Forum menu
I'm probably melding the two really. good point. The PR and image creation was very important but you are right in that Martin was also hugely important
I thought the fifth beatle was Stu sutcliffe? 😉
My sister in law had a signed picture of the beatles as a five piece band
Lee “scratch” Perry was a real pioneer of this although I doubt the Beatles knew of him but others were experimenting before as well.
Well, erm, they certainly did know him...or at least Paul did.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/paul-mccartney-lee-scratch-perry-flashback-1218517/
It's ok - i'm putting it on the 'B' side of Across The Universe.
Close, but...
... not really that close.
So, what's your point here @tjagain? That because the Beatles borrowed sounds and music from other genres that somehow limits their influence subsequently? That makes no sense.You could make a very strong argument that all the best musicians steal their best ideas from others, and the Beatles just carried on a fine tradition that's been going on in music since time-immemorial, that doesn't diminish their achievement. They were as likely to borrow from Bach as they were from Ravi Shankar
The point is pretty much exactly that. People keep claiming that they created all these amazing new sounds or even whole new genres. I am just pointing out that they did not. They created a synthesis of stuff they had heard just like most other bands. Almost all musicians build on what went before.
for example:
Some of the sounds and techniques they created in the studio once they got past the jangly pop song phase were absolute firsts and completely revolutionary in terms of songwriting and recording.
So I intended to rebut this using examples.
Almost all musicians build on what went before.
Absolutely. Dr. John was 100% the same, as was Lee Scratch Perry. The trick is to be progressive with influences, or at the very least be as interesting as you can be if you stay in that area.
The Beatles progressed, prolifically, over a very short time, and influenced so many artists to this day in greater numbers than virtually any other artist in popular music. No Beatles = no Can, Kraftwerk, Big Star, Chic, Jam, XTC, Nirvana...
I never said they were not influential - clearly hugely so especially culturally in the UK. The point is simply that as hightensiononline says that what they did was build on what others had done before not create something new.
Afrobeat was developed in Nigeria in the late 1960s by Fela Anikulapo Kuti who, with drummer Tony Allen, experimented with different contemporary music of that time
That was then. This is now
(J Hus is a genuine recommendation btw . I'm not saying better than the Beatles but a lot better than that new ELO single)
People keep claiming that they created all these amazing new sounds or even whole new genres. I am just pointing out that they did not.
There's long been a debate over whether Helter-skelter and/or She's So Heavy is the first Heavy Metal...But with regards to new sounds, then yes, I think they were the first use of sampling, I know that they invented an doubletracking techniques to make vocals sound richer, they often "hard-panned" sounds to either left or right, (you can hear that on A Day In The Life, for instance, where Lennon's vocals are either all left or all right on the speakers) no one else was doing anything like that, or added multiple violins to pop songs? Unheard of. And of course amazing as it sounds now, they were amongst the first to release albums only in Stereo, and they invented the concept album of course...
So, yeah, they did create news sounds and genres. That's why they're so influential. They may have started out with Love Me Do, but as early as Rubber Soul, they've left everyone else way behind. It's not just clever marketing or catching hooks. Listening to the Beatles now is similar to watching Citizen Kane, it feels unremarkable becasue of everything that came after them copied them so hard, but at the time they're ground breaking.
no one else was doing anything like that,
Lee Perry was. I doubt the beatles took influence from him but lee perry was a real pioneer of this stuff before the beatles were. Perry was using samples way before the beatles.
The Upsetters didn't record anything until the very late 60's though 1968-69, something like that.
edit: Doesn't it have a BeeGees track on it..? I seem to remember.
Happy to be proved wrong, but apart from obscure live sampling, I thought Scratch Perry's earliest sample was the baby on People Funny Boy? That's 2 years after Yellow Submarine, which samples a brass band amongst others.
Not dismissing him (was lucky enough to see him live), but I'm not sure it's fair to say that adding samples to a limited early dub track is comparable to adding leftfield noises to the output of the biggest recording artist of the time. It wasn't expected then.
Probably fair hightension
MY point is simple - that all the innovations the beatles made were built on earlier work of others. Thats how it all works.
Perrys influence was huge and in parallel to the beatles. He took the abilities of the developments in recording tech and took it to places no one else did
Yeah, I agree. That early Beatles sampling was building on avant-garde recording styles like musique concrete, which George Martin was familiar with. Like we're all agreeing on (in a roundabout way), the Beatles brought it to the forefront and popularised it. They made it accessible, democratic even, in terms of bringing a lot of obscure or high-brow concepts to the masses. That and some astonishing tunes.
Perrys influence was huge and in parallel to the beatles.
