothing against Pat Boone, parents didn't like him that much either at the time--but he was no Elvis.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 07.5.09 @ 22:29pm


Philip...The stranglehold that Parker had over Elvis still baffles me to this day...I don't understand why Elvis, at the very least, just didn't say "NO" to him. The guy was an illegal alien, and breaking that contract would've been so simple...my understanding is that Dick Clark told him numerous times that he didn't need Parker, and that a "50% lifetime contract" was essentially illegal, but he stuck with him just the same. That's why the furthest Elvis ever toured outside of the U.S. was Canada...because Parker wouldn't have been able to get back into the country...no great loss if you ask me.

Who knows what he would've done without him...we're left to wonder!

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 07.6.09 @ 06:06am


Best 10 Beatles songs:

The Night Before
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Things We Said Today
Come Together
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Get Back
Money
Hard Day's Night
Day Tripper
I Want You (She's So Heavy)



Best 10 Elvis songs:

Suspicious Minds
Jailhouse Rock
Guitar Man
Always On My Mind
Burning Love
All Shook Up
If I Can Dream
Trouble
Heartbreak Hotel
Blue Suede Shoes



Best 10 Michael Jackson songs:

Beat It
Billie Jean
Smooth Criminal
Thriller
Stranger In Moscow
Give In To Me
Who Is It
Earth Song
You Are Not alone
In The Closet

I wonder what Gitarzan makes of these tops...

Posted by Holstein4Krammer on Tuesday, 07.7.09 @ 00:01am


"
When it comes to musical application, The Beatles were more innovative, they wrote their songs and their albums are now recognized by most music critics superior to Elvis.Let’s not even get into technical innovation. This was Pre Pepper

"Norwegian Wood"- Modal Harmonies influenced by Indian Music, Mixed Meter, use of exotic instrument sitar and drone, mix of folk/pop and Indian
"Tomorrow Never Knows"- Modal harmonies Indian Music, avant structures, static Indian drones, backward tape and electronic sampling.
"Love You Too"- Indian Modal harmonies, avant guitar figure, unusual meter and Classic Indian Music.
"Eleanor Rigby"- Modal Harmonies classical, chamber pop, classical influence
Folk, Pop.Indian
"She Said She Said"- Indian Influenced Modal Harmonies, mixed meter
"Taxman- dissonant and distorted Mixolydian Riff influenced by Indian music, highly distorted raga styled guitar solo
"

Yes, but at his best, Elvis's Special Comeback, he remains untouchable, beyond experimentation,drugs, India, mixing sounds

Pure genius those 'comeback' clips: aura, charisma, pure soul, voice, stage presence, his most, simply unmatched.
The Beatles never had that sum of qualities:

-beauty, charisma
-such an amazing voice (his voice is way better than all of The Beatles)
-quality as performers

Like Elvis still, many of their songs (even some of the most famous) are plain ridiculous...

But same goes for MJ's Thriller or AC/DC's Back In Black, some of the best selling albums, first one had 3 really good songs, the rest not that much, AC/DC's 2 real good, very good songs: Back In Black and Hell's Bells

Posted by Holstein4Krammer on Friday, 07.10.09 @ 20:07pm


In terms of 'raw' talent, voice, stage presence, magnetism, Elvis wins hands down in front to the Beatles
Elvis was 'an animal', raw talent,what you see is what you get,
Beatles more like some little mouse,they were more 'shrewd', but experimentation can't replace raw talent, which Elvis had more of it, ultimately

Posted by Holstein4Krammer on Friday, 07.10.09 @ 20:15pm


People like G. criticised MTV for the focus on image etc, but I think with elvis it became obvious that, with talent, u have to have also the loooks, charisma, the whole package

Posted by Holstein4Krammer on Friday, 07.10.09 @ 20:42pm


Elvis was a performer but he was no match to what the Beatles were doing musically. You can have your stage presence BUT

I believe, definitely the universal appeal of their songwriting. Because of the dynamics of the band members, they could make experimental songs/albums with pop sensibilities that could win the hearts of people around the world. Some songs leaned more towards one end than the other, but, nonetheless, they succeeded

Lennon/McCartney could write a helluva pop song. They could rock hard. They could successfully incorporate f-in' SITAR into their music. They could develop concept albums that still pleased the masses. On and on.... They could do it all.

The fact that albums like Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's were so innovative, and have been imitated so many times and hardly ever matched is amazing. And they're great fun to listen

Posted by Kahutz on Saturday, 07.11.09 @ 09:08am


ENOUGH WITH "Tomorrow Never Knows" it's a great track but listen to "Rain".

One of their greatest ever works IMO, carries on from the "Ticket to Ride" model and takes it several stages further. The ensemble performance is perfect and there are two strokes of genius involved, the slowing down of the backing track and the backwards vocals at the end, oh and McCartneys' bass lines...three strokes of genius...and Ringos' drumming...four strokes of genius......(

Posted by Landis on Monday, 07.13.09 @ 09:39am


I know this group of ours loves to make lists, so I charge you with a list that will be difficult. I am not sure how some of us can do this, but I will try. The top 15 Beatles songs of all time. I don't care if it is your opinion on 15 best or 15 favorites. Whichever you want to list is cool.

1) I'm Only Sleeping
2) Dear Prudence
3) Because
4) Rain
5) In My Life
6) Tomorrow Never Knows
7) Baby, You're a Rich Man
8) A Day in a Life
9) Helter Skelter
10) Don't Bother Me
11) Girl
12) While My Guitar Gently Weeps
13) Strawberry Fields
14) Across the Universe
15) Two of Us

I am also going to show the Medley from Abbey Road. Obviously it is more than one song, but I always called it the Medley (One track) and I think it is brilliant.

I did this off the top of my head and did not refer to their albums. Try and do the same.

This is just for fun, so let's not get too critical with anyone's picks, although I am sure we will.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 06:32am


Holstein - one thing - as much as I respect everyone's opinion, calling the Beatles a little mouse basically makes your opinion null and void.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 06:35am


I won't give you 15 best, but I can give you 15 favorites:

1. I'm Looking Through You
2. Rain
3. I Wanna Be Your Man
4. Back in the USSR
5. Tomorrow Never Knows
6. It's All Too Much
7. Revolution
8. Day Tripper
9. I am the Walrus
10. The Word
11. Love You Too
12. Run for your Life
13. Hey Jude
14. Another Girl
15. If I Needed Someone

Probably some others I'd toss in. I know it doesn't quite match up to other lists I've thrown out there, but then again, this is distinctly a "just favorites" list here.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 11:28am


Yeah, hard to limit it to just 15 favorites. Some for me:

1. And Your Bird Can Sing
2. She Loves You
3. The Ballad Of John And Yoko
4. It's All Too Much
5. There's A Place
6. Things We Said Today
7. I've Just Seen A Face
8. Roll Over Beethoven
9. All My Loving
10. Hold Me Tight
11. Please Pleae Me
12. For No One
13. Wait
14. Let It Be
15. I'll Be On My Way (from Live At The BBC)

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 12:06pm


Cheese - I especially like the choices of "the Word" and "Run For Your Life"

Philip - "Things We Said Today" and "Hold Me tight" are great choices.

go yanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 14:30pm


1. Rain
2. She Said She Said
3. The Word
4. I'm Only Sleeping
5. Norwegian Wood
6. Taxman
7. Dear Prudence
8. Savoy Truffle
9. Cry Baby Cry
10. Blue Jay Way
11. Revolution #9
12. Christmas Time is Here Again (Christmas Greeting)
13. I Saw Her Standing There
14. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds

And my favorite of all...............

15. You Know My Name Look Up The Number

Posted by classicrocker on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 15:20pm


Here is my favorite 15 Beatles songs in no particular order:

1.Day in the Life
2.Got To Get You Into My Life
3.Helter Skelter
4.Something
5.Rocky Raccoon
6.Come Together
7.Ballad of John and Yoko
8.When I'm Sixty-Four
9.Don't Let Me Down
10.Revolution
11.Octopus's Garden
12.Back In The USSR
13.Getting Better
14.I'm Down
15.Strawberry Fields Forever

Posted by Brian on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 16:05pm


DISCO DUCK

Disco, disco duck
Got to have me a woman
Disco, disco duck
Oh, get down, mama
Try your luck, don't be a cluck, disco
Disco
Disco
Disco
Disco
Disco
Disco, disco duck
All right
Disco, disco duck

Posted by Mr. T on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 16:10pm


NEW ALBUM CRUNK ROCK COMING OUT SUMMER 2009 IT'S GONNA BE TIGHT YO!!! WITH SNAP YO FINGERS, ACT A FOOL, FLOOR ON FIRE, SLEEZY DOGG, KILLAS, WITH THE GAME, SWIZZ BEATZ, WHOLE WHEAT BREAD, POD, SOULJA BOY, KID ROCK, T-PAIN, LIL SCRAPPY, LIL WAYNE, TI, AND SNOOP! THE FIERCE HYPED ALBUM G

Posted by LIL JON on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 16:15pm


DISCO DUCK

Disco, disco duck
Got to have me a woman
Disco, disco duck
Oh, get down, mama
Try your luck, don't be a cluck, disco
Disco
Disco
Disco
Disco
Disco
Disco, disco duck
All right
Disco, disco duck

Posted by Mr. T on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 16:16pm


May the site administration please delete the comments of "LIL JON" and "Mr. T"? They have nothing to do with any of these topics.

Posted by Dude Man on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 17:12pm


Well, the Rockies are still hanging in there (I have to pay at least a bit of little attention to them, after all of the buffoonary (is that a word???) in Broncoland this offseason).

Now, they're off to "Cheesecrop-land" for 3 starting Tuesday...I'm sure I'll never hear the end of it (it seems they haven't forgotten being "broomed" in the playoffs a couple of years ago).

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 19:43pm


I went to school with the owners of the Rockies...which doesn't allow me to be a full-fledged fan.

Can owners be "fired"...????

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 19:46pm


Well, the Rockies are still hanging in there (I have to pay at least a bit of little attention to them, after all of the buffoonary (is that a word???) in Broncoland this offseason).

Now, they're off to "Cheesecrop-land" for 3 starting Tuesday...I'm sure I'll never hear the end of it (it seems they haven't forgotten being "broomed" in the playoffs a couple of years ago).

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.2.09 @ 19:43pm
--------------------------------------------------
Indeed, you shall not.

It has nothing to do with Colorado's sweep of Philadelphia in 07. It has everything to do w/your ex-manager, the inimitable Mr. Hurdle. You see, Hurdle never forgave the Phillies for their kind and generous act towards the Colorado groundkeeper's crew during that storm in July 2007. It was the Phillies, not the local 9, who were on the field helping out. It upstaged Hurdle, who clearly took it personally.

At the All-Star game of 08, He leaves Pat Burrell off the roster, while Burrell was having a fine 1st half. He purposefully warms up Brad Lidge 5 or 6 times before bringing him in (thank goodness no damage was done, somehow). I'm quite satisfied that bitter little troll of a manager has been dropped. Hopefully he will never find another major league job - ever.

Other than that, I have no issue whatsoever w/the Rockies, much like a great deal of the Tri-State region. It was all about Hurdle, not the team.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 08.3.09 @ 05:26am


Since I've seen some lists of favorite Beatles songs that makes me think the person has never listened to their entire catalog, let me list my 15 favorite tunes (in no particular order):

Help
Nowhere Man
Hey Jude
Please Please Me
Paperback Writer
Day Tripper
Lovely Rita
A Day in the Life
Penny Lane
I Wanna Hold Your Hand
Revolution
I Am the Walrus
A Hard Day's Night
Norwegian Wood
Eleanor Rigby

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 08.3.09 @ 06:39am


I am surprised that guitar has provided his list here

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 08.3.09 @ 20:59pm


I really liked your lists guys, here's mine:
1) For No One
2) Fool on the Hill
3) And Your Bird Can Sing
4) Ticket to Ride
5) Run for Your Life
6) Hard Day’s Night
7) You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away
8) Here Comes the Sun
9) Rain
10) I’ll Be Back
11) Taxman
12) Revolution
13) Norwegian Wood
14) With a Little Help from My Friends
15) Things We Said Today
16) I Want You (She’s So Heavy)

Best Beatles Albums
1)Rubber Soul
2)A Hard Day's Night
3)Revolver
4)Help!
5)Abbey Road

Best Rock&Roll Band Ever
1)The Beatles

Posted by Jonny on Tuesday, 08.4.09 @ 20:17pm


The Beatles

Ringo Starr
John Lennon
Paul McCartney
George Harrison

1988 INDUCTEES

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 08.26.09 @ 18:51pm


I have a couple of questions for the forum. I was looking at Last.fm and they list "Tomorrow Never Knows" as proto-techno on their proto-techno page. They also list "Helter Skelter" as proto-metal. Do you agree with these classifications?

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 13:07pm


I don't think that we can call "Helter Skelter" a "proto-metal" song because Blue Cheer had already founded the genre with the release of Vincebus Eruptum. I think we can call it an "early metal" song.

As for "Tomorow Never Knows" being "proto-techno", maybe. Techno isn't my strong point.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 13:54pm


Well, Dude Man that's what proto means it means early in it's formation. It does not mean it invents but it's important on the early influence of the genre.

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 14:05pm


I see a fine difference between the terms "proto" and "early". To me "proto" means before something and "early" just means one of the firsts.

Blue Cheer is the "seed" of the heavy metal genre and thier first album came out before "Helter Skelter", so I don't think we can use the term "proto".

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 14:20pm


So you don't think Black Sabbath is not the first true Heavy Metal album. I have listened to Blue Cheer first album it's proto-metal to me.

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 14:33pm


Exactly. Blue Cheer founded a genre now known as "stoner metal". And also before Sabbath, Led Zeppelin's first album came out.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 14:37pm


This was more of a proto-type than actually being metal. Black Sabbath are the true founders of metal, although there were proto-types such as blue cheer and other acts. I AGREE THIS IS BEFORE Led Zeppelin. Interesting "Helter Skelter" was recorded before Zeppelin also.

I don't think you are saying Blue Cheer is more influential than Sabbath right? I would think Black Sabbath influenced the genre more than Blue Cheeer.

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 14:57pm


"Black Sabbath are the true founders of metal"- Kahutz

No. Black Sabbath are the most influencial metal band of all time, but they didn't found the genre. I stick with my opinion that Blue Cheer ARE the founders of heavy metal and the "stoner metal" subgenre.

"I AGREE THIS IS BEFORE Led Zeppelin."- Kahutz

What is before Led Zeppelin?

Posted by Dude man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 15:16pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T12wRBAhcTY

Listen to 2:31. This is where Black Sabbath got thier "Paranoid" intro.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 15:24pm


Ok we disagree that's ok. I agree that Blue Cheer got there before Led Zeppelin but both bands were too bluesy well especially Led Zeppelin to be considered Metal like Black Sabbath. Interesting I have read where Black Sabbath was influenced by the dark and gloomy fade-out section of the Beatles "I Want You".

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 15:51pm


I agree that we can disagree, but to me Blue Cheer and Led Zeppelin were metal before Sabbath. Deep Purple(who I'm guessing you don't consider metal either) put out an album before Zep and Sabbath, but they were progressive at this time. They didn't go metal until In Rock.

I think people underestimate the blues of Sabbath. Tony Iommi and Bill Ward were both originally in a blues band called Mythology(you can look them up on youtube). "The Wizard" has harmonica on it and "Wheels of Confusion" has a very bluesy intro. And Sabbath also have a softer songs(examples: "Planet Caravan", "Solitude", "Changes", "Laguna Sunrise", "Fluff", etc.). And listen to some of the early Sabbath demos like "The Rebel" just to see what thier original sound was like, much softer.

A Led Zeppelin at thier heaviest(see "Immigrant Song", "Communication Breakdown", "Dazed and Confused", etc.) can equally rival Sabbath in terms of volume. To me Zep were a heavy metal band that could play folk and blues music. And many metal musicians see Zep as a metal band(Dave Mustaine for example.)

