jjhunsecker said:

mjscarousal said:

I think that their impact is mostly in one area. I think their impact is mostly in superstardom and in terms of being the first "pop stars or teen idols" (for their era) they reached the highest peak and formed a blue print for other future pop stars in terms. superstardom....... but I would argue that there are others that have surpassed them even in that area, MJ automatically comes to mind. When it comes to just pop success for their period. However, they get credited a bit to much and are overrated in some ways when it comes to rock n roll musically. Its a shame that none of those black rockers (the real pioneers of rock n roll) never get their respect and proper recognition. I hardly if ever hear Little Richard's name ever mentioned when the birth of rock n roll is discussed. Its always either Beatles or Elvis, who took a lot from black artists.

Then you're reading the wrong books or articles- or maybe not any books or articles.... look for the writings of Robert Palmer, Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus, Robert Christgau, and especially Dave Marsh. There's a great book called "What was the First rock n roll Record" by Steve Propes and jim Dawson that explores the Blues, R&B, Country, Pop, Jazz, and Gospel roots of Rock music

I don't need to read any books. Ike Turner was a neighbor and friend of mine.

I got my info straight from the SOURCE.

Graycap23 said:

jjhunsecker said:

luvsexy4all said:

would there be a beatles WITHOUT little richard coming first?????

Would there have been a Little Richard without Sister Rosetta Tharpe and Esquerita and Half-pint Jaxon coming first ???? How far back to you want to take this ?

would there be a little richard if he was straight?

seems the ones who are skating past the answer to the topic of this thread are posting their personal dislike of the beatles music rather than answering the question.

if one were to go back and review many of the post provided then the answer would be, and has to be "yes," the "the beatles really did impact music."

the question is not about anyone's history of who influenced the beatles. it's not about who came first or who was the innovator of rock n roll, and it's not about if you or i liked or still like the beatles. so answer the question already and please base it on fact not personal feelings.

Graycap23 said:

jjhunsecker said:

Then you're reading the wrong books or articles- or maybe not any books or articles.... look for the writings of Robert Palmer, Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus, Robert Christgau, and especially Dave Marsh. There's a great book called "What was the First rock n roll Record" by Steve Propes and jim Dawson that explores the Blues, R&B, Country, Pop, Jazz, and Gospel roots of Rock music

I don't need to read any books. Ike Turner was a neighbor and friend of mine.

I got my info straight from the SOURCE.

OK, that's fine- you choose not to read and learn from different prospectives. And don't forget to eat the cake, Annie Mae ....

SeventeenDayze said:

Graycap23 said:

I don't need to read any books. Ike Turner was a neighbor and friend of mine.

I got my info straight from the SOURCE.

It's sad how folks on this thread refuse to give credit when credit is due...

I don't see anybody here doing that but...oh, nevermind

luvsexy4all said:

jjhunsecker said:

Would there have been a Little Richard without Sister Rosetta Tharpe and Esquerita and Half-pint Jaxon coming first ???? How far back to you want to take this ?

would there be a little richard if he was straight?

Probably not, as many point out that Richard's "outrageousness" made him "safe". He was not a Black man that White fathers would fear would come for their daughters....(their sons were another matter ....)

free2bfreeda said:

seems the ones who are skating past the answer to the topic of this thread are posting their personal dislike of the beatles music rather than answering the question.

if one were to go back and review many of the post provided then the answer would be, and has to be "yes," the "the beatles really did impact music."

the question is not about anyone's history of who influenced the beatles. it's not about who came first or who was the innovator of rock n roll, and it's not about if you or i liked or still like the beatles. so answer the question already and please base it on fact not personal feelings.

Exactly. Nobody is forcing anybody to like the Beatles, or to understand their music. Same way nobody can force me to think that Nicki Minaj or Kanye West make quality music...to each his own. And if people want to judge all art through the realm of politics, that's their right as well

I'll ask this question , particurlarly for those who have a problem with the Beatles (or any non-Black act covering songs originally recorded by Blacks or being influenced by Black styles) : Do you also have a problem with Charlie Pride or Darius Rucker doing country music ? Or with Kathleen Battle or Marian Anderson singing Opera ? Or with Wynton Marsalis or Andre Watts doing Classical Music ? How about with Misty Copeland dancing classical ballet ? And if not, why ?

jjhunsecker said:

I'll ask this question , particurlarly for those who have a problem with the Beatles (or any non-Black act covering songs originally recorded by Blacks or being influenced by Black styles) : Do you also have a problem with Charlie Pride or Darius Rucker doing country music ? Or with Kathleen Battle or Marian Anderson singing Opera ? Or with Wynton Marsalis or Andre Watts doing Classical Music ? How about with Misty Copeland dancing classical ballet ? And if not, why ?

Lol..........

1. I don't kbow a single person who likes Country music and I certainly don't.

So yo answer you question: Hell no.

2. All of your other questions make no sense. Why would those artist not be free to make choices about the type of art they involve themselves in? It seems that you have somehow made the Beatles question.........and also these questions about "Race", which for me, has nothing to do with Quality music.

