Before autotune, backing tracks and etc. The Beatles could perform most of our current idols to shame. Same with Bob Marley.... they were magical. I remember wearing out that Bob Marley Live videotape at the West Coast Video I worked at in the late 90s. Just magical. The Beatles had that harmony going.

.

Idk I could be wrong, personally I think that some of the group (George, John in particular) were searching for more than pop star fame, girls, and drugs as time went by. It doesn't seem like they were "instructed" to be "hippies", more that the times had changed. Do you think "Bad" MJ had any idea he'd be recording with "gangsta rappers" a few years later?

the live broadcast of the first Ed Sullivan Show was aired with the full Beatle line-up. The band played five songs (All My Loving, Till There Was You, She Loves You, I Saw Her Standing There and I Want To Hold Your Hand) and made broadcasting history.

Paul: "Seventy-three million people were reported to have watched the first show. It is still supposed to be one of the largest viewing audiences ever in the States."

free2bfreeda said:

the live broadcast of the first Ed Sullivan Show was aired with the full Beatle line-up. The band played five songs (All My Loving, Till There Was You, She Loves You, I Saw Her Standing There and I Want To Hold Your Hand) and made broadcasting history.

Paul: "Seventy-three million people were reported to have watched the first show. It is still supposed to be one of the largest viewing audiences ever in the States."

Given that most people at that time didn't own TVs this is somewhat hard to believe. Yes, there might have been 100 people gathered around one TV but you can't really measure the impact because the vast majority of Americans still didn't have a TV by then. On top of that you didn't have 500 channels to choose from as you do today. So, what else was on TV? See what I mean?

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Before autotune, backing tracks and etc. The Beatles could perform most of our current idols to shame. Same with Bob Marley.... they were magical. I remember wearing out that Bob Marley Live videotape at the West Coast Video I worked at in the late 90s. Just magical. The Beatles had that harmony going.

.

Well, yes they could harmonize well but they weren't prolific performers. Not by a long shot. They stood in place and placed guitars. That's not a prolific performer like James Brown, Little Richard, MJ or Prince. Not even close in that regard.

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Idk I could be wrong, personally I think that some of the group (George, John in particular) were searching for more than pop star fame, girls, and drugs as time went by. It doesn't seem like they were "instructed" to be "hippies", more that the times had changed. Do you think "Bad" MJ had any idea he'd be recording with "gangsta rappers" a few years later?

Heavy D wasn't "gangsta" and I believe the verse that Biggie had on MJ's Invincible album was of course years after his death so it's not clear to what extent that Michael had been "working with" Biggie prior to Biggie's death in 97. But yes, it's no secret that by the time the Dangerous album came out that Michael was fully aware that New Jack Swing and Dance music had obliterated pop music by the early 90s.

Well of course not! People had not seen anything like those artists, with the possible exceptions of Little Richard and James Brown. And of course LR and JB were influential as they inspired MJ and Prince and countless others.

.

The Beatles were not dancers, they were dudes from the UK in a band. They weren't on the Mickey Mouse Club studying ballet and tap and comedy improv as toddlers.

.

They found the beauty in their sound standing around similar to the more praised acts at this years Grammy awards (BB King tribute, Eagles tribute, The Girl Crush group, Biebs before his dance part, Alabama Shakes). If anything, Alabama Shakes in their acceptance speech was a comment on The Beatles impact as Brittany explained these were her friends from school, she had no idea they'd get this far.

EmmaMcG said:

I don't know if this helps answer your question at all but I seen a documentary on the history of rock n roll on Sky Arts and there was a music historian on it (don't remember his name, sorry) and he was saying that the Beatles only got as big as they were because they were doing "black music" at a time when black artists were being held back. It was suggested that had black artists like Little Richard been given more exposure on TV then acts like The Beatles wouldn't have been half as popular. Taking this into consideration and assuming it did have an impact then I would say that The Beatles themselves DID have an impact on the music that followed them but mostly that's because other artists doing the same music during that time (and before) were not pushed by their labels as much because they were black, therefore weren't as famous. Little Richard himself was on that documentary and he mentioned white acts like Elvis and later, the Beatles, getting rich doing black music. Though he didn't say "black", he used the N word instead.

Hey girlie! Welcome to this thread Yes, it's no secret that many black artists were screwed over as you said. Thankfully, Little Richard was able to finally get his publishing rights/catalog back when Michael Jackson bought them and gave them back to Little Richard for free.

SeventeenDayze said:

Heavy D wasn't "gangsta" and I believe the verse that Biggie had on MJ's Invincible album was of course years after his death so it's not clear to what extent that Michael had been "working with" Biggie prior to Biggie's death in 97. But yes, it's no secret that by the time the Dangerous album came out that Michael was fully aware that New Jack Swing and Dance music had obliterated pop music by the early 90s.

.

Biggie appeared on HIStory (1995) prior to his posthumous appearance on Invincible (2001). Shaq at the time was a wannabe gangster (also on HIStory).