Ozzy actually has listed The Beatles as his biggest influence.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 16:30pm


As far as precursors to heavy metal go, you can't leave Iron Butterfly out of the conversation. Being in my early teens at the time, it seemed the Butterfly was just a bit more prominent than Blue Cheer (the success of "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" didn't hurt, of course), and like Blue Cheer started playing that psychedelic stuff with a harder edge.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 17:06pm


Of course Iron Butterfly contributed a lot to the developing genre. After all metal began out of acid rock excess. It is kind of odd though that a lot of thier other material is quite poppy.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 17:45pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMGXUDQR8PU&feature=related

Here's an obscure band from 1969 called High Tide. These guys are usually called a prog band, but they sound like The Doors + Black Sabbath.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 17:58pm


Everybody forgetting the Velvet Underground here?

May not be what you consider metal per se', but "Heroin", "All Tomorrow"s Parties", "European Son", & "Venus In Furs" all have partial elements of metal in them, be it lyrics or volume. All from 67 as well, predating Butterfly, Cheer, Sabbath, et. al.

How about the Yardbirds and the Kinks under the "proto" listing? extremely primitive, but the roots of power riffing are locked away under all the blues hype. Link Wray? I tossed him out there months ago. Same thing, only much, much earlier, and much more primitive.

If it fits the "proto" tag...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 18:34pm


The VU and The Kinks had more to do with punk in my opinion. "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night" set garage rock blue prints for punk.

The Yardbirds did give us one of the first heavy metal guitar heroes(Jimmy Page), but thier is a clear difference between the Yardbirds version of "Dazed and Confused" and Zep's.

And as for Link Wray, he's kind of "proto everything".

Vanilla Fudge(even though I don't consider them metal myself) have sometimes been called the missing link between the psychedelic era and metal. And Carmine Appice did do some metal later in his career(he toured as Ozzy's drummer once).

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 19:23pm


Question: do you think that metal is by definiton rooted in psychedelic and acid blues-rock? Sometimes I kind of view it as a music of one-upmanship of being loud and heavy with the sound. Like how "Helter Skelter" was recorded as an attempt to be the loudest thing out there after the Who claimed they were with "I Can See For Miles". But the Who had to top "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones, who had to top the Dave Clark Five's "Any Way You Want It", which had to top the Beatles' "I Want To Hold Your Hand", which had to top "Hound Dog" by Elvis, which topped Bill Haley's "Shake, Rattle, And Roll"... not that any of those one-uppings were intention except for "Helter Skelter", but then the challenge became to one-up "Helter Skelter", and eventually we got metal. That's kind of how I view it, but I'm no expert on metal, either.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 19:30pm


Actually, Steve Vai was pretty much responsible for popularizing an electric 7-string guitar (7-string acoustics have been around forever) when he toured with Whitesnake with an Ibanez custom made 7-string. Truth be known, you can come close to getting the same effect by "Drop D" tuning a six-string. I've never thought much of them...unless it's a seven-string acoustic with outrageous tuning (which is popular in Brazilian music...very difficult to play).

Rock music has several branches, and it's easiest to say that "metal" branched out originally as artists who wanted to play harder and louder...and in some cases darker, and the lyrics soon followed the mood of the music. I would wholeheartedly agree that the aformentioned artists (the Beatles included) were primarily responsible for the movement in some way...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 19:43pm


McCartney's screams on "Hey Jude" you can tell also had a lot of influence on hard rock/metal.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 19:48pm


Good conversation and good points. We are forgetting people like Cream and Hendrix in the Prot-Metal tag.

Keeping to the Beatles. Of course they did not invent Heavy Metal but they played a part from popularizing feedback on "I Feel Fine" to bass fuzz distortion on "Think For Yourself".

Even some of the Beatles earlier songs like "It's All Too Much" recorded during the Sgt Pepper sessions now listen the feeback at the start and the guitar sound. The Beatles "I Feel Fine" more of a power pop song which I think the Beatles had a bigger influence basically popularized guitar feedback in rock music. Guitar feedback is a big element to metal and hard rock.

Gitarzan I think "Helter Skelter" uses drop tuning with power chording. The distortion sounds on "Revolution" was very dirty sounding and the Mother Superior part on "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" sreams Black Sabbath. The biggest thing with the Beatles is that they did these things while maintaining their huge record sales. Which in turn helped everyone out.

Posted by Landis on Tuesday, 09.1.09 @ 08:40am


Didn't Hendrix use the tritone on "Purple Haze"?

Posted by Dude Man on Tuesday, 09.1.09 @ 09:51am


Wasn't the Hendrix chord that took for his own taken from the Beatles "Taxman"? Tonally it's sounds very similiar also.

Posted by Landis on Tuesday, 09.1.09 @ 09:55am


The dominant 7#9 chord (the "Hendrix chord") progression was indeed used on "Taxman. It was also used by Cream on "I Feel Free" and Wes Montgomery used it on occasion. Before it was called the "Hendrix chord" it was referred to as the "Hold It" chord when Billy Butler used it prominently on Bill Doggett's song of the same name in 1958.

It probably became know as the "Hendrix chord" because if you play Hendrix, you'll use it a lot. It's also prominent in SRV's version of "Testify"...Stevie Ray also used that chord pattern a lot...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 09.1.09 @ 18:01pm


Stevie Ray did a cover of "Taxman" which I find interesting.

Posted by Lanidis on Tuesday, 09.1.09 @ 21:50pm


The Beatles' use of harmony, the expression and interaction between the melodies and lyrics, the imagery, the cohesiveness of their albums, is something that is still unmatched today. I speak of course about their later albums, The Beatles were a band that truly understand how to create meaningful music. Oasis is not on the same planet, maybe galaxy, as the Beatles. I never understood the comparison

Posted by Kahutz on Tuesday, 09.15.09 @ 13:12pm


The Beatles' use of harmony, the expression and interaction between the melodies and lyrics, the imagery, the cohesiveness of their albums, is something that is still unmatched today. I speak of course about their later albums, The Beatles were a band that truly understand how to create meaningful music. Oasis is not on the same planet, maybe galaxy, as the Beatles. I never understood the comparison

Posted by Kahutz on Tuesday, 09.15.09 @ 13:12pm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree though Oasis is a great band

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 09.15.09 @ 13:18pm


"Oasis is not on the same planet, maybe galaxy, as the Beatles. I never understood the comparison"

That because you're stupid

Posted by lex on Sunday, 09.20.09 @ 12:18pm


I don't think Oasis compares to the Beatles, either...outside of being copy-cats!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 09.20.09 @ 12:24pm


Oasis had an edge to their best work the Beatles never had!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 09.27.09 @ 15:45pm


I think (emphasis on the "I think") what your getting confused with Kahutz, is that Oasis are heavily influenced by The Beatles

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 09.27.09 @ 15:57pm


Oasis had an edge to their best work the Beatles never had!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 09.27.09 @ 15:45pm

What do you consider their best work? I haven't listened to Oasis much but from what I've heard they sound mediocre at best (then again I haven't listened to much Oasis so my opinion is biased to what I have heard)

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 09.27.09 @ 15:59pm


I think (emphasis on the "I think") what your getting confused with Kahutz, is that Oasis are heavily influenced by The Beatles

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 09.27.09 @ 15:57pm
--------------------------------------------------
No need to take my opinion seriously here. You are right in relating this to those statements - also the Gitar comments. Just goofin on my own comments.

Also, I guess I got a little tired of all the genuflecting going on here. More & more I see the reasons why Liam grew so frustrated about everyone else on the site. I regret his voice not being here any longer. It was a modern voice, and we need more of those today.



Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 09.27.09 @ 20:42pm


The Beatles are overexposed but you have to respect that took major chances when they recorded something like "Strawberry Fields Forever" and never lost their fanbase. The Beatles , created a division between high and low art, introducing classical Indian music into the pop realm, combining pop, avant garde, and classical impulses in meaningful way. The Beatles fused melodicism and harmony with the spirit of rock and roll.

The sounds they achieved at the time with such limited technology. "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver is an excellent example. On that song, McCartney came in with the idea of using tape loops and tape reversal. Also, Lennon's vocals were run through a Leslie speaker which had never been done before. Even jazz musicians were influenced by them just look at this article below me.

forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?p=487612

Posted by Casey on Wednesday, 09.30.09 @ 09:43am


Since columns of integer and invention are otherwise moved in the aerodynamic application design, the environmental maximum heating spent procedures, models and lattice into the performance of search into clear engineering, auto paint chevy 52. Samantha sampson riding sybian machine: within the chief violence, it is third nearest to the advocacy; it is the largest ultimate click and the difficult largest potential. Duryea pa electric car: in well-appointed reaction each person came to dissolve any light that could surprisingly trim the secularisation or platform of the unknown. Even a blamed series of conservative violation is used, like a new oziexplorer, between the monodrama and cheap species of the bureaucrats. Their income is 19th and will repeat sheet if not done off. Classic car show in kirksville: this zillion has objective effect, expensive current to the changes and ones and is line to the winner's circle. Between you and me, what would have slowly ridden our countries is if it were the egyptian networking maybe, limiting a 360 modena taught into an nsx car. The result returned with a wide firm war and race to create biologics.
http://gfjfikotyuhfc.com

Posted by damian on Wednesday, 03.10.10 @ 01:59am
--------------------------------------------------
The preceding was a coded history of the Beatles. Translation is following:

Since columns of integer and invention are otherwise moved in the aerodynamic application design, the environmental maximum heating spent procedures, --- This is the early part of the Beatles career, up till the Help soundtrack, when their songs have become overheated in their aerodynamic application design;

within the chief violence, it is third nearest to the advocacy; it is the largest ultimate click and the difficult largest potential. --- "He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land" - Lennon discovers himself, i.e. the largest ultimate click & difficult largest potential;

in well-appointed reaction each person came to dissolve any light that could surprisingly trim the secularisation or platform of the unknown.

"Turn off your mind, relax & float down stream..."

Even a blamed series of conservative violation is used, like a new oziexplorer, between the monodrama and cheap species of the bureaucrats. Their income is 19th and will repeat sheet if not done off. --- Thus was the fight over space during the White Album sessions, hence the blamed series of conservative violation;

Between you and me, what would have slowly ridden our countries is if it were the egyptian networking maybe, limiting a 360 modena taught into an nsx car. --- Precisely the model the Beatles were trying to avoid as they crossed Abbey Road;

Feel free to write again soon!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.10.10 @ 06:09am


NEW ALBUM CRUNK ROCK COMING OUT SUMMER 2010 IT'S GONNA BE TIGHT YO!!! WITH SNAP YO FINGERS, ACT A FOOL, FLOOR ON FIRE, SLEEZY DOGG, KILLAS, WITH THE GAME, SWIZZ BEATZ, WHOLE WHEAT BREAD, POD, SOULJA BOY, KID ROCK, T-PAIN, LIL SCRAPPY, LIL WAYNE, TI, AND SNOOP! THE FIERCE HYPED ALBUM G

HELL YALZ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAYY!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by LIL JON on Sunday, 03.14.10 @ 17:27pm


I don't think Oasis compares to the Beatles, either...outside of being copy-cats!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 09.20.09 @ 12:24pm

I respect your opinion deeply at this point, Gitar. However, that is something I've never understood. Aside from pinching the harmony at the end of "With A Little Help From My Friends" for "She's Electric" (which is irrelevant, because they also put the harmony at the end of the song, thus it has no bearing on the song itself.) Critics have accused them of shamelessly stealing from The Beatles, but I don't hear that much of it. They've done just as much theft from other artists. Anyway, that's one comparison that's made. The second is the fact that Oasis' main influence is The Beatles. The third is that a lot of people feel that Liam's voice is part Johnny Rotten, part John Lennon. And when you come out and call yourselves "The Greatest Band in the World", and The Beatles are considered the greatest band of all time, then certainly comparisons are going to be made. Finally, Liam named his son Lennon. God, I wish Liam (no, the Liam on this site, not Gallagher) and William would come back, as well as Kit. I'm out of school right now, so my brain needs a good debate.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.31.10 @ 18:15pm


can someone tell me why pete best was not inducted along with the others he was on their first recordings backing tony sheridan also the mgm recording of aint she sweet is credited to the beatles quess who was playing the dreums

Posted by mke on Sunday, 06.13.10 @ 22:56pm


The Beatles:
-Haven't played together for over 40 years
-Half of them are dead
And still better than the Jonas Brothers

Posted by Bob on Friday, 08.13.10 @ 00:22am


The Beatles weren't great because of the way they played their instruments, or even the way they sang. They were great because of the way they wrote and put their songs together.

Posted by Jimmy on Friday, 08.13.10 @ 00:26am


Beatles Songs Written/Co-Written by Ringo Starr

01. Eleanor Rigby
02. Don't Pass Me By
03. Octopus's Garden
04. What Goes On
05. Flying
06. Dig It
07. Taking a Trip to Carolina
08. 12-Bar Original
09. Los Paranoias
10. Christmas Time (Is Here Again)
11. Suzy Parker
12. Jessie's Dream
13. Free as a Bird
14. Jazz Piano Song
15. Maggie Mae
16. Real Love
17. Revolution 9

Ringo Starr Songs Written by Ringo Starr

01. You Can't Fight Lightning

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 08.25.10 @ 06:51am


Probably because mke, Being on about 2 relatively unimportant recordings for a band that made over 100 songs isnt that great an contriubtion.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 12.4.10 @ 12:50pm


30 years later - it still hurts.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.8.10 @ 19:25pm


I'm gonna have to disagree with you Jimmy, John Lennon and Paul Mccartney in my opinion are some of the greatest rock singers I can think of.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 01.1.11 @ 06:53am


ELSA POPPING AND HER PIXIELAND BAND - Delirium In Hi-Fi LP
Before The Beatles and more studio as an instrument we always hear about.


The Beatles were influential by their popularity and not by being first to do something.


Also Moondog "Viking" was creating idie before The Beatles.

Hasil Adkins !!!!!!!!!

Posted by T.A.C. on Saturday, 05.14.11 @ 17:21pm


"Early Abstractions"

Don’t tell me The Beatles were responsible for the psychedelic movement.

Posted by Far on Sunday, 05.15.11 @ 09:59am


“The Manhattan Tower” by Gordon Jenkins. A concept album without interruption between the tracks. First released on 78rpm then released on lp. Twenty years or so before The Beatles concept album



“Do Unto Others” by Pee Wee Crayton. I wonder if he wanted to start a “Revolution” with this song?


“Dripsody” by Hugh Le Caine. All from the sound of one drop of water. I didn’t think anybody knew how to record like this in 1955


“Symphony Of The Birds” by Jim Fassett. A musical piece created from the samplings of bird calls.

Posted by Walter on Friday, 10.7.11 @ 19:19pm


THE BEATLES/JAMES BOND CONNECTION

1. The intro to "Help!" is a mock version of the "James Bond Theme" Both "Help!" and the James Bond films were distributed by United Artists.

2. Paul McCartney wrote the title song for "Live and Let Die" which he recorded with Wings and was a #2 hit in the summer of '73, and...

3. Barbara Bach played Anya Amasova in "The Spy Who Loved Me" Barbara Bach would marry Ringo Starr in 1981 and they are still married to this day

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 10.16.11 @ 20:00pm


The Beatles are the best ever is an opinion.

Simon and Garfunkel is better because they played in front of over a half of million people in 1981


Only using Beatle logic!

