Were CSNY really considered the "American Beatles" in the early to mid 1970s?

In the mid-70's? No, they weren't.

 

topic offED:

Nobody you know says that, so that means it's not real or it doesn't exist; that's CZY talk [or lack of any sensible talk at the very least].
You think we are over it so then its over w/?!?!
Cute. In a "Bert & Ernie" kind of way!
Butt bet even Sesame St. characters would teach children bout geography better than completely dismissing meaningful monikers [cept too you & every one you talk too tho].

It is callED "The New World" to this day; in the wine industry its very common too refer too "Old World" & "New World" vines & wines.

 

And, while I am a fan - they would have had to release more than 1 studio album in that period to qualify?

 

Yeah, ok.

 

comparing the beach boys to the beatles is ludicrous.

and

yes, i'm very serious when i say that. it's not even close. sorry beach boys fans, but "pet sounds" is NOT "sgt pepper II"

CSNY were extremely popular in the early '70's, most people who were there will tell you that. and i do recall comparisons to and the words "american beatles" being used when reading about them. their pedigree is, arguably, unequaled by any other american band at the time (and yes i know they were only half american, but they were considered an american band by most).


i can't think of any other american band of the early '70's that even comes close in writing, playing, singing, and social awareness...much like the beatles in england during the late '60's.

playing "if history", one can only imagine what the four of them could have done had they been able to get along and stay relatively drug free. but, we'll never know

 

Comparing any band to the Beatles does not make any sense, because they had a truly unique trajectory. In their first pre-"Rubber Soul" phase they were the undisputed Kings of Pop, in the second part they were at the head of rock revolution. Their uniqueness was due to the combination of "social" and "artistic" aspects. The huge sales from the pop phase give a entirely different dimension to their later artistic achievements, while the latter elevate and sustain their initial impact on popular culture.

I think if there had been two separate bands, each one responsible for a half of their career, their statures combined would have amounted to much less. CSN&Y could have been compared only to the second Beatles band, if such had existed as a separate entity. Which I think is still a no mean feat - few contemporary rock bands could have matched the quality of songwriting and performance skills of those four "American" gentlemen. I recently played the "Live 1974" set to a few folks not particularly interested in any vintage rock and the clatter of dropping jaws was a uniform response.

I have tried to come up with a potential candidate, who after an enormous "pop" success could have enjoyed a resounding "art" success. I have found Michael Jackson to be a good example of a well respected pop success, but then stumbled upon the problem of what kind of "artsy" music direction he could have pursued to try to match the Beatles stature. Jazz or academical music? Too niche these days. Hip-hop or metal? Too divisive. Country? Not popular enough outside the US.

It is really hard to even imagine a career like the Beatles in the post-Beatles music world. The resonance of music revolution of the 60s cannot be matched by any subsequent development or movement, probably because this decade marked the creation of the modern world we know and live in. I suspect that that the period will be considered in future books on Western history as a genuine turning point, ending of the preceding "bourgeois" era started by the late 18th century revolutions (like French or American). It should not surprise that the largely undisputed position of Ludwig van Beethoven as the most important composer of the era owes quite a bit to his involvement in the radical changes accompanying the period's birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(Beethoven)#Dedication_and_premiere_performance

The coming of the next Beethoven and Beatles will have to await the beginning of a new era, which most probably will not happen any time soon.

 

Bands will always be compared to one another-that's part of the territory in music that I've seen play out over the years. But to say that by putting the BB's in the relatively same airspace as the Beatles is ludicrous is, in itself, just that-ludicrous. Look at it this way-they both did things the other couldn't or wouldn't consider because of somewhat different approaches and remember, the Beatles had the JohnPaulGeorge writing machine with an incredible amount of assistance from George Martin. The BB's had Brian Wilson doing it all from conception to album covers. Plus he had the obnoxious Mike Love disapproving any new direction Brian wanted to pursue. No, Pet Sounds was not Sgt. Pepper 2 however, it did inspire them to rise to the occasion to make a great album. I don't know of any other group at the time who supplied that sort of jump start for the fab four. Yes, I would say that comparing the two groups would be completely logical-but ludicrous? No, that can be saved for the Stones/Bobby Sherman debate.

 

I have heard that Beatles/CSNY reference before, but it doesn't appear that it was ever adopted by the press or public. It is an absurd statement. Perhaps within the music business, CSNY was such a money-making machine for a time that it seemed as if there was some sort of revenue connection, but even then, there were a handful a significant earners in the music industry so it doesn't make sense.

 

I like CSNY and obviously they were quite big there for a while, but I see virtually no meaningful basis for comparison with the Beatles. They don't have a comparable unified body of work--they were too fragmented and fractious. Maybe they achieved massive fame a little too quickly for their own good. Of course, the various member did do a lot of strong work before forming CSN and then with the various side projects, but the impact was more diffuse.

 

http://artmodel.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/beethovens-tenth/

 

Real different things as all 4 were fairly equally represented as singers and writers, they had backing musicians rather than being a self contained 4 man band, and they were regularly political while the Beatles largely shunned politics

 

In the 1970s The Beach Boys were considered has-beens, whether this is fair or not.

 

I don't think that CSN(&Y) or any other American band needs to be called "America's Beatles". American music can stand on it's own with that of any other country.

 

Not by me! And I never heard that opinion expressed during that time by anyone else that I can recall.

 

Harry Nilsson was the American Beatles.

 

Which one was Ringo???

 

I never heard anyone call CSNY the American Beatles. The thought never occurred to me. It was certainly not a widely held or talked about opinion in the 1970s.

 

I think The Beatles were certainly good enough to be compared with The Beach Boys.

Thank God! Actually Pet Sounds was earlier and was an influence on Sgt. Pepper according to Paul.

I don't think either Pet Sounds or Sgt. Pepper are their respective artists' best work.

 

I asked this somewhere else before and the answer I got was that it wasn't a literal popularity thing, it was how they related to the zeitgeist.

I mean the Beatles were the '60s and are the '60s! But did CSNY sort of sum up the folk, prostest, long hair, sensitive signer songwriter thing in 1970?

 

Sometimes, when a group of four talented musicians are commercialy successful, they are immediately linked to The Beatles. For instance, Serú Girán, a great band of the late 70's from my country, was dubbed "the Argentine Beatles". The were Beatles fans, like so many musicians, but their music was truly personal and sounded very different to what the Fab Four had done. But they were four, and incredibly popular, so...
Maybe that's the case with CSNY. I love them, but I've always seen them as four musicians getting together to play beautiful music, and not a band. Or as a trio (CSN) having a very special guest throughout the whole show.

 

I'm thinking more in the early days though. Early to mid sixties, where they were the two bands that were dominating the charts.

 

Bread were the American Beatles.

 

Agree with P.O.B. it was probably started by someone who would profit from that notion.

 

i heard it back then on more than one occasion.

 

I recall reading the comparison in the many fawning Rolling Stone articles about the group which, after its great first two albums, had hit a bit of a creative wall recording-wise but still toured to roll in the dough. My reaction was (and is ) that the comparison was silly, hype to sell tickets to see a bunch of burned-out self-appointed superstars who, rather than having revolutionized the music scene by creating a remarkable body of work over seven solid years of creativity, had pretty much blown it after one.