For me it's more that Keith Richards made the bigger mark on how to act like a über-cool-rock-star then that Stones music would have been that important. Alexis Corner and John Mayall were way before Stones playing white mans blues.
Beatles made a complete new sound/music and is the band that made influences worth mentioning even on bands today, and some may call it pop, who gives a flying....

2 1 2 0

the Stones!!!

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

damn straight Barnowl, and those folks who lump there music into being simple bubble gum, just don't get it! They covered all their favorite soul and motown acts until they writing their own music. A great collection is The Beatles at the BEEB. AMAZING showcase of the many styles of music they were into.

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

STONEs = ROCK

beeatle =pop/boy band

mickscarey= flatulent wind bag

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

If the point about the Beatles' black influences has already been discussed, why are you still making incorrect assertions?

As for your point about the Beatles' early singles being pure pop music, yes, Love Me Do, Please Please Me, From Me To You etc were indeed of that genre, quite simply because they HAD to be in order for them to be recognised on a commerical basis in a predominantly teen market. Crucially (and significantly), most of their album tracks were NOT however, consisting of ditties such as You Really Got A Hold On Me, Long Tall Sally and Roll Over Beethoven, as well as more ambitious creations of their own that it was thought would not have been commercially successful, but which had worked well when performed live.

THIS was the basis upon which their incredible songwriting talent was built.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Gazza
Boy bands are specifically manufactured or media creations.

Neither of the bands you mention above fall remotely close to that description.

A band who played well over a thousand concerts before they ever got a record contract certainly doesnt.

Heres a wikipedia definition which is basically accurate.


In pop or R&B a boy band is a group of several young male singers. The members are generally expected to perform as dancers as well, often executing highly choreographed sequences to their own music. More often than not, boy band members do not play musical instruments, either in recording sessions or on stage, and only sing and dance. As a result, the term "band" is really a misnomer for this genre. Although there are no distinct traits defining a boy band, one could label a band a "boy band" for following mainstream music trends, changing their appearances to adapt to new fashion trends, having elaborate dance moves, and performing elaborate shows. They can evolve out of church choral or Gospel music groups, but are often put together by talent managers or record producers who audition the groups for appearance, dancing, rapping skills, and singing ability.

The acts are essentially vocal harmony groups, not "bands" as such, though there are some exceptions.


Anyone who puts the Beatles in that category is incredibly ignorant about anything to do with the history of music prior to the last five years or so and cant be taken seriously.

Cool post.

I always felt that Boyzone wasn't a band. It could be very funny to see them billed as "The Famous Vocal Harmony Group & Dancing Troupe Known All Over The World".
One question tough: Take That. Gary Barlow plays an instrument (Or several). Where does that leave them?

They were both created and recruited by media moguls specifically as 'boybands' (as the Spice Girls were as a 'girl band'). As opposed to bands like the Beatles, Stones, etc which consisted of like-minded individuals choosing to get together as a band with a common musical interest.

I wouldnt say its that uncommon for some singers in these type of acts to be diverse enough to also play musical instruments and compose (both bands have members who do the latter). I think its also safe to say that Take That have evolved a bit since what they were created to be.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

Quote
Gazza
Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

A Delta blues classic!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Gazza
[Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

I don't want to contribute anymore into this conversation that has turned to be a bit too heated, but here we go....

I think Gazza, with all respect, is not quite fair here.

Those 'crappy songs' (as Mick would call them later) Mick and Keith were able to come up with when they learned song-writing - melodic pop songs - were not recorded by the Stones because they didn't suit to their style. So they were offered to other 'artists' to record ("Tell Me" seemed to be an exeption). Like Keith has told (i.e. IN ACCORDING TO book), it was "The Last Time" they felt strong and suitable one for to be offered to others and to think of as a an A-side (at least as far as they home field was concerned - seemingly The US market was treated with much more tender stuff, such as "Tell Me", "Time is On My Side", "Heart of Stone".)