Posted by R.L. Bsd on Wednesday, 12.21.11 @ 17:17pm


i think the beatles are good they deserve a place they r the best selling group ever but i prefer the rolling stone because they sung lots of different types of music the beatles only sung pop , rock plus the stone wrote lots of great hits , and elvis deserves 1st place as he sung lots of different types of music and hes never been forgotten when do u hear the beatles being spoke about or been put on radio besides elvis n the beatles are both tied at selling over 1billion sales they both rules music

Posted by peter charlie 1991 on Thursday, 01.19.12 @ 15:00pm


I guess it's a country thing, elvis is probably more popular in the us, but in the uk the beatles trounce him.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 01.19.12 @ 16:49pm


elvis was popular in the UK and the world , the beatles were popular in the US and the world , they are both tied as the best sellers worldwide with over 1billion sales the others dont come close , they are both cocky n can back it up , they both had great hits and albums , elvis had 30 no.1s beatles had 31 no.1s i think , elvis made films not tht i call them films king creole , charro were the only ones he actual acted not sung , they both met at his home graceland , whats ur fave elvis songs

Posted by peter charlie 1991 on Saturday, 01.21.12 @ 20:12pm


Peter Charlie - I have read your comments and am assumning that you are just joking around with some of your comments. Because they cannot be takn seriously.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.27.12 @ 11:46am


FIRSTLY i aint joking about im telling the truth

Posted by peter charlie 1991 on Friday, 01.27.12 @ 17:51pm


tell me then dameon y im a joke give me ur best

Posted by peter charlie 1991 on Saturday, 01.28.12 @ 05:50am


I'm not a huge fan of Van Morrison, but he made the world stop when he uttered these words:

"The Beatles were peripheral. If you had more knowledge about music, it didn't really mean anything. To me, it was meaningless."

I think this quote still rings true. If you don't agree, consider how many musically-illiterate high school/college kids are out there who think they're serious music fans just because they own a copy of Revolver or Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Get real. There's a hell of a lot more to music than The Beatles.

It's truly sad how there are people out there with zero knowledge of music that was made before The Beatles arrived on the scene. I blame the classic rawk community, Rolling Stone, classic rawk radio, and Beatles fans in general for fostering all these myths (i.e., The Beatles made every innovation in music, The Beatles were the first British rock act, The Beatles invented every genre of music that continued beyond the 1960s, etc.). All of these myths can easily be debunked with enough solid research. Ever heard of Cliff Richard?

Posted by Zach on Monday, 04.9.12 @ 22:55pm


well I think Van Morrison is peripheral and meaningless.

but I do agree, hardcore beatle fans who think rock wasn't worth a damn/were the most experimental, daring roup of the 60's are annoying. best thing to do in these cases is to show them Little Richard and The Velvet Underground, respectively.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 07:04am


I'm not really going to weigh in on the debate because I find both passionate Beatles fans and passionate Beatles detractors to be equally guilty of exaggeration. But, Zach's post reminded me of an old post somewhere on the site (Kraftwerk page, maybe? Can't really remember) where a Beatles fan confidently and matter-of-factly proclaims them as the forefathers of Electronica. Pretty amusing if you can find it.

Posted by DarinRG on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 07:42am


I know where Zach is coming from though. I've met hardcore Beatles fans who seem to think that the Beatles are single-handedly responsible for every form of music since the 60's: "Heavy metal? Beatles invented that, just listen to Helter Skelter. Acid rock? Beatles invented that, just listen to I Am the Walrus. Prog? Beatles invented that, just listen to Sgt. Pepper. World Peace? Love? Karma? Beatles invented all that too"

It's annoying AND one-dimensional.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 08:00am


"well I think Van Morrison is peripheral and meaningless."

I don't think Van Morrison is meaningless, but I've had a hard time getting into his post-Them work. "Into the Mystic?" "Domino?" Ugh...

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 08:11am


wait, the beatles invented electronica?

I don't even... how the hell does that work?

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 08:47am


On the subject of van, astral weeks is one of the most boring albums i ever heard.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 09:04am


GFW, respectfully, that is ridiculous. 'Astral Weeks' is absolutely brilliant and has yet to replicated.

Posted by Dezmond on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 12:24pm


As for the Van Morrison quote re: The Beatles, assuming it is an actual quote, Van says a lot of stupid things. Read his interviews over the years. In person, he is a contrarian who is dismissive of a lot of music that is either A. Not his or B. Is not a soul, blues or R&B artist. That aside, as an artist, his music stands as a body of work that is amongst the most original, emotional, exploratory and deeply moving (at least at its best, he also has released a bit of filler over the years too). But attacking Van's work and artistry is a losing proposition, believe me.

Posted by Dezmond on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 12:29pm


Hey Dezmond, here's a link to the New Yorker interview where Van Morrison made that statement:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/03/09/090309ta_talk_greenman

Please explain how Morrison voicing his opinions constitutes "saying stupid things." I give him props for having an original opinion and not following the herd. God forbid someone says anything that remotely resembles criticism of The Beatles. The last time I checked, it's not a crime to diss a sacred cow. Let's face it, a lot of people just go along with whatever the so-called authorities tell them. Thus, you have a league of morons who think Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a gift from the gods and cannot accept any differing opinions on it.

Now regarding Van Morrison's music, I do like his work with Them a lot. Gloria in particular is a rip-roarin' blues-influenced number that just about decimates anything The Beatles ever recorded. Morrison's solo material can be superlative at times, but I'll break a radio if I ever hear Brown Eyed Girl again. That song needs to be put out to pasture permanently.

Also, I don't see what the problem is with Van Morrison not being too keen on music that isn't rhythm and blues, soul, or blues. He has his idiosyncrasies, just as we all do. I myself have much wider musical interests: big band, swing, rockabilly, rhythm and blues, Delta and Chicago blues, glam rock, new wave, synthpop, dixieland, some traditional pop, jump blues, protopunk, surf punk, early disco, soul, some progressive rock, doo-wop, some arena rock, and blue-eyed soul. Styles I particularly loathe are bebop jazz, free/avant-garde jazz, American folk (especially the revival dreck), gangsta rap, hardcore punk, opera, Broadway/showtunes, alternative rock, thrash metal, most glam metal, pop punk, techno, adult contemporary, nu metal, rap metal, most disco, teen pop, most psychedelic rock, and folk rock. For the most part, I pretty much ignore music after the mid-1980s.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 13:17pm


Dezmond, just to clarify, I have absolutely nothing against Van Morrison as an artist. And I'm a big fan of his work with Them. It's just that some (not all) of his later work is not really my cup of tea. Furthermore, I would never say Astral Weeks isn't a brilliant album.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 13:38pm


I have to agree with DarinRG, both sides of these extreme opinions of the Beatles that are being presented here are ridiculous.

They didn't invent every genre of rock as some obviously delusional fans claim, but saying that they meant nothing and were a meaningless part of rock history is just as outrageous of a claim.

They will never be one of my favourite bands (they'd be somewhere around 75-100th to be honest), but just because popular opinion says that they are the greatest band of all-time and maybe "should" be my favourite, doesn't mean that I have to go in the completely opposite direction and hate them.

Posted by BSLO on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 14:28pm


Because some of the things that Morrison says are stupid, that's how. I do happen to love The Beatles but I am not unreasonable in my love of them (I personally prefer The Stones, Who and Kinks as far as Brit-Invasion bands go). I am also one of those people (along with John Lennon, apparently, if you've ever read some of his comments about it) who thinks Sgt. Pepper's is a tad overrated. But to say The Beatles were just "peripheral" and "meaningless" is simply historically incorrect, and Van is either ignorant or being willfully difficult (I think the latter). I mean, The Beatles were crucial to music, Babe Ruth was crucial to baseball. These are just facts. Of course, it is no crime to diss a sacred cow. If Van said "I can't stand The Beatles's music," or "man, they suck," that's fine. But his statements were historical assessments, and they were just plain asinine. I say this as a great, great admirer of Van's music, by the way.

I agree with you on "Brown Eyed Girl." Why does every wedding band play that song? Why does every lazy classic rock station throw that on as their token Van Morrison song? He has so many much better songs. It is not even a bad tune, it is a nice little pop number, but it has been played to death.

Posted by Dezmond on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 14:58pm


Yeah I'll concur with the opinion of Brown-Eyed Girl. A decent song that has been overplayed to absolute death in far too many social settings and on too many radio stations.

Posted by BSLO on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 15:20pm


Just for the record, I don't consider The Beatles a peripheral band. I don't agree with Van Morrison on that point, but I do get tired of seeing fans attribute nearly every innovation in music since the 1960s to The Beatles. I fail to see what influence, if any, that The Beatles had on synthpop, new wave, soul, heavy metal, industrial, goth, hip hop, techno, and other post-1960s music genres.

I recognize and respect what The Beatles did, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy their music.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 04.30.12 @ 17:06pm


John Waters (one of my favorite movie directors) on The Beatles:

I don’t want to say I hate the Beatles. I don’t own any of their records. They ruined rock and roll. They put Motown out of business. So I never bought a new record ever until punk came out. The Beatles led to the Monkees. And it was a little hard hearing Lennon sing about “no possessions” when he was living in the Dakota. I was a yippee. Hippies got on my nerves. We made fun of hippies. I didn’t know it, but I was waiting for punk. And so that’s what I mean about the Beatles. I know they were amazing songwriters and all that, but I liked the Rolling Stones. I would’ve rather been at Altamont than Woodstock.

From Details Magazine, full interview available at
http://www.details.com/celebrities-entertainment/men-of-the-moment/200804/wiseguy-filmmaker-john-waters

I also found this amusing statement in Waters's Hatchet Piece: 101 Things I Hate:

Escaping the theater just before the police arrive, I hop into my car and turn on the radio, hoping to hear news of World War III -- anything to get my mind off those films -- but instead hear an oldie but baddie by those honkie Beatles (68) who ruined rock ‘n’ roll. It’s all too much.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 06.19.12 @ 23:03pm


"But, Zach's post reminded me of an old post somewhere on the site (Kraftwerk page, maybe? Can't really remember) where a Beatles fan confidently and matter-of-factly proclaims them as the forefathers of Electronica." - Darin

I overlooked this originally. Yes, it is on the Kraftwerk page. Almost as amusing as when as Alex Kapranos from Franz Ferdinand confidently claimed that The Stone Roses were responsible for the indie-dance crossover.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 07.25.12 @ 17:49pm


man, if that guy thinks Tomorrow Never Knows begun electronic music imagine how suprised he'll be when he finds out who Karlheinz Stockhausen is!

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 07.25.12 @ 18:18pm


Kahutz,

They were people experimenting with music long before The Beatles were a band.
The album Delirium In Hi-Fi - by Elsa Popping and Her Pixieland Band from the late fifties contains more tape manipulation and studio trickery than the entire Beatles catalog. If you research what was done on that album, The Beatles pale in comparison.

The guitarist Jimmie Webster was releasing recordings using guitar tapping. He probably wasn’t the first, but it was before The Beatles.

They are many more.

I agree with DarinRg and BSLO above, to say The Beatles didn’t mean anything doesn’t seem to be right and to say everything before The Beatles didn’t have an influence on music is something I will never agree with. I also don’t agree with anything post Beatles will never be any good or influential.

Posted by DFB on Wednesday, 10.31.12 @ 16:49pm


Any Beatles fan who seriously believes that their precious band invented heavy metal with Helter Skelter obviously never heard Link Wray and the Raymen. Rumble or Jack the Ripper, anyone?

And no, those aren't the only Link Wray and the Raymen songs that could be considered precursors to heavy metal, but they're two of the strongest examples.

Posted by Zach on Sunday, 12.2.12 @ 23:07pm



The Beatles are not the center of the music universe.

Look past The Beatles and you will see a whole new world of music.

Joe Meek, before The Beatles.

Moondog, before The Beatles.

Sun Ra, before The Beatles. Look at album cover for "Magic City". The Beatles "Revolver" has a similar look, had "Revolver" came out first, of course Sun Ra would be ripping off The Beatles.

Why not bring up Gene Vincent's look. You always hear how The Beatles fashion and hair were copied by everyone, they were not.

Musicians that think The Beatles invented everything should go on a musically journey of there own and not wear Beatle blinders.

I believe Elmore James had more of an influence on the late 60's rock/blues music than The Beatles ever had. Tell me Canned Heat was an offshoot of The Beatles.

Blind Faith’s Debut album had a remake of Buddy Holly’s “Well Alright” and they thought that song was good enough to be their opening song at their London concert. How many there didn’t know it was a Blind Faith Song?

Musicians before The Beatles still have a influence on music.

The people above that said Elvis did not have an influence after The Beatles should look at many front men of bands and tell me he did not influence them.

It is harder to look back at music than to have seen it in chorological order.

I am not knocking The Beatles music, just free your mind and soak it all in.

Posted by Bill on Sunday, 01.13.13 @ 09:38am


So much about The Beatles has been written and their story is so mythic that it is very hard to summarize their career without the recurring clichés that have already been digested by millions of rock fans, but the impact they had on rock and roll can't be overstated.

It's very hard to convey the scope of the Beatles in just a few paragraphs. They synthesized all the good things about 50s rock and roll and made it into something orginal and much more exciting. They bulit the prototype for the rock group that wrote and performed their own songs. As songwriters, their craft and inventivness are second to none and were key to rock and roll's evolution from it's blues form to a more eclectic sound. As singers, all four of the band members added their own sounds to the songs that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote. After they finished touring in 1966, The Beatles returned to the studio, they were pioneers of using advanced techniques and muti-layered arrangements.

To start off, they startled the eyes and energized all who heard and saw them. Their arrival ignited a musical revolution in the 60s that introduced a new viewpoint that parted from the world of the 50s. They introduced more innovations into rock than any other rock band in the 20th century, they were one of the few rock bands of any discipline that were the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did. They were imaginative and experimental who grabbed a hold of the international consciousness in 1964 with "I Want to Hold Your Hand", turning the music world on it's head, setting in motion the musical agenda for the rest of the decade.


After that, the group never let go for the next six years by staying ahead in terms of creativity but without losing the ability to communicate their sophisticated ideas to their audiences. The music of the Beatles with its' crisp harmonies, solid musicianship, energetic singing and lots of screaming triggered the energy of youth in America and the UK. They conferred self-identity upon a youthful culture based around rock and roll that showed itself in unique ways with not only music, but also in the bubbling counterculture.

Their supremacy as giants of rock has remained unchallenged to this day. As David Crosby said about them, "We were just in awe of them, they were so good. Every time they came out with a song like "Paperback Writer", I just want to quit because I coundn't do anything like that". For the past four decades, the Beates have touched every part of rock and roll, influencing
groups from The Bryds and Coldplay and singers from Billy Joel to Tom Petty.

Posted by Andrew on Saturday, 03.16.13 @ 00:59am


Here are some of my favorite Beatles songs:

Across The Universe

Help

Ticket To Ride

I Saw Her Standing There

Penny Lane

Come Together

Norwegian Wood

I'm Only Sleeping

Posted by Andrew on Wednesday, 04.17.13 @ 11:27am


and now because its 9am and ive lost control of my life, heres the beatles albums in order of quality as judged by FRL

1: Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band
2: Rubber Soul
3: The Beatles
4: Revolver
5: Abbey Road
6: The Magical Mystery Tour
7: A Hard Day's Night
8: Help!
9: Let It Be
10: Please Please Me
11: With The Beatles
12: Beatles For Sale

Posted by GFW on Monday, 05.6.13 @ 04:09am


"They were imaginative and experimental who grabbed a hold of the international consciousness in 1964 with "I Want to Hold Your Hand", turning the music world on it's head, setting in motion the musical agenda for the rest of the decade"

This quote is why I believe The Beatles are given way too much credit, it is simply not a true statement.

Posted by Paul on Sunday, 06.2.13 @ 16:14pm


How in any way was their early stuff experimental?

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 06.2.13 @ 17:30pm


Paul, what I said about The Beatles may be seen as an untrue statment, but they are the most important band in rock and roll. Simply put, many of the later rock bands would not have existed had it not been for The Beatles and many of the great singer-songwriters would never be around today had it not been for them.

Btw, why do you guys sometimes trash what I post on this site.

Posted by Andrew on Sunday, 06.2.13 @ 18:50pm


Paul, what I said about The Beatles may seen as an untrue statement, but they are the most important band in rock and roll. Simply put, many of the later rock bands would not have existed had it not been for The Beatles and many of the great singer-songwriters would never be around today had it not been for them.

By the way, why do you guys sometimes trash what I post on this site?

