jjhunsecker said:

SeventeenDayze said:

You know, I remember growing up seeing pictures of the Coliseum in Rome but it wasn't until I was actually THERE in Rome in all of its glory, that was life changing. So, I think we can't underestimate what it means to have a connection with something that's right in front of you....

See, i grew up with the Beatles. The first movie I ever saw was "A Hard Days Night" (a brilliant film BTW) at age 3

Interesting. Make sure this thread doesn't get too crazy overnight If so, tell these people that I think the best actor who has ever lived was Charlie Chaplin....you know, a BRIT just like the Beatles...

SeventeenDayze said:

You cut out ONE sentence of an entire paragraph

I do that with everybody, because I'm not responding to the entire message. Maybe you haven't noticed that. When people repost the entire thing it looks messy and takes up a lot of space.

[Edited 2/22/16 22:47pm]

SeventeenDayze said:

So when you were talking about "Blame it on the Boogie" you didn't seem quick to jump on the "but they made it popular" bandwagon See that? See how that double standard works? Good night

You must be reading stuff that is not there as I made no comment on which version was more popular. I only said that the Jacksons' version was not the original. I didn't say the original was more nor less popular. So where you come up with these comments I don't know.

SeventeenDayze said:

Well, what do you think music historians 100 years from now will say about the impact of the Beatles? Do you think historians will overlook Little Richard? Will they overlook the Isley Brothers?

I won't care what anybody has to say about anything, because I'll be worm food before that time comes.

SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

I'm not playing any games- I know "Twist and Shout" by the Isley Brothers, The Beatles, AND the Bell Notes, who did it FIRST....I still get the impression that you are down grading the beatles for political and social reasons more than musical ones. Believe me, I KNOW the history...and I know the MUSIC too

Okay, we're over 10 pages deep into this thread and you're saying I have an "agenda" against the Beatles but you and many others have glossed over that I said I LIKE the Sgt. Peppers album and I clearly see THAT album as a game changer in music.....nice try though. Try reading carefully the next time Anyway, the Beatles basically covered/copied black music to make it big in the music business, made some money and then experimented with sounds from all over the world and made the Sgt. Pepper's album during a time of the "hippie" generation, anti-war protests, Haight-Ashbury, LSD, "love ins" and "communes"....but that generation has passed and I don't know if the "psychedelic" sound that they defined a generation with was relevant even 5-10 years later. THAT is what I am questioning here. You can clearly see that 35 years after the release of Thriller that it is STILL impacting music in 2016. As I said from the FIRST POST I said that David Bowie's influence in music has never ended (Prince, Lady Gaga come to mind). There's no disputing that. What I am saying is that the Beatles are, in my opinion, only significant for that specific period of time but beyond the time that they broke up I don't think their impact has been THAT substantial. I mean, by the time the Beatles broke up, funk music, soul music and eventually disco music happened and I'm pretty sure that ALL of those genres of music would have still happened regardless of the Beatles or not. But, you CANNOT honestly say that without James Brown that those genres of music would have happened. Not a chance.

The very idea of a band as a self-contained unit writing and performing their own songs comes from the Beatles. They didn't invent it but they popularised it and were the first exposure to it for a huge (we're talking millions if not billions) amount of people.

Ultimately the Beatles were the right people in the right place at the right time. Yes, if they hadn't been there someone else might have been but that isn't what happened, they were there. Like Elvis they benefited from a racist power structure but, like Elvis, that doesn't make them Klan members. They always made a point of calling out their black influences.

It seems to me what you're interested in isn't the quality or consistency of their music, but a very brief moment in the early 60's that lead them to being in the situation that they ended up in. The fact that they almost never dropped the ball musically is almost beside the point here, what you're asking is whether they deserved it. And the answer is probably no, no more than any other incredibly talented individual. No one deserves that level of fame.

So in answer to your more general question "did they impact music", yes they had a massive, almost indescribably huge impact on music, but a lot of that was due to being the right skin colour, in the right place at the right time, with the right personality and the right hype to go along with their talent. Overrated? no. Overhyped, sure.

jaawwnn said:

The very idea of a band as a self-contained unit writing and performing their own songs comes from the Beatles. They didn't invent it ? no. Overhyped, sure.

So they didn't invent it...........but it came from them?

That is laughable.

Graycap23 said:

jaawwnn said:

The very idea of a band as a self-contained unit writing and performing their own songs comes from the Beatles. They didn't invent it ? no. Overhyped, sure.

So they didn't invent it...........but it came from them?

That is laughable.

Yes, people were exposed to the Beatles before a lot of other music because the Beatles were so popular and accessible. Like i said, they popularised it.

