Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Potential Binfest



bhaexpress

New member
Jul 7, 2003
27,627
Kent
I've never really thought Elvis songs were all that either. I guess it's more about the new ground they were breaking at the time.

Elvis didn't write his own sings, The Beatles did.
 






wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Patron
Aug 10, 2007
13,823
Melbourne
I am a Beatles fan but I admit there is SOME truth in the 'right place right time' theory. They were well handled by their manager, Brian Epstein, in much the same way that Malcolm MacClaren knew how to market the Sex Pistols. Plus they were lucky to meet up with an excellent producer (George Martin) who was able to accdurately get their ideas down on tape they way they wanted them.

However the one thing that made them almost unique was that they were virtually the first band to play and record their own songs. Up until that time groups tended to play compositions written for them by professional songwriters and the Beatles ushered in a whole new 'singer/songwriter' era. And bugger me, speaking as a published songwriter and a PRS member (boast boast), their songs were GOOD.

If you don't like 'em you don't like 'em - fair enough. But there was a little bit more about them then simply being 'the first boy band'.

Very well put sir.
 




Brandy Alexander

New member
Sep 8, 2009
8
I'm saying the "atmosphere" and more specifically the drum beat in Tomorrow Never Knows was a massive influence on a number of dance bands/acts etc. It's certainly the first modern dance song I've ever heard, can you think of an earlier example?

Well James Tenney was sampling in the early Sixties, Collage #1 being a good example. That track doesn't have drums in it but could easily be pointed to as an example of a song that created the dance genre (even though you'd be hard pushed to actually dance to it.
The most important innovations in modern dance music- the 'four to the floor' beat, sampling, dub production techniques etc all seem to originate from early 'black music'. The Beatles produced a few songs that modern dance acts (especially the British techno/big beat clan of the mid-late nineties) are reminiscent of.
BUT, without Ragtime, Jazz, Blues, Dub, Ska, Reggae, Disco etc there would be no/to little modern dance music. If the Beatles had never existed you can be sure dance music still would (as, i'd suggest would the likes of the Chemical Brothers). IMHO.

As for bands as or more innovative-
Kraftwerk, their first album came out in about 1970. Ditto for alot of the Krautrock stuff.
Everything that came out of Lee Perry's studio for about 10 years.
I'd agree with Depeche Mode- they have been massively influential on modern pop music.
Talking Heads were amazingly innovative.
Even Roxy Musics first 2 albums.
Frank Zappa? Sun Ra?
 
Last edited:




Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
32,308
Brighton
Well James Tenney was sampling in the early Sixties, Collage #1 being a good example. That track doesn't have drums in it but could easily be pointed to as an example of a song that created the dance genre (even though you'd be hard pushed to actually dance to it.
The most important innovations in modern dance music- the 'four to the floor' beat, sampling, dub production techniques etc all seem to originate from early 'black music'. The Beatles produced a few songs that modern dance acts (especially the British techno/big beat clan of the mid-late nineties) are reminiscent of.
BUT, without Ragtime, Jazz, Blues, Dub, Ska, Reggae, Disco etc there would be no/to little modern dance music. If the Beatles had never existed you can be sure dance music still would (as, i'd suggest would the likes of the Chemical Brothers). IMHO.

Fair enough. I just think a band as BIG as the Beatles taking those sorta risks was important for opening people's minds to new forms of music, and helped to speed up the process.

Plus it is an absolute TUNE, isn't it? Ringo's best ever moment I reckon (that is if it wasn't Paul, as rumoured).

Of course I wasn't there at the time, so am probably talking out of my ARSE.
 








Brandy Alexander

New member
Sep 8, 2009
8
Fair enough. I just think a band as BIG as the Beatles taking those sorta risks was important for opening people's minds to new forms of music, and helped to speed up the process.

Plus it is an absolute TUNE, isn't it? Ringo's best ever moment I reckon (that is if it wasn't Paul, as rumoured).

Of course I wasn't there at the time, so am probably talking out of my ARSE.