Of course, when the years go by, the Stones softened, the musical vocabulary of The Stones richened and turned out, to be true, quite poppish (1966-67), but in the years of their breakthrough, they did hardest rocking, blues-based, dark stuff of their day... To think of the series of "I Wanna Be Your Man", "Not Fade Away", "It's All Over Now", "Little Red Rooster", "The Last Time", "Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud", perhaps even "19th Nervous Breakdown" and "Paint It Black"... that's the very outfront with which they conquored the British radio and single lists - there is not much there one could call 'poppish'. At least as far as my ears are concerned, there is a quite difference compared to Beatles A-sides in given time. I don't understand why this historical fact needs to be denied?

I suggest to listen The BEATLES 1962-66 double album (the red one) and BIG HITS (HIGH TIDE AND GREEN GRASS) and make the comparison. At least when I listen to those albums I know why I happen to prefer the style of the Stones. It is very difficult for me to find the elements in Beatle collection that I find so fascinating in The Stones one. It's just me, but I dare to suggest that quite many others also recognize the significant difference.

Peace!

- Doxa

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

You know very well that Keith said something like "we had nothing to do with those songs except we wrote them". Doxa pointed out something similar I see.

I mean, just look at the hits when it all happened. That the Beatles is pure pop and the Stones something different is obvious. What is culturally significant is that the Stones had the guts to present pure blues like Little Red Rooster AS a pop song. That is much more revolutionary than the songs the Beatles put forward.

Man !!! Little Red Rooster was just a brilliant cover one of my fav stones song from that period, but calling The Beatles not revolutionary sounds a bit strange to me

__________________________

Quote
Barn Owl
As for your point about the Beatles' early singles being pure pop music, yes, Love Me Do, Please Please Me, From Me To You etc were indeed of that genre, quite simply because they HAD to be in order for them to be recognised on a commerical basis in a predominantly teen market. Crucially (and significantly), most of their album tracks were NOT however.

Let's take the first album, most of it is surely soft melodic music.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

That the Beatles is pure pop and the Stones something different is obvious. What is culturally significant is that the Stones had the guts to present pure blues like Little Red Rooster AS a pop song. That is much more revolutionary than the songs the Beatles put forward.

I get the distinct impression that you haven't even heard the first few Beatles' albums, otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous and absurd comments as per above. It would also explain why you have been so quick to seize upon Doxa's poor example (an early greatest hits compilation) as some form of yardstick from which to make far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions; the most ridiculous of which is to assume that anything with a tune or melody HAS to be "pop" music.

As I mentioned earlier, the very early Beatle hits were merely a means to an end, which was to open the door to nationwide and ultimately global recognition. But once they'd smashed that door open, they became responsible for more branches and genres of music than any band before or since. The opposition just could not keep up.

I suggest you take a listen to Rubber Soul, which Brian Wilson still regards as one of the greatest albums ever, and the inspiration behind Pet Sounds.

It came out just a few months after the Stones "revolutionary" cover of Little Red Rooster.

...ANYONE can imitate but few can innovate.

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

That the Beatles is pure pop and the Stones something different is obvious. What is culturally significant is that the Stones had the guts to present pure blues like Little Red Rooster AS a pop song. That is much more revolutionary than the songs the Beatles put forward.

I get the distinct impression that you haven't even heard the first few Beatles' albums, otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous and absurd comments as per above. It would also explain why you have been so quick to seize upon Doxa's poor example (an early greatest hits compilation) as some form of yardstick from which to make far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions; the most ridiculous of which is to assume that anything with a tune or melody HAS to be "pop" music.

As I mentioned earlier, the very early Beatle hits were merely a means to an end, which was to open the door to nationwide and ultimately global recognition. But once they'd smashed that door open, they became responsible for more branches and genres of music than any band before or since. The opposition just could not keep up.

I suggest you take a listen to Rubber Soul, which Brian Wilson still regards as one of the greatest albums ever, and the inspiration behind Pet Sounds.

It came out just a few months after the Stones "revolutionary" cover of Little Red Rooster.

...ANYONE can imitate but few can innovate.

You don't have to excuse the Beatles for doing soft pop songs. That is how they got famous, live with it. Of course they developed over time, but your theory that they sort of could see into the future is of course rubbish.

