“It is not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles. Their unorthodoxy on this point made it so difficult for other groups — especially for those with a blues background — to cover their songs. It still is responsible for the ongoing debate on which chord is which in a specific Beatles’ song. Nowadays, to our trained ears the songs may sound less raucously than they did before. In the early days, though, these unusual chord combinations undoubtedly did attribute to the intensity and harshness of the typical Beatles sound”.

Even the Beatles chords progresions were innovative. It makes the rest of what you say kind of silly.

In terms of the Beatles saving America being offensive, it bears similarity to the Americans “saving” Britain during the war (America was a few years late and got involved when they were attacked, I wouldn’t call that saving…) – more to the point, American blues was still starting to fizzle out. Near the end of the era, and because of the fact that almost any blues song has several other blues songs that sound incredibly similar, American blues was just starting to get boring. I don’t think the Beatles necessarily saved American music because nobody really knows what would have happened without them, but I think they did it some good.

As for complexity, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that artists such as Bob Dylan can be credited for “egging on the Beatles” – he may have shown encouragement, but all musically complex bands start out simple if they want to end up mainstream. Take Rush as an example – at the peak of their career, they played some ridiculously cleverly thought through pieces, whereas their earliest music was based around simple riffs, verses, choruses and solos, with a massive loud end where they all go crazy. The same applies to the Beatles; when you have enough of a following to do what you really want to try out, go for it. Until then, you’ll go down like a led zeppelin…

Unfortunately, I can’t continiue this discussion, as I have an essay to write on how the Beatles were a key figure in the 20th century, which you’d obviously love, and although I disagree with some of the stuff you’ve mentioned, you make some good points too that I might quote in the essay…

Cheers!

This is an extremely well written and fairly presented piece. As a huge Beatles fan, but one who is more interested in exploring the realities rather than the myths, I commend you.

The convenient popular narrative of their impact on American sociey is quite amusing and any thinking person clearly realizes its far from truth. The status of them as “the only ones that started anything” is equally silly and flawed.

You are damned right that the men themselves were very much in awe of their American forebears in music and very much ready to demistify themselves.

You ALMOST sum it up well with “the Fabs were generalists; you could plausibly make an argument that no other act was better overall at ALL the different aspects of being a band, or that the Beatles were smart about being close to the avant-garde edge, or what have you. And they were a very innovative and skillful group. But FIRST to do anything? Naw. Change anything to EVERYTHING and you got it”

For a counterplay that is not a contradiction I still hold to the words of Richie Unterberger at Allmusic.com who said “. To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did.”

There is also the poor analytical arguments you make (Point #5 immediately destroys the premise of your argument by blaming today’s poor music on the Beatles then you move on to state the Beatles didn’t have as big an influence as portrayed – so what’s you position, they DID influence music or in reality just ripped off other musicians?).

Overall, this is a poorly written piece. Your opinions are yours but at least try to convey them in a logical and coherent manner.

2. Thanks for mentioning Charles Mingus.

3. Only the Beatles made the White Album, so debate that.

The Sgt. Pepper’s structure “overture” and “reprise” at the end, and connecting songs with crowd noises and loops were far different than say so-called unified rock albums that pre-dated Sgt Pepper.

I think the next time the Rolling Stones or the Velvet Underground invent a recording technique it will their first.

Bashing the Beatles is never an easy task. I found your arguments weak………..but regarless, they never meant to please everyone, and your opine is respected on that account.

Music right before the Beatles was absolute crap…all greasy singers singing schmaltz…all named Bobby….

Yes, in the early days, the Beatles music was influenced by their American heroes, Buddy, Carl, Elvis, Fats, Jerry Lee, Larry Williams, but they progressed very rapidly and their sound changed.

The music sucks today but you can’t blame the Beatles for that. That’s beyond stupidity.

They also made the distance between America and England seem so much less. After the Beatles, British groups were finally able to have impact over here. And lets face facts, if the Who or Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin didn’t have the Beatles to come before them, would they have been as widely accepted by this country? The most unfortunate thing is that before the Beatles this country was almost as proud as it is now. Nobody listened because they were from Europe. Which is TOTAL bullshit.

Another thing we can be thankful for is that these guys brought Avante-Garde music to mainstream. Which if you like or not, makes the greatest art in music since rock n’ roll was invented. Fuck techno. It means nothing.

In short, the Beatles may’ve destroyed dancing for white people (which they were terrible at), and they may’ve been torn people, and they CERTAINLY ripped off a few artists….but they did this better than ANY BAND in the world. They changed the world, and they won’t be forgotten.

My bet is half of the arguments involving tonalities and various scales wouldn’t mean a thing to the lads who just played what sounded interesting to them. Why is that some of the people that love the Beatles come across as boring. This should not be!