3. Notice that no one has ever stated that any of the acts you mentioned were the GREATEST act in the genre......and they never will. I wonder why? "hmm2"

[Edited 3/11/16 11:54am]

Graycap23 said:

jjhunsecker said:

I'll ask this question , particurlarly for those who have a problem with the Beatles (or any non-Black act covering songs originally recorded by Blacks or being influenced by Black styles) : Do you also have a problem with Charlie Pride or Darius Rucker doing country music ? Or with Kathleen Battle or Marian Anderson singing Opera ? Or with Wynton Marsalis or Andre Watts doing Classical Music ? How about with Misty Copeland dancing classical ballet ? And if not, why ?

Lol..........

1. I don't kbow a single person who likes Country music and I certainly don't.

So yo answer you question: Hell no.

2. All of your other questions make no sense. Why would those artist not be free to make choices about the type of art they involve themselves in? It seems that you have somehow made the Beatles question.........and also these questions about "Race", which for me, has nothing to do with Quality music.

3. Notice that no one has ever stated that any of the acts you mentioned were the GREATEST act in the genre......and they never will. I wonder why? "hmm2"

[Edited 3/11/16 11:54am]

Thank you ! That was the EXACT point I have been making...that any artist should be free to do any type of music that they love and have a feel for...and that includes Elvis, The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin , Eric Clapton, etc, etc, etc...Glad that you got it ! Art should be enjoyed, not necessarily used to attempt to score political points

BTW- You may not like Country music , but millions of people do. I personally am not a big fan of contemporary country music, but I like a lot of stuff from the 1950-1970s. Hank Williams was a genius, and I love Johnny Cash, Glen Campbell, George Jones, Buck Owens, Patsy Cline. There's a big musical world out there....but like the Beatles, nobody is forcing you to like anything....

jjhunsecker said:

Graycap23 said:

Lol..........

1. I don't kbow a single person who likes Country music and I certainly don't.

So yo answer you question: Hell no.

2. All of your other questions make no sense. Why would those artist not be free to make choices about the type of art they involve themselves in? It seems that you have somehow made the Beatles question.........and also these questions about "Race", which for me, has nothing to do with Quality music.

3. Notice that no one has ever stated that any of the acts you mentioned were the GREATEST act in the genre......and they never will. I wonder why? "hmm2"

[Edited 3/11/16 11:54am]

Thank you ! That was the EXACT point I have been making...that any artist should be free to do any type of music that they love and have a feel for...and that includes Elvis, The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin , Eric Clapton, etc, etc, etc...Glad that you got it ! Art should be enjoyed, not necessarily used to attempt to score political points

Graycap23 said:

jjhunsecker said:

Thank you ! That was the EXACT point I have been making...that any artist should be free to do any type of music that they love and have a feel for...and that includes Elvis, The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin , Eric Clapton, etc, etc, etc...Glad that you got it ! Art should be enjoyed, not necessarily used to attempt to score political points

That isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is these folks being given credit for stuff we all know they didn't invent. Like the King of Rock n Roll nonsense with Elvis.

What does "invent" even really mean in relation to music ? Why is it OK for some artists to be influenced by certain other artists....and some are not allowed to be ? When you dig deeper into these things , it's never as simple, as ...um yes, as "black and white" as some want it to be . But the simpler , and more emotional, narrative will always gain currency in some circles...

jjhunsecker said:

Graycap23 said:

That isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is these folks being given credit for stuff we all know they didn't invent. Like the King of Rock n Roll nonsense with Elvis.

What does "invent" even really mean in relation to music ? Why is it OK for some artists to be influenced by certain other artists....and some are not allowed to be ? When you dig deeper into these things , it's never as simple, as ...um yes, as "black and white" as some want it to be . But the simpler , and more emotional, narrative will always gain currency in some circles...

For those that pay attention...........the lies of invention always seems to point from the same source.

Graycap23 said:

jjhunsecker said:

What does "invent" even really mean in relation to music ? Why is it OK for some artists to be influenced by certain other artists....and some are not allowed to be ? When you dig deeper into these things , it's never as simple, as ...um yes, as "black and white" as some want it to be . But the simpler , and more emotional, narrative will always gain currency in some circles...

For those that pay attention...........the lies of invention always seems to point from the same source.

please translate.

free2bfreeda said:

Graycap23 said:

For those that pay attention...........the lies of invention always seems to point from the same source.

please translate.

Plain English.........Europeaons always overstate their importance and role in history. Why should music be immune?

Graycap23 said:

free2bfreeda said:

please translate.

Plain English.........Europeaons always overstate their importance and role in history. Why should music be immune?

Exactly. I had an interesting conversation with a group of folks from several different countries and they ALL said that Americans routinely fail to acknowledge the achievements and contributions of society apart from itself. I told them that it's true because when I was in school we ONLY learned about Western Europe and were taught American history from a clearly Eurocentric perspective. Everything "starts and ends" with Europe for some people and the contributions of others are either ignored, diminished or in some cases completely lied about to give the impression that Europeans somehow did it first and/or "better" than the originators!

