I ask this question because prior to their arrival in the United States in 1964, it was fairly common for young pop and rock 'n roll artists to be interpretive singers; i.e., sing songs that other musicians and songwriters wrote for them. Sure, in the beginning you had artists like Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis who wrote and sang their own music, but they were considered to be out of the mainstream. (After all, they even watered down music by black artists so Pat Boone could sing it.) Even though Elvis wrote some of his own tracks, he had help from Carl Perkins and Sam Phillips when it came to much of his songwriting. And of course Motown was basically a hit factory for most of its biggest stars. But once The Beatles came over, there suddenly was a premium placed on being able to write your own songs; otherwise, you really didn't have much credibility as an artist. Ever since then, it seems that the most respected artists in rock 'n roll (which includes Prince) are the ones who write and perform their own music. Artists who have had huge careers singing other people's songs have been tainted as disposable. What do you think?

I think that back then, as is the case now, there were select groups that would write and perform their own music, but that is not what got the most attention and promotion.

It was a lot easier for record companies to deal with disposable pop stars, whose image and music could be moulded by them to optimize results.

Even the Beatles, who I respect enormously, originally had their image meticulously designed by producers and executives, and while the early LPs had half original Beatles material on them, the singles used were often the covers.

I don't know as the Beatles defined what a rock band had to be, but rather, they showed the premium artistic integrity held for consumers. They helped legitimize rock music as an art form rather than a fad, and they demonstrated that future artists, if they want to be respected, must be willing to push themselves and attempt new things, even if they fail on occasion.

The Beatles' perfect combination of pop stardom and artistic integrity of course had a larger than life impact on rock music in just about every possible way. But, while I would consider them the most FAMOUS influence on modern music, I would not call them the most important, except in terms of their reach. They themselves, as we all know, were extremely influenced by other brilliant, but unfortunately less famous artists, primarily black.

I think the greats that truly legitimized and paved a way for all modern music as art would be the legendary jazz musicians pre-beatles. Charles Mingus, Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker just to name a few, and there are many many many many more, but I am unfortunately a jazz lightweight so would not be able to delve much deeper or earlier than those great names comfortably.

No.
Now kill this thread.

This thread will end with someone saying something like this;

The beatles stole their music from Black musicians...wait...black musicians did everything first...even asian music!
[Edited 4/28/07 11:55am]

it was Dylan that kind of kick-started it, but it was the Beatles following suit and becoming practically the greatest thing ever put on record to really cement it.



for better or worse, really, because there are a lot of people that think a singer isn't worth shit if he or she doesn't write all of his own music or play an instrument (or all of the instruments, for that matter, if you talk to a lot of Prince fans). it really does a disservice to extremely talented singers that either don't have talent as songwriters or musicians or just aren't interested in pursuing those other talents.


frankly, i'd much rather hear someone who is a phenomenal singer sing someone else's really beautiful songs than struggle to come up with their own. and vice versa: i'd much rather hear a great singer tackle a Dylan, Cohen, Waits or Bacharach song than listen to any of them croak their way through their own songs.

Dayspring said:

I would say so.

lilgish said:

See, I always forget Dylan. Argh. He was so important to their creative years and I ALWAYS overlook him in these discussions. I'm so ashamed.

The Beatles Define everything, suck on it haters!!

No, although they were very prolific song writers. But to me like Elvis, they are just another white group that gets far too much credit..

whatsgoingon said:

I'm a prophet

lazycrockett said:

Of course they had an impact--a huge one. But they took their lead from people before them, (like Chuck & Richard & Elvis) also from their peers (like Dylan, Motown, Beach Boys & Jimi).
[Edited 4/28/07 14:17pm]

whatsgoingon said:

maybe. but no one has had the impact on popular culture or music that either of those 2 acts did.

MikeMatronik said:

pity them.

Dayspring said:

One of them loves to make top 1000 lists for everything...

MikeMatronik said:

yes, i know him. very well he's a good guy. just misguided about some things
[Edited 4/28/07 14:28pm]

Dayspring said:

Yes...he's a nice guy!

He even appears in a Madonna DVD with another "infamous" orger that doesn't like Kate Bush's "The Dreaming"

MikeMatronik said:

yes, i lived with him for about 2 years as well

Dayspring said:

Ouch...

This was unexpected!