Gazz thanks so much for your post!!!!!!

Bars, again your missing the point of the question. The influence on rock and today's music. That was the reference point to look at The Beatles and Stones. And Logie ask a faire and insightful question.

This dead horse has been flogged to a pulp.

Bliss I hear you. But actually this is an interesting conversation about history:-) And it is an interesting back and forth going on with some good perspectives.

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Mentioning albums before 1963 aint reasonable, as albums were the thing back then.
But of course there were good music before:

Some examples:
Sam Cooke. Supremes. Ike Turner.
Elvis. Bo Diddley. BB King.
Buddy Holly. Eddie Cochran.
Chuck Berry. Gene Vincent. Jerry Williams & The Violents.

Quote
whitem8
Bars, again your missing the point of the question. The influence on rock and today's music. That was the reference point to look at The Beatles and Stones. And Logie ask a faire and insightful question.

Yes, that was the original point. But now we have been discussing slightly other aspects of their influence, right?

You said it already. Rock music didn't have any political or social influence. It just made life funnier for the youth. Rock and pop is nothing more than entertainment for the, often musically unschooled, masses

Wait wait wait. I don't think I said rock did not have any political or social influence. I think it did! For the first time an art medium that involved the masses of youth was reflecting political and social change. Certainly, it was most evident in the early and mid 70's. If it didn't have social and political influence then I doubt very much that the Nixon administration would have directed the FBI to surveillance and hassle the Lennon's (large parts of those files have recently been released due to the Freedom Of Information Act).

Quote
whitem8
Wait wait wait. I don't think I said rock did not have any political or social influence. I think it did! For the first time an art medium that involved the masses of youth was reflecting political and social change. Certainly, it was most evident in the early and mid 70's. If it didn't have social and political influence then I doubt very much that the Nixon administration would have directed the FBI to surveillance and hassle the Lennon's (large parts of those files have recently been released due to the Freedom Of Information Act).

Wait wait wait, I'm talking about the heyday of the Beatles, that is when they still was a real band driving young girls to madness and competing with the Stones. Whatever politics Lennon got involved with is a completely different question.

Of course there were politically oriented singers in the sixties. To mediate a political message through music is a very old phenomenon (La Marseillaise comes to my mind). But rock'n'roll, pop and rock is basically unpoilitical, like the Stones or Beatles were.

Quote
Baboon Bro
Mentioning albums before 1963 aint reasonable, as albums were the thing back then.
But of course there were good music before:

Some examples:
Sam Cooke. Supremes. Ike Turner.
Elvis. Bo Diddley. BB King.
Buddy Holly. Eddie Cochran.
Chuck Berry. Gene Vincent. Jerry Williams & The Violents.

...which is precisely my point!

Artists made singles for record companies with a relatively miniscule amount of albums produced. There was no market for them.

Even the Beatles' first two albums comprised of leftovers that weren't good enough to market individually.

They changed this with A Hard Days Night in 1964, and just TWO years later (yes, just two), we had the likes of Revolver, Aftermath, Pet Sounds and Blonde On Blonde.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

So Revolution and Street Fighting Man were not political? Come on! And really the entire music scene galvanized the youth towards political awareness and action. But also you are forgetting that while most their music was not overtly political, their music opened a whole new development and awareness of the counter culture. And created a mind set among the youth that led to questioning authority and the status quo. This is the root of political action for many young radicals. "turn on your mind, relax and float down stream..."

Quote
whitem8
So Revolution and Street Fighting Man were not political? Come on! And really the entire music scene galvanized the youth towards political awareness and action. But also you are forgetting that while most their music was not overtly political, their music opened a whole new development and awareness of the counter culture. And created a mind set among the youth that led to questioning authority and the status quo. This is the root of political action for many young radicals. "turn on your mind, relax and float down stream..."

"Questioning authority", "political awareness", political action", "the old order", "questioning the status quo", "awareness of the counter culture" etc.

Really, you are only spelling out the myth once more with the same old tired clichés. Counter culture is just capitalism at work (and as you know some rockers turned out to make a pretty good fortune playing there rebel characters). What you believe to be a social revolution was nothing more than entertainment at the heart of capitalism. Sorry, but it's true

And I don't think R and STF are political songs. Political songs are like religious songs. The performer is preaching a highly transparent politicial or religios message to an audience, who agrees with the performer, through the music. The Beatles and the Stones were very unpolitical and non-preaching. To comment on current political, cultural or social trends or phenomenon ís not necessarily political.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

Because there is no point in it.

If you have something to say, spell it out.

STONES are the best

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

Because there is no point in it.

If you have something to say, spell it out.

OK, so which part of the above sentence don't you understand?

Is it the bit about NAMING ANY DECENT ALBUMS BEFORE 1963?

...in your own time.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

Because there is no point in it.

If you have something to say, spell it out.

