Are The Beatles important anymore?

Mozart and Beethoven ain't done much recently either.

quote:

The Beatles wern't much better than Gerry & The Pacemakers or Freddie & The Dreamers were they? Why are we still so hung up on them?

How many songs from these guys have been sung by however many hundred other artistes?
How many millions of people still listen to the Beatles compared to G&tPM or F&tD?

Howard (not really a Beatles fan,preferred the Kinks and Buddy Holly)

I don't agree that Elvis's contribution has shaped our musical world more than the Beatles at all, nor has it surived better to my ears. You may not like the Beatles but the cultural impact is very hard to deny.

Rasher,
you've omitted just one thing from your starting post - the wind-up wink smilie

I, personally, don't listen to much of their stuff very often, but I fully acknowledge their place in the music firmament. They (and especially Geroge Martin) were real innovators - in the sense not that they were necessary the inventors always (I know that sounds a bit paradoxical!) but they did bring styles and techniques into the public domain like no other.

Now that you've raised the subject, think I'll put on Sgt Pepper (haven't listened to that since I had a CDS1...!)

James

Saying the Beatles aren't important because they were only together for 8 years (actually more like 13 but never mind that) is like saying Jesus wasn't important because he was only around for 33.... oh, sorry, that's what John Lennon did say.

The point is, also missed by Nigel Cavendish in the thread about Whiter Shade of Pale, to do with cultural significance. The Beatles were massively important then (how many sales of 1 million in a week do you get now?), Sgt Pepper seemed like the voice of God (George Melly famously described Revolver as having the authority of the Vatican) and the resonance of all that continues in my generation (and I'm afraid we don't intend to disappear just yet!).

quote:

Originally posted by rupert bear:
oh, sorry, that's what John Lennon did say.

The point is, also missed by Nigel Cavendish in the thread about Whiter Shade of Pale, to do with cultural significance.

I missed no point at all.

You think pop music is of cultural significance; I do not believe any music is significant except that people like some and do not like some according to their own taste at any particular time.

p.s. I note you chose not to reply to me on the "Whiter" thread.

Whoa! Hang on a minute. Music of any kind has no cultural significance?!! I can't agree with that at all Nigel.

OK. Why is it?

Music - 'the significance is in the ear of the hearer' - is this what you are suggesting Nigel?

Music both reflects and effects culture and cultural change. Even those who derided (deride) the Beatles at the time, were - whether realising it or not - inevitably affected by the huge cultural change of which that music was part.

In the USA of the 1960s the Civil Rights movement was encouraged, galvanised and spurred on by the truly prophetic music of the time. (Prophetic in the technical sense, not of 'fortune teller', but rather of reading the signs of the times, and presenting an image of, and promoting a better alternative.)

Music can be (and I wish it would be again now) revolutionary (bloodless revolution I pray).

And there are numerous examples of this in the classical world too, though others will be far better about speaking about that.

James

I can't think of a single piece of music that changed anything: music that reflected change, perhaps, but always post hoc rather than propter hoc.

Rasher's original post suggested the same.

If you have examples of music as a primary force in revolutionary change, let's hear it.

Stop it or you'll upset Chris Martin.

I did not suggest that the music was the first cause.

But there are plenty of examples of music that keyed into the signs of the times, sometimes when they have been emryonic, and have acted as the catalyst to promote that cause.

Mentioning the 1960s US Civil Rights is a convenience, because there is so much. For example Neil Young's "Ohio" reflected what happened at Kent State, but it also helped to galvanise and spur-on the movement.

And, perhaps even more obviously, 'Feed the World'.

No, this was not the first image we saw of the Ethiopian famine, but it was clearly responsible for marking it as an issue in the popular mind, it initiated a popular response on a scale never seen before, and from that seed grew not just 'Live Aid' (and also Comic Relief) but over 20 years a much more widespread awareness of the underlying issues (of which people on the whole were wholly ignorant in 1984), and has in fact been the catalyst for the popular Trade Justice Movement (on a scale its pre-existing partners like Christian Aid, Oxfam etc, simply could not achieve alone).

The song grew out of how BG and MU felt (and those watching Michael Burke's news reports), but in turn it was the spark that lit a whole popular movement, which nothing else had done on such a scale.

And Midge Ure and Bob Geldof were influenced by the Beatles (just to get us back on-thread).

James

quote:

And Midge Ure and Bob Geldof were influenced by the Beatles (just to get us back on-thread).
James

Two plonkers who wrote one of the worst songs ever were influenced by a couple of scousers who wrote some good songs. And your point is?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by rupert bear:
oh, sorry, that's what John Lennon did say.