They played POP because they were a pure POP BAND at one stage in their career. It's not a crime for heavens sake. Regarding hit collections. The hits are what the audience heard in radio. I find it strange to dismiss the hit singles as irrelevant when analysing what genre a band represents, to say the least.

As I mentioned earlier, the very early Beatle hits were merely a means to an end, which was to open the door to nationwide and ultimately global recognition. But once they'd smashed that door open, they became responsible for more branches and genres of music than any band before or since. The opposition just could not keep up.

Can you elaborate, it can read like you are saying the Beatles had a specific game plan and made an overt decision to "lets release these pop tunes" and later we will give them some better stuff.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs


The Beatles are very melodic and is in that sense a continuation of the pop music tradition, while the Stones of course were much more influenced by the black tradition.

No they weren't!

The Beatles were just as much influenced by black music as the Stones were, spending their formative years covering artists such as Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

That has already been discussed. But look at their number one singles during their breakthrough years. It's pure pop music, which the Beatles themselves acknowledged.

Take a look at Jagger-Richards' early compositions a year or so later - some of which were given away to such renowned Delta blues artists like Gene Pitney, George Bean, Adrienne Posta, Cliff Richard, Marianne Faithfull etc - and some of which, such as Tell Me, they kept for themselves and convince me they were any different.

And when you're finished doing that, go down to the clue store and pick one up.

That the Beatles is pure pop and the Stones something different is obvious. What is culturally significant is that the Stones had the guts to present pure blues like Little Red Rooster AS a pop song. That is much more revolutionary than the songs the Beatles put forward.

I get the distinct impression that you haven't even heard the first few Beatles' albums, otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous and absurd comments as per above. It would also explain why you have been so quick to seize upon Doxa's poor example (an early greatest hits compilation) as some form of yardstick from which to make far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions; the most ridiculous of which is to assume that anything with a tune or melody HAS to be "pop" music.

As I mentioned earlier, the very early Beatle hits were merely a means to an end, which was to open the door to nationwide and ultimately global recognition. But once they'd smashed that door open, they became responsible for more branches and genres of music than any band before or since. The opposition just could not keep up.

I suggest you take a listen to Rubber Soul, which Brian Wilson still regards as one of the greatest albums ever, and the inspiration behind Pet Sounds.

It came out just a few months after the Stones "revolutionary" cover of Little Red Rooster.

...ANYONE can imitate but few can innovate.

You don't have to excuse the Beatles for doing soft pop songs. That is how they got famous, live with it. Of course they developed over time, but your theory that they sort of could see into the future is of course rubbish.

They played POP because they were a pure POP BAND at one stage in their career. It's not a crime for heavens sake. Regarding hit collections. The hits are what the audience heard in radio. I find it strange to dismiss the hit singles as irrelevant when analysing what genre a band represents, to say the least.

Apart from having little or no knowledge of any Beatles albums, you also demonstrate a breathtaking ignorance of what they were as a hard rocking live performing band in the years before they even had a recording contract.

This was at a time when crooners such as Bobby Vee, Cliff Richard, Frankie Avlon, Del Shannon, Pat Boone, Frankie Lane etc ruled the airwaves and when record companies controlled and dictated to radio stations what it was they wanted playing. There was none of your black music on radio stations in those days, matey.

In fact, in the UK, we didn't even have a station for young people's music until the introduction of pirate radio in the mid -sixties, and even then, the government moved hell and earth to have it removed from the airwaves.

There were few, if any, "pop" albums recorded in those days, so the idea of the Beatles actually recording one themselves was groundbreaking in itself; and yes, they had to compromise with the tone of their debut album in exactly the same way as the Stones did with theirs. That is why the early Stones bootlegs such as Bright Lights Big City sound much better than the polished and vastly inferior material that made it on to vinyl. The Stones even wore suits, shirts and ties. Why? Because they had to in order to court favour with the all-powerful record companies and the record-buying public. They were a POP band too!

In fact, everyone was a "pop" band because you didn't exist if you weren't.

