New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
were the beatles a pop or rock act?? now i know the predictable answer is that they were pop before revolver and rubber soul and rock afterwards but i dont think they really rocked all *that* much more. in fact, id say it was almost the opposite.
their earlier poppier stuff like i wanna hold your hand or please please please was packed with full on, driving, ROCKING forceful guitars, more so than some of their later material. so what do we call them? a rock n roll band? a pop band? does the fact pretty much all their stuff (admittedly it did get more heavier, i.e. more rock-oriented witht he white album and some stuff on abbey road - but even that still had whimsical songs like maxwells silver lining) has pop under/overtones classify them overall as a pop band? (i dont think pop has to necessarily have negative connotations..) hope this post isnt too confusing lol. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
simple answer:
they're the act that turned rock & roll into pop. they're the act that turned pop into rock & roll. it was the mixing of styles, themes, and production techniques with them that first blurred the lines, i believe. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
the more complicated answer would take a very long to write, and be about 10 paragraphs.
hopefully the short answer will suffice? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronMaximus said: the more complicated answer would take a very long to write, and be about 10 paragraphs.
hopefully the short answer will suffice? hit me with the long one. its been bothering me. yeah i know to many they virtually invented the notion of a pop group or pop as we know it, but hey id be intererested to read what you think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thirstinhowlVIII said: AaronMaximus said: the more complicated answer would take a very long to write, and be about 10 paragraphs.
hopefully the short answer will suffice? hit me with the long one. its been bothering me. yeah i know to many they virtually invented the notion of a pop group or pop as we know it, but hey id be intererested to read what you think. i'll work on it, or see if i can find a write-up from other sources. don't really feel inclined to type that much all in one sitting right now. and there have been whole books worth of material written about it. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 12:48:05 PDT 2003 by AaronMaximus] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronMaximus said: thirstinhowlVIII said: AaronMaximus said: the more complicated answer would take a very long to write, and be about 10 paragraphs.
hopefully the short answer will suffice? hit me with the long one. its been bothering me. yeah i know to many they virtually invented the notion of a pop group or pop as we know it, but hey id be intererested to read what you think. i'll work on it, or see if i can find a write-up from other sources. don't really feel inclined to type that much all in one sitting right now. and there have been whole books worth of material written about it. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 12:48:05 PDT 2003 by AaronMaximus] much appreciated if you could direct me to the best books on it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Earlier this summer a classmate stated that their music was "not pop music." Just yesterday I asked a big Beatles fan whether they were considered pop. He said--to paraphrase--that essentially the Beatles were a pop act; their music appealed to the masses. Yet, it was not disposable music because their sound was very distinct for that time. Unlike, today's pop music where you can't tell one boy band from another." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
UptownDeb said: Earlier this summer a classmate stated that their music was "not pop music." Just yesterday I asked a big Beatles fan whether they were considered pop. He said--to paraphrase--that essentially the Beatles were a pop act; their music appealed to the masses. Yet, it was not disposable music because their sound was very distinct for that time. Unlike, today's pop music where you can't tell one boy band from another."
that sounds reasonable but what if they didnt appeal to the masses and didnt sell millions of records but made the same music - would they still be pop then? cos i dont think pop has to mean merely 'popular', that you sell a lot and getin the charts. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thirstinhowlVIII said: that sounds reasonable but what if they didnt appeal to the masses and didnt sell millions of records but made the same music - would they still be pop then? cos i dont think pop has to mean merely 'popular', that you sell a lot and getin the charts.
Good question. Might they be called an "underground" act? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thirstinhowlVIII said: UptownDeb said: Earlier this summer a classmate stated that their music was "not pop music." Just yesterday I asked a big Beatles fan whether they were considered pop. He said--to paraphrase--that essentially the Beatles were a pop act; their music appealed to the masses. Yet, it was not disposable music because their sound was very distinct for that time. Unlike, today's pop music where you can't tell one boy band from another."
that sounds reasonable but what if they didnt appeal to the masses and didnt sell millions of records but made the same music - would they still be pop then? cos i dont think pop has to mean merely 'popular', that you sell a lot and getin the charts. well, part of it is that they were a pop act, not only in the sense of popularity, but in the way they wrote and recorded. they would incorporate different styles and techniques, building a sound and music that was appealing to the masses, but had the universal vibe and themes of "pop music" (i'm assuming we're talking about the Top40/narrow definition of "pop" and not the wide-ranging definition that includes everything but jazz and classical, because in that sense, rock and roll is pop music, whatever the form). [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 13:07:00 PDT 2003 by AaronMaximus] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
they were The Monkeys, but better ---------------------------------
 Funny and charming as usual | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
well, part of it is that they were a pop act, not only in the sense of popularity, but in the way they wrote and recorded. they would incorporate different styles and techniques, building a sound and music that was appealing to the masses, but had the universal vibe and themes of "pop music" (i'm assuming we're talking about the Top40/narrow definition of "pop" and not the wide-ranging definition that includes everything but jazz and classical, because in that sense, rock and roll is pop music, whatever the form).
