Jump to content

The Beatles


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This might be worth further analysis.   Something which occurred to me last night was that The Beatles, for all the hysterical female following of their early days, are musical Action Men. Their so

"Back in the USSR" in which Russia is a metaphor for womankind.

Not sure why, but I just got a kick out of you choosing to not use one screen name but use the other.

How extensive was The Beatles' influence on subsequent British pop music? I am taking that to mean, very roughly, post-1967; there's no dispute that a zillion Beatles copyists appeared between 1963 and 1967, but I assume that's not what we're talking about.

 

I am just reading a kind of history of British pop (more about it when I have time), so I am in the mood for this.

 

An incomplete list of where I don't hear The Beatles' influence:

 

Progressive rock (outside lyrics and pretensions).

Heavy rock, morphing to heavy metal.

Glam rock (Bolan, Bowie, Roxy).

British soul (influenced The Beatles rather than vice versa).

Reggae (ha!).

 

I'll let someone else list positive examples of influence - there are some, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How extensive was The Beatles' influence on subsequent British pop music? I am taking that to mean, very roughly, post-1967; there's no dispute that a zillion Beatles copyists appeared between 1963 and 1967, but I assume that's not what we're talking about.

 

I am just reading a kind of history of British pop (more about it when I have time), so I am in the mood for this.

 

An incomplete list of where I don't hear The Beatles' influence:

 

Progressive rock (outside lyrics and pretensions).

Heavy rock, morphing to heavy metal.

Glam rock (Bolan, Bowie, Roxy).

British soul (influenced The Beatles rather than vice versa).

Reggae (ha!).

 

I'll let someone else list positive examples of influence - there are some, of course.

 

You don't hear the Beatles' influence in Glam Rock????????????????

 

One of us is crazy.

 

And, unlike mongo, I think they're all over prog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there were. The Beatles didn't start that, although obviously they turned it into a big UK craze.

 

In the States, Buddy Holly and the Crickets is the first example which springs to mind. More proximately, the skiffle groups. The Beatles were into both of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And, unlike mongo, I think they're all over prog.

 

that's because everyone listened to the beatles. but by the time they grew their beards the noodlers of the nice etc. were already in business. the blame for prog noodling probably traces better to the american jam bands; the british proggers just made it tedious in a different way (with "classical" and celtic infusions).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time this question comes up, the anti-Beatles party claims a limited number of bands that sound like the Beatles, conveniently discounts the important bands that built on what they did (Smiths, Radiohead, etc), the bands that took their ideas about what pop music can do in a wholly different directions, and then erases the half million technical innovations of The Beatles. Influence is not synonymous with 'sounds like'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beatles standardized it.

 

Everytime you see a four- or five-piece band, with someone singing lead and two other guys leaning into a microphone singing back-up, you're seeing something that came from the Beatles.

 

I disagree. Many people "see" that because The Beatles became so tediously ubiquitous. But it was standardized for rockabilly and skiffle bands years before. Unless switching out the stand-up bass is a big deal. It surely comes out of country and blues bands which couldn't afford brass sections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time this question comes up, the anti-Beatles party claims a limited number of bands that sound like the Beatles, conveniently discounts the important bands that built on what they did (Smiths, Radiohead, etc), the bands that took their ideas about what pop music can do in a wholly different directions, and then erases the half million technical innovations of The Beatles. Influence is not synonymous with 'sounds like'.

 

You're presuming. All I am inimical to is indirect influence. I am quite open otherwise.

 

It's as if I were to say the pro-Beatles faction will name every band simply because they must have heard the Beatles and influence can't be ruled out.

 

I think there's rational ground in between.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...