The point is, also missed by Nigel Cavendish in the thread about Whiter Shade of Pale, to do with cultural significance.

I missed no point at all.

You think pop music is of cultural significance; I do not believe any music is significant except that people like some and do not like some according to their own taste at any particular time.

p.s. I note you chose not to reply to me on the "Whiter" thread.

Sorry, I forgot about that rule.
I was tying the two together on this one. Lennon's opinion had cultural significance at the time - insofar as any opinion about any art form has, which you seem to doubt.

Now I wonder what Hitler would have made of the idea that Wagner had no significance...

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Two plonkers who wrote one of the worst songs ever were influenced by a couple of scousers who wrote some good songs.

And your point is?

1) I never said the song was good, or that I liked it.

2) If you don't get the point, I suggest you have another go at reading it.

Your contention is that music has of no cultural significance! My contention is that it has.

You have given no evidence to back-up your contention, apart from a few rather sour quips.

I have stated the bleedin' obvious to back-up mine.

James

To return to Rasher's initial question: the influence of the Beatles on modern music. The single most persuasive case for this is the song Tomorrow Never Knows, the final track on Revolver.

It is unarguably the first first example of electronic music in pop/rock. That is a song based on electronic sound affects instead of real instruments.

In so doing it is the ancestor of all modern electronic music - ambient, techno, electronica, house, bands like Kraftwerk, etc. Indeed I read recently that a case can be made for saying the Chemical Brothers have built their entire musical career on variations of this song.

A few years ago the dance magazine MixMag had a top 100 most influential songs poll and TNK was No.1.

One doesn't immediately think of a band like the Beatles being responsible for techno or house music but it's true.

Oh, and I might add it still sounds incredible!

Paul

And, of course, 'Tomorrow's sound effects were mixed by George Martin, which gives the CD 'Love' even greater significance!

I really like the Anthology version of this one too.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Gravett:
To return to Rasher's initial question: the influence of the Beatles on modern music. The single most persuasive case for this is the song Tomorrow Never Knows, the final track on Revolver.

It is unarguably the first first example of electronic music in pop/rock. That is a song based on electronic sound affects instead of real instruments.

In so doing it is the ancestor of all modern electronic music - ambient, techno, electronica, house, bands like Kraftwerk, etc. I


Paul

I'm sorry to barge in here, but the Beatles got their ideas for electronic sound from the german avant guard composer Karlheinz Stockhausen.

In fact John and Yoko's Revoulution #9 from the White album was inspired by Stockhausen's Hymmen (1967).

Stockhausen can be seen as one of the famous "celebrities" on the jacket cover for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. He is the one between Groucho, and Mae West !


Regards

BB

Well I sure did like what the Beatles did, Can't say definitively how they influenced music, but just listen to oldies radio and you hear them more than most other bands, Tho Stones were great they didn't have the cultural wave effect teh Beatles did. I was certainly happy sitting in my basement everytime a new album came out listening to a fantasy world that came about because of them. By all intents and purposes they were the most colorful musicians around helped by Martin. They could also do a wide range of music from English music hall to heavy R&R, then some absoutely lovely ballads, then some American regional stuff. Quite a range no one else seems to have been able to do. You can't keep that level of creativety up forever.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Gravett:
To return to Rasher's initial question: the influence of the Beatles on modern music. The single most persuasive case for this is the song Tomorrow Never Knows, the final track on Revolver.

It is unarguably the first first example of electronic music in pop/rock. That is a song based on electronic sound affects instead of real instruments.
Paul

Joe Meek produced Telestar in, about 1962 I think. Beat the Beatles by a few years but they are still fab and, yes, they still matter.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Mozart and Beethoven ain't done much recently either.

I noticed that too - do you think they are just lazy.

I think the Beatles were a massive influence on music. I'm afraid I don't think Elvis was a big influence, although I did like Watching The Detectives and Oliver's Army and I love his first recording I'm A Secret Lemonade Drinker - R Whites, R Whites.

To me, the Beatles were as important in the 60s, as HMHB are today. In the scheme of things, the Beatles are probably the most important pop group ever.

quote:

I can't think of a single piece of music that changed anything

"Free Nelson Mandela". He was

Diccus

OK

IMHO, the 4 great outstanding influences/impact on 'popular' music in the last 500 years:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Lennon & McCartney

Can the last one out turn the lights off!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
R whites was his dad was it not ?As for the Beatles ? no point they who know know ,they who dont.No help.regards munch

You're right, it was Declan's dad (Ross McManus), though Declan wrote the tune.

However, I still think the Beatles were more influential.