Okay, so the British Invasion was DECADES before my time but I have often wondered if the Beatles were a product of media hype/PR machine or did they have a bonafide impact on music. I'm not talking about whether or not they had scores of screaming, fainting fans (they did obviously) but did they have an impact on music? I see an artist like David Bowie who obviously had a huge impact on the direction of music in the 70s but I don't know if I'm convinced the Beatles had that much of an impact. I welcome the comments from those old enough to remember that era and/or music historians (Yes, that means YOU MickeyDolenz)

Pop music? Yes.

Funk? No

R&B? No

Soul? No

Blues? No

Jazz? No

This again? The same conversation has taken place on this site and hundreds of others for years. At this point, you're either a fan or you're not. Pick one!

Empress said:

This again? The same conversation has taken place on this site and hundreds of others for years. At this point, you're either a fan or you're not. Pick one!

Well, considering that I lurked on the Org about TEN years before I even created an account is one thing...I've been actually posting for five years. So, can you leave room in your heart to forgive those of us who don't have an encyclopedic mind when it comes to all things Org? Anyway, if you want to discuss the topic then please do. If you're annoyed then why are you here?

Graycap23 said:

Pop music? Yes.

Funk? No

R&B? No

Soul? No

Blues? No

Jazz? No

Sup Graycap So, how did they impact pop music exactly? I'm trying to see them apart from "BeatleMania"

NorthC said:

George Clinton, James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Prince, they all covered Beatles songs. Asking if The Beatles influenced music is like asking if Mozart or Miles Davis influenced music. It's like asking if Picasso influenced art. It's like asking if Jesus influenced religion. It's like asking if Shakespeare influenced literature. It's like asking if Henry Ford influenced the car industry. Another example: two years ago I travelled through Peru and Bolivia. I never heared a lot of pop/rock music except... guess who... And guess who did a concert in Lima... Paul McCartney.

I hope that you realize doing a cover song.............and having someone influence they way that you CREATE your own work is 2 entirely different things.

[Edited 2/19/16 13:22pm]

NorthC said:

George Clinton, James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Prince, they all covered Beatles songs. Asking if The Beatles influenced music is like asking if Mozart or Miles Davis influenced music. It's like asking if Picasso influenced art. It's like asking if Jesus influenced religion. It's like asking if Shakespeare influenced literature. It's like asking if Henry Ford influenced the car industry. Another example: two years ago I travelled through Peru and Bolivia. I never heared a lot of pop/rock music except... guess who... And guess who did a concert in Lima... Paul McCartney.

You DO realize that The Beatles and Rolling Stones ALL credited singers such as Little Richard and Chuck Berry right???? I would also argue that Michael Jackson had a more global impact than the Beatles.

Graycap23 said:

NorthC said:

George Clinton, James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Prince, they all covered Beatles songs. Asking if The Beatles influenced music is like asking if Mozart or Miles Davis influenced music. It's like asking if Picasso influenced art. It's like asking if Jesus influenced religion. It's like asking if Shakespeare influenced literature. It's like asking if Henry Ford influenced the car industry. Another example: two years ago I travelled through Peru and Bolivia. I never heared a lot of pop/rock music except... guess who... And guess who did a concert in Lima... Paul McCartney.

I hope that you realize doing a cover song.............and having someone influence they way that you CREATE your own work is 2 entriely different things.

How much you want to bet this thread will be moved into the P&R forum? LOL

Lots of artists have said through the years how much impact they had have. Because of the things they achieved in the production aspect and all the things they did musically that were never done before them.

214 said:

Lots of artists have said through the years how much impact they had have. Because of the things they achieved in the production aspect and all the things they did musically that were never done before them.

What wasn't done before them that the Beatles did? As I said, this way before my time so if someone has any evidence of this please share concrete evidence.

SeventeenDayze said:

What wasn't done before them that the Beatles did? As I said, this way before my time so if someone has any evidence of this please share concrete evidence.

There's many books about this. Everything is not on the internet. If you really want to know something, it's best to research it yourself than asking some random people on a website.