[Edited 2/19/16 14:44pm]

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Well of course not! People had not seen anything like those artists, with the possible exceptions of Little Richard and James Brown. And of course LR and JB were influential as they inspired MJ and Prince and countless others.

.

The Beatles were not dancers, they were dudes from the UK in a band. They weren't on the Mickey Mouse Club studying ballet and tap and comedy improv as toddlers.

.

They found the beauty in their sound standing around similar to the more praised acts at this years Grammy awards (BB King tribute, Eagles tribute, The Girl Crush group, Biebs before his dance part, Alabama Shakes). If anything, Alabama Shakes in their acceptance speech was a comment on The Beatles impact as Brittany explained these were her friends from school, she had no idea they'd get this far.

Not on the Mickey Mouse club huh? Well okay...LOL. Anyway, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that watching a group of guys stand flat footed and strum guitars is as visually interesting as someone doing the splits or moonwalking....I also think it helped that the Beatles, particularly Paul and George, were easy on the eyes for LOTS of women. Would you agree that 90 percent of their fanbase during their arrival in the U.S. was women?

JKOOLMUSIC said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Heavy D wasn't "gangsta" and I believe the verse that Biggie had on MJ's Invincible album was of course years after his death so it's not clear to what extent that Michael had been "working with" Biggie prior to Biggie's death in 97. But yes, it's no secret that by the time the Dangerous album came out that Michael was fully aware that New Jack Swing and Dance music had obliterated pop music by the early 90s.

.

Biggie appeared on HIStory (1995) prior to Invincible (2001). Shaq at the time was a wannabe gangster (also on HIStory).

Which song from History was that? I might have forgotten about it.

SeventeenDayze said:

JKOOLMUSIC said:

.

Biggie appeared on HIStory (1995) prior to Invincible (2001). Shaq at the time was a wannabe gangster (also on HIStory).

Which song from History was that? I might have forgotten about it.

.

"This Time Around"

SeventeenDayze said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Not on the Mickey Mouse club huh? Well okay...LOL. Anyway, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that watching a group of guys stand flat footed and strum guitars is as visually interesting as someone doing the splits or moonwalking....I also think it helped that the Beatles, particularly Paul and George, were easy on the eyes for LOTS of women. Would you agree that 90 percent of their fanbase during their arrival in the U.S. was women?

.

Sorry it seems this is the aggressive/flaming part of this discussion, I'll bow out. I look forward to reading what else you guys chat about.

Yes, they did.

SeventeenDayze said:

Anyway, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that watching a group of guys stand flat footed and strum guitars is as visually interesting as someone doing the splits or moonwalking

Out of all the music acts since the phonograph was invented, a small percentage danced as part of their act. So that must mean that dancing wasn't that important to most music listeners. Country has been popular for decades and very few of the singers danced. Barbara, Louise, & Irlene Mandrell did. Some of the audience might have done clogging or square dancing, but the acts generally didn't.

JKOOLMUSIC said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Not on the Mickey Mouse club huh? Well okay...LOL. Anyway, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that watching a group of guys stand flat footed and strum guitars is as visually interesting as someone doing the splits or moonwalking....I also think it helped that the Beatles, particularly Paul and George, were easy on the eyes for LOTS of women. Would you agree that 90 percent of their fanbase during their arrival in the U.S. was women?

.

Sorry it seems this is the aggressive/flaming part of this discussion, I'll bow out. I look forward to reading what else you guys chat about.

Seems like I struck a nerve with you. Why can't you answer the question? Instead you bow out because as they say "hit dogs holler"

purplethunder3121 said:

Yes, they did.

they were unique in their delivery.

imo music should bring people of all races together which is what the beatles music did at the time.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Anyway, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that watching a group of guys stand flat footed and strum guitars is as visually interesting as someone doing the splits or moonwalking

Out of all the music acts since the phonograph was invented, a small percentage danced as part of their act. So that must mean that dancing wasn't that important to most music listeners. Country has been popular for decades and very few of the singers danced. Barbara, Louise, & Irlene Mandrell did. Some of the audience might have done clogging or square dancing, but the acts generally didn't.

Someone mentioned the Beatles had an impact on music videos as "no one else" had been doing them prior. But, MTV wouldn't be around for another 10 years or so, so were music videos THAT big of a deal at the time the Beatles were doing them? I would assume that the majority of us on the Org are in the age demographic where we grew up with music videos so our expectations of what a popular/entertaining performer is has been largely impacted by the visual components of what the artists do (or don't do)

free2bfreeda said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Yes, they did.

they were unique in their delivery.

imo music should bring people of all races together which is what the beatles music did at the time.

Bring people of all races together is something that the Beatles did huh? What about this?? We can talk about the irony of this video in another thread if you'd like....