With many other bands you realise as you get older that there's a world of other songwriters and players going on behind the scenes and you end up feeling a little cheated or at least disappointed that the reality is so far from the public image.

Now while there's an argument to be had on whether any of the above actually makes the Beatles more 'authentic' or not, and whether or we should be bothered if a band writes and plays their own music, but I don't think i'm going out on a limb in saying that for many people it was.

If you can't get that into your head i'm not sure what I can do with you.

[Edited 2/23/16 3:28am]

jaawwnn said:

Graycap23 said:

So they didn't invent it...........but it came from them?

That is laughable.

Yes, people were exposed to the Beatles before a lot of other music because the Beatles were so popular and accessible. Like i said, they popularised it.

With many other bands you realise as you get older that there's a world of other songwriters and players going on behind the scenes and you end up feeling a little cheated or at least disappointed that the reality is so far from the public image.

Now while there's an argument to be had on whether any of the above actually makes the Beatles more 'authentic' or not, and whether or we should be bothered if a band writes and plays their own music, but I don't think i'm going out on a limb in saying that for many people it was.

If you can't get that into your head i'm not sure what I can do with you.

[Edited 2/23/16 3:28am]

This is a great example of hype.

Either they invented it or they did not.

[Edited 2/23/16 7:06am]

Graycap23 said:

jaawwnn said:

Yes, people were exposed to the Beatles before a lot of other music because the Beatles were so popular and accessible. Like i said, they popularised it.

With many other bands you realise as you get older that there's a world of other songwriters and players going on behind the scenes and you end up feeling a little cheated or at least disappointed that the reality is so far from the public image.

Now while there's an argument to be had on whether any of the above actually makes the Beatles more 'authentic' or not, and whether or we should be bothered if a band writes and plays their own music, but I don't think i'm going out on a limb in saying that for many people it was.

If you can't get that into your head i'm not sure what I can do with you.

[Edited 2/23/16 3:28am]

This is a great example of hype.

Either they inveneted it or they did not.

We're in agreement so. GRAND. Carry on.

"There is no new thing under the sun..." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

I'll say something else about he Beatles' influence in their time.

*

The years 1965-70 are probably the biggest quantum leap in the history of pop music in terms of changing what a pop group or a rock group is expected to do. People are taking big risks and they're paying off. All this new music is hitting right when the young people are really in need of a culture that speaks to them - remember it's war time and the generation gap is more pronounced than ever - and it becomes popular.

*

And right at the front of the pack during this time, the biggest band in the world is also one of the hippest and most adventurous. Their willingness to throw out their core sound and make any kind of music they want, string quartets, piano ballads, psychedelic blowouts, Indian sitar ragas, is giving everyone else the courage to follow their own ideas. Suddenly, it's hip to make music that no one has heard anything like it in their lives, you're expected to do that to be successful. Sticking with the formula doesn't cut it. There's some cookie cutter Beatle imitators in 1965 but they all flame out as soon as the Beatles move on to other stuff.

*

The only people who can keep up are the ones with their OWN revolutionary ideas. And then the Beatles get hip to that and THEIR music changes. The Beach Boys get inspired by Rubber Soul and make Pet Sounds, which inspired the Beatles to make Here There and Everywhere, the Beach Boys get real competitive and come up with Good Vibrations, and the Beatles are so blown away by it they know they have to take it a step further, and come up with Sgt Pepper.

*

That's just one famous example the people involved have talked about, LOTS of bands had to have felt that competitive edge. A ton of swooshy pyshedelic albums with elaborate production start coming out in 1967-68, then the Beatles' reaction is to make the White Album and just record themselves playing in a room. And then in 1969 that stripped-down sound becomes influential.

Graycap23 said:

jaawwnn said:

Yes, people were exposed to the Beatles before a lot of other music because the Beatles were so popular and accessible. Like i said, they popularised it.

With many other bands you realise as you get older that there's a world of other songwriters and players going on behind the scenes and you end up feeling a little cheated or at least disappointed that the reality is so far from the public image.

Now while there's an argument to be had on whether any of the above actually makes the Beatles more 'authentic' or not, and whether or we should be bothered if a band writes and plays their own music, but I don't think i'm going out on a limb in saying that for many people it was.

If you can't get that into your head i'm not sure what I can do with you.

[Edited 2/23/16 3:28am]

This is a great example of hype.

Either they invented it or they did not.

[Edited 2/23/16 7:06am]

In the same way, the Ramones aren't technically the very first punk band, there's other bands happening in 1975 with a similar idea. But they were the first ones to get a record deal and get in front of people. As a result they influenced people a lot. Those other bands weren't nearly as influential because they couldn't be heard.