If you want to know about their studio techniques, here a good book to start with

NorthC said:

George Clinton

He mentions Sgt Pepper at 10:33

SeventeenDayze said:

The Beatles started out as a group of boys from the UK and to this day are discussed with reverence as legends of popular recorded music.

The Beatles were one of the first popular bands to feature creative direction including vocals from each member (each member can be traced to a hit/popular song as "their" song).

The Beatles were one of the first popular bands to explore the 'exotic' sounds of Middle Eastern instruments in pop music.

The Beatles made a massive amount of money, which in today's "music world" would cement their "impact".

The Beatles were a precursor to the merging of recorded sound and recorded image with long form "music videos" like "Help!" "A Hard Day's Night" (both over 12 million at the box office) and the animated "Yellow Submarine" years before MTV existed.

The Beatles greatly benefited from the communications dark ages, they were deft at covering and, arguably, exploiting tunes by other artists and appropriating from popular yet unsung heroes.

To me, the legacy of The Beatles and their impact is evident as each member tried a solo career to unspectacular results of different degrees. The Beatles as a whole will endure time, surpassing the talents of its members individually. Thats what makes them impressive.

I like The Beatles but I can see why others wonder. They're polarizing, like Kanye. Remember when John said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" - sounds familiar...

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

What wasn't done before them that the Beatles did? As I said, this way before my time so if someone has any evidence of this please share concrete evidence.

There's many books about this. Everything is not on the internet. If you really want to know something, it's best to research it yourself than asking some random people on a website.

What's wrong with asking random people on a website? As you have just done, you recommended further reading...LOL Why disparage a forum that YOU yourself actively post on yourself? LOL

NorthC said:

SeventeenDayze said:

You DO realize that The Beatles and Rolling Stones ALL credited singers such as Little Richard and Chuck Berry right???? I would also argue that Michael Jackson had a more global impact than the Beatles.

Chuck Berry is a good example. He was a singer-songwriter, but he didn't have a band. The Beatles were a self-contained band that wrote and performed their own music. They basically created the whole concept of the rock band. They influenced Bob Dylan to explore rock music and start recording with a band. And Dylan influenced The Beatles, The Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Sly Stone. Pop music is a criss-cross of influences. Like a Rolling Stone was influenced by Muddy Waters, but there's no way Muddy could ever have written about "a diplomat who carries on his shoulder a Siamese cat". And if you're looking for an artist who's had a worldwide impact, it's not The Beatles... It's not Bob Dylan... It's not Michael Jackson... The one artist you hear everwhere in the world and who everybody knows is... Bob Marley.

Thanks for your comments. What about Little Richard though? Besides, since when was not being in a "band" tantamount to not being an architect of a particular genre??? Do you HONESTLY believe that Bob Marley had more of an impact on music worldwide than Michael Jackson? That's ridiculous. People WEAR Bob Marley t-shirts and listen to his music but to suggest that the biggest star on the planet has ever or will ever be anyone other than Michael is absurd.

JKOOLMUSIC said:

The Beatles started out as a group of boys from the UK and to this day are discussed with reverence as legends of popular recorded music.

The Beatles were one of the first popular bands to feature creative direction including vocals from each member (each member can be traced to a hit/popular song as "their" song).

The Beatles were one of the first popular bands to explore the 'exotic' sounds of Middle Eastern instruments in pop music.

The Beatles made a massive amount of money, which in today's "music world" would cement their "impact".

The Beatles were a precursor to the merging of recorded sound and recorded image with long form "music videos" like "Help!" "A Hard Day's Night" (both over 12 million at the box office) and the animated "Yellow Submarine" years before MTV existed.

The Beatles greatly benefited from the communications dark ages, they were deft at covering and, arguably, exploiting tunes by other artists and appropriating from popular yet unsung heroes.

To me, the legacy of The Beatles and their impact is evident as each member tried a solo career to unspectacular results of different degrees. The Beatles as a whole will endure time, surpassing the talents of its members individually. Thats what makes them impressive.