Whatever. You don't like the Beatles for whatever Anglo-centric European neo-colonialist revisionist political theory that suits your world view, that's cool. The denial of observable reality is yours to deal with by yourself though.
I can't speak for tj, but I'm fairly sure he's not saying Perry was as big as the Beatles. But he's an undeniably huge influence to plenty, and on Paul McCartney in particular - they even worked together, and Perry wrote a letter to the Japanese government when he was busted for dope.
Sure, I don't think that Beatles didn't borrow music. Everyone does. The claim @tjagain is making is they weren't that influential, and if they were, it was on borrowed sounds, or clever marketing or that they sung in English, and they they didn't innovate or they just stole innovations from elsewhere. All of which aren't really important to the success or the influence that they obviously had.
Liking the Beatles or not is entirely subjective. End of discussion, You don't have to 'prove' your non-liking of them is based on objective reasoning.
Sorry as hightension says that is two statements. apologies for the unclear language
Perrys influence was huge
He was working with the same techniques at the same time as the beatles ie in parallel not that they were copying each other or one following the other
The beatles were utterly revolutionary in what they did to popular culture. That is without doubt but the musical innovations were all based on the work of others before them
Like we’re all agreeing on (in a roundabout way), the Beatles brought it to the forefront and popularised it. They made it accessible, democratic even, in terms of bringing a lot of obscure or high-brow concepts to the masses.
Very much this. Better words than I found
. The claim @tjagain is making is they weren’t that influential,
I have said half a dozen times they were clearly hugely influential in UK popular culture and that influence spread worldwide.
I find this whole thing of influences fascinating and its weird how much of it is serendipity
Would the Beatles ever have gone to India ( which clearly had a huge influence on them) without the influence of Shankar? would Marley have been a huge influential artist without the backing of the Clash? Would Fela Kuti have created a whole new genre without being introduced to the writings and philosophy of malcom X? etc etc
But you're being a wee bit disingenuous though aren't you? Because, y'know; first and foremost they're a musical act, so by trying to argue that they were influential, but just not musically...pretty much amounts to the same thing.
It really doesn't. try having a reread of my posts. I do not have the language to make it any clearer
Hugely influential - yes musically and culturally
Innovative? Its much harder to show. Innovative in that for many the first time they heard this stuff? Yes. Innovative in that they created this stuff? Much harder to show
I think we are now down to semantics 🙂
As for me not liking the beatles. Never a fave of mine. early stuff good catchy pop tunes. Sgt Peppers - some tracks on there are in my faves list. Back in the USSR as well I really like. Fab song
Paul McCartney in particular – they even worked together, and Perry wrote a letter to the Japanese government when he was busted for dope.
Woah! That's quite some claim to fame McCartney has there! Lee Scratch Perry interceding on your behalf in a dope bust???!!!! 🙂 🙂 Superb
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/paul-mccartney-lee-scratch-perry-flashback-1218517/The letter is a thing of utter beauty!
Im just going to requote this from Hightensiononline as it sums up what I think so well and in better words than I have - and might get lost on the bottom of the previous page
Like we’re all agreeing on (in a roundabout way), the Beatles brought it to the forefront and popularised it. They made it accessible, democratic even, in terms of bringing a lot of obscure or high-brow concepts to the masses.
That letter is just fabulous, I can picture their faces as that came trough the Telex...
🤣
A thing of beauty indeed:
“Dear Sirs, I LEE PIPECOCK JACKSON PERRY would LOVE to express my concern over your consideration of one quarter kilo to be an excessive amount of herbs in the case as it pertains to master PAUL McCARTNEY …I find the herbal powers of marijuana in its widely recognized abilities to relax, calm, and generate positive feeling a must. Herbs is his Majesty’s. All singers positive directions and liberty Irrations. Please do not consider the amount of herbs involved excessive. Master PAUL McCARTNEY’s intentions are positive.”
in contrast:
John Lennon reportedly said, “If he really needs weed, surely there’s enough people who can carry it for him. You’re a Beatle, boy, a Beatle. Your face is in every damn corner of the planet. How could you have been so stupid?”
I had tickets to see Lee Perry (Brudenell. Leeds) rescheduled a couple of times during covid, and then he died. I mean I knew he was going to be very late on stage whatever, but that is very very lee scratch perry.
Not popular or commercial but most definitely ahead of their time. Doesn’t matter that they weren’t commercially successful.
As Columbia Records Vice President Clive Davis said of Zappa "No commercial potential". It didn't stop FZ becoming hugely influential and having a huge (popular?) following.
Almost all musicians build on what went before.
Yes but some do it better than others.
He's roughly between The Proclaimers and Right Said Fred in terms of album sales. Not bad, considering.