*

And when I hear people talk about seeing the Beatles on Sullivan, I hear that same spark of discovery that I felt when watching the Ramones... these guys are amazing, but what they're doing doesn't even look that HARD. I bet I could do that. Gets the wheels spinning.

*

To say the Ramones were not influential, because theoretically I could have got the same inspiration from the Electric Eels or Television or whatever, is wrong. If it weren't for the Ramones I would probably have no idea those bands even existed. They could have been garage bands that only played Cleveland and New York and I'd never have had the chance to hear them.

The Beatles' enduring popularity,their amazing success,achievements and legacy speaks for itself.

More than any other band I can think of.

NorthC said:

Yeah, The Stones wouldn't have made Their Satanic Majesties Request without The Beatles psychedelic expirements. And the Fabs wouldn't have recorded just themselves in a room without Bob Dylan & The Band's Basement Tapes. Everybody influenced (or rather, inspired) each other. [Edited 2/23/16 11:53am]

RodeoSchro said:

More than any other band I can think of.

on this post we agree!

: http://www.statisticbrain...bum-sales/

the proof is in the pudding.

so no matter what one seems to try to argue about who did what, or who stole from who, no other artist have impacted the music world as heavily as the beatles did.

soookay?

thx rodeo

[Edited 2/23/16 16:25pm]

: http://list25.com/25-top-...ll-time/5/

25 top selling music artist of all time

bobzilla77 said:

I'll say something else about he Beatles' influence in their time.

*

The years 1965-70 are probably the biggest quantum leap in the history of pop music in terms of changing what a pop group or a rock group is expected to do. People are taking big risks and they're paying off. All this new music is hitting right when the young people are really in need of a culture that speaks to them - remember it's war time and the generation gap is more pronounced than ever - and it becomes popular.

*

And right at the front of the pack during this time, the biggest band in the world is also one of the hippest and most adventurous. Their willingness to throw out their core sound and make any kind of music they want, string quartets, piano ballads, psychedelic blowouts, Indian sitar ragas, is giving everyone else the courage to follow their own ideas. Suddenly, it's hip to make music that no one has heard anything like it in their lives, you're expected to do that to be successful. Sticking with the formula doesn't cut it. There's some cookie cutter Beatle imitators in 1965 but they all flame out as soon as the Beatles move on to other stuff.

*

The only people who can keep up are the ones with their OWN revolutionary ideas. And then the Beatles get hip to that and THEIR music changes. The Beach Boys get inspired by Rubber Soul and make Pet Sounds, which inspired the Beatles to make Here There and Everywhere, the Beach Boys get real competitive and come up with Good Vibrations, and the Beatles are so blown away by it they know they have to take it a step further, and come up with Sgt Pepper.

*

That's just one famous example the people involved have talked about, LOTS of bands had to have felt that competitive edge. A ton of swooshy pyshedelic albums with elaborate production start coming out in 1967-68, then the Beatles' reaction is to make the White Album and just record themselves playing in a room. And then in 1969 that stripped-down sound becomes influential.

Thank you. One thing that I have found is that Americans tends to overstate the influence of the Beatles moreso than folks from the UK or elsewhere. That's ironic isn't it? I think the Beatles themselves had a more humble approach to the fact that they knew they were copying black artists. That humble attitude is something that American artists seldom have or show. Justin Timberlake comes to mind. Yes, he says, "Oh yeah, XYZ artist 'inspired' me" but he's essentially a culture vulture who enjoys being an imitator but then benefits from being a mediocre artist. At least the Beatles were musicians and songwriters. Justin Timberlake basically uses Timbaland production and rejected songs from Michael Jackson to make albums.

purplethunder3121 said:

"There is no new thing under the sun..." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Yes indeed Actually, we can probably thank those countless, unknown preachers in rural Georgia that James Brown watched growing up for inspiring James Brown Every tree has a root

100 Greatest Songwriters according to Rolling Stones Magazine

: http://www.rollingstone.c...ohn-lennon

1. Bob Dylan

Dylan's vision of American popular music was transformative. No one set the bar higher, or had greater impact. "You want to write songs that are bigger than life," he wrote in his memoir, Chronicles. "You want to say something about strange things that have happened to you, strange things you have seen." Dylan himself saw no difference between modern times and the storied past – reading about the Civil War helped him understand the Sixties –which allowed him to rewire folk ballads passed down through generations into songs that both electrified the current moment and became lasting standards. Early songs like "Blowin' in the Wind" became hits for others –Peter, Paul & Mary took it Number Two on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1963; Stevie Wonder brought it Number Nine two years later – and reshaped the ambitions of everyone from the Beatles to Johnny Cash.