SeventeenDayze said:

Someone mentioned the Beatles had an impact on music videos as "no one else" had been doing them prior. But, MTV wouldn't be around for another 10 years or so, so were music videos THAT big of a deal at the time the Beatles were doing them? I would assume that the majority of us on the Org are in the age demographic where we grew up with music videos so our expectations of what a popular/entertaining performer is has been largely impacted by the visual components of what the artists do (or don't do)

Most of the acts on MTV didn't dance either

EmmaMcG said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Hey girlie! Welcome to this thread Yes, it's no secret that many black artists were screwed over as you said. Thankfully, Little Richard was able to finally get his publishing rights/catalog back when Michael Jackson bought them and gave them back to Little Richard for free.

Hi! Wow, I didn't know Michael Jackson did that. I bet Paul McCartney wished he did the same for him. Lol

Yes indeed! Here are two videos. The first is of Marsha from Floetry talking about it briefly. The second video (which I've watched in full before) I believe has a segment where Little Richard talks about Michael giving him back his publishing. I'm pretty sure it's addressed in the longer video (but I could be wrong)

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Someone mentioned the Beatles had an impact on music videos as "no one else" had been doing them prior. But, MTV wouldn't be around for another 10 years or so, so were music videos THAT big of a deal at the time the Beatles were doing them? I would assume that the majority of us on the Org are in the age demographic where we grew up with music videos so our expectations of what a popular/entertaining performer is has been largely impacted by the visual components of what the artists do (or don't do)

Most of the acts on MTV didn't dance either

So are we talking "most of" or Michael, Prince, etc? It seems that it's not clear right now LOL

Maybe you had to be around back at the height of the Beatle's influence to understand just how huge their impact was...and not only on music at the time.

SeventeenDayze said:

So are we talking "most of" or Michael, Prince, etc? It seems that it's not clear right now LOL

I watched MTV and there was a lot of glam metal like Motley Crue, Poison, Cinderella, Quiet Riot, Warrant, etc. and other types of bands like ZZ Top, Journey, Culture Club, The Cars, Go Gos, Loverboy, Duran Duran, Human League, Tears For Fears, Huey Lewis & The News, Depeche Mode, Bruce Hornsby & The Range, and many others. There were also singers like Bryan Adams, Tom Petty, Don Henley, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Kenny Loggins, Bruce Springsteen, etc. All of these were popular acts and they were not known for dancing in music videos. So dancing still was not as important to music overall as you make it sound.

purplethunder3121 said:

Maybe you had to be around back at the height of the Beatle's influence to understand just how huge their impact was...and not only on music at the time.

Were you around during that time? I mean, what I am trying to dissect here is their impact on music as a craft (not so much their commercial success). I think I should clarify that's what I meant in terms of "impact" on music.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

So are we talking "most of" or Michael, Prince, etc? It seems that it's not clear right now LOL

I watched MTV and there was a lot of glam metal like Motley Crue, Poison, Cinderella, Quiet Riot, Warrant, etc. and other types of bands like ZZ Top, Journey, Culture Club, The Cars, Go Gos, Loverboy, Duran Duran, Human League, Tears For Fears, Huey Lewis & The News, Depeche Mode, Bruce Hornsby & The Range, and many others. There were also singers like Bryan Adams, Tom Petty, Don Henley, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Kenny Loggins, Bruce Springsteen, etc. All of these were popular acts and they were not known for dancing in music videos. So dancing still was not as important to music overall as you make it sound.

Well, MTV in its first few years was also undeniably racist and forbid black artists from having their videos broadcast....

SeventeenDayze said:

Well, MTV in its first few years was also undeniably racist and forbid black artists from having their videos broadcast....

Most of the acts I listed were popular after Michael Jackson got regular airplay on MTV. So the early years has nothing to do with it. Many of the popular R&B acts (if that's what you mean) didn't dance either like Isley Brothers, Luther Vandross, Teddy Pendergrass, Freddie Jackson, D Train, Bar Kays, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, Anita Baker, Rick James, Smokey Robinson, etc. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they could dance. Whitney 2 albums in the 1980s sold a lot more than many of those acts who danced in videos like New Edition, Jody Watley, Bobby Brown, or The Jets.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Well, MTV in its first few years was also undeniably racist and forbid black artists from having their videos broadcast....

Most of the acts I listed were popular after Michael Jackson got regular airplay on MTV. So the early years has nothing to do with it. Many of the popular R&B acts (if that's what you mean) didn't dance either like Isley Brothers, Luther Vandross, Teddy Pendergrass, Freddie Jackson, D Train, Bar Kays, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, Anita Baker, Rick James, Smokey Robinson, etc. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they could dance. Whitney 2 albums in the 1980s sold a lot more than many of those acts who danced in videos like New Edition, Jody Watley, Bobby Brown, or The Jets.

Just because someone is black doesn't mean they could dance? No kidding I'm FULLY aware of this being a black woman myself! Anyway, without getting sidetracked here don't you think there's something to be said for the impact that Michael had on pop music that still exists today? I don't think there are any current pop acts that are influenced by the Beatles as they are influenced by MJ.