OK, so which part of the above sentence don't you understand?

Is it the bit about NAMING ANY DECENT ALBUMS BEFORE 1963?

...in your own time.

The question is: why?

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

Because there is no point in it.

If you have something to say, spell it out.

OK, so which part of the above sentence don't you understand?

Is it the bit about NAMING ANY DECENT ALBUMS BEFORE 1963?

...in your own time.

The question is: why?

No, I don't know WHY you bother to breathe.

Air seems to wasted on tosspots like yourself!

Quote
Bärs
The coolness and aggressivness of The Stones follow naturally from the music played, and so did the cuteness of The Beatles follow from their cute children-friendly music. We must remember that beatlemania was a movement for very young kids going to concerts with their mum and a teddy bear.

The marketing of The Stones as dangerous and "anti-Beatles" was certainly a smart move to identify them to the general public, but as the rebellious band they were they created themselves by simply being themselves and playing their music. I think their attityd was inherent, not created, even though their manager of course did everything he could to stir up things. I mean, it's not possible for any manager to make George, Paul and Ringo appear "dangerous". Lennon though was in a sense dangerous, he sponsored terror groups and all that, but he was nuts anyway.

...what the @#$%& are you on about?

Ok, Bars the quote Barnowl used above is really a non argument and betrays more about how YOU feel than using facts, and credible analysis. You really are missing the boat here chappie.

Quote
whitem8
Ok, Bars the quote Barnowl used above is really a non argument and betrays more about how YOU feel than using facts, and credible analysis. You really are missing the boat here chappie.

Missed the boat?

...he's on a different planet.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

Because there is no point in it.

If you have something to say, spell it out.

OK, so which part of the above sentence don't you understand?

Is it the bit about NAMING ANY DECENT ALBUMS BEFORE 1963?

...in your own time.

The question is: why?

No, I don't know WHY you bother to breathe.

Air seems to wasted on tosspots like yourself!

Ok boy, listen. You've got two options. You can either explain what you're trying to say with your so called question, or you can keep on with this ranting alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-20 09:57 by Bärs.

Quote
Bärs
...

...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-20 09:56 by Bärs.

Quote
whitem8
Ok, Bars the quote Barnowl used above is really a non argument and betrays more about how YOU feel than using facts, and credible analysis. You really are missing the boat here chappie.

I'm not responsible for what he/she chooses quote. And btw, the quote is pretty accurate. It's no seceret that Lennon was embarrassed about being a sex icon for pre-pubertal girls in America. McCartney had no problems with it.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Bärs
...

...

At last you're starting to make some sense.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE
name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.

Sorry, that's too stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Becuase you haven't got an answer for it?

Because there is no point in it.

If you have something to say, spell it out.

OK, so which part of the above sentence don't you understand?

Is it the bit about NAMING ANY DECENT ALBUMS BEFORE 1963?

...in your own time.

The question is: why?

No, I don't know WHY you bother to breathe.

Air seems to wasted on tosspots like yourself!

Ok boy, listen. You've got two options. You can either explain what you're trying to say with your so called question, or you can keep on with this ranting alone.

By avoiding my earlier question, you clearly demonstrate a reluctance to admit that you are basically talking up your own arse.

Think it's better to stop this conversation as it leads to nothing let's drink

Or smoke a pipe the both of you



__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-20 12:18 by NICOS.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
whitem8
I didn't say you were writing about Greece or Classical music. I was making those connections. But what you are missing is that never before was there such a cultural movement on a worldwide scale. And this galvanized the middle class youth like no movement before it. This was the sixties that started by turning the youth onto an innocent message, but as the sixties progressed, and the veil was lifted, the movement became more complex as did the music. An exciting time of post war flowering. Turning from the old order towards an idealistic time of thought and experimentation that came crashing down from its own weight. I likened it to the Greeks, because that was a time very similar, but in a more isolated geographic region. The changes would have happened without the music from the British invasion, but it certainly wouldn't have been as fun! Or as interesting! And yes, as poignant. And it might have played out over a much longer time frame. Think about what changes came about in art and culture in such a short span of time from 1960 to 1970.

The problem is that every generation is rebelling towards an "old order". (The Stones were considered dinosaurs and boring old farts when they were 30 years old.)

The great changes in art and music and morals happened way back in the end of the 19th century. Art and music were as avantgarde as could possible be already in the first decades of to 20th century. The pop music was actually very conservative, and that's because it had to sell to large audiences. The special thing with the post war generation is that they grew up with more money and time to spend on pleasures like music, sex, drugs, education and politics than previous generations, and that is what the pop culture of the sexties reflects. It's that easy.