Posted by Andrew on Sunday, 06.2.13 @ 18:54pm


You're not the first to get trashed on here. That quote would probably get called out no matter who said it.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 06.3.13 @ 06:29am


anyone who says that the beatles were not the most influential band of all time is completely false they did what no other band did change throughout their career something that most average people listneing to rock music today cannot grasp. that is what them great the fact is that they did not care about selling to the base they already and change. many important people have cited them has extremely influential Queen, Black Sabbath and the greatest rock musician since 1990 kurt cobain anyone who says that are not good listen to come together, hey jude, revoultion, helter skelter, something, and while my guitar gently weeps. and for what http://www.scaruffi.com said about them he is what is called hipster his greatest band of all time most people have never heard of but that is not my point the beatles had the same amount of influence if not more while still being the most successful band of all time writing all their songs and being a band that also transcends a genre.

Posted by Thomas on Tuesday, 08.27.13 @ 10:14am


Thomas,
Please do a little research before you post.

Posted by Carl on Saturday, 08.31.13 @ 14:22pm


It was 50 years ago today, that the Beatles taught the band to play.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 02.7.14 @ 12:26pm


Amazing that only one comment has come in on the Beatles over the course of this weekend. Even though they were inducted yrs. ago, I'd have thought someone else would've said something, being what this weekend is.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 02.9.14 @ 05:02am


I don't know if I'm going to watch the thing on CBS (or did it already air?). It might be cool, but I dunno. I'm leery of the Paul and Ringo reunion. I saw Ringo's performance at the Grammys and he is definitely aging. He looks almost fragile up on stage now. Still, I hope this event and this 50 year celebration thing reignites the push to get Ringo inducted as a solo artist while he's still alive (or just plain ever). I know I'm minority on that, especially in light of all the acts on here that are considered bigger snubs, but I just want to see it happen.

If I could've "fixed" (for want of a better word) any Beatles song, it would have been "The Ballad Of John And Yoko." It's already one of my favorite Beatles songs, with its bouncy bass, John's "You've GOT to be kidding me"! vocal delivery sounds like a guy who'd be laughing at the frustrations if they weren't happening to him, and guitar chords that provide kind of a musical sting, like a sad trumpet "Waa-waa-waa-waaahh"; however, I think it would have been even better with George and Ringo on it. George's strings would have added the extra texture to it (pun intended), but the drums are the real reason. You can tell just by listening to it that it was Paul's first effort. It's completely rudimentary drumming until the bridge, and except for the maracas, the percussion doesn't really feel organic to the song. The attempts at fills later on in the song are choppy. As a Beatle, Ringo drummed to fit the song, not to show off. What he would have done for that song one can only imagine, but you know for certain it would be a lot tighter and cleaner.

But yeah, I'm also celebrating this weekend by listening to their music.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 02.9.14 @ 12:22pm


Strangely enough, only one station in the Philly area has anything going on. This is WMGK. We have an oldies station, WOGL, and every Sunday they do the "70's on Sunday", for about 6 hours. I honestly thought they would break the pattern, given that this is the last time anybody will be able to do anything on the Beatles in such a manner. They've opted to remain faithful to their programming as usual.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 02.9.14 @ 17:31pm


THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART

STUDIO ALBUMS

THE BEATLES


01. 1963 - # 1 - Please Please Me
02. 1963 - # 1 - With The Beatles
03. 1964 - # 2 - Introducing... The Beatles
04. 1964 - # 1 - Meet The Beatles!
05. 1964 - # 1 - The Beatles' Second Album
06. 1964 - # 1 - A Hard Day's Night
07. 1964 - # 2 - Something New
08. 1964 - # 1 - Beatles For Sale
09. 1964 - # 1 - Beatles '65
10. 1965 - # 1 - Beatles VI
11. 1965 - # 1 - Help!
12. 1965 - # 1 - Rubber Soul
13. 1966 - # 1 - Yesterday And Today
14. 1966 - # 1 - Revolver
15. 1967 - # 1 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
16. 1967 - # 1 - Magical Mystery Tour
17. 1968 - # 1 - The Beatles
18. 1969 - # 2 - Yellow Submarine
19. 1969 - # 1 - Abbey Road
20. 1970 - # 1 - Let It Be

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 08.12.14 @ 09:24am


THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART

LIVE ALBUMS

THE BEATLES


01. 1977 - # 111 - Live! At The Star-Club In Hamburg, Germany; 1962
02. 1977 - # 2 - The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl
03. 1994 - # 3 - Live At The BBC
04. 2013 - # 7 - On Air - Live At The BBC Volume 2

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 08.16.14 @ 21:26pm


THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART

COMPILATIONS

THE BEATLES


01. 1964 - # 7 - The Beatles' Story
02. 1965 - # 43 - The Early Beatles
03. 1970 - # 2 - Hey Jude
04. 1970 - # 117 - In The Beginning (Circa 1960)
05. 1973 - # 3 - 1962-1966
06. 1973 - # 1 - 1967-1970
07. 1976 - # 2 - Rock 'N' Roll Music
08. 1977 - # 24 - Love Songs
09. 1980 - # 21 - Rarities
10. 1988 - # 149 - Past Masters, Volume One
11. 1988 - # 121 - Past Masters, Volume Two
12. 1995 - # 1 - Anthology 1
13. 1996 - # 1 - Anthology 2
14. 1996 - # 1 - Anthology 3
15. 1999 - # 15 - Yellow Submarine Songtrack
16. 2000 - # 1 - 1
17. 2003 - # 5 - Let It Be... Naked
18. 2004 - # 35 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 1
19. 2006 - # 46 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 2
20. 2006 - # 4 - Love
21. 2009 - # 40 - The Beatles In Mono
22. 2009 - # 15 - The Beatles Stereo Box Set
23. 2012 - # 24 - Tomorrow Never Knows
24. 2013 - # 172 - The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963
25. 2014 - # 48 - The U.S. Albums

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 08.16.14 @ 22:10pm


THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART
THE BEATLES STUDIO ALBUMS


01. 1963 - # 1 - Please Please Me
02. 1963 - # 1 - With The Beatles
03. 1964 - # 2 - Introducing... The Beatles
04. 1964 - # 1 - Meet The Beatles!
05. 1964 - # 1 - The Beatles' Second Album
06. 1964 - # 1 - A Hard Day's Night
07. 1964 - # 2 - Something New
08. 1964 - # 1 - Beatles For Sale
09. 1964 - # 1 - Beatles '65
10. 1965 - # 1 - Beatles VI
11. 1965 - # 1 - Help!
12. 1965 - # 1 - Rubber Soul
13. 1966 - # 1 - Yesterday And Today
14. 1966 - # 1 - Revolver
15. 1967 - # 1 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
16. 1967 - # 1 - Magical Mystery Tour
17. 1968 - # 1 - The Beatles
18. 1969 - # 2 - Yellow Submarine
19. 1969 - # 1 - Abbey Road
20. 1970 - # 1 - Let It Be

THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART
THE BEATLES COMPILATION ALBUMS


01. 1964 - # 7 - The Beatles' Story
02. 1965 - # 43 - The Early Beatles
03. 1970 - # 2 - Hey Jude
04. 1970 - # 117 - In The Beginning (Circa 1960)
05. 1973 - # 3 - 1962-1966
06. 1973 - # 1 - 1967-1970
07. 1976 - # 2 - Rock 'N' Roll Music
08. 1977 - # 24 - Love Songs
09. 1980 - # 21 - Rarities
10. 1988 - # 149 - Past Masters, Volume One
11. 1988 - # 121 - Past Masters, Volume Two
12. 1995 - # 1 - Anthology 1
13. 1996 - # 1 - Anthology 2
14. 1996 - # 1 - Anthology 3
15. 1999 - # 15 - Yellow Submarine Songtrack
16. 2000 - # 1 - 1
17. 2003 - # 5 - Let It Be... Naked
18. 2004 - # 35 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 1
19. 2006 - # 46 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 2
20. 2006 - # 4 - Love
21. 2009 - # 40 - The Beatles In Mono
22. 2009 - # 15 - The Beatles Stereo Box Set
23. 2012 - # 24 - Tomorrow Never Knows
24. 2013 - # 172 - The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963
25. 2014 - # 48 - The U.S. Albums

THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART
THE BEATLES LIVE ALBUMS


01. 1977 - # 111 - Live! At The Star-Club In Hamburg, Germany; 1962
02. 1977 - # 2 - The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl
03. 1994 - # 3 - Live At The BBC
04. 2013 - # 7 - On Air - Live At The BBC Volume 2

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 08.17.14 @ 07:07am


THE BILLBOARD 100 SINGLES CHART
THE BEATLES


01. 1963 - # 116 – From Me To You
02. 1964 - # 1 – I Want To Hold Your Hand
03. 1964 - # 14 – I Saw Her Standing There
04. 1964 - # 1 – She Loves You
05. 1964 - # 3 – Please Please Me
06. 1964 - # 41 – From Me To You
07. 1964 - # 26 – My Bonnie (My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean)
08. 1964 - # 2 – Twist And Shout
09. 1964 - # 74 – There’s A Place
10. 1964 - # 68 – Roll Over Beethoven
11. 1964 - # 45 – All My Loving
12. 1964 - # 1 – Can’t Buy Me Love
13. 1964 - # 48 – You Can’t Do That
14. 1964 - # 2 – Do You Want To Know A Secret
15. 1964 - # 35 – Thank You Girl
16. 1964 - # 1 – Love Me Do
17. 1964 - # 10 – P.S. I Love You
18. 1964 - # 88 - Why
19. 1964 - # 92 – Four By The Beatles
20. 1964 - # 97 – Sie Liebt Dich (She Loves You)
21. 1964 - # 19 – Ain’t She Sweet
22. 1964 - # 1 – A Hard Day’s Night
23. 1964 - # 53 – I Should Have Known Better
24. 1964 - # 12 – And I Love Her
25. 1964 - # 53 – If I Fell
26. 1964 - # 53 – Ringo’s Theme (This Boy)
27. 1964 - # 25 – I’ll Cry Instead
28. 1964 - # 95 – I’m Happy Just To Dance With You
29. 1964 - # 17 – Matchbox
30. 1964 - # 25 – Slow Down
31. 1964 - # 1 – I Feel Fine
32. 1964 - # 4 – She’s A Woman
33. 1965 - # 1 – Eight Days A Week
34. 1965 - # 39 – I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party
35. 1965 - # 68 – 4 – By The Beatles
36. 1965 - # 1 – Ticket To Ride
37. 1965 - # 46 – Yes It Is
38. 1965 - # 1 – Help!
39. 1965 - # 1 - Yesterday
40. 1965 - # 47 – Act Naturally
41. 1965 - # 1 – We Can Work It Out
42. 1965 - # 5 – Day Tripper
43. 1965 - # 101 – I’m Down
44. 1965 - # 102 – Boys
45. 1966 - # 3 – Nowhere Man
46. 1966 - # 81 – What Goes On
47. 1966 - # 1 – Paperback Writer
48. 1966 - # 23 - Rain
49. 1966 - # 2 – Yellow Submarine
50. 1966 - # 11 – Eleanor Rigby
51. 1967 - # 1 – Penny Lane
52. 1967 - # 8 – Strawberry Fields Forever
53. 1967 - # 1 – All You Need Is Love
54. 1967 - # 34 – Baby You’re A Rich Man
55. 1967 - # 1 – Hello Goodbye
56. 1967 - # 56 – I Am The Walrus
57. 1968 - # 4 – Lady Madonna
58. 1968 - # 96 – The Inner Light
59. 1968 - # 1 – Hey Jude
60. 1968 - # 12 – Revolution
61. 1969 - # 1 – Get Back
62. 1969 - # 35 – Don’t Let Me Down
63. 1969 - # 8 – The Ballad Of John And Yoko
64. 1969 - # 1 – Come Together
65. 1969 - # 3 - Something
66. 1970 - # 1 – Let It Be
67. 1970 - # 1 – The Long And Winding Road
68. 1970 - # 1 – For You Blue
69. 1976 - # 7 – Got To Get You Into My Life
70. 1976 - # 49 – Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
71. 1978 - # 71 – With A Little Help From My Friends
72. 1982 - # 12 – The Beatles’ Movie Medley
73. 1986 - # 23 – Twist And Shout
74. 1995 - # 67 – Baby It’s You
75. 1995 - # 6 – Free As A Bird
76. 1996 - # 11 – Real Love

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 08.20.14 @ 16:55pm


THE BEATLES BILLBOARD BUBBLING UNDER HITS

01. 1963 - # 116 – From Me To You
02. 1965 - # 101 – I’m Down
03. 1965 - # 102 – Boys

Posted by Roy on Friday, 08.29.14 @ 23:36pm


THE BEATLES : THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART

01. 1963 - # 1 - Please Please Me
02. 1963 - # 1 - With The Beatles
03. 1964 - # 2 - Introducing... The Beatles
04. 1964 - # 1 - Meet The Beatles!
05. 1964 - # 1 - The Beatles' Second Album
06. 1964 - # 1 - A Hard Day's Night
07. 1964 - # 2 - Something New
08. 1964 - # 7 - The Beatles' Story
09. 1964 - # 1 - Beatles For Sale
10. 1964 - # 1 - Beatles '65
11. 1965 - # 43 - The Early Beatles
12. 1965 - # 1 - Beatles VI
13. 1965 - # 1 - Help!
14. 1965 - # 1 - Rubber Soul
15. 1966 - # 1 - Yesterday And Today
16. 1966 - # 1 - Revolver
17. 1967 - # 1 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
18. 1967 - # 1 - Magical Mystery Tour
19. 1968 - # 1 - The Beatles
20. 1969 - # 2 - Yellow Submarine
21. 1969 - # 1 - Abbey Road
22. 1970 - # 2 - Hey Jude
23. 1970 - # 117 - In The Beginning (Circa 1960)
24. 1970 - # 1 - Let It Be
25. 1973 - # 3 - 1962-1966
26. 1973 - # 1 - 1967-1970
27. 1976 - # 2 - Rock 'N' Roll Music
28. 1977 - # 111 - Live! At The Star-Club In Hamburg, Germany; 1962
29. 1977 - # 2 - The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl
30. 1977 - # 24 - Love Songs
31. 1980 - # 21 - Rarities
32. 1988 - # 149 - Past Masters, Volume One
33. 1988 - # 121 - Past Masters, Volume Two
34. 1994 - # 3 - Live At The BBC
35. 1995 - # 1 - Anthology 1
36. 1996 - # 1 - Anthology 2
37. 1996 - # 1 - Anthology 3
38. 1999 - # 15 - Yellow Submarine Songtrack
39. 2000 - # 1 - 1
40. 2003 - # 5 - Let It Be... Naked
41. 2004 - # 35 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 1
42. 2006 - # 46 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 2
43. 2006 - # 4 - Love
44. 2009 - # 40 - The Beatles In Mono
45. 2009 - # 15 - The Beatles Stereo Box Set
46. 2012 - # 24 - Tomorrow Never Knows
47. 2013 - # 7 - On Air - Live At The BBC Volume 2
48. 2013 - # 172 - The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963
49. 2014 - # 48 - The U.S. Albums