By the time of the Beatles' second album however, they had transformed their music far beyond the standard of their debut record to a point where quite literally, they became the biggest thing on the planet; and they did it by mustering up the many years' experience thay had developed as a hard rocking band on the road. It meant too, that many of the black artists who they covered, were finally afforded the fame and recognition that they had been deprived of.

The out-and-out pop bands such as Hermans Hermits, The Animals, the Searchers etc fell by the wayside because they didn't have the experience or talent. So guess who the Stones and everyone else, decided to try and emulate?

The rest, as they say, is history.

Quote
MKjan
As I mentioned earlier, the very early Beatle hits were merely a means to an end, which was to open the door to nationwide and ultimately global recognition. But once they'd smashed that door open, they became responsible for more branches and genres of music than any band before or since. The opposition just could not keep up.

Can you elaborate, it can read like you are saying the Beatles had a specific game plan and made an overt decision to "lets release these pop tunes" and later we will give them some better stuff.

The Beatles wanted I Saw Her Standing There as thier first single but Brian Epstein decided otherwise. He made such commerical decisons regarding single releases and even the manner and style in which they dressed.

Rather than see the future, he decided, like most innovators of this world, to try and shape it himself.

After that history lesson, perhaps Bars can now go about answering my earlier question about any decent albums before 1963 and the blank canvas that the Beatles had to work on.

Barnwol, your posts are all fantastic. Very well written and thought out! I agree that it seems like Bars and a few others have no first hand knowledge of The Beatles first few albums other than the popular songs that were written to be overtly commercial. But to over look songs that are purely rock,like Long Tall Sally, Money ,Roll Over Beethoven, and the vocal shredding version of Twist and Shout!!!: and the great r and B stuff they did, You Really Got a Hole on Me, Anna, Not A Second Time, Baby its You, etc... And to know the HISTORY of their live performances that verged on being the proto-type for punk!!! The leathers, and long amphetamine driven performances in Hamburg. When the returned to Liverpool they were thought to be a GERMAN band, they were so different from anything that was going on in the scene. But it has gotten to the point that it doesn't matter what you write and how eloquently you lay out your case, it is like hoping water will penetrate a stone. Maybe in a hundred years!

Quote
mickscarey
Gotta agree re:bubble gum pop music. The first true "boy band"

Screaming girls do not make a 'boy band' or 'bubble gum pop' even the Stones had them. First 'boy band' maybe Hermans Hermits' although they were a giging band before being signed up, and definately The Monkees who were non-muscians created by a company into 'bubble gum' music. Yes I know Tork & Nesmith were musicians but that is not why they were signed up, and I think they made some very good albums.

In fact I might start a thread 'Monkees or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on todays music.' That should get the blood boiling.

Quote
Barn Owl
I get the distinct impression that you haven't even heard the first few Beatles' albums, otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous and absurd comments as per above. It would also explain why you have been so quick to seize upon Doxa's poor example (an early greatest hits compilation) as some form of yardstick from which to make far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions; the most ridiculous of which is to assume that anything with a tune or melody HAS to be "pop" music.



.

It's quite annoying that an expert like you (sic) can diss a great part of modern pop history just like that. The 'poor example' you mentioned is the stuff that made The Beatles what they are, the music that made them the biggest popular phenomenon in 20th Century. And by the way, the collection is not just 'any collection'. It was released just after they split (1970), and was, at least partly, collected by them - that's their introspect into their own career. In Beatles folklore it is as konwn ever since as the 'red album' (you might know the 'white album'). The 'blue album' covers 1967-70. And when we talk about 'impact', this very collection covers the very music with which they made their biggest impact on the world, the biggest soundtrack of the 60's.

Of course, now it is the time of The Beatles experts to explain that "oh no, those songs don't mean a shit. They are just the means to fame, of the greatest and dirtiest and hard rockiest band from Reberbahn to make psychedelic hippie music, concept albums, musical inventions, trendy trips, go to transcendental joga, this and that etc." Sorry, but I find some double standards existing among the Beatles fans to over-look the importance of the "Beatlemania" to their career, and to the development of their music, especially when we are talking about impact, not the nature or quality of the music itself. The truth is that "I Want To Hold Your Hand" had a bigger influence to music than anything they did in ABBEY ROAD (analogically: the same is with the Stones: there is nothing in, say, SOME GIRLS that could be compared to the impact and influence "The Last Time" had.)