Musical taste is one thing - that can be debated , discussed but basically to each his own. But where are you coming up with these "historical Facts" ? The post was generation grew up with more money? the post was generation world over got what they got from scrounging in the dirt; was riddled with guilt and paranoia and hunger. (We know that way bigger machinations were at work at higher/deeper levels but this is not the place)
Can we say that the Blues was born of a culture that had more money and time to spend on sex and education? And that the resulting music culture of the whites was not won on battlefields with the police? And those were battles. The 'Free Sex" ideology has been blown out of proportion. there are keywords I would like to use to underscore my point, but out of respect to BV I can not go there. This is not a political forum.
I am not sure what avantgarde at the start of the century you are referring to. Is it the Spanish War? The Russian Revolution? Stravinsky, Diaghilev, Bartok, Glass, Weill? Is it painters? It's a broad sweeping statement. And where does the birth and evolution of Jazz fit into these educated rich years?

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Bärs

Quote
whitem8
I didn't say you were writing about Greece or Classical music. I was making those connections. But what you are missing is that never before was there such a cultural movement on a worldwide scale. And this galvanized the middle class youth like no movement before it. This was the sixties that started by turning the youth onto an innocent message, but as the sixties progressed, and the veil was lifted, the movement became more complex as did the music. An exciting time of post war flowering. Turning from the old order towards an idealistic time of thought and experimentation that came crashing down from its own weight. I likened it to the Greeks, because that was a time very similar, but in a more isolated geographic region. The changes would have happened without the music from the British invasion, but it certainly wouldn't have been as fun! Or as interesting! And yes, as poignant. And it might have played out over a much longer time frame. Think about what changes came about in art and culture in such a short span of time from 1960 to 1970.

The problem is that every generation is rebelling towards an "old order". (The Stones were considered dinosaurs and boring old farts when they were 30 years old.)

The great changes in art and music and morals happened way back in the end of the 19th century. Art and music were as avantgarde as could possible be already in the first decades of to 20th century. The pop music was actually very conservative, and that's because it had to sell to large audiences. The special thing with the post war generation is that they grew up with more money and time to spend on pleasures like music, sex, drugs, education and politics than previous generations, and that is what the pop culture of the sexties reflects. It's that easy.

Musical taste is one thing - that can be debated , discussed but basically to each his own. But where are you coming up with these "historical Facts" ? The post was generation grew up with more money? the post was generation world over got what they got from scrounging in the dirt; was riddled with guilt and paranoia and hunger. (We know that way bigger machinations were at work at higher/deeper levels but this is not the place)
Can we say that the Blues was born of a culture that had more money and time to spend on sex and education? And that the resulting music culture of the whites was not won on battlefields with the police? And those were battles. The 'Free Sex" ideology has been blown out of proportion. there are keywords I would like to use to underscore my point, but out of respect to BV I can not go there. This is not a political forum.
I am not sure what avantgarde at the start of the century you are referring to. Is it the Spanish War? The Russian Revolution? Stravinsky, Diaghilev, Bartok, Glass, Weill? Is it painters? It's a broad sweeping statement. And where does the birth and evolution of Jazz fit into these educated rich years?

To make it clearer. Post war means post second world war. The post war generation had much better possibilities to be "young" for a longer period of time and educate themselves. One could say that the concepts of "youth" as a special period in life was created then, and popular music became increasingly adapted to the "needs" of this group. I don't think that that is controversial. With popular music I'm talking about melodic music like operettes, music hall, schlager music etc. In USA this popular music was influenced by jazz music and it is through this mixed american popular music tradition that europeans came in contact with the black tradition. 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. The "avantgarde" is for example Shönberg, who destroyed the whole concept of tonality. In art and literature the modernists already broke with "the old order". I think the sixties was a period of social change, but cultural "revolution" that is said to have happened then is highly exaggerated.

"I think the sixties was a period of social change, but cultural "revolution" that is said to have happened then is highly exaggerated."

You got that right.

I'm reminded of a quote from Stephen King, of all people, regarding the sixties: "My generation had a chance to change the f--king world and opted instead for the Stairmaster and 'Martha Stewart Living'." Ouch, but then the truth usually hurts...

Regarding the main topic at hand, though, I am inclined to think that, to the extent that the Beatles and the Stones have any sort of influence on today's music at all, I'd say the amount of influence is the same as it ever was, which is to say -IMO- equal. That's right. Look at it this way: for every Stones influenced Black Crowes, there is a Beatles influenced Oasis, just to pick a couple of examples. That said, I'd reckon, at least as far as Rock music goes, the Beatles and the Stones are still the most influental groups out there. I think it's great that, in 2009, kids are still discovering their music. And I'd like to think that, in 2109 -if the world hasn't drowned or blown up by then- that musicologists or whomever will still look upon these two bands with the same sort of respect and/or reverence they get today. Hell, I've been saying for years that, when it's all written down, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are certainly the two Rock bands people will discuss in the future -as regards to musical history, etc- the way people look at Beethoven or Mozart.

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?

JumpingKentFlash