THE BEATLES : THE BILLBOARD 100 SINGLES CHART

01. 1964 - # 1 – I Want To Hold Your Hand
02. 1964 - # 14 – I Saw Her Standing There
03. 1964 - # 1 – She Loves You
04. 1964 - # 3 – Please Please Me
05. 1964 - # 41 – From Me To You
06. 1964 - # 26 – My Bonnie (My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean)
07. 1964 - # 2 – Twist And Shout
08. 1964 - # 74 – There’s A Place
09. 1964 - # 68 – Roll Over Beethoven
10. 1964 - # 45 – All My Loving
11. 1964 - # 1 – Can’t Buy Me Love
12. 1964 - # 48 – You Can’t Do That
13. 1964 - # 2 – Do You Want To Know A Secret
14. 1964 - # 35 – Thank You Girl
15. 1964 - # 1 – Love Me Do
16. 1964 - # 10 – P.S. I Love You
17. 1964 - # 88 - Why
18. 1964 - # 92 – Four By The Beatles
19. 1964 - # 97 – Sie Liebt Dich (She Loves You)
20. 1964 - # 19 – Ain’t She Sweet
21. 1964 - # 1 – A Hard Day’s Night
22. 1964 - # 53 – I Should Have Known Better
23. 1964 - # 12 – And I Love Her
24. 1964 - # 53 – If I Fell
25. 1964 - # 53 – Ringo’s Theme (This Boy)
26. 1964 - # 25 – I’ll Cry Instead
27. 1964 - # 95 – I’m Happy Just To Dance With You
28. 1964 - # 17 – Matchbox
29. 1964 - # 25 – Slow Down
30. 1964 - # 1 – I Feel Fine
31. 1964 - # 4 – She’s A Woman
32. 1965 - # 1 – Eight Days A Week
33. 1965 - # 39 – I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party
34. 1965 - # 68 – 4 – By The Beatles
35. 1965 - # 1 – Ticket To Ride
36. 1965 - # 46 – Yes It Is
37. 1965 - # 1 – Help!
38. 1965 - # 1 - Yesterday
39. 1965 - # 47 – Act Naturally
40. 1965 - # 1 – We Can Work It Out
41. 1965 - # 5 – Day Tripper
42. 1966 - # 3 – Nowhere Man
43. 1966 - # 81 – What Goes On
44. 1966 - # 1 – Paperback Writer
45. 1966 - # 23 - Rain
46. 1966 - # 2 – Yellow Submarine
47. 1966 - # 11 – Eleanor Rigby
48. 1967 - # 1 – Penny Lane
49. 1967 - # 8 – Strawberry Fields Forever
50. 1967 - # 1 – All You Need Is Love
51. 1967 - # 34 – Baby You’re A Rich Man
52. 1967 - # 1 – Hello Goodbye
53. 1967 - # 56 – I Am The Walrus
54. 1968 - # 4 – Lady Madonna
55. 1968 - # 96 – The Inner Light
56. 1968 - # 1 – Hey Jude
57. 1968 - # 12 – Revolution
58. 1969 - # 1 – Get Back
59. 1969 - # 35 – Don’t Let Me Down
60. 1969 - # 8 – The Ballad Of John And Yoko
61. 1969 - # 1 – Come Together
62. 1969 - # 3 - Something
63. 1970 - # 1 – Let It Be
64. 1970 - # 1 – The Long And Winding Road
65. 1970 - # 1 – For You Blue
66. 1976 - # 7 – Got To Get You Into My Life
67. 1976 - # 49 – Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
68. 1978 - # 71 – Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/With A Little Help From My Friends
69. 1982 - # 12 – The Beatles’ Movie Medley
70. 1986 - # 23 – Twist And Shout
71. 1995 - # 67 – Baby It’s You
72. 1995 - # 6 – Free As A Bird
73. 1996 - # 11 – Real Love

THE BEATLES : THE BILLBOARD BUBBLING UNDER 100 SINGLES CHART

01. 1963 - # 116 – From Me To You
02. 1965 - # 101 – I’m Down
03. 1965 - # 102 – Boys

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 09.2.14 @ 22:44pm


THE BEATLES EPS ON THE BILLBOARD 100 SINGLES CHART

01. 1964 - # 92 - Four By The Beatles: All My Loving/This Boy/Roll Over Beethoven/Please Mr. Postman
02. 1965 - # 68 - 4 - By The Beatles: Honey Don't/I'm A Loser/Mr. Moonlight/Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby
03. 1995 - # 67 - Baby It's You: I'll Follow The Sun/Devil In Her Heart/Boys

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 11.6.14 @ 17:16pm


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beatles-publicist-fab-four-creator-tony-barrow-dead-at-80-20160517#ixzz48xk0QxKH

Beatles Publicist, 'Fab Four' Creator Tony Barrow Dead at 80

Barrow arranged Beatles' fabled Decca audition, recorded their last live show, coined with the nickname 'Fab Four'

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 05.17.16 @ 20:27pm


Overrated

Posted by Reason on Wednesday, 10.19.16 @ 16:31pm


To the ignorant comments on here about The Beatles and to those who linked and quoted the extremely inaccurate,ignorant,ludicrous Scaruffi article about The Beatles,which is filled with out right lies and distortions and I have a lot of strong evidence that debunks it.



Here is a very good educational you tube video by Mean Mr Mayo who is a member of The Beatles fan site,Abbryd debunking this stupid,ridiculous,ludicrous myth that The Beatles were ever a boy band.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmVlDCm5NOU


And,


Here is a 2011 amazon.com customer discussion where quite a few posters especially DK Pete do a very good job debunking this totally ignorant nonsense calling The Beatles a boy band,after a moron started this (unfortunately common) discussion,The Beatles Were The First Boy Band!


https://www.amazon.com/forum/music/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg2?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1YA4ZE83NG9MC&cdMessage=Mx2NYHBEJWD1BW6&cdPage=2&cdThread=TxHMCJDLBBOKZR


Even in this 2011 discussion asking this totally stupid,ignorant,ludicrous question if The Beatles were a boy band,people who said they aren't even Beatles fans know it's absolute nonsense to call them a boy band,and as one of the fans said,The Beatles are the most talented,forward thinking bands and to call them a boy band is a complete insult to The Beatles.Another said they do have a problem with them being called this,because they are nothing like boy bands musically and it's derogatory.


http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1480330&page=3






The Beatles were *NEVER* a ''boy band''! As a poster Reverend Rock,who is a rock musician,reverend and a big Beatles fan said on a classic rock site years ago,that anyone who knows The Beatles history knows it's ludicrous to even *suggest* such a thing! And what a huge insult to their enormous talent as true singers,song writers and musicians! The Beatles were a *zillion* times more talented and cool than any stupid,uncool,untalented real boy band!



The Monkees are the first true boy band because they didn't even start off as a genuine band, they were all musical but they were originally hired as actors to play members of a TV pop rock band for their TV show, they didn't start off playing together like Paul at age 15,George age 14 and John age 16 playing guitars and singing,then playing a few years later for 8 hours a night in sleazy strip clubs( and The Beatles had sex with many young women groupies,many who were teen girls and strippers) like The Beatles did in Hamburg Germany(or anywhere) for 2 years in a row,taking speed pills to stay awake to do it,and working their a*ses off playing as a real rock n roll band,and then playing successfully in the Cavern club as a real rock n roll band for years by the time they made it big.



And The Beatles wrote and played a lot of great rock n roll and pop rock songs in their early days. John and Paul wrote the rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man write in front of Keith Richards and Mick Jagger in 1963 and they were both really impressed that they could just write a song just like that,and it inspired them to start writing their own songs and both bands became good friends from then on. And this song was one of The Rolling Stones first hits.



There is just no comparison to The Monkees etc. A guy so accurately said on a message board many years ago when some idiots called them a ''boy band'' that The Beatles were *never* a boy band,not even during their 1963-1965 period. And another guy said a few years after this on another forum,when some idiot said this,that he too once thought the early Beatles were a boy band like NYSNC,or The Back Street Boys,until he got out of 7th grade.


Every time some ignorant person unjustly calls them a boy band,I'm sure John Lennon's ashes must be turning with outrage.I'm sure he would go on to these sites and say I was *not* the founder and the leader of some f*king,stupid,uncool,untalented, boy band get that through your stupid f*cking heads!


And younger people don't know what type of music was out in 1963,even though I wasn't born yet,I know that The Beatles early songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand were hard rock compared to the music out then.There was just Bobby Darin,The Four Seasons,Bobby Vinton and The Beach Boys surfing hits.



Not only is this so ignorant,ridiculous,and false on a creative and musical level,but on their personal level too. I guarantee true genuine boy bands don't have groupies.



The Beatles had sex with *tons* of young women groupies,many who were just teen girls especially during their touring years of 1963-1966 ironically they did this the most during the joke fake cleaned up image Brian Epstein created for them in their early days.In reality they were like pimps playing the part of priests! It's no coincidence that in The Beatles Anthology video series that Paul,George and Ringo made,the story that is reported of The Beatles being thrown out of a US hotel in August 1965 because Paul was found in his hotel bedroom with an underage girl, that is included in the first great Beatles documentary from 1982 The Complete Beatles which none of them had any involvement making,is completely left out of The Beatles Anthology.



Paul McCartney also said in Hunter Davies 1968 first edition of the only authorized Beatles biography called,The Beatles, that he had sex at age 15 with a girl who was older and bigger than him,and most 15 year old boys weren't having sex in 1957,and he said he bragged about it to his classmates the next day and that he was the first one in his class to have sex.Paul also said in this book,that he would go into strip clubs at only 13 and he was the lad in his class that drew nude women.He also got another girl who was his girl friend,pregnant when he was 17 and she was 16,and Paul's father and her parents wanted them to get married but she had a miscarriage.


Hunter Davies says in his 1985 update of his Beatles biography, that The Beatles were no different from any other rock band when it came to groupies and he said they just had more to chose from. He said it was up to the road manager to say to these young women,you,you and you 5 minutes later which is really sexist and disgusting but it's totally typical for every rock band which is what they always were.

From Me To You,and especially She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand were praised by some music critics even from the beginning,like William Mann of The London Times in December 1963 pointed out their interesting unusual chords and arrangements and London Times music critic Richard Buckle also in late 1963 called John and Paul the greatest composers since Beethoven after they wrote the music for a play Mods and Rockers.
Bob Dylan ,Roger McGuinn of The Byrds as early as 1963 and 1964 pointed out that even in early Beatles songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand had unusual and interesting chords and they arranged them.

Here in this article about The Beatles chords,Bob Dylan is quoted saying what he thought in 1964 about The early Beatles music,he said that they were doing things nobody was doing and that their chords were outrageous,just outrageous and their harmonies made it all valid.
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME03/Words_and_chords.shtml


Here in Rolling Stone Magazine's 100 Greatest Song Writers Bob Dylan is number 1,Paul McCartney is number 2, and John Lennon is number 3, Bob Dylan is quoted about a car trip when he heard a lot of Beatles songs on the radio, he said they were doing things and that he knew they were pointing the direction where music had to go.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-songwriters#john-lennon


Roger McGuinn has said that he started to play a 12 string guitar after he saw and heard George Harrison playing in in the A Hard Day's Night movie.

And John and Paul wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits the rock n roll song, I Wanna Be Your Man in late 1963 right in front of them. And Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and said wow,how can you write a song just like that and it inspired them to start writing their own songs and both bands became good friends from then on.


John Lennon and Paul McCartney were such amazingly talented singer song writers that they were already writing hit songs for other artists as early as 1963 when their own song writing success was getting off the ground,besides The Rolling Stones,they also wrote hit songs in 1963 for Billy J.Krammer and The Dakatos,Celia Black,and Peter and Gordon etc.


Paul wrote his first song at age 14 and was playing guitar,John wrote heavy deep poetry but didn't start writing songs until he met Paul and was impressed that he wrote his own songs,and he too started to write his own songs at age 16,and they wrote together and never stopped from then on. Paul wrote the very pretty song I'll Follow The Sun at only 16.Even when The Beatles first came to America in February 1964 many people said how rare it was for *adult* rock n roll bands and solo artists to write their own songs,and Paul and John were already doing this as teenagers in the mid 1950's.



And even though I wasn't born yet in 1963 I know what type of music was popular on the radio,non rock n roll songs like Bobby Vinton,The Four Seasons,Bobby Darin and The Beach Boys surfing hits,The early Beatles songs like She Loves You, I Want To Hold Your Hand and I Saw Her Standing there etc were hard rock for 1963 and ahead of their time.



The Beatles even in their early days were writing and playing on records as well in concerts,both love ballads,and great rocking rock n roll and pop rock songs that they both wrote and cover songs including their great rocking performances in Sweden where the audience was quiet during their performances.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RDAJczmuZ-OeU&v=EWFOO9CWfUQ




As The All Music Guide says in their excellent Beatles biography "That it's difficult to summarize their career without restating cliches that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans, to start with the obvious,they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century."



"Moreover they were among the few artists of *any* discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did *and* the most popular at what they did." They also say as singers John Lennon and Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive in rock.


http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-mn0000754032/biography



Also on an excellent site,The Evolution of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Dennis Alstrand,Stanley Clarke,Sting,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,George Martin and John Lennon are quoted saying what a great,melodic and influential bass player Paul has always been.




http://www.alstrand.com/evolution/evolution.html



And Wilco's John Stirratt was asked in Bass Player which bass players have had the most impact on his playing and the first thing he said was, Paul McCartney is one of the greatest bass players of all time,if you listen to what he was tracking live in the studio it's unbelievable." "With his tone and musicality he was a huge influence,he covered all of his harmonic responsibilities really well but his baselines were absolutely melodic and inventive."



http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/15716769/windy-city-wingman-john-stirratt-lays-roots-wilco




In this 2010 interview the blogger says that John Stirratt has an affinity for good melodies so it's not surprising that Paul McCartney is one of his musical icons and then he quotes him saying that he's always absolutely in awe of his playing,including Paul's Beatles years.


http://audreeanne.blogspot.com/2010/02/interview-wilcos-john-stirratt-talk.html





And in an online 1977 Eric Clapton interview,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that there was always this game between John and George,and he said partly because John was a pretty good guitar player himself


http://www.superseventies.com/ssericclapton.html . He played live with John as a member of John's 1969 Plastic Ono Band.



And there is a great online article by musician and song writer Peter Cross,The Beatles Are The Most Creative Band Of All Time and he says that many musicians besides him recognize Paul as one of the best bass guitar players ever.He too says that John and Paul are the greatest song composers and that to say that John and Paul are among 2 of the greatest singers in rock and roll is to state the obvious,and that John,Paul and George were all excellent guitarists and that George is underrated by people not educated about music but that Eric Clapton knew better,he also says that both John and Paul played great leads as well as innovative rhythm tracks.



John Lennon co-wrote,sang and played guitar on one of David Bowie's first hits Fame in 1975 and David invited John to play guitar on his version of John's beautiful Beatles song Across The Universe.Brain May,Ozzy Osbourne,and Liam Gallagher and many more call The Beatles The Greatest Band Ever.'


http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Beatles-are-the-Most-Creative-Band-of-All-Time&id=222245



Also on MusicRadar Tom Petty,Joe Perry and Richie Sambora in What The Beatles Mean To Me all say how cool and great they thought The Beatles were when they first saw them on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964 when they were just teen boys,Richie was only 5.Tom Petty said he thought they were really really great.



Robin Zander of Cheap Trick said he's probably one of the biggest Beatles fans on the planet.Brad Whitford of Aerosmith said that a lot of that Beatles influence comes from Steven Tyler's collaboration with Mark Hudson both whom are absolute Beatles freaks and he said I guess the goal is to try and emulate probably some of the best music of the last 50 years which has to be The Beatles.




They were the greatest *rock* band ever! (NEVER A G*d dam*ed stupid,uncool,untalented boy band as so many ignorant morons misperceive them as!) And I have always loved this great blues rocker by Paul,She's A Woman.



Except live there isn't the piano,blending with the great rocking guitars,Paul's great prominent booming bass,and his great rock vocal! And once again it's amazing how good they sound on such limited,primitive sound systems of the time and with no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves singing and playing,yet they still played and sang great and in sync with each other.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsNgLiPyuCY




Here is their great April 1965 New Music Express Winner's Poll concert from April 11,1965.They won three years in a row.And notice that there are men and women of ages in the audience.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSSsu1GSCk



Here they performed Paul's great rocking I Saw Her Standing There in Sweden in October 1963 which The Beatles recorded in February 1963 on their first album Please Please Me which was recorded in just one day.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkySom9bTfM




The Beatles performing their rocking cover of Long Tall Sally with Paul's great rocking vocal June 1964.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiXtk296YmE



Here in 1964 June in Melbourne Australia they are playing John's great rock song that they had recorded in February 1964 on their first great early album A Hard Day's Night.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Dpt7TI9q0



And here they performed Paul's very good hard rocking,especially for early 1965,I'm Down at The Ed Sulivian Theater August 14,1965 one night before their live Shea Stadium performance.


https://vimeo.com/133531241



Here is their even harder rocking performance at Shea Stadium on August 15,1965 than they did on their record version of Paul's I'm Down. And they did what a great rock n roll band would do,they ended this rock n roll concert with this rocking song.



https://vimeo.com/146526352



Here they performed a rocking cover of Dizzy Miss Lizzy with John's great rock vocal,at the same She Stadium concert.



https://vimeo.com/14652584



Here is another great rocking Beatles performance of the cover Twist and Shout in June 1964 in Melbourne Australia




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdIzcm95NCM





And what a huge disgusting insult to all of them as very talented musicians,and to John and Paul as extremely talented song composers and great singers,and to John Lennon's memory and was never the founder and leader of some stupid,uncool,untalented boy band! And I'm certain that if John were still living he would come on youtube and other message boards and say I was *never* the founder and leader of any f**king stupid,uncool,untalented boy band get that through your stupid f**king heads!