Personally, I’m ashamed of my own laziness as the variety of music I listen to, nowhere matches theirs.

signed,

nowhereman

I would not dismiss “Tomorrow Never Knows” either. You have McCartney instead of using the regular way creating sounds from rock instruments, created a soundscape from loops and samples. Now yeah this was done in musique concrete but not really in rock music. I respect George for putting out something like the classical Indian and pop fusion of “Love You To”. It’s a far cry from “Norwegian Wood” or “See My Friends”. I think you are way to interested in things that other artists were doing and comparing it to the Beatles than actually giving credit for some of the things The Beatles were doing differently in rock and pop music.

When I read this I think that if it weren’t the Beatles it would be SOMEBODY given there lofty position (for similar and different reasons). With that in mind, while we may hate that there is a choice or anointment, if we assume there would be one regardless, we could have done a lot worse.

To attack the Beatles for not using 8 track recording first is idiotic or not the exact first to come up with a unified musicial statement that was already established in other genres is ridiculous. You might as well attack Brian Wilson and everyone else in rock music because they were not the first either. What I don’t get is why attack the Beatles when you say many of their so-called innovations were done by other people? This could said about any rock and pop musician.

The reason why people call “Tomorrow Never Knows” proto-techno is because the sonunds were created from loops and sound samples just like people do today. The drums and bass are up-front and repetitive just like much of today’s music. This has nothing to with what Spike Jones.

There are so many examples in the Beatles music where they were completely influential and groundbreaking. As to their music you won’t find the psychedelic sound paintings they created in songs like “Tomorrow Never Knows” or “Strawberry Fields Forever”.

George Harrison “Blue Jay Way” wrote a pop tune with a verse that’s based on the diminished (half step/whole step) scale and a chorus based on the Lydian mode. Not really that common for the genre of pop music!.

Even “All You Need is Love” has redeeming musical qualities which goes (7/4 and 4/4 in the verse )and alternating to (4/4 in the chorus). Maybe normal for jazz music but for pop and rock music not really. I think the concept of great pop melodies and doing things that was outside the norm in pop music is why I they were hugely influential.

You won’t find the combined concepts before “I Feel Fine” which uses feedback on a guitar riff. I guess that concept went well. A song that is not popular like “Think For Yourself” is innovative as uses layering of fuzz bass and regular bass right up-front as the same function as if you would use electric guitar and rhythm guiar in a rock song. Listen to a track like “I’m Only Sleeping” instead of regular guitar leads they use backward guitar leads.

The Beatles “The Word” Definitely a forerunner to psychedelia that The Thirteenth Floor Elevators liked it enough to play it in their live sets during 1966.

They influenced the Rolling Stones to write their own songs, the Byrds to go into folk rock and the 12 string jangle sound. Here are some choice nuggets for you. Their songwriting, use of studio as an instrument, and albums as a collective unit was a huge influence on music. Were the Beatles only influence on music? Of course not. Sorry Matt stop hating on the Beatles it’s not their fault.

BTW: I did not mention the Byrds or the Rolling Stones because they were both pretty clearly derived from the Beatles template.

And I like your quotes, as it shows that the Beatles were quite influential. But there are plenty of other ones out there about McCartney’s Brian Wilson obsession, Lennon’s Dylan obsession, all of them in thrall to Phil Spector’s production style, etc. I actually think it de-values the Beatles’ contribution to ignore how competitive all these groups were and how much they all learned from each other.

But let me state again: I LIKE THE BEATLES’ MUSIC. THEY WERE GOOD. Just not the only innovators, and didn’t save us from big bad scary Chubby Checker.

As for the Byrds they formed in part because of the Beatles.

But in my imagination this whole thing developed and I started mixing up old folk songs with the Beatles beat and taking them down to Greenwich Village and playing them for the people there”.
Roger McGuinn

The Beatles actually egged on Dylan and the Beach Boys first my friend.

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

“Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before”.

Bob Dylan

“They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go.

The Beatles from the start were more complicated then their mentors Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and their friends the Rolling Stones. The Beatles would use Bridge: a song’s contrasting section [sometimes called the ‘middle-eight', regardless of the number of actual bars], often beginning in an area other than tonic and usually leading to a dominant retransition. They incorporated classic and world music elements to their songs (which helped the development of prog-rock and baroque pop and art rock. They experimented in the use of rare metric patterns and song structures (which helped the development of prog-rock. Songs like “Norwegian Wood” would include modes like Mixolydiaon and Dorian Modes in one song.‘Love You To’is clearly based on Indian modal practice: the tamboura drones sa and pa (tonic and dominant notes of the mode), the tabla sets forth a sixteen-beat tala (rhythm), the introductory improvisation in the alap follows Indian melodic practice, and as Harrison stated, he was trying to express himself in Hindu terms. This was a new turn for the Beatles and for rock music in general.

As for the Byrds they formed in part because of the Beatles.

Me personally, as a Dylan man, I never understood the appeal of the Beatles outside of a couple of songs.