I like The Beatles but I can see why others wonder. They're polarizing, like Kanye. Remember when John said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" - sounds familiar...

Interesting. I thought other bands in the 60s had been doing the experimental/psychedlic stuff before the Beatles and the Beatles just followed suit. Right?

SeventeenDayze said:

214 said:

Lots of artists have said through the years how much impact they had have. Because of the things they achieved in the production aspect and all the things they did musically that were never done before them.

What wasn't done before them that the Beatles did? As I said, this way before my time so if someone has any evidence of this please share concrete evidence.

Before this thread is done, the Beatles would have created music as the world now knows it......

SeventeenDayze said:

Interesting. I thought other bands in the 60s had been doing the experimental/psychedlic stuff before the Beatles and the Beatles just followed suit. Right?

.

In my humblest of opinions, The Beatles possibly defined the act of "following suit" in popular recorded music for generations to come. Again it has to be stressed that this was a dark age of communication, people used rotary phones. TVs had 3/4 channels, black & white.

.

People wrote letters with their hands. People couldn't Google an entire song's lyrics or chords and decide its a rip off because of one phrase or a few notes from a song from another country or part of the country were similar. Idk, pretty soon the 70s, 60s even 80s people are gonna start feeling really foolish in retrospect. ironically as they reach their 60s, 70s and 80s

Graycap23 said:

SeventeenDayze said:

What wasn't done before them that the Beatles did? As I said, this way before my time so if someone has any evidence of this please share concrete evidence.

Before this thread is done, the Beatles would have created music as the world now knows it......

Hahahah Graycap, I just LOVE it when you are in these threads LOL

JKOOLMUSIC said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Interesting. I thought other bands in the 60s had been doing the experimental/psychedlic stuff before the Beatles and the Beatles just followed suit. Right?

.

In my humblest of opinions, The Beatles possibly defined the act of "following suit" in popular recorded music for generations to come. Again it has to be stressed that this was a dark age of communication, people used rotary phones. TVs had 3/4 channels, black & white.

.

People wrote letters with their hands. People couldn't Google an entire song's lyrics or chords and decide its a rip off because of one phrase or a few notes from a song from another country or part of the country were similar. Idk, pretty soon the 70s, 60s even 80s people are gonna start feeling really foolish in retrospect. ironically as they reach their 60s, 70s and 80s

Well, that makes sense. They were probably adept at blending different sounds from different places. I can respect that. But, what year did they break up? 1970? So, they were only a cohesive (well known) band for like 5-6 years right? I dunno. I can CLEARLY see the impact on music that someone like David Bowie left on music but with the Beatles it's not as apparent to me for some reason.

SeventeenDayze said:

What's wrong with asking random people on a website? As you have just done, you recommended further reading...LOL Why disparage a forum that YOU yourself actively post on yourself? LOL

I don't ask anything though and I wasn't taking about this particular website, but any website. If I have to write a report for school, I can't ask people online about it and write it off of that. How do you even know what they're saying is accurate? If I want to know something, I go and read a book about it or several books. That's how I know about the Ken Scott book. He was a studio engineer at Abbey Road and got his start under George Martin.

Cultural impact of the Beatles

: https://en.wikipedia.org/...he_Beatles

reference:

The cultural impact of the Beatles had many effects on popular music and fashion. While the group was subject to Beatlemania, their commercial success helped spur many trends—including a shift from American artists' global dominance of rock and roll to British acts, the proliferation of young musicians in the 1960s who formed new bands, the album as the dominant form of record consumption over singles, the term "Beatlesque" used to describe similar-sounding artists, and several fashion trends.

In 1999, the Beatles were collectively included in Time magazine's compilation of the twentieth century's 100 most influential people. As of 2009, they are the best-selling band in history, with estimated sales of over 600 million records worldwide. As of 2015, they hold the record for most number-one hits on the Hot 100 chart with twenty.^{[not verified in body]} The Beatles have had myriad cover versions from a variety of artists, while "Yesterday" is one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music

According to the RIAA, the Beatles are the best-selling music artists in the United States, with 178 million certified units

in my own words

while the beatles were influenced by many black american artist, the one great thing they and many british musicians did was bring to light the cultural significance of black blues men from america.

like:

howlin wolf

muddy waters

robert johnson

and etc

thanks to the beatles (especially john lennon) the open appreciation of black musicians was exposed to the youth of america at the time.