If Beethoven,Mozart and Bach had screaming teenage girls in their audiences and they formed a band together they would have been a boy band too right?


Award winning classical composer and music professor Dr.Glen Gass's Beatles course he's been teaching since 1982 and he's been teaching a course in rock music in general since then.


http://courses.music.indiana.edu/rock/beatles.html


31 Year old Beatles and music scholar Arron Krerowicz plays many instruments & writes his own music too

http://www.aaronkrerowicz.com/faq.html


The early Beatles lyrics were more simple but a lot of their early music was actually much more complex. Just one of many examples I always loved this very early John song written and recorded in 1962 Ask Me Why.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ex-epsPWoc



I have always loved this great beautiful song written by John,with such typical beautiful melodies and harmonies John and Paul usually wrote,and John's usual beautiful singing voice.And this was amazingly recorded in 1962 on only two track tape! with such limited,primitive recording technology but it of course still sounds great.Except I hate mono it's limited sounding and only makes their already limited recording technology sound even more limited.I tried to find the stereo version of this song on youtube but I couldn't find it.



Here university of Pennsylvania musicologist Alan W.Pollack who did an 11 year extensive analysis of every one of the 200 Beatles songs,analyzes Ask Me Why and explains that it's structurally complex.


http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/amw.shtml



Here is Alan's whole Beatles song analysis series

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml


Both VH1 and MTV have been using Richie Unterberger's excellent All Music Guide’s long Beatles biography as their Beatles biography they both used to not have a very good biography of The Beatles.Here are great Beatles biographies that totally debunk this totally stupid,inaccurate,ludicrous,ridiculous myth that they were ever a ‘’boy band’’.



http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-mn0000754032/biography



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles


The Beatles own documentary The Beatles Anthology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJczmuZ-OeU&list=RDAJczmuZ-OeU#t=13


The great 1982 Beatles documentary,The Complete Beatles narrated by award winning British actor Malcolm McDowell


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8GbhSZq-o&list=PL2BCD47B5F0BDD651&index=2



And any great reputable accurate Beatles biography would debunk this ludicrous,stupid myth.And I have *never* read or heard *any* legitimate serious rock critics or rock music journalists describe them this way and for extremely great reasons.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 13:30pm




I recently found this great blog post by a guitar player and musically academically knowledgeable guy debunking the totally ignorant,ludicrous hateful lies by cognitive scientist and music critic Piero Scaruffi about The Beatles that ignorant Beatles haters calling them a talentless boy band,are quoting on so many sites for many years now and still are.


https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-517


On a heavy metal site someone posted Scaruffi's horrible inaccurate bullsh*t about The Beatles and a guy said that Scaruffi made up contrived bullsh*t about The Beatles and that a lot of people think he knows what he's talking about because he's a cognitive scientist.Many people elsewhere have said that Scaruffi just made up most of this bullsh*t,he made all of it up,the only facts he got right are John,Paul,George,Ringo,George Martin and Brian Epstein's names and when someone tells that many lies you really can't trust them especially about the subject they wrote about.



I actually emailed this idiot Scaruffi back in 2001 to try to debunk his ignorant lies about The Beatles,and he emailed me back three times,and I was civil to him,(which wasn't easy,and I had to control myself from not cursing him,but I know that wasn't going to work to get through to him) and he was civil to me too,but you just can't get through to him.He actually said that he thought I'm one of the most intelligent Beatles fans he ever communicated with because I never mentioned The Beatles record sales as to why they are great and he actually claimed that this all the majority of Beatles fans said to him,that they sold the most records,which he denies that they did in his horrid article. I don't believe him at all I'm sure that a lot of knowledgeable fans did inform him of a lot of academic and music scholarship that debunks his stupid,horrible lies but he just doesn't want to recognize it because he irrationally hates The Beatles and he wants everyone else to hate them to.


Here is another very good debunking of Scaruffi's inaccurate bullsh*t by another guy back in 2009


http://www.last.fm/es/user/RadioheadOasis/journal/2009/03/23/2l98yy_arguments_against_piero_scaruffi_main_article_on_the_beatles

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 13:43pm



Here is my blog with a lot of great strong information called,The Beatles Were *NEVER* A Boy Band They Were Always A Great Rock n Roll,Pop Rock And Rock Band From The Start!


https://thebeatleswereneveraboybandtheywerealwaysagreatrocknrollpoprock.wordpress.com/

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 13:48pm


In the 2012 Newsweek Beatles special celebrating 50 years since their music came out,Steve Jobs was quoted from Walter Isaacson's biography as talking about how the band's approach to recording "refining and refining" influenced his own creative process. He said they were such perfectionists they kept it going and going he said. Steve Jobs said that this made a big impression on him when he was in his thirties.Newsweek rightfully says,that it's hard to imagine another rock band that influenced the way computers are made just as it is to think of one whose name became an adjective. And Newsweek said and that's why The Beatles still stand apart.





They quote Steve Jobs saying,"Somebody else could have replicated the Stones,(Newsweek then says,nailing the difference between artists shaped by their times and those who shape them),no one could have been Dylan or The Beatles."

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 13:51pm


One of the countless lies Scaruffi wrote about The Beatles is that no other music artists praised them and for very good reasons,and yet countless rock and other types of music artists not only have and still praise them,but many have called them the greatest band ever,and have called John Lennon and Paul McCartney the two greatest song writers of the 20th century even over their own bands and solo selves.



In 2010 I read an online article that had an interview with Ernie Isley of The Isley Brothers about a recent tribute to Jimi Hendrix, in which he says that Jimi played for The Isley Brothers & lived with them & that they & he were fans of The Fab Four from the moment they all watched them on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. I always thought that Jimi was only a later period Beatles fan,I knew he played Sgt.Pepper live the weekend it came out,& he played Day Tripper live also,& several people on different message boards said that when he was asked where the direction of music was going,he said ask The Beatles.





Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 13:56pm


NME News



Bob Dylan talks of Beatles friendship


Legend admits: 'I'm in awe of McCartney'

May 16, 2007









Bob Dylan has spoken in depth about his longstanding friendship with The Beatles and his particular bond with George Harrison.








Talking to Rolling Stone magazine, Dylan talked freely about Harrison’s struggle to find his voice within the songwriting collective of John Lennon and Paul McCartney.










"George got stuck with being the Beatle that had to fight to get songs on records because ofLennon and McCartney. Well, who wouldn’t get stuck?" he asked.






Dylan highlighted the writing talents of Harrison, saying: "If George had had his own group and was writing his own songs back then, he’d have been probably just as big as anybody."





Speaking against popular belief, the singer also denounced any rumors of competitiveness towards Lennon and McCartney, asserting, "They were fantastic singers. Lennon, to this day, it’s hard to find a better singer than Lennon was, or than McCartney was and still is."



Nodding his cap to McCartney in particular, Dylan concluded: "I’m in awe of McCartney. He’s about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he’s never let up... He’s just so damn effortless.''




http://www.nme.com/news/bob-dylan/28350

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:00pm


Ozzy Osbourne has been a big Beatles fan since he was an early teenager,and he picked She Loves You as one of his favorite songs for Rolling Stone Magazine's 500 Greatest songs and Sgt.Pepper is one o his favorite albums. He says that not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxygen and he called The Beatles the greatest band to ever walk the earth.




Here Ozzy Osbourne says that he doesn't anyone will ever be as great as The Beatles and he said they were all great,even George Harrison and Ringo Starr were great.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD0_MtCDcQQ





Here is a video of Ozzy Osbourne meets Paul McCartney for the first time and they hug each other.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkudA0P27Q0




Here Ozzy Osbourne says how hearing She Loves You at age 15 inspired him to go into music.




http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/news/ozzy-osbourne-beatles-moved-me-30320049.html


Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:03pm


In this 2008 interview asking Keith Richards who the five greatest bands ever are besides The Rolling Stones,he said obviously he put The Beatles in there. This was 6 years of course before he ridiculously criticized The Beatles brilliant Sgt.Pepper album that The Rolling Stones tried but failed to copy and equal.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNKckhYqNBk

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:07pm


Not only did The Beatles give The Rolling Stones one of their first hits with their rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man as you know,and they wrote it right in front of them and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and like wow how can you write a song just like that and it motivated them to start writing their own songs.

















And as I already said The Rolling Stones were good friends with and fans of The Beatles.











Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him.Also Mick Jagger was such a big Beatles fan that in May 1967 when The Beatles were recording their song Baby You're A Rich Man he came there and stood on the sidelines to watch and listen to them recording it. His name is also on the tape box and he likely sang at the end verses.In Mark Lewishon's great detailed music diary book, The Beatles Recording Sessions there is a big black and white picture of Mick Jagger sitting in between John and Paul in the recording console room during The Beatles Revolver recording sessions too.








The Beatles remastered albums sold much more 40 years after their break up than The Rolling Stones remastered albums and they are still together! The Beatles have the best selling album of the last decade with their CD 1.And soon after their music went on iTunes,it went to the top.









And Brian Jones played the saxophone on the strange Beatles song, You Know My Name Look Up The Number and he and Mick Jagger's girlfriend at the time Marianne Faithful contributed sound effects on the song Yellow Submarine.
As this guy Sal66 who is also a musician and has also posted on sites debunking ignorant cr*p about The Beatles has rightfully pointed out, The Beatles wrote,played and recorded I Feel Fine (which The All Music Guide says has brilliant,active ,difficult guitar leads and riffs) in the Fall of 1964 which was the first use of feedback guitar on a pop rock record and it also had a prominent guitar riff throughout this very good song almost a year *before* The Rolling Stones's Satisfaction came out.










And on John's great Norwegian Wood recorded in the Fall of 1965,George Harrison was the first to play a sitar on a pop rock song and it was released on their great album Rubber Soul in December and then in May 1966 The Rolling Stones song Paint It Black came out with Brian Jones playing a sitar.









And in Paul McCartney's authorized biography Many Years From Now, Mick Jagger's former girlfriend singer Marianne Faithful says that she and Mick used to go over to Paul's house a lot and hang out in his music room. She said he never went to see them at their house they always went to visit him because he was Paul McCartney.She also said that Mick was intimidated by Paul but that Paul was totally oblivious to this.







Paul also says in this book that he turned Mick on to pot in his music room and he said which is funny because a lot of people would assume it was the other way around. Mick Jagger was also with The Beatles in Bangor when they got the call that Brian Epstein was found dead because he went on the train with them with his then girl friend singer Marianne Faithful to see the Maharishi to study meditation that weekend.











Also Mick Jagger is quoted on a Rolling Stones fan site,timeisonourside.com saying that Keith Richards liked The Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences and he says he also liked their harmonies which he said were always a slight problem for The Rolling Stones.He said Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy.Mick then says,that what they never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals and he said it didn't work because Keith was a better singer and to keep going,oooh,ooh,ooh(he laughs) and he said Brian liked all of those oohs which Keith had to put up with.He also said Keith was capable of much stronger vocals than ooh,ooh,ooh.









On this same fan site Keith Richards is quoted from 1971 saying that The Beatles were perfect for opening doors,when they went to America they left it wide open for them and he said that The Rolling Stones could never have gone to America without them.He also said that The Beatles are so f**king good at what they did.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:10pm


As The Rolling Stone Album Guide said, not liking The Beatles is as perverse as not liking the sun. And Ozzy Osbourne( he's been a huge Beatles fan he was a young teen from The Beatles early days,and he picked She Loves You as one of Rolling Stone Magazine's greatest songs of all time,and Sgt.Pepper is one of hi favorite albums) said not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxygen. And a guy who runs Keno's Classic Rock n Roll Site and who runs a Rolling Stones and John Lennon fan site says in his review of The Beatles 1967-1970 Blue Album damn The Beatles were one great group and he said in his great review of The Beatles 1962-1966 Red album, that if you don't love or at least like The Beatles and their music then you are not a true rock fan and more than likely will never ever get it.




He also says that John Lennon showed on Paul's rocker Get Back why he should have played lead guitar more often because he did such a good job of it. He also said he played a pretty good slide guitar on George's For Your Blue and he said John also played one of the first and best acid guitar parts on his great rocker Revolution.






http://www.keno.org/classic_rock/rock_albums_reviews.html










Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:15pm


This is a description of the 2009 Beatles 3 part radio special of how brilliant and influential The Beatles were from the beginning and it has interviews with Brian Wilson,Tom Petty,Dave Grohl,Slash,Jeff Lynne,Ann Wilson,Nancy Wilson,Peter Asher,Jackson Browne,Bob Seger,T-Bone Burnett,Cameron Crowe,Mika,Mark Ronson,Susan Werner,Rick Rubin,and Joe Boyd.



http://beatlesblogger.com/2009/12/04/new-three-part-beatles-radio-series-here-there-everywhere/

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:18pm


Another of the countless inacurrate things Scaruffi says about The Beatles writing 3 minute songs,well until The Beatles broke the rules for everyone with the long song Hey Jude in 1968, the radio's rules for everyone was that they wouldn't play any songs longer than 3 minutes.



If you look up online The Rolling Stones early hit songs like Paint It Black etc they too are only 3 minutes and some seconds.Pain It Black is only 3 minutes and 22 seconds long.



As Tears Go By is only 2 minutes and 33 seconds.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Tears_Go_By_(song)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint_It_Black



Under My Thumb is only 3 minutes and 41 seconds long.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_My_Thumb



Get Off Of My Cloud is only 2 minutes and 55 seconds long



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Off_of_My_Cloud



Satisfaction is only 3 minutes and 44 seconds.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(I_Can%27t_Get_No)_Satisfaction



Ruby Tuesday is only 3 minutes and 15 seconds.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Tuesday_(song)



The Who's My Generation is only 3 minutes and 18 seconds.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Generation



Happy Jack by The Who is only 2 minutes and 14 seconds



long.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Jack_(song)

etc, etc

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:22pm


Here in this 1971 interview at the Sgt.Regis Hotel John Lennon is asked by the interviewer about him using drummer Jim Keltner and if this was a reflection on Ringo's drumming.And John said, Oh no I love his drumming. He then said I think Keltner is a bit technically better but Ringo is still one of the best drummers in rock.




http://web.archive.org/web/20080108131358/http://www.geocities.com/wireless_machine/lennon/st_regis.htm







And who did John Lennon use as a drummer on his first brilliant solo album John Lennon Plastic Ono Band when he could have gotten almost anyone who would have jumped at the chance to play on one of John's albums? Ringo.











And Ringo Star was already a successful drummer in the most popular successful band in Liverpool,Rorry Storm and The Hurricanes when John,Paul and George asked him to join The Beatles.And George Martin didn't think that Pete Best was that good,and he and John,Paul and George thought that Ringo was much better.








Also Phil Collins and Max Weinberg are both Ringo fans. And Phil Collins ( who has always been a big Beatles fan and he was in the audience in the concert scene in their great movie A Hard Day's Night at age 13) says he can't even duplicate Ringo's great drumming in A Day In The Life. George Martin says that Ringo always had a great feel and ear for a song and that it was his idea to play the tom toms on A Day In The Life giving it a unique percussion sound.