[This message was edited Thu Sep 18 13:07:00 PDT 2003 by AaronMaximus] exactly - its the idea of writing in a pop style or with a pop sensibility, not the (essentially meaningless) idea of pop as basically anything that gets in the charts. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thirstinhowlVIII said: well, part of it is that they were a pop act, not only in the sense of popularity, but in the way they wrote and recorded. they would incorporate different styles and techniques, building a sound and music that was appealing to the masses, but had the universal vibe and themes of "pop music" (i'm assuming we're talking about the Top40/narrow definition of "pop" and not the wide-ranging definition that includes everything but jazz and classical, because in that sense, rock and roll is pop music, whatever the form).
[This message was edited Thu Sep 18 13:07:00 PDT 2003 by AaronMaximus] exactly - its the idea of writing in a pop style or with a pop sensibility, not the (essentially meaningless) idea of pop as basically anything that gets in the charts. right, but rock & roll is one of the styles they incorporated into making pop music. likewise, they sometimes took pop sensibilites and turned it into a more rock & roll thing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Most would say the Beatles were a pop group, and their British counterparts the Rolling Stones were a rock group.
But even much of the Beatles' earliest material in the early '60s was considered rock. Take into account the fact that the sound of rock music evolved from the 50s to the 60s (up until today) a great deal. And what they were doing in the early part of the '60s was part of the rock and roll sound, even if it sounds like pop to many people today. Songs like "Helter Skelter" and "Revolution" would fit in more today under the rock music category more than "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", mainly because the more distorted electric guitar seems to characterize rock music now. Plus, thematically, singing about wanting to hold someone's hand seems more "pop", and singing about a revolution, and a song entitled "Helter Skelter" (even if it's not as sinister as everyone thought) tends to come across more agressively. To me the Beatles are a pop group. They started out as a rock group early in the genre's history, but also expanded to include other styles along the way, and became extremely popular because of it. Nobody would mistake "Elenor Rigby" or "She's Leaving Home" for rock songs, though in many of their rock songs the quality of their vocal harmonies tended to add a different texture and color than harder edged rock songs that dominated the rock scene in the late '60s. But since they appealed to most in both the rock and pop camps, as the years go on I don't hear anyone categorizing the Beatles anymore. The Pop Music umbrella comprises many different styles. But lets not become too effusive about the Liverpudlians, lest Moonie will come in here and vomit on this thread.  And ... I would definitely understand.  This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
A Pop Act.there is nothing wrong with being Labeled a Pop Act.when the Beatles first started out they were not much Better than N-Synch,Backstreet Boys,New Edtion,etc.. they weren't Boyz 11Men Polished until a few years later once they struck there Formula with George Martin that forever changed the way they were seen&Heard.like the Rolling Stones first coming out&if you will New Kids on the Block through N-Synch these Acts all started out based on R&B Music in there Influence.the Beatles&Stones were able to move&find there own Vocings over time.it's Pop Music no matter how you slice or dice it.some is better than others but it's Pop.the Beatles are One of the Standards of Pop Music as we know it. mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mistermaxxx said: A Pop Act.there is nothing wrong with being Labeled a Pop Act.when the Beatles first started out they were not much Better than N-Synch,Backstreet Boys,New Edtion,etc.. they weren't Boyz 11Men Polished until a few years later once they struck there Formula with George Martin that forever changed the way they were seen&Heard.like the Rolling Stones first coming out&if you will New Kids on the Block through N-Synch these Acts all started out based on R&B Music in there Influence.the Beatles&Stones were able to move&find there own Vocings over time.it's Pop Music no matter how you slice or dice it.some is better than others but it's Pop.the Beatles are One of the Standards of Pop Music as we know it.
Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! As chief drughead George Clinton was to say later: Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 14:56:26 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: mistermaxxx said: A Pop Act.there is nothing wrong with being Labeled a Pop Act.when the Beatles first started out they were not much Better than N-Synch,Backstreet Boys,New Edtion,etc.. they weren't Boyz 11Men Polished until a few years later once they struck there Formula with George Martin that forever changed the way they were seen&Heard.like the Rolling Stones first coming out&if you will New Kids on the Block through N-Synch these Acts all started out based on R&B Music in there Influence.the Beatles&Stones were able to move&find there own Vocings over time.it's Pop Music no matter how you slice or dice it.some is better than others but it's Pop.the Beatles are One of the Standards of Pop Music as we know it.
Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! As chief drughead George Clinton was to say later: Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 14:56:26 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Simple, The group can be labled in both. Its silly to ponder which one, it doesnt matter.. they made excellent music, thats all that should matter, labelin the group does nothing,
But if u were to label them, it would be both.. The earlier work was a pop rock, and so was the latter.. I mean honestly, Each member contributed pop and rock songs to the albums, just about ever album contained both elements. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: mistermaxxx said: A Pop Act.there is nothing wrong with being Labeled a Pop Act.when the Beatles first started out they were not much Better than N-Synch,Backstreet Boys,New Edtion,etc.. they weren't Boyz 11Men Polished until a few years later once they struck there Formula with George Martin that forever changed the way they were seen&Heard.like the Rolling Stones first coming out&if you will New Kids on the Block through N-Synch these Acts all started out based on R&B Music in there Influence.the Beatles&Stones were able to move&find there own Vocings over time.it's Pop Music no matter how you slice or dice it.some is better than others but it's Pop.the Beatles are One of the Standards of Pop Music as we know it.
Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! As chief drughead George Clinton was to say later: Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 14:56:26 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] And according to someone on this site, who considers themselves a HUGE Beatles fan, THE Beatles fan, the Beatles never had a Soul music influence. 
ä [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:27:58 PDT 2003 by Supernova] This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mistermaxxx said: PFunkjazz said: mistermaxxx said: A Pop Act.there is nothing wrong with being Labeled a Pop Act.when the Beatles first started out they were not much Better than N-Synch,Backstreet Boys,New Edtion,etc.. they weren't Boyz 11Men Polished until a few years later once they struck there Formula with George Martin that forever changed the way they were seen&Heard.like the Rolling Stones first coming out&if you will New Kids on the Block through N-Synch these Acts all started out based on R&B Music in there Influence.the Beatles&Stones were able to move&find there own Vocings over time.it's Pop Music no matter how you slice or dice it.some is better than others but it's Pop.the Beatles are One of the Standards of Pop Music as we know it.
Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! As chief drughead George Clinton was to say later: Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 14:56:26 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] My WAYBACK MACHINE goes a bit further back. I'm talking 'bout the Stones going into Muddy Waters, Tampa Red, Willie Dixon and Keith Richards copping licks off Buddy Guy and Otis Rush, on the West-side,as well as Chuck and Bo. Don't know anything about Little Richard ever tying to sign these bands (maybe so, but Little Richard is known to over-embellish the facts), but the Vee-Jay thing got hi-jacked at the very last minute cuz Hollywood-based Capitol records was able to offer the Beatles a movie connection. And so it went... [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:35:48 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
[quote]
Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! sorry, i have never heard about the northern soul thing with the beatles before. i know they were influenced by early soul and R&B but i cant see them being northern soul boys. northern soul simply was a term describing the soul scene that existed in the north of england. i cant quite imagine the beatles going to the northern soul events. and far as i know, vee-jay DID actaully release a few singles from the beatles before they went over to capitol. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:40:43 PDT 2003 by thirstinhowlVIII] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: And according to someone on this site, who considers themselves a HUGE Beatles fan, THE Beatles fan, the Beatles never had a Soul music influence.
ä [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:27:58 PDT 2003 by Supernova] huh?  Who's that suckah?
Beatles broke thru in US by doing covers of Isley Brothers tunes! test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thirstinhowlVIII said:[quote] Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! sorry, i have never heard about the northern soul thing with the beatles before. i know they were influenced by early soul and R&B but i cant see them being northern soul boys. northern soul simply was a term describing the soul scene that existed in the north of england. i cant quite imagine the beatles going to the northern soul events. When was the phonograph invented?
later.... ok, thirstin has somewhat of a point. Skiffle and mersybeats were more the DIRECT native antecedents to the Beatles. I've created an anachronism. Northern soul was indeed a transplant of American soul into the British scene, but it really flourished post-Beatles in the 70s. Mersey was still a mix of early white Rock & roll and black R&b, while skiffle mixed jazz and country blues. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 16:13:42 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: Supernova said: And according to someone on this site, who considers themselves a HUGE Beatles fan, THE Beatles fan, the Beatles never had a Soul music influence.
ä [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:27:58 PDT 2003 by Supernova] huh? Who's that suckah?
Beatles broke thru in US by doing covers of Isley Brothers tunes! Orgname starts with an "N"... Isley Bros. covers. Smokey & The Miracles covers. Barrett Strong covers. Marvelettes covers... £ [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 16:08:48 PDT 2003 by Supernova] This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: PFunkjazz said: Supernova said: And according to someone on this site, who considers themselves a HUGE Beatles fan, THE Beatles fan, the Beatles never had a Soul music influence.
ä [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:27:58 PDT 2003 by Supernova] huh? Who's that suckah?
