Not a Beatles fan. And I haven't read this whole thread. But here's what I think in respect to Beatles and innovation. When I was very young, I thought the Beatles were mind-blowingly original, self-created and the source, not the product, of influence. Their records stood alone. When I got older, and heard a lot more music from that era, I thought they were popularizers of more interesting things done by less-known groups, but with really great production. Now I think they did indeed ride the wave of their times, but also added their own perspective and ideas, and they deserve plenty of credit for their additions. ("They" means not just the four, or three, of them, but all the people involved in the Beatles enterprise.) They weren't a lofty, solitary eminence, but they weren't just magpies either. And they had really great production.
Unfortunately many Beatles’ fans seem to fall in love with music via them and stay there, never widening their knowledge or appreciation. Thus they take as an affront any widening of the Beatles’ context. Back in the day 60s, 70s being an Elvis fan usually did not always translate into loving all the music and sources that Elvis did. Beatles fans now stand for a certain holding the line on a specific musical mythology that keeps them separate from context.
The only thing I’d say was that none of them were like, Monsters as far as chops and things like that. So if they were like Cream, but with their creativity and production, it may have been very interesting but it’s not really important
Well there's probably a lot of truth in my statement. With over 110000 members, only around 100 or so are B*atles cultists. They only seem high in numbers due to a frequent post rate and their extreme insecurity.
I doubt that all 110,000 are active members. I'm still a member of forums that I haven't been on in years. I must say that I count you among the 100, but perhaps you're the "or so".
Not sure if mine qualifies as an on-topic response, yet, your post got me thinking about Beatles' songwriting arrangements. They may not have been the first, yet, I've often noticed how different musical elements are slowly added as the song moves forward, especially with later albums. In other words, simple opening, slowly adding more instruments/harmonies with each verse, peaking at some point (<>) then slowly removing those elements before song's end. A prime example may be Martha My Dear, yet, there are so many others as well. Of course, not every song does this, yet, the formulaic pattern is there whether the band themselves or George Martin introduced the concept (possibly borrowed from pervious artists?). Innovative? Maybe not, yet, I can't help but think how the Beatles (at the very least) may have helped popularize this subtle songwriting arrangement technique.
Someonen p Honestly, the extreme Beatles haters on here seem just as strident and insecure. Every time someone posts something positive about the band, along comes a hater like a Whack-a-mole player to put them and everyone else in their place. Like their entire worldview is undermined if someone professes to like the Beatles and/or posts something about them that suggests that they were more than a bubblegum pop boy band. I'm not suggesting that you are among this group (perhaps you are, I don't know). I LOVE the Beatles (and consider myself a huge fan - have every album in multiple formats and editions) but also love the Stones, Zeppelin, swing music (particularly Artie Shaw), Porcupine Tree, Fats Waller, the original Sesame Street album, and Brahms. I think it sad when people state they don't like/hate the Beatles but am not too concerned by it. I am not particularly fond of Queen, for example, but I don't feel the need to thread-crap every Queen thread here or elsewhere (even though some of the hyperbole and hagiography really rubs me the wrong way; why crap on people's tastes and passions? The music connects with them and makes them happy. Who am I to take that away from them?). But my God! Suggest that George Harrison was a great - or even good - guitarist or that the Beatles were innovative and you're in for a major fight. The Beatles influence on modern music may be less obvious given the supremacy of hip-hop and rap over the past 20 years of so, but from Dream Theater to BTS to Ariana Grande to Ed Sheerhan, it's hard to argue that the Beatles haven't directly or indirectly influenced anyone making pop, heavy metal, prog, rock, etc. music today. Heck, even a hip-hop artist like Drake is influenced by the Beatles - he is aware of them and their importance to the point that he had the Abbey Road cover tattooed on his forearm with him at the head of the line looking back at them. This after he beat one of their Billboard records a few years ago. They remain an influence today even if only as representing an example or standard that artists continue to try to meet/exceed. Who knows for sure what the Beatles would have done in the 70s had they stuck together? I think it is ridiculous to argue that they were incapable of playing live together or that their "lack" of musicianship would have held them back in some way. Their music was never about showcasing virtuosity on any given instrument anyway - they were a true ensemble. Likewise, I think it funny that so many here imagine what might have been based solely on the solo material as released without considering the impact that the other three would have had on the writing process, arrangement, performance of individual parts, performance as whole, etc. Look at how different the two main released versions of Let It Be (single and album cut) are, and that's the result of changing only the lead guitar and solo. Others have pointed out that the sum of the parts was greater than the whole. None of the solo material would have wound up on a Beatles album sounding exactly like it did as actually released by a solo Beatle. The other three added their own flourishes and ideas to everything, not to mention the input of George Martin (in my alternate timeline/reality, George Martin produces their albums after Abbey Road). Look at the Get Back series - there was a lot of creative input from all four Beatles on every track recorded for Let It Be, despite the band being at odds with each other... I don't think any of this matters. They left a phenomenal body of work - even if one were to accept the argument that it was all just derivative pop music (I do not), the evolution of their songwriting and sound over their 7 year recording career is worthy of respect.