It's a great tune :)
 




blue and white army

New member
Jan 31, 2008
1,714
Brighton
Another argument could be that music in the 60's wasn't as diverse today with all the various genre's of music, hence The Beatles popularity could be down to conformity.
 




1234andcounting

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2008
1,609
A pointless debate. The Beatles just were that good. Three amazing song writers in one band - cf anyone. No other band comes close and some imploded due to the pressure, eg Brian Wilson. Changed the way in which popular music was perceived through the With The Beatles album. Changed the concept of recording through Revolver and Sget Pepper. Yes, they took others ideas, but musicians have been doing that since the first primeval man made a drumming or strumming noise.

The Stones are now an awful boring pub band who have been churning out shit for the better part of 30 years now and, despite having been performing and recording for more than 45 years have never made a meaningful contribution to the development of popular music.

Rising to the bait - doncha just love it.
 












Feb 23, 2009
24,036
Brighton factually.....
I am a Beatles fan but I admit there is SOME truth in the 'right place right time' theory. They were well handled by their manager, Brian Epstein, in much the same way that Malcolm MacClaren knew how to market the Sex Pistols. Plus they were lucky to meet up with an excellent producer (George Martin) who was able to accdurately get their ideas down on tape they way they wanted them.

However the one thing that made them almost unique was that they were virtually the first band to play and record their own songs. Up until that time groups tended to play compositions written for them by professional songwriters and the Beatles ushered in a whole new 'singer/songwriter' era. And bugger me, speaking as a published songwriter and a PRS member (boast boast), their songs were GOOD.

If you don't like 'em you don't like 'em - fair enough. But there was a little bit more about them then simply being 'the first boy band'.

Apart from the fact there first couple of lps that were soaked with Carl Perkins and Buddy Holly Covers !! And on that note were not buddy holly and the crickets not a band that wrote nearly all there own material and then the beatles even copied there name, because they were such a big influance All this bollox about how unique they were is trash. No band is unique they all take form other musical influances. Be it Blues, Boogie, Skiffle, Rock n roll, What ever. Right time, Right place maybe they can be the FIRST BRITISH COMMERCIAL BOY BAND thats it.

Now i will crawl back in my hole. :angel:
 


Willow

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
1,663
Didcot
Ok what about the use of sampling. Techno was influenced by Depeche Mode

Give it up, mate. Depeche Mode are obviously one of your favourite bands but I think you are overating their influence somewhat. If we are talking early eighties electronic bands, off the top of my head, Human League and OMD were more innovative. I think Depeche Mode's greatest claim to fame is making it big in America.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,517
Chandlers Ford
No it's not about LSD - it is about Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, a painting that Julian Lennon did at school.

Quote;


At the time of its release, the Beatles claimed that the inspiration for the song came from a drawing by John Lennon's son, Julian, which Julian called "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". The song sparked controversy when released, including being banned by the BBC because of the supposed reference to the drug LSD,[1] with the letters of the title spelling Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Lennon would later deny the reference during an interview with Rolling Stone. Despite John Lennon's denial of the title and content of the song having to do with LSD,[2] on June 2, 2004, McCartney told BBC that the song is, in fact, about LSD.[3]


:shrug:
 


Willow

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
1,663
Didcot
Apart from the fact there first couple of lps that were soaked with Carl Perkins and Buddy Holly Covers !! And on that note were not buddy holly and the crickets not a band that wrote nearly all there own material and then the beatles even copied there name, because they were such a big influance All this bollox about how unique they were is trash. No band is unique they all take form other musical influances. Be it Blues, Boogie, Skiffle, Rock n roll, What ever. Right time, Right place maybe they can be the FIRST BRITISH COMMERCIAL BOY BAND thats it.

Now i will crawl back in my hole. :angel:

Of course the Beatles had influences, like you say, who doesn't? Fact is, Beatles were the first UK act to break out of the covers format and produce their own stuff. Their 3rd album, A Hard Day's Night, has no covers on it at all. The list of FIRSTS attributed to the Beatles is immense.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here