Beatles broke thru in US by doing covers of Isley Brothers tunes! Orgname starts with an "N"... don't say it!!! nooo!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Also, If anyone of u that are checkin these threads out that havent heard the Outtakes sets of the beatles.. I Highly recommend checkin those out.. The Anthology sets.. Set 2 and 3 are the best as far as sound and quanitity.. The first set is nice, but the sound is rough and a lot of it is muffled live material.. Set 2 and 3 are high quality outtakes, some which are better than the actual recorded on albums.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: mistermaxxx said: PFunkjazz said: mistermaxxx said: A Pop Act.there is nothing wrong with being Labeled a Pop Act.when the Beatles first started out they were not much Better than N-Synch,Backstreet Boys,New Edtion,etc.. they weren't Boyz 11Men Polished until a few years later once they struck there Formula with George Martin that forever changed the way they were seen&Heard.like the Rolling Stones first coming out&if you will New Kids on the Block through N-Synch these Acts all started out based on R&B Music in there Influence.the Beatles&Stones were able to move&find there own Vocings over time.it's Pop Music no matter how you slice or dice it.some is better than others but it's Pop.the Beatles are One of the Standards of Pop Music as we know it.
Stones started in the core of the blues by copping directly from the delta bluesmasters and Southern soul variants. Beatles, however, copped from an imported form of R&B in Britain called "Northern soul" and later looked to urban soul from Chicago, Detroit and NewYork (they were almost signed to Chicago's black-owned VEE-JAY Records). So they came off more like pop. At least until they started taking hallucinogenic drugs!! Amazing what psychedelics did for their creativity! As chief drughead George Clinton was to say later: Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow. [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 14:56:26 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] My WAYBACK MACHINE goes a bit further back. I'm talking 'bout the Stones going into Muddy Waters, Tampa Red, Willie Dixon and Keith Richards copping licks off Buddy Guy and Otis Rush, on the West-side,as well as Chuck and Bo. Don't know anything about Little Richard ever tying to sign these bands (maybe so, but Little Richard is known to over-embellish the facts), but the Vee-Jay thing got hi-jacked at the very last minute cuz Hollywood-based Capitol records was able to offer the Beatles a movie connection. And so it went... [This message was edited Thu Sep 18 15:35:48 PDT 2003 by PFunkjazz] mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mistermaxxx said: PFunkjazz said: My WAYBACK MACHINE goes a bit further back. I'm talking 'bout the Stones going into Muddy Waters, Tampa Red, Willie Dixon and Keith Richards copping licks off Buddy Guy and Otis Rush, on the West-side,as well as Chuck and Bo. Don't know anything about Little Richard ever tying to sign these bands (maybe so, but Little Richard is known to over-embellish the facts), but the Vee-Jay thing got hi-jacked at the very last minute cuz Hollywood-based Capitol records was able to offer the Beatles a movie connection. And so it went... Props to you on your Post.I know those Cat splus Howlin Wolf&John Lee Hooker among others inspired&Influenced Keith Richards Palying.but I was just pointing out that to match this thread that Beatles&Rolling Stones were Influenced by the R&B side of Music as well.when I saw the clip of Justin Timberlake on stage with Mick Jagger&the Stones it took me back to the Ed Sullivan Show of a Young Jagger trying His Best James Brown take&now you fast forward with Timberlake doing His Best take on Michael Jackson.Little Richard went over to Europe during a Tour or something&had access to both Groups but He wasn't feeling them at the time or something along those lines.Peace Ya ain't seeing my point. White or Brit bands that were more r&b-influenced tend to be more pop-sounding, while those that took directly from the blues had a harder rock sound. That's the major aesthetic difference between the Stones and Beatles. test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: Ya ain't seeing my point. White or Brit bands that were more r&b-influenced tend to be more pop-sounding, while those that took directly from the blues had a harder rock sound. That's the major aesthetic difference between the Stones and Beatles.  This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
'LET IT BE' to be allowed to be...
London---A new version of the Beatles' album "Let It Be" will be released in November,the group's company Apple Corps announced Thursday. "Let It Be...Naked" strips the album of Phil Spector's lavish production effects,returning to Sir Paul McCartney's original idea for the recording. "This is the noise we made in the studio",McCartney said of the new version."It's exactly as it was in the room.You're right there now". "Let It Be...Naked" mostly keeps the same track listing as the original album,which featured songs "Let It Be","The Long and Winding Road","Get Back" and "Across The Universe". Background dialogue,"Dig It" and "Maggie Mae" have been taken off the album,and "Don't Let Me Down" has been added,Apple Corps said. Most of "Let It Be" was recorded in 1969 for an album that was to have been called "Get Back",showing the Beatles returning to their roots as a four-piece rock n' roll band.But the group was splitting up and the album was abandoned. Spector was later brought in to convert hundreds of hours of tape into an album renamed "Let It Be" which was released in 1970. "Let It Be...Naked" is to be released by EMI Records on Nov.17. (Associated Press) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |