Is it time to claim back the Beatles?

[TJE"]

Is it time to come clean and confess that every almost pop/rock song produced worldwide post 1969 owes it's existence to the Fab 4's output?

Humorous disagreements appreciated.

[Silly Moustache]

Who? Beetles? Beaters? Wot? never heard of them!

Actually, I'm constantly amazed at how much they seem to have inspired Americans to take up he guitar/music etc.

i saw them once on a new year's eve concert in London, with the rest of the Epstein stable. I saw them - didn't hear them.

They did not influence me as I'm so old that I'd already got my musical directions starting with the Drifters (latterly the shadows, Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, Billy Fury, Vince Eager, Joe Brown and of course Lonnie Donegan!
Thinking back I think the first live band I saw was Ted Heath's band in the Wintergardens in Bournemouth with Dicky Valentine and Lita Rosa, Ivor Mairaints on guitar, and Val Parnell on drums!

I was fortunate to be i the right place at pretty much the right time, so the Rolling Stones, Jeff Beck, Rod the Mod Stewart, Cyril Davies, Alexis Korner etc, were just local performers to me.

[Murphy Slaw]

Originally Posted by TJE"

Is it time to come clean and confess that every almost pop/rock song produced worldwide post 1969 owes it's existence to the Fab 4's output?

Humorous disagreements appreciated.

I think blaming all of the garbage of the last 40 years, since, let's say, 1980 on those 4 lads is being a bit harsh on them...

[TJE"]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

I think blaming all of the garbage of the last 40 years, since, let's say, 1980 on those 4 lads is being a bit harsh on them...

I am obviously not sure of what type of garbage you are referring to.

But I can see the seeds of Rap Music in 'Come Together'

[rmp]

Hard for anyone to deny their influence, and while I would not say every song, (hey we do still have guys like Mozart, Beethoven, etc, who came WAY before these lads.)

And lets not forget that they themselves covered a number of their favorite songs and artists on their way up, but I would agree their influence is strong to this day.

[Murphy Slaw]

Originally Posted by TJE"

I am obviously not sure of what type of garbage you are referring to.

Humor man, humor.

Sorta....

[rokdog49]

I would prefer to use the word “impact” in confluence with the effect the Beatles had on all forms of popular music. They set the pace for the evolution of the genre’.
At first they were an amalgamation of different musical influences. This amalgamation manifested itself in the form of a very tight four-man “garage band” that featured clever interpretations of various styles and unique vocal harmonies. Furthermore, they played their own instruments. These “styles” were comprised of everything they had heard growing up and I mean everything.
At the same time, songs like “I Want To Hold Your Hand” were so completely unique as to immediately cause an effect on the public and musicians alike as getting struck by a bolt of lighting. If you were there, to many of us it was pure magic.
Very soon, they found themselves unable to tour any longer due to the lack of technology available at the time. They then withdrew and morphed themselves into the very first definition of creativity of pop rock in the recording studio. Their songwriting skills coupled with an unrestrained imagination and an accomplished, intuitive record producer named George Martin put them in the driver’s seat of the musical vehicle everybody followed for almost a decade. They were the explorers and the pioneers.Those are the facts.
That kind of influence is immeasurable and has been documented over and over.
As we are over 50 years removed from that phenomenon, for some it may be difficult to actually see what happened back in 1962 and how big of a thing it became.
I was 12 years old and like so many of my generation, lived it.
You had to be there. It was a time when everyone, musical artists included,literally couldn’t wait to see what the Beatles would do next.

[Tannin]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

I think blaming all of the garbage of the last 40 years, since, let's say, 1980 on those 4 lads is being a bit harsh on them...

This.

At the time, we older folk all thought that Johhny Rotten and the Pistols were the first sign that music as we knew it was dead, dead, dead.

We were wrong.

The pistols and a few of those other bands from '77 were not the first flush of the dreadful era of non-music after 1980. They were the last spectacular gasp of the old era, the era when songs sounded like something and quite often meant something.

God Save the Queen!

[RP]

I lived through Beatlemania as a teen and still love the music of the Fab Four. However, to say that their music was the foundation for music to follow is overstating their influence. They were a very competent and engaging music group who happened to find themselves in the right place at the right time. During the existence of the group they had a tremendous influence on those of my generation, but let's face it - they were a bright star that flamed and burned out relatively quickly. At the time, nobody would have anticipated that of all the British Invasion performers, it would be The Rolling Stones who would sustain for another 5+ decades. If you weren't there, you probably wouldn't know that of the British invaders with the Beatles at the helm, it was The Dave Clark Five who enjoyed a brief but strong second position. Ever heard of them? Don't get wrong. There are many Beatles songs that I still enjoy, but there are also many stinkers that I can't stand just like I have my favorites from other British Invasion performers. I just find it hard to see their music as laying a foundation in the way that early American blues and rock and roll have done...

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Tannin

This.

At the time, we older folk all thought that Johhny Rotten and the Pistols were the first sign that music as we knew it was dead, dead, dead.

We were wrong.

The pistols and a few of those other bands from '77 were not the first flush of the dreadful era of non-music after 1980. They were the last spectacular gasp of the old era, the era when songs sounded like something and quite often meant something.

God Save the Queen!

For sure there was a lot of less than desirable pop music during that era.
On the other hand, labeling the entire period as you have is an unfair generalization.
There were a lot of pretty darn good bands in that decade if you care to look.

https://spinditty.com/artists-bands/...nds-of-the-80s

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by RP

I lived through Beatlemania as a teen and still love the music of the Fab Four. However, to say that their music was the foundation for music to follow is overstating their influence. They were a very competent and engaging music group who happened to find themselves in the right place at the right time. Let's face it - they were a bright star that flamed and burned out relatively quickly. At the time, nobody would have anticipated that of all the British Invasion performers, it would be The Rolling Stones would sustain for another 5+ decades...

If a decade is “flamed out and burned out quickly”., we certainly disagree on what quickly means.
As far as the Stones, their longevity, while admirable doesn’t even come close to the creative genius of the Beatles.
I don’t recall any Stones musical masterpiece songs that influenced generations of others. I’m willing to listen if you can name a few.
The album Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band stands as one of the biggest influences in the history of modern music and completely changed the way artists looked at what they were doing versus what could be done.

BTW, if it weren’t for the Beatles, American Blues and Rock and Roll, would have died a quiet death in the late fifties.
If you listen to the Beatles covers of the R&R and Blues in 1962 and 1963, you will hear better versions of a lot of those originals with an energy that got a people to pay attention. Nobody was listening to the Stones in 1962 except the Brits.

[TJN]

I've never met a Beatle's song I didn't like.

[rllink]

They arrived on the scene when I was a teenager and I didn't like them that well. There were lots of rock bands during that time, the Beatles didn't invent it and not everyone was nuts about them. In later years I grew to like their music more.

[RP]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

If a decade is “flamed out and burned out quickly”., we certainly disagree on what quickly means...

While the Beatles were certainly performing in Liverpool and Hamburg prior to 1963, I use that as the date marking the beginning of America's Beatlemania. In 1970, all four Beatles produced solo albums, so it's hard to say just when they'd broken up. That's my math - yours may vary. I also used the word "relatively" and then compared the Fab Four to the Stones, and I believe that anybody's math is going to agree that seven or eight years is relatively quick when compared to 55+ years. I would also say that the Stones and others did as much to sustain rock and roll. Some of their songs were creative, but that doesn't mean I liked them...

[archerscreek]

They’re the most overrated thing that ever existed.