Here is the album, one can decide if it represents The Beatles in their actual heyday ("You know", to quote Mick Jagger in 1969, "When they were big"...) any good:

Side one
"Love Me Do" – 2:23
"Please Please Me" – 2:03
"From Me to You" – 1:57
"She Loves You" – 2:22
"I Want to Hold Your Hand" – 2:26
"All My Loving" – 2:08
"Can't Buy Me Love" – 2:13
Side two
"A Hard Day's Night" – 2:34
"And I Love Her" – 2:31
"Eight Days a Week" – 2:45
"I Feel Fine" – 2:19
"Ticket to Ride" – 3:10
"Yesterday" – 2:05
Side three
"Help!" – 2:19
"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" – 2:11
"We Can Work It Out" – 2:16
"Day Tripper" – 2:49
"Drive My Car" – 2:27
"Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" – 2:05
Side four
"Nowhere Man" – 2:44
"Michelle" – 2:42
"In My Life" – 2:27
"Girl" – 2:31
"Paperback Writer" – 2:31
"Eleanor Rigby" – 2:08
"Yellow Submarine" – 2:37

More: [en.wikipedia.org]

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-21 11:25 by Doxa.

Quote
Barn Owl
The rest, as they say, is history.

Yes, it's history. If you have followed the history of the discussion you should know that I've constantly been talking about the beatlemania period. I've never said that they didn't play rock'n'roll in Germany, I've never said that they didn't do other things than super commercial bubble gum music later in their career either.

I'm talking about the period that's culturally important, when they reached fame in England and, most importantly, in USA. That is THE Beatles the world remembers, in black and white pictures. Funny cute guys in suits singing and playing soft, commercial, funny, catchy music about harmless teenage love for screaming kids. Period.

I also think that everything they did later, after beatlemania, classifies as typical pop music, compared to what the rock bands or blues based bands did at the same time.

"beeatle =pop/boy band"

Love it, can't even spell!

Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?

Hard question to answer.

The Beatles' popularity is still huge. But if we consider musical influences only (and if we keep aside the trite argument that today's music would not be as it is if the Beatles didn't exist), I do not hear much Beatles in today's music.

Oasis, something from lenny kravitz, Red Hot Chili Peepers' choruses ... Am I missing something?

There is no way that the Stones can be even compared to the Beatles in terms of popularity. At least in Italy most of the people would find even 40 lix to be a collection of mostly obscure hits! It is not surprising that the Black Crowes are the only major act admittedly a little influenced by the stones.

Just to put things in the right perspective, consider Bob Marley's influences on today's music ...

C

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Barn Owl
I get the distinct impression that you haven't even heard the first few Beatles' albums, otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous and absurd comments as per above. It would also explain why you have been so quick to seize upon Doxa's poor example (an early greatest hits compilation) as some form of yardstick from which to make far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions; the most ridiculous of which is to assume that anything with a tune or melody HAS to be "pop" music.



.

It's quite annoying that an expert like you (sic) can diss a great part of modern pop history just like that. The 'poor example' you mentioned is the stuff that made The Beatles what they are, the music that made them the biggest popular phenomenon in 20th Century. And by the way, the collection is not just 'any collection'. It was released just after they split (1970), and was, at least partly, collected by them - that's their introspect into their own career. In Beatles folklore it is as konwn ever since as the 'red album' (you might know the 'white album'). The 'blue album' covers 1967-70. And when we talk about 'impact', this very collection covers the very music with which they made their biggest impact on the world, the biggest soundtrack of the 60's.