Graycap23 said:

jjhunsecker said:

Thank you ! That was the EXACT point I have been making...that any artist should be free to do any type of music that they love and have a feel for...and that includes Elvis, The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin , Eric Clapton, etc, etc, etc...Glad that you got it ! Art should be enjoyed, not necessarily used to attempt to score political points

That isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is these folks being given credit for stuff we all know they didn't invent. Like the King of Rock n Roll nonsense with Elvis.

It's a non-issue because no one here is saying Elvis "invented" rock and roll. He is called the king because he was the first superstar of the era.

: https://www.linkedin.com/...bellantone

The impact of the Beatles has drawn lots of attention in academia. They took the British rock wind since late 1960s, has continued to attract many followers. Even British universities have set up a master's degree of studying The Beatles. Reuters reports: Liverpool Hope University will open a new master's degree courses "The Beatles, Popular Music and Society", to enable students to study the cultural impact of the Beatles. The university, a senior Mike Brocken said: "The market is flooded with more than 8000 books on the Beatles, no one on their academic research, so we want to open this course.

Graycap23 said:

free2bfreeda said:

please translate.

Plain English.........Europeaons always overstate their importance and role in history. Why should music be immune?

so why not start a new thread in P&R and make the topic

seems the discussion could stay on topic there instead of racially derailing this one by infusing ur personal (off topic) pov.

by the way the beatles must have impacted many, you included. look how they've impacted your counter beatles mindset.

just sayin'

[Edited 3/12/16 8:21am]

If music isn't personal..........it's not music.

free2bfreeda said:

Graycap23 said:

so why not start a new thread in P&R and make the topic

Europeans always overstate their importance and role in history. Why should music be immune?

seems the discussion could stay on topic there instead of racially derailing this one by infusing ur personal (off topic) pov.

by the way the beatles must have impacted many, you included. look how they've impacted your counter beatles mindset.

just sayin'

[Edited 3/12/16 8:21am]

Graycap23 said:

If music isn't personal..........it's not music.

why not start a new thread on

the above?

[Edited 3/12/16 8:47am]

free2bfreeda said:

Graycap23 said:

If music isn't personal..........it's not music.

why not start a new thread on

the above?

You are free to do so.

I simply don't care to.

<<<<<<see with "billy preston" on label

Preston was the only musician to be credited on a Beatles recording other than the group's four members: the group's number-one hit "Get Back" billed as "The Beatles with Billy Preston".

Billy Preston's Relationship with the Beatles

Preston first met the Beatles as a 16-year-old in 1962, while part of Little Richard's touring band, when their manager Brian Epstein organized a Liverpool show, at which the Beatles opened. The Washington Post explained their subsequent meeting:

Preston is one of several people referred to by commentators as the "Fifth Beatle". At one point during the "Get Back" sessions, John Lennon proposed the idea of having him join the band (to which Paul McCartney countered that it was difficult enough reaching agreements with four).^[6] Preston played with the Beatles for several of the Get Back sessions, some of the material from which would later be culled to make the film Let it Be and its companion album. Preston also accompanied the band for its rooftop concert; the group's final public appearance.^[5] In April 1969, their single "Get Back" was credited to "The Beatles with Billy Preston", the only time such a joint credit had been given on an official Beatles-sanctioned release (as distinct from an unsanctioned reissue of some Hamburg-era recordings on which they were the backing group for Tony Sheridan). The credit was bestowed by the Beatles to reflect the extent of Preston's presence on the track; his electric piano is prominent throughout and he plays an extended solo. Preston also worked, in a more limited role, on the Abbey Road album, contributing to the tracks "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" and "Something."

In 1978, he appeared as Sgt. Pepper in Robert Stigwood's film Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which was based on the Beatles' album of the same name, and sang "Get Back" as the penultimate song.

>

imo billy preston was one of the greatest musical keyboardist of a generation. he had no racist attitude towards the (white) beatles.

i guess he felt the same as one here in that,

" racisim.... is an emotion commitment to IGNORANCE."

what say yea?

[Edited 3/12/16 9:44am]

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/05-the-beatles-lennon-mccartney-har.jpg[/img:$uid]

Graycap23 said:

NorthC said:

Graycap23 said:

Plain English.........Europeaons always overstate their importance and role in history. Why should music be immune?

Show me an American Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Cervantes, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Spinoza, Nietschze, Socrates, Da Vinci, Moliere, Michelangelo and then we'll talk. Okay?

Ok so, Europeans are the superior ones, right?

NorthC said:

Graycap23 said:

Plain English.........Europeaons always overstate their importance and role in history. Why should music be immune?

Show me an American Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Cervantes, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Spinoza, Nietschze, Socrates, Da Vinci, Moliere, Michelangelo and then we'll talk. Okay?

Ok so, Europeans are the superior ones, right?

cant believe this thread is still kickin...