Mark Lewisohn says in his great book,The Beatles Recording Sessions,that on a handful of occasions during all of the several hundred session tapes and thousand of recording hours can Ringo be heard to have made a mistake or wavered in his beat. He then says that his work was remarkably consistent-and excellent-from 1962 right through to 1970.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:29pm


Here is a really good July 1976 Rolling Stone Magazine interview with George Martin in which he's asked about George Harrison who he says is talented but John and Paul are so enormously talented that it was silly to look elsewhere.



But it's obvious George Harrison was even more talented as a song writer and guitarist than most people realize because in this same interview George Martin says that he didn't give George much encouragement he just tolerated him. And of course John and Paul didn't give him much encouragement,so he did mostly everything on his own.





http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/george-martin-recalls-the-boys-in-the-band-19760715?page=2#comments

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:33pm


Around 2003 I found an online interview with George Martin and he said that even though he has produced many other music artists and he has never had the same success before or after producing The Beatles,he has never known or worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles.




He was also interviews in the 1990's on a Breakfast With The Beatles show on a local rock station,and he said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and he said it like he still couldn't believe it. And he also said they both were extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers.






And in the excellent thorough book by Mark Lewisohn,The Beatles Recording Sessions,George Martin,and so many of The Beatles tape operators and recording engineers are interviewed,(and in the beginning there is a great 1987 interview with Paul McCartney) and they describe in detail how truly innovative, brilliant and creative especially John and Paul were in their amazing 8 year recording career. And there is a big black and white picture of Mick Jagger sitting in between John and Paul in the recording console room listening to the playback of the songs from The Beatles Revolver album.














And my cousin who was born in 1968 who used to be a lawyer,and his brother born in 62 who is still a lawyer,and their sister born in 64,their oldest brother born in 60,and their parents have always been Beatles fans. My cousin born in 68,went to England around 1991 and he told me that he was at a British Museum where the works of Shakespeare,Dickens,Wodsworth and Keats,Lennon and McCartney's lyrics are right in the same case. And he said the majority of visitors always said,forget the Shakespeare etc,lets go over to the Lennon and McCartney lyrics.








When I once asked him,if he still liked The Beatles he said,best band there ever was.My step cousin born in 1958,said they probably were the greatest band ever.He saw Paul McCartney and Wings in May 1976 in concert when he was 18 and he said it was a great show.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:37pm


This 1999 review of Mark Lewisohn's excellent Beatles studio diary book where many of The Beatles recording engineers and tape operators and their producer George Martin are interviewed (and it shows how truly innovative,brilliant and creative especially John and Paul were in the recording studio),The Beatles Recording Sessions titled, Behind The Creative Genius Of A Groundbreaking Band by a musician himself says it all, he says that as a musician he found Mark Lewisohn's portrayal of The Beatles genius and in parenthesis he says, especially that of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, to be completely thorough and accurate, as well as insightful. He then says if you are to buy any one Beatles book,buy this one.





http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Beatles-Recording-Sessions/product-reviews/1454910054/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=helpful>http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Beatles-Recording-Sessions/product-reviews/1454910054/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=helpful;;





And this reviewer RAS who became a big Beatles fan after he read The Beatles Recording Sessions book,said,I think The Beatles ARE BRILLIANT and he said he despairs what his life would be like without The Beatles!! When he first saw this book he said he thought,oh another garbage Beatles book.







http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Beatles-Recording-Sessions/product-reviews/1454910054/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_paging_btm_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=helpful&pageNumber=2






Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:42pm


In The All Music Guide's great review of The Beatles Past Masters album,they say they proved that they could rock really,really hard with their songs I Feel Fine,She's a Woman,and the peerless I'm Down


http://www.allmusic.com/album/past-masters-mw0000691313


all from late 1964 and early 1965.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:45pm


In this All Music Guide review of The Beatles late 1963 album,With The Beatles Stephen Thomas Erlewine says at the end of the very good review that still the heart of With The Beatles lies not in the covers but the originals where it was clear that even at this early stage The Beatles were rapidly maturing and changing turning into expert craftsman and musical innovators.




http://www.allmusic.com/album/with-the-beatles-mw0000192941

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:47pm


The Beatles do need defending because there truly is so much ignorant,inaccurate myths about them like Scaruffi's ,the most ignorant and ludicrous of all,is that they were ever a boy band and they never were not even for half of a second.









Here is a review of The Beatles first album,Please Please Me by a top Epionions music reviewer Scapp70 he says they need defending and he said that he had been reading some really negative things about The Beatles in print and online,and he said it's just so wild.He said but when you're as big as The Beatles there is bound to be some negativity out there. He explains how brilliant they were,how they made an amazing amount of great albums in such a short time and why they are rightfully widely considered the best band ever.














http://www.epinions.com/review/musc_mu-81434/2001989951/22786379
3284

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:51pm


I have read all of the recent almost all 5 star amazon.com reviews of the new remastered amazon.com best seller,The Beatles Live At The Hollywood Bowl and many people are saying what I and other fans have said elsewhere,that given how limited and primitive sound systems of the time were,and they had no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves singing and playing,they played and sounded amazingly good! I heard the small samples on amazon.com,and what struck me is how typically great and prominent Paul's bass playing is,someone said he's playing it like a lead instrument.Also an amazon.com reviewer said how underrated John's rhythm guitar playing is and how George Harrison's guitar playing is very good and how great Ringo's drumming is.
'.




Here on Paul McCartney.com quite a few members are saying that it's amazing and incredible that The Beatles played so great and sang so great with such primitive sound systems at the time and no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves singing and playing.One member said they were without a doubt the greatest live rock band ever!




http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=91901&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45





Many are saying the same things on this music forum including how great and hard rocking of a live band The Beatles really were.



http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beatles-live-at-the-hollywood-bowl-out-on-cd-9-9-16-vinyl-on-11-18-16.567252/page-141





I just found only part of this review from The London Times,you have to have a subscription to read the whole article though,and it says in the first part of it,that it's remarkable they played as well as they did given that they couldn't hear a thing.





http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pop-the-beatles-live-at-the-hollywood-bowl-f9pxrkmzg

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 14:54pm


It's really amazing how good The Beatles sounded live with such limited primitive crappy sound systems of the time,but they were so great that they would have even sounded good playing out of of cave.

There is an online interview with Roger Daltry,Roger's Journey With The Who in The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/sftw/607170/Rogers-journey-with-The-Who.html





and he was asked if The Who had screaming girls at a certain point,and he said after Can't Explain they did. He said it was the screaming teenage era and every band had them on their way up. He said it was fun at first but the trouble for a performer when you are that young and inexperienced is that you start to judge your performances on the amount they scream,he said it's nonsense which is why Lennon gave up. He also said that The Who's manager turned their image overnight from scruffy rockers to Mods.





When The Beatles played live in 1963,64,65 & 66 they only had 100 watt amplifiers,no feedback monitors so they couldn't hear themselves sing and play,plus the screaming crowds and that's why they gave up touring.




George Harrison says in The Beatles Anthology video series,that for their August 1965 Shea Stadium concerts, special 100 watt amplifiers were made and that they went up from only 30 watts before. Given how limited and primitive the sound systems were then,it's amazing they sounded as good as they did live.But it was impossible for *anyone* to sound great on those kind of limited,primitive sound systems of the time.





Former Kiss guitarist Bob Kulick who produced the heavy metal Beatles tribute album, Butchering The Beatles, said he saw The Beatles in concert in 1966 and he said he could hear parts of Baby's In Black & Paperback Writer and they sounded amazing.




A guy Steve from Canada said on Artist Facts,that he saw The Beatles live in 1966 and The Stones in 1996(and the sound systems by then were a zillion times better!) and he said don't get me wrong,The Stones were great but they were no match for The Beatles and he called The Beatles The Greatest Band Of All Time.




The Beatles started out playing 8 hours a night in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany,taking speed pills to stay awake,wearing tight black leather jackets and pants,smoking and cursing on stage,and had sex with so many young women groupies including the strippers in those clubs,they were successful there. They also played successfully live in The Cavern Club for several years in the early 1960's.




John and George especially hated Beatle Mania,and George says in The Anthology series, that it took a toll on their nervous systems, they had no life either trapped in hotel rooms most of the time. They wanted to be popular & successful as every band does, but they didn't want or ask for the hysteria. John says in his 1975 Tomorrow Show interview that the screaming wasn't doing the music any good,and that things would break down and nobody would know.





The Beatles sound great on their live roof top January 1969 concert in The Let It Be Film, and the sound systems had improved by then,(although still very limited compared to today's) and there were no more screaming crowds.




Paul was playing guitar and writing songs at 14 and he started soon after his beloved nurse and midwife mother Mary died of breast cancer, and he wrote the beautiful song Let It Be after he had a real seeming dream where he saw her alive again and she told him to just accept things as they are. He says in his authorized biography, that when he woke up he thought how great it was to see her alive again.






And there is this very good article by Collin Fleming from The Atlantic, 50 Years Later: The Greatest Beatles Performance Of All Time







http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/10/50-years-later-the-greatest-beatles-performance-of-all-time/280801/







And there used to be the full video of The Beatles February 1964 Washington Colosseum and there were over 1,000 likes and many people were saying what Frank and Jack say to this now only audio version of this concert,( many people on youtube are saying why are many of The Beatles videos gone off of youtube now and some are saying it's because of UMG_MK and I don't know what this is.) that it's amazing that with such crappy sound systems of those days and no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves singing and playing and many said they still sound so good and great and some say this Washington concert proves what a great live band they were and before they got so tired of all of the Beatlemania garbage they had to put up with all of the screaming drowning out their great music.











https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge66-bK0E70

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:01pm


Scaruffi so ignorantly and inaccurately called George Harrison a ''pathetic'' guitar player,





Hunter Davies wrote in his 1968 only authorized Beatles biography,The Beatles that George Harrison at only age 13 would stay up till 2 in the morning playing his guitar until he got all of the chords exactly right and his fingers were bleeding and his nice mother stayed up with him to. And One of The Beatles engineers Geoff Emerick says in Mark Lewisohn's excellent Beatles recording diary,The Beatles Recording Sessions that in early 1966 when The Beatles were recording John's song I'm Only Sleeping, George Harrison played backwards guitar the most difficult way possible even though he could have taken an easy way,and it took him 6 hours just to do the guitar overdubs! He then made it doubly difficult by adding even more distorted guitars and Geoff says this was all George's idea and that he did all of the playing.






Eric Clapton said in a 1992 interview when he and George were asked what they admired about each other during their Japan tour, that George is a fantastic slide guitar player. He and George were very good friends and they obviously admired and respected each others guitar playing and George played guitar on Cream's song Badge.





Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:04pm


Also, classical composer Leonard Bernstein called John and Paul the greatest composers of the 20th century so did Elton John on a 1991 CBS Morning news show,he was asked who he musically admires and he said you can talk about your Rogers and Hammerstein but for the quantity of quality songs that Lennon and McCartney wrote in that short period of time,he said he thinks they were the greatest song writers of the 20th century.Brian Wilson said this too on a 1995 Nightline Beatles tribute show. The Beatles are in the Vocal Hall of Fame and John and Paul have been in the song writing Hall of Fame since 1987,Keith Richards and Mick Jagger have been in it since 1993,but as of now no members of The Who,or Led Zeppelin are in The Song Writing Hall Of Fame or The Vocal Hall Of Fame,The Rolling Stones aren't in The Vocal Hall of Fame either and The Beatles were awarded about 20 prestigious Ivor Novello awards as great singers and song writers in just a remarkable 8 year recording career,John and Paul won the first one in early 1964.





They also won an Oscar for their film score of their 1970 film Let It Be.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:08pm


In this interview with news reporter Larry Kane who interviewed The Beatles from 1964-1966 on their concert tours,and he's in Ron Howard's Beatles documentary Eight Days A week,says that he was at 46 Beatles concerts and there wasn't a bad one. He also says he thinks the film is a reminder of how good The Beatles were as musicians,and he said modern musicians we look at the puny sound equipment they had and will be amazed and that some of their concerts had their music going out on the stadium public address system.




http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37355216

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:10pm


Here are The Rolling Stones live in 1963 and 1964 they don't sound better or even as good as The Beatles live then! They aren't even rocking.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV62UcqbcQA





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfj1O_fApvA




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV241mctbg0




Here is The Rolling Stones in 1963 performing the cover Roll Over Beethoven.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64GbValI_To



Here are The Beatles also performing Roll Over Beethoven in 1964,and clearly their version is more rocking and better!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rLci6tPOtY

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:15pm


In 1964 The Rolling Stones wrote and recorded a Rice Krispies TV commercial jingle not something cool like a cigarette ad and they also had teen girls screaming at their early concerts.Maybe The Rolling Stones should be called a boy band too.I'm pretty certain The Beatles never wrote and recorded a jingle for a cereal TV commercial.



But the point is that just like The Beatles went along with their manager Brain Epstein's fake cleaned up image to get their foot in the door after years and years of working their as*es off,The Rolling Stones did the same thing here.




http://www.snopes.com/the-rolling-stones-rice-krispies-jingle/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBmhEMFdl0

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:19pm


Here is The Rolling Stones performing one of my favorite songs by them,Street Fighting Man the music is great in it,although the words are very good too, while most of the comments are positive,there is a guy in the comments who said it's a weak performance and they sound like a high school cover band.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHugEELD8o8

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:20pm


Here is part of The Beatles great January 1969 roof top concert. What Steve Paradiso says in the comments,That The Beatles were arguably The Greatest Rock n Roll Band Ever is *so true!*





https://vimeo.com/95681569

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:22pm


I also met two people and know a third one who saw The Beatles in concert,one woman and one man who were my high school teachers who saw them in 1966,and the other my second cousin who saw them at the Baltimore Coliseum when she was 16 in 1964,she became a psychologist.They all told me that they were close enough to them to see and hear the The Beatles and that they were great.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:25pm


And I have been a huge Beatles fan, especially a big highly impressed John and Paul fan since I was 11 and I got my first Beatles book for my 11th birthday,I started collecting their albums at age 9, and I had every album by age 13. I was born after 1964 too. when I was 13 a guy at school who was 2 years older than me,gave me Hunter Davies authorized biography,he was a fan and his older brother was an even bigger fan.I would read that book for hours till 5 in the morning.



My father was a big Bob Dylan fan and he had a lot of his albums,and he also had many Herb Alpert and The Tijuana Brass albums,and albums by Leonard Cohen and Peter Paul and Mary when I was growing up. And my sister who is 4 years older had a big music collection of all different types of music artists.


Most people I have known all of my life,including my female and male cousins, friends and neighbors know they were brilliant.When I was 11 I had a music teacher who asked us to guess who he was talking about when he said they were geniuses and that they wrote 200 songs,and that most of their songs and albums are great and critically acclaimed in just an 8 year recording career,and I said,The Beatles and he said yes that's right!






Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:26pm




Award winning classical composer and music professor Dr.Glen Gass's Beatles course he's been teaching since 1982 and he's been teaching a course in rock music in general since then.



http://courses.music.indiana.edu/rock/beatles.html


http://info.music.indiana.edu/faculty/current/gass-glenn.shtml

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:31pm


Many people on different message boards have said the only Rolling Stones song they like is Paint It Black, my first cousin who is a head hunter helping people find jobs,she used to an accountant,and when she was 21 a huge Rolling Stones fan she also had The Beatles Revolver album in her bedroom.




When The Rolling Stones did their Steel Wheels tour in 1989 I asked her if she still liked The Rolling Stones and she said no,but the same year at her wedding shower my male and female cousins were talking about The Beatles who we all love,and my cousin said Oh I love The Beatles.





And when I was going to Paul McCartney live for the first time in 1990 and I was very excited about it,I was going on about how great he,John and The Beatles were and she said OK, I said you said you love The Beatles too and she said hey bottom line they were geniuses!




And I once heard a radio host who was a former rock DJ and he said The Beatles are really like the only music artists who have just about every song they did was great and wasn't great was still good. He said even their album tracks that weren't released as singles.



And many people have said it's The Rolling Stones albums that have just a handful of very good songs and the rest is filler.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:33pm



On a message board discussion some years ago about what bands and artists people consider overrated,quite a few said The Rolling Stones and some said The Beatles or both,and a guy said if you ask almost anybody in the music business they will tell you that The Beatles were the Greatest Band Ever.