There are no 'extreme haters' on here of any kind. It's not that type of forum and it wouldn't be tolerated. I'm not part of any group. I have a large collection of B*atles on CD, DVD & BD. They are the 11th most played artist on my last.fm in nearly 10 years: Login | Last.fm Why? What's it to you? I hate tuna. I'd think it odd if somebody thought that was sad. In the 10 + years I have been here, I have never read such things about Queen.
That premise makes some assumptions that can’t really be ignored. Primarily, I think one of the points of contention in the later years was John Lennon’s desire to go back to basics and abandon the excess production and “operatic” tendencies that were coming into fashion in the late 60s, which he claims to have had distaste for (e.g. Abbey Road). So, while McCartney may have been willing to entertain further inroads of experimentation or expansion of their musical palette, I don’t think Lennon would have been on board, and George would have likely had his own material forefront in priorities. Additionally, without doing exhaustive research, I think it is safe to assume that some of these so-called “firsts” were actually not firsts. For example, while they may (?) have introduced a sitar to western pop music first, The Kinks’ See My Friends introduced similar Indian-influenced sounds 4 months before Norwegian Wood. The Beatles popularity made them more visible and memorable, likely attributing such things to them when in fact some lesser known instances probably occurred before them (and probably unbeknownst to them in most cases).
Impossible question to answer, largely due to the nebulousness of the given premise - that the Beatles truly "innovated"/"invented" so many things. I'm willing to give them a lot of credit, but it's been interesting seeing the back and forth - just how wacky some folks get in their commentary (Pretty Things guy, the big arguments over what constitutes innovation). Having grown up with new Beatles albums in my ears regularly from Rubber Soul on, I remember hearing the development in real time. I mean, you get to Revolver and "Tomorrow Never Knows" and it's like a communique from Pluto or something. It's difficult now to express just how weird TNK sounded in the context of everything else in pop music at the time. And look at what else appears on Revolver: silly love songs, finely honed pure pop music, basically a lot of stuff that the general public could at least grasp, perhaps emboldening them to give TNK an honest try. It's this kind of sneakiness - let's sprinkle in a few oddities amongst the finely crafted pop songs that even your grandma likes - that was the Beatles true genius. They created a musical world that got progressively more expansive starting as early as Help, a path that forced pretty much everyone else to at least try their hand at it. For a long while pop music was better for it. Seems to me that by the end of the 70's people/musicians were finally ready for something/anything else, hence punk/new wave/the 80's happened.
Doesn't matter much to me. I was interested in the way they broke ground in 1963-5 with chord progressions, melodies and vocal harmonies atypical for rock music more than I was interested in any of the later supposedly groundbreaking things they did with diverse instruments and creative recording techniques.
15 years of Beatle Wars on this site, search my name and Beatles the tide has turned where once it in the minority to challenge Beatle claims, but now it is more the norm