Of course, now it is the time of The Beatles experts to explain that "oh no, those songs don't mean a shit. They are just the means to fame, of the greatest and dirtiest and hard rockiest band from Reberbahn to make psychedelic hippie music, concept albums, musical inventions, trendy trips, go to transcendental joga, this and that etc." Sorry, but I find some double standards existing among the Beatles fans to over-look the importance of the "Beatlemania" to their career, and to the development of their music, especially when we are talking about impact, not the nature or quality of the music itself. The truth is that "I Want To Hold Your Hand" had a bigger influence to music than anything they did in ABBEY ROAD (analogically: the same is with the Stones: there is nothing in, say, SOME GIRLS that could be compared to the impact and influence "The Last Time" had.)

Here is the album, one can decide if it represents The Beatles in their actual heyday ("You know", to quote Mick Jagger in 1969, "When they were big"...) any good:

Side one
"Love Me Do" – 2:23
"Please Please Me" – 2:03
"From Me to You" – 1:57
"She Loves You" – 2:22
"I Want to Hold Your Hand" – 2:26
"All My Loving" – 2:08
"Can't Buy Me Love" – 2:13
Side two
"A Hard Day's Night" – 2:34
"And I Love Her" – 2:31
"Eight Days a Week" – 2:45
"I Feel Fine" – 2:19
"Ticket to Ride" – 3:10
"Yesterday" – 2:05
Side three
"Help!" – 2:19
"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" – 2:11
"We Can Work It Out" – 2:16
"Day Tripper" – 2:49
"Drive My Car" – 2:27
"Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" – 2:05
Side four
"Nowhere Man" – 2:44
"Michelle" – 2:42
"In My Life" – 2:27
"Girl" – 2:31
"Paperback Writer" – 2:31
"Eleanor Rigby" – 2:08
"Yellow Submarine" – 2:37

More: [en.wikipedia.org]

- Doxa

Remember that it was YOU who were making negative comparisons with the Stones material, saying that it was pop music by comparison.

In which case, you've obviously overlooked the fact that the first ELEVEN tracks on that Beatles compilation were released before the Stones had even put out their first album; which would help explain why some of those same tracks lack the maturity that you no doubt crave from your sixties bands.

And whilst we're on the subject of maturity, please note too, that by the time of the Stones' first self-penned single (The Last Time - Feb 1965), the Fab Four were putting out the likes of Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and In My Life. They were in a different class, sunshine!

Oh, and while you're on your high horse, have a rough count of how many tracks the Stones put on to Forty Licks from that same 1962-66 era.

...then let's see who's embarassed!

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl
The rest, as they say, is history.

Yes, it's history. If you have followed the history of the discussion you should know that I've constantly been talking about the beatlemania period. I've never said that they didn't play rock'n'roll in Germany, I've never said that they didn't do other things than super commercial bubble gum music later in their career either.

I'm talking about the period that's culturally important, when they reached fame in England and, most importantly, in USA. That is THE Beatles the world remembers, in black and white pictures. Funny cute guys in suits singing and playing soft, commercial, funny, catchy music about harmless teenage love for screaming kids. Period.

I also think that everything they did later, after beatlemania, classifies as typical pop music, compared to what the rock bands or blues based bands did at the same time.

This is rather like discussing the ethics of gynaelcology with a seven-year-old who doesn't yet know where babies come from!

...yes, I have followed the discussion and I've distinctly noticed that you have failed on THREE occasions, to answer Logie's earlier question. Wouldn't be trying to hide your ignorance by any chance, would you?

It's probably out of such ignorance, that you've contributed absolutely NOTHING to this discussion apart from factual inaccuracies, assumptions, and the type of logic that would befit a person making a total of five out of two plus two. So come on, who exactly WERE these "rock bands or blue based bands" that you mention?

Such transparancy might also point to how you have somehow failed to mention that the Stones themselves (those hard rockers you've been going on about) got screamed at to the point where Brian Jones would play the Popeye theme during live renditions of Satisfaction.

Oh and whisper it, but they were the same band who were putting out As Tears Go By and Lady Jane!

...chew that bubble-gum, boy!

Quote
Barn Owl
[..then let's see who's embarassed!

In other words you ARE embarrassed. You're so embarrassed by the Beatles being a pop band that you insult people who simply states this obvious and absolutely non-controversial fact. And this theory that they put out all those pop hits because they HAD to do it but in reality somehow disliked them is completely ridiculous. You are insulting the Beatles.