One of the reasons imo, that they were so influential is because of them innovating or at least bringing in innovations from the avant-garde world. They weren't influential just because they sang a few pleasant ditties.
Maybe I misunderstood you then. I just thought you were making a point that it was enough that they were highly influential and had great songs. That innovations weren't an important part of it.
Maybe we missed out on the Beatles pioneering what was instead pioneered by Pink Floyd, E.L.O and later Radiohead.
No, no. You’re not doing it right. You need to have carefully considered reasons for why the hypothetical fantasy scenario doesn’t make sense. “Batman is way too weak and wouldn’t be needed in the Avengers.” “Oh really? What about Hawkeye? He only has bows and arrows. Batman would be more useful than him!
I guess my initial post was making two main points: There's a difference between innovation and influence. The Beatles were both influential and innovators, however I believe they were more influential than they were innovators (again, not to say they didn't innovate).
The thing is that the break-up of the Beatles came as a shock and there was a lot of demand for a Beatles reunion for the rest of John Lennon's lifetime. That and the Beatles exploring so much territory and so many areas makes me wonder if they could have explored more with more years together.
They still contributed to "the grotesqueness of 70's rock" but as solo artists.... Mother, Uncle Albert, etc. "The grotesqueness of 70's rock". There's a term you don't hear much on SHF. D.D.
I’m seeing ELO mentioned here repeatedly; what did they pioneer, exactly? I always heard them as a one-trick pony which made an entire seventies career based on one period of The Beatles career (not to daringly say, one song!).
I don't think it was every really seriously considered. I think it was something fans imagined. I know that after John was murdered George was highly against the idea of the three of them ever performing or recording as The Beatles or even at all. I think he was even reluctant to perorm with Ringo at the Princes Trust concert lest it give the appearance of Beatles reunion without John.
Yeah I know. But I guess that's because a lot of people here were teenagers in the 70s. They don't want someone to mess with their nostalgia! Mother or Uncle Albert are not what I'd consider grotesque (OK, Uncle Albert is a bit silly, but I still like it!)
Yeah, but if The Yardbirds released their first version of Heart Full of Soul it would have beaten them to the punch.
And that "if" dates back 6 months before Norwegian Wood. The kicker is the only reason they didn't release the original version is that playing the sitar riff on an electric guitar sounded more distinctly exotic. It just goes to show, George wasn't exactly doing something no one else was at the time, he just managed to get it released first. I may have jumped into the mostly empty Pretty Things bandwagon a bit, but The Yardbirds should totally get credit for the earliest psych rock, metal (how many bands formed with a jam of Train Kept a Rollin?) and quite a bit of the harder sound music would head into. I would like them more if they had less instrumental jams, but that is a matter of taste.
Thanks for the history lesson, but all of that is known. That doesn't change the fact that Harrison was the first person to use a sitar on a pop or rock recording which was released in December of 1965.
Don't know if I really consider the Yardbirds to be the first psychedelic rock band either. I guess if using Eastern modalities counts as 'psychedelic' then you may have something with "Heart full of Soul," plus it's got that fuzz-guitar riff. But I don't hear the acid, you know?
But that also doesn't change the fact that Heart Full of Soul was released in June 1965 with an electric guitar part whose intent was to mimic a prior sitar version and actually improved on it. Whether it was actually that instrument or not doesn't change that the idea of giving a rock song a riff with an Eastern flavor was the same, and Heart Full of Soul beat it by 6 months. Then See My Friends by The Kinks beat both, but is less distinct to my ears.
You're changing the goalposts to suit your argument. The claim is that "Norwegian Wood" was the first pop/rock song to utilize a sitar, not the first one to have an Eastern vibe. If you're going to be so pedantic about things, none of your Pretty Things claims that you've been peddling for years here hold any water either.
I haven't changed the goalposts, I said in my original statement that the sitar version wasn't released but proved George was not alone in the idea, and then you went on to for some reason re-state George got his released first. As for whether it is a sitar or an electric guitar that sounds like a sitar.....would you get hot and bothered if someone claimed Seven Nation Army had their favorite bass part? And The Yardbirds claim to first psych band is more about Still I'm Sad than Heart Full of Soul, although Evil Hearted You helps.
Nobody said George was 'alone in the idea.' You're desperately making stuff up now. Don't hear psych in "Still I'm Sad" either.