Then Dylan began to climb the charts on his own with music that turned pop into prophecy: "Subterranean Homesick Blues," "Like a Rolling Stone," "Positively Fourth Street," "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35." His personas shifted, but songs like "Tangled Up in Blue," "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" and "Forever Young" continued to define their eras in lasting ways. And alone among his peers Dylan's creativity was ceaseless –2000's Love and Theft returned him to a snarling sound that rivaled his electric youth, marking a renaissance that continues unabated. "A song is like a dream, and you try to make it come true," Dylan wrote. "They're like strange countries that you have to enter." And so we do, marveling at the sights, over and over again.

2. Paul McCartney

"I'm in awe of McCartney," Bob Dylan told Rolling Stone in 2007. "He's about the only one that I'm in awe of." Sir Paul is pop's greatest melodist, with a bulging songbook that includes many of the most-performed and best-loved tunes of the past half-century. McCartney has always had a much broader range than silly love songs. He's the weirdo behind "Temporary Secretary" and the feral basher behind "Helter Skelter." But part of what he brought to the Beatles was his passion for the wit and complexity of pre-rock songwriting, from Fats Waller to Peggy Lee.

"Even in the early days we used to write things separately, because Paul was always more advanced than I was," John Lennon once said. Songs like "Yesterday" and "Let It Be" became modern standards, and post-Beatles, McCartney led Wings to six Number One hits, among them "Band on the Run" and "Listen to What the Man Said." "The truth is the problem's always been the same, really," he said earlier this year. "When you think about it, when you're writing a song, you're always trying to write something that you love and the people will love."

3. John Lennon

John Lennon's command of songwriting was both absolute and radically original: that was clear from his earliest collaborations with Paul McCartney, which revolutionized not just music, but the world. "They were doing things nobody was doing," Bob Dylan once remembered of a drive through Colorado when the Beatles ruled the radio. "I knew they were pointing the direction where music had to go." That meant first reconnecting pop music to the awesome power of early rock & roll – Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Little Richard – then pushing forward with darker, more personal music like "Hard Day's Night" and "In My Life" that stretched the boundaries of the capabilities of pop, and then diving into the avant garde with music that had only existed in his dreams: "Strawberry Fields Forever," "A Day in the Life," "Revolution #9."

No one better rendered the complexity of personal life or global politics, or better connected the two, than Lennon during his solo career in universal songs like "Watching the Wheels" and "Imagine." "I'm interested in something that means something for everyone," he told Rolling Stone in 1970, "not just for a few kids listening to wallpaper."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.c...z412SUmwyD

[Edited 2/23/16 16:23pm]

post deleted

[Edited 2/23/16 16:20pm]

NorthC said:

Hey, can we, just to keep this nonsense from going on any longer, just for this one time, agree that The Beatles were shit and they stole everything from black artists and that the only good album they ever made was Sgt. Pepper? Please, everybody! Just to put this to rest! The answer to the question is, No! Any impact they ever had on music was gone after 1970! It was all about screaming girls anyway! And of course David Bowie was never inspired by them! If we erased John, Paul, George & Ringo from musical history, then music today would still sound exactly the same! Little Richard did all the work! There! Happy now? [Edited 2/23/16 16:30pm]

Eleven pages of a decent discussion and you post this nonsense? Geez.

NorthC said:

Hey, can we, just to keep this nonsense from going on any longer, just for this one time, agree that The Beatles were shit and they stole everything from black artists and that the only good album they ever made was Sgt. Pepper? Please, everybody! Just to put this to rest! The answer to the question is, No! Any impact they ever had on music was gone after 1970! It was all about screaming girls anyway! And of course David Bowie was never inspired by them! If we erased John, Paul, George & Ringo from musical history, then music today would still sound exactly the same! Little Richard did all the work! There! Happy now? [Edited 2/23/16 16:30pm]

system error

[Edited 2/23/16 16:37pm]

NorthC said:

Hey, ...... If we erased John, Paul, George & Ringo from musical history, then music today would still sound exactly the same! [Edited 2/23/16 16:30pm]

I agree with this part.

Graycap23 said:

NorthC said:

Hey, ...... If we erased John, Paul, George & Ringo from musical history, then music today would still sound exactly the same! [Edited 2/23/16 16:30pm]

I agree with this part.

u've lost it man...

luvsexy4all said:

Graycap23 said:

I agree with this part.

u've lost it man...

James Brown and the music I love was jamming before anyone ever heard of the Beatles.

That is a simple FACT.