John Lennon of The Beatles made countless remarks regarding Robinson’s influence on his music. The Beatles had recorded Robinson and The Miracles’ “You’ve Really Got A Hold On Me” in 1963 and in 1982 another popular British group.

even earth wind and fire covered the bealtes song, 'got to get you into my life.'

>

so yes, imo the beatles had a huge and positive global impact on music overall.

not to mention how the did a generational shift in clothing, hair style and social change.

[Edited 2/19/16 14:19pm]

SeventeenDayze said:

Well, that makes sense. They were probably adept at blending different sounds from different places. I can respect that. But, what year did they break up? 1970? So, they were only a cohesive (well known) band for like 5-6 years right? I dunno. I can CLEARLY see the impact on music that someone like David Bowie left on music but with the Beatles it's not as apparent to me for some reason.

.

From 1963 to 1970, The Beatles released 24 albums. Not too shabby. Similar to our purple pal with the rapid fire, keeping them at the center of the attention of their luddite consumers.

.

Another thing I've noticed as a casual, yet intrigued, fan is that The Beatles are possibly the kings of the repackaged albums. There are so many hits packages, b-sides, re-versions... "Anthology" "Past Masters" "1962-1966". That list is about as long as their studio album list.

.

Even their studio albums are a bit confusing to recall because some were released "here" but not "there", some had different versions of songs.

[Edited 2/19/16 14:16pm]

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

What's wrong with asking random people on a website? As you have just done, you recommended further reading...LOL Why disparage a forum that YOU yourself actively post on yourself? LOL

I don't ask anything though and I wasn't taking about this particular website, but any website. If I have to write a report for school, I can't ask people online about it and write it off of that. How do you even know what they're saying is accurate? If I want to know something, I go and read a book about it or several books. That's how I know about the Ken Scott book. He was a studio engineer at Abbey Road and got his start under George Martin.

Dude chill You know I'm not writing a report I have a few college degrees and never relied on Wikipedia

NorthC said:

There I was, having just finished a trip to Macchu Picchu, Peru, a bus waiting to pick up tourists played some Bob Marley and a girl sitting next to me (I think she was French) said:"I think there's more people in the world who know Bob Marley than who know the Bible" and I could only agree.

Okay and when I was in South America you couldn't go into any music store without hearing or seeing Michael Jackson.....so ONE French woman's opinion about music being played in Peru just seals the deal huh? Get outta here! The King of Pop is Michael Jackson. Forever man!

JKOOLMUSIC said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Well, that makes sense. They were probably adept at blending different sounds from different places. I can respect that. But, what year did they break up? 1970? So, they were only a cohesive (well known) band for like 5-6 years right? I dunno. I can CLEARLY see the impact on music that someone like David Bowie left on music but with the Beatles it's not as apparent to me for some reason.

.

From 1963 to 1970, The Beatles released 24 albums. Not too shabby. Similar to our purple pal with the rapid fire, keeping them at the center of the attention of their luddite consumers.

.

Another thing I've noticed as a casual, yet intrigued, fan is that The Beatles are possibly the kings of the repackaged albums. There are so many hits packages, b-sides, re-versions... "Anthology" "Past Masters" "1962-1966". That list is about as long as their studio album list.

.

Even their studio albums are a bit confusing to recall because some were released "here" but not "there", some had different versions of songs.

[Edited 2/19/16 14:16pm]

Wow, 24 albums. That's cool. I think I like a few of their early hits but I think Sgt. Pepper was a fantastic album. But, when that album was released the "hippie" movement had already started right? So, they were basically making music that was a reflection of a larger cultural phenomenon. Perhaps the Beatles were more skilled at marketing and sound engineering than as performers per se.