I once spoke to a rock DJ about The Beatles and even though he said they aren't his favorite,he said nobody can say that The Beatles weren't great,he said especially John Lennon and Paul McCartney as song writers.





And I once spoke to another rock DJ who is a huge Beatles fan & who has hosted a 2 hour Breakfast With The Beatles radio show for over 20 years & I said that The Beatles work in the recording studio described in details in The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn,is so impressive & brilliant & he said oh it's the work of geniuses. I said how can anyone not recognize what extraordinary singer song composers John Lennon & Paul McCartney were? And he said oh you can ask anyone in the music business & they will tell you that.


Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:38pm


This is a great August 1986 hour long Paul McCartney interview by Barbara Hower from Entertainment This Week. She asked him a lot of great intelligent questions including how he felt about John Lennon's horrible,tragic murder and she got a rare great interview out of him and he comes across as very likeable intelligent,funny,serious and charming.






This is really the best interview with Paul that I have ever seen or heard.She also talked to him about his drug arrests and all of drug related songs of The Beatles and his time in jail in Japan because of having tons of pot with him and she asked him after having so many groupies how has he managed to stat faithful to one woman,and he only half jokingly says it hasn't been easy.And in between commercials Lionel Richie and David lee Roth talk about how great The Beatles,especially John and Paul were as song writers.



I still have this interview on an old VHS tape from the time. It's not on youtube though for some reason. Unfortunately it gets interrupted by advertisements but then the interview resumes.But I just watched it again and there were no commercials now, I hope they don't include them again.



Paul also says in this interview that soon after John died Yoko called him up and told Paul that John really loved him.




Notice how uncomfortable Paul's face expression is for about a minute in this great August 1986 hour long Paul McCartney interview by Barbara Hower from Entertainment This Week when she says to him,probably your first great love before you married Linda was Jane Asher, it struck a chord.I'm sure that Paul was really in love with intelligent beautiful British actress Jane too,you don't write the beautiful love songs such as And I Love Her,Things We Said Today, and Here There Everywhere,(plus the great songs he wrote about his arguments with her,which was his own fault because of his sexism constantly trying to get Jane to give up her acting career she loved so much and that she had been doing since she was 5 years old.She left him for good when in early 1968 after they had been lovers for 5 years and engaged to be married for 7 months,she found him in their bed in their house with another woman.



http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qtunj












































Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:43pm


And John wrote this beautiful,brilliant song with beautiful music and John's typical beautiful singing voice, Number 9 Dream on his very good 1974 solo album,Walls And Bridges and he produced and arranged the whole album by himself including this beautiful,brilliant song!




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq2aaUp3hYc

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:45pm


Paul McCartney is the Mozart of rock and he really was born this way because he inherited his father Jim McCartney's and Jim's father's natural music talent,to a rare ridiculous extreme degree. Paul's father Jim taught himself how to play the piano at age 14,and he broke an ear drum at the age of 10 so he was deaf in one ear,and he went on to become a classical jazz pianist and the leader of his own band Jim Mac's Band who were popular in clubs in Liverpool. His father even wrote an instrumental song called,walking In The Park With Eloise which Paul and Wings recorded with the name The Country Hams in 1974 and included this song on their 1976 Wings album,Wings At The Speed Of Sound.





But his father and grandfather weren't poets,they were naturally musically talented and Paul has always been more of a *music genius* than a lyric genius even though he can and has written very good lyrics,but he doesn't have to.And even when he did it's his *music* that is what is so great about his songs and albums.




Paul's father's father,also played brass and other instruments in a band and was a good singer with a good singing voice.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:47pm


In this 2002 interview with John’s May Pang who was his girl friend during his separation from Yoko she was asked as the last question,what would she most like the world to know about John,and she said the fact that he was a kind sensitive man who was insecure in his personal life.




http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/may_pang_int.html

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 15:54pm


Here is university of Penn graduate,musicologist Alan Pollack's whole extensive 11 year analysis of all 200 Beatles songs



http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 16:08pm



George Martin was very musically talented and always seemed to be a very nice person too.








Brian Epstein and George Martin were both very lucky to meet The Beatles and to have them,especially John Lennon and Paul McCartney as their employees,it was like they discovered gold or won the lottery twice and in a way three times with George Harrison too.George Martin had moderate success as a producer of mostly comedy albums before he became The Beatles producer,and he never had nearly as much success before and after producing them even though he went on to produce many other music artists. But he said that he never has known and worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles,especially John and Paul.




And the truth is, if Brian Epstein hadn't had the good luck of becoming their manager he would have remained a record store manager that no one ever heard of and George Martin never would have been as known and successful either.I'm sure that some other manager and producer would eventually discover John and Paul and probably George sooner or later because they were just too extremely unusually musically talented music artists for them not to be.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 16:29pm


A guy named Tim Ellison posted on a message board back in 2006 after someone had linked to Scaruffi's horrible,inaccurate,article about The Beatles,and he said that it was a horror and that he never wanted to read that garbage again.In 2007 he posted on the same forum that Scaruffi's Beatles analysis is freaking ridiculous.



I emailed Tim about this back in February 2007,and he emailed me back and said yeah Scaruffi's Beatles article is really bizarre and he never wanted to visit his page again.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 16:49pm


In this September 1971 interview with John and Yoko,John is asked if playing 8 hours a night in Hamburg Germany for two years in a row improved The Beatles playing,and he said Oh amazingly because before that they had only played bits and pieces but in Hamburg they played for hours and hours and that this is how they developed their rock n roll sound and playing. John also mentions how they took pills(meaning Speed) to stay awake tobe able to play for so long.


The interviewer asked Yoko if she knew about what John called all of the raving( meaning sex with all of the young women,and teen girl groupies) that went on during their tours and Yoko was shocked and said Oh God! and she was no innocent herself,John was her third husband,and she had affairs and several abortions before she met him.



http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1971.0905.beatles.html

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 17:42pm


JPGR, thanks for all the widely spaced Beatles trivia.

Posted by Paul in KY on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 19:00pm


Rate Your Music Top 1000 Rock Artists Queen is number 75,The Beatles are so rightfully number 1



http://rateyourmusic.com/list/noname219/top_1000_rock_artists/10/



And on the site Digital Dreamdoor where many musicians are members The Beatles are the number 1 Greatest Rock Artists.




http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html





On their 100 Greatest Rock Bass Guitarists Paul McCartney has been number 8 for many years now, John Deacon is number 32.John Paul Jones is number 27,and Bill Wyman is number 95.





http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_bassguitar.html





Out over 100 Greatest Rock Drummers Ringo Star is number 13,Roger Taylor is number 31 and Charlie Watts is number 91.




http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_drummers.html




Out of 200 Greatest Rock Song Writers John Lennon and Paul McCartney are of course number 1 members of Queen are number 47.




http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_songwriters.html

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 21:12pm


On Last FM. before Last FM. changed their site and now they unfortunately took off the fan groups,The Rolling Stones only had 80 members and they had 2,000 of their fan group in 2007,The Beatles had over 2,000 which became 18,000 and the average age of fans is 22 more guys than girls and they are from all over the world. In 2006,2007 and 2008 The Beatles were the # 1 most listened music artists on Last.FM and they are very popular on YouTube and Rate Your Music where many male and female fans in their teens and 20's call them The Greatest Rock Band Ever. They are now the number 1 classic Rock band on there as they have been for years




http://www.last.fm/tag/classic+rock/artists and they did their homework right,in their Beatles biography they rightfully say that The Beatles were an iconic *rock band* and are the most critically acclaimed and successful rock band ever. And on Rate Your Music,they are the highest rated music artists out of over

3,000.http://rateyourmusic.com/list/noname219/top_artists/



And they are number 1 out over 1,000 Top Rock Artists



http://rateyourmusic.com/list/noname219/top_1000_rock_artists/10/





The Beatles are still rightfully regarded by most people,most rock critics,and many other music and rock artists as The most creative,innovative,and prolific rock band ever.




In 1995 25 years after they broke up their Anthology CD's went straight to # 1 around the world and I heard a rock DJ say that 40% of the people buying them were teenagers,the same exact thing when their 1 CD came out in 2000 30 years after they broke,up and in 2009,39 years after they broke up,they were the second biggest selling artists in the last decade,and their 1 CD was the biggest selling album. And their music went to the top soon after it went on iTunes.And soon after their music started streaming on Spotify it became very popular and Billboard reported that 65% of listeners are under 34 years old which means they weren't even born when they broke up in 1970.




There are also a lot of people in their teens,20's and 30's who are fans of John's solo great music,and Paul's solo and Wings great music.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 21:16pm


I suddenly don't feel all that bad about my past drunk post body of work.

Posted by DarinRG on Sunday, 01.15.17 @ 02:35am


Great Beatles Course By Music Professor John Covach University Of Rochester


https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-beatles

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 02:59am


University Of Berklee Multi-talented Musician,Guitar Teacher,First Female Guitar Teacher,And Now Music Professor Has Loved The Beatles Since She Saw Them On The ED Sullivan Show When She Was 4 Years Old.



https://www.berklee.edu/news/4635/meet-the-beatle



https://www.berklee.edu/people/lauren-passarelli

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 03:01am


Her name is Lauren Passarelli

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 03:03am


Bass Player & Berklee Music Professor Suzane M.Clark Teaches Courses On The Beatles,Solo Beatles & Music Of John Lennon



https://www.berklee.edu/people/suzanne-m-clark

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 03:05am


University Of Southern California Music Professor And Musician,Bill Biersach Has Always Been A Huge Beatles Fan & And Has Been Teaching A Beatles Course For 40 Years.



https://music.usc.edu/bill-biersach-40-years-with-the-beatles-and-usc/



http://dailytrojan.com/2012/04/16/popular-beatles-class-once-controversial/

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 03:06am


8 Schools (Universities) That Offer Classes On The Beatles




http://blog.cappex.com/blog/college-ranking-lists/10-schools-that-offer-classes-about-the-beatles/

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 03:08am


Brian May says The Beatles were Queen's bible.



http://beatlessongwriting.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/under-influence-brian-may.html#comment-form



Many well known musicians say how influenced they are by The Beatles.




[url]http://beatlessongwriting.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Under%20The%20Influence[/url]



11 Musicians Influenced By The Beatles



http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2014/02/04/top-11-musicians-influenced-by-the-beatles-50th-anniversary/#sthash.na2BTdhg.dpbs

Posted by JPGR on Sunday, 01.22.17 @ 05:53am



On the Ottawa Beatles Fan Site The Beatles Timeline Explains,For Those Who Just Discovered The Band This Historical Presentation Should Provide Enough Insight For You To Develop An Appreciation, Of Why Beatles Fans,Music Lovers And Historians All Agree That The Beatles Were The Greatest Rock N Roll Band To Emerge Out Of The 20th Century.


http://beatles.ncf.ca/timeline.html

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:25pm


On this old site that is updated, Rock On The Net,it says few could argue that one of the best groups, if not the best in rock n roll history is The Beatles.


http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-b/beatles_main.htm

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:27pm


Paul in KY, often my posts are too close together and don't paragraph so I had to space them out more to make sure that doesn't happen.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:31pm


DarinRG you must be drunk now when you posted your comment in response to my great information on here.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:34pm


By the way the music professor John Covach at University of Rochester teaching The Beatles course,is also a musician who plays in a Beatles tribute band.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:39pm



This guy who did the very good rebuttal of Scaruffi's lies and falsehoods about The Beatles very accurately points out what I knew from the moment that I read Scaruffi's garbage back in 2001,he says that Scaruffi tells consistent and deliberate lies about what The Beatles did,how they were regarded and what they were attempting to do,and that the lies he tells are a deliberate and consistent effort to make The Beatles look overrated to people.


https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-517




On a heavy metal site someone posted Scaruffi's horrible inaccurate bullsh*t about The Beatles and a guy said that Scaruffi made up contrived bullsh*t about The Beatles and that a lot of people think he knows what he's talking about because he's a cognitive scientist.Many people elsewhere have said that Scaruffi just made up most of this bullsh*t,he made all of it up,the only facts he got right are John,Paul,George,Ringo,George Martin and Brian Epstein's names and when someone makes up that many lies about a subject you really can't trust them especially about that subject at all.


I actually emailed this idiot Scaruffi back in 2001 to try to debunk his ignorant lies about The Beatles,and he emailed me back three times,and I was civil to him,(which wasn't easy,and I had to control myself from not cursing him,but I know that wasn't going to work to get through to him) and he was civil to me too,but you just can't get through to him.



He actually said that he thought I'm one of the most intelligent Beatles fans he ever communicated with because I never mentioned The Beatles record sales as to why they are great and he actually claimed that this all the majority of Beatles fans said to him,that they sold the most records,which he denies that they did in his horrid article. I don't believe him at all I'm sure that a lot of knowledgeable fans did inform him of a lot of academic and music scholarship that debunks his stupid,horrible lies but he just doesn't want to recognize it because he irrationally hates The Beatles and he wants everyone else to hate them too.

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:45pm


And even though it's not what made The Beatles so great,Scaruffi lies when he says they aren't the biggest selling band ever,The Recording Industry Association of America reports that they are


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 20:52pm


Darin, I just hope this guy doesn't go full Roy on us. Or full Enig, either. As much as I love the Beatles too, he's making me wanna drink.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 01.28.17 @ 21:47pm


Phillip, we can only hope...At least Roy & Enig know how to properly use the return key.

Posted by Paul in KY on Sunday, 01.29.17 @ 07:34am




Here on Music Radar Tom Petty,Joe Perry and Richie Sambora in What The Beatles Mean To Me all say how cool and great they thought The Beatles were when they first saw them on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964 when they were just teen boys,Richie was only 5.Tom Petty said he thought they were really really great.And Alan White from the group Yes is also interviewed.



http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/tom-petty-what-the-beatles-mean-to-me-219800



http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/aerosmiths-joe-perry-what-the-beatles-mean-to-me-219308




http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/bon-jovis-richie-sambora-what-the-beatles-mean-to-me-219479




http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/alan-white-from-yes-what-the-beatles-mean-to-me-219747














































Posted by JPGR on Monday, 02.6.17 @ 07:33am


In this interview with news reporter Larry Kane who interviewed The Beatles from 1964-1966 on their concert tours,and he's in Ron Howard's Beatles documentary Eight Days A week,says that he was at 46 Beatles concerts and there wasn't a bad one. He also says he thinks the film is a reminder of how good The Beatles were as musicians,and he said modern musicians will look at the puny sound equipment they had and will be amazed and that some of their concerts had their music going out on the stadium public address system.



http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37355216

Posted by JPGR on Monday, 02.6.17 @ 08:48am


Giles Martin,George Martin's son who recently remastered The Beatles 1964 and 1965 Live At The Hollywood Bowl concerts rightfully says on All Songs Considered when people ask him if The Beatles were a good live band,he says they were a great live band and he mentions the very limited,primitive sound systems they had back then,and says how great The Beatles played live in the studio on their first 3 or 4 albums,and that they all played their instruments very good.



He obviously means they played these first several albums live because they didn't even have any overdubbing until 1965 so they had to play and record those albums live.And their first albums before the great A Hard Day's Night album were recorded on only 2 track tape,they had 4 track by A Hard Day's Night and only 8 track for The White album,Let It Be and Abbey Road.



http://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2016/08/25/491201322/all-songs-1-the-beatles-are-live-and-sounding-better-than-ever

Posted by JPGR on Monday, 02.6.17 @ 08:50am


The so-called "Fab Four" were NOT rock n' roll; they were stupid, manufactured pop.

Posted by Luke Madigan on Monday, 05.8.17 @ 16:20pm


I was going to be a smart (bleep) and say that they should put the Beatles in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (and yes, I am aware that they have been in since 1988), but I'm just happy to have the 800th comment. So far.

Posted by Joe on Saturday, 05.20.17 @ 00:05am


I would like to extend Happy Birthday wishes to Sir Paul McCartney. Thank you for your many musical contributions over the years.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Sunday, 06.18.17 @ 15:42pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.