I don't understand your question D0D. You said yourself, you don't know the terminologies. If I were to explain them, you wouldn't get it. I will say, they used terminologies in a way no one ever thought of before. The Beatles were a melting pot of R&B's, Everly Brothers, Elvis, Jazz, Big Band, Eastern Music (India), as well as numerous others. If you ever get a chance to hear any Beatles stuff before they were signed by parlaphone, you will realize how talented these 4 gents from Liverpool really were. They played many R&B's covers, A Shot Of Rythm And Blues, Some Other Guy, Please Mister Postman, Long Tall Sally, You Really Got A Hold on Me, Chains, Lucille, just to name a few, and they did them better than the originals. They were famous for taking little known R&B songs, and making them popular. Their impact on music will be everlasting. To totally change the face of Rock-n-Roll in the 6 years they were in the spotlight, is remarkable. They changed the way bands record music. Using overdubs and backward loops and introducing instruments that were never heard on Rock records at that time. To say they were ahead of their time, is an understatement. Bands are still trying to catch up to them. ------------------ "For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Hamlet
jamcracker did it. His answer was what I was looking for. Now I can actually say that I may not like their music, but they did add to the "music revolution" if what jammie said is true. I never knew about them adding so much to the actual production and creation of music. I just always thought everybody just liked them for the music itself, which is cool, but it's just not to my liking. ------------------ "I'll tell you this, the older I get, the less I trust people. It's true. It's damn true." -- gr8-1 going through some growing pains. [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited July 15, 2001).]
If I'm not mistaken, weren't the Beatles on of the first, if not the first to use multi-tracking when recording. When I was younger, I was a Beatle basher. As I grew older I came to understand the impact they had in today's pop music. I understand why people don't like or don't get their music because on the surface a lot of their material seems very basic and hookish. But the diversity in their writing and the innovation that was ahead of their time is what has really made me appreciate them. ------------------
That was the first band I heard that used classical instruments in their rock songs. That's something I still like today. When I was growing up, my best friend would buy every Beatle album that came out. He was so pumped when Sgt. Pepper came out. He'd listen over and over. Some saw it at the time but unfortunately, I only saw it 10 years after it was over. To be honest, the Beatles had some of the worst songs (my personal not favorites are: Yellow Submarine and Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da) and some of the best (just about everything else on the White (sorry to be so un-original) and my all time favorite She's Leaving Home)) Another thing that is somewhat amazing is that they made 11 albums in their 1st 2 years. I know alot of that stuff wasn't there own, but still quite an accomplishment. Also, all the hours (6+) they played nonstop (night after night) in Germany in the pre-years; they admit to what kept them going, but still... ------------------
This is where they really became a band. Having to not only play music, they also had to "Mach Shau" (Make Show) which is what the German clubowner would yell to them while they played. Fueled by alcohol and "prelly's", (German diet pills), the Beatles learned to "Mach Shau" and went on "to the top" of the music world. ------------------ "For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Hamlet
They recently released a CD of all their #1 hits, and I believe it was #1 on the charts for several weeks (out-selling all the big acts of today), and has sold several million copies already. Keep in mind, this is without MTV, radio (well, classic rock radio, I guess), etc. I believe their back catalogue alone accounts for several hundred thousand in units sold each year. Granted, sales isn't an indicator of quality. But do you think the Backstreet Boys will still be selling millions of records 30-40 years from now? ------------------ "I guess that's YOUR theory"
I can give you a number of reasons why they were great... 1. They were the first band to use the studio the way it was designed. They were NOT the first band to use multitrack recording but they were the first to utilize it well. George Martin has been voted the greatest producer in music history by every major recording, engineering and production magazine and organization. The Beatle's desire to try new things and be innovative drove Martin to experiment. They invented the format of recording in a studio and the way they used production is still utilized today. 2. Maybe the most important contribution they gave to music was the alteration of traditional pop song format. Most songs were in AABA format - verse, verse, bridge, verse. The Beatles changed the pop song format to what it is today allowing arrangements that included verse, bridge, chorus or bridge, verse, chorus, etc. Since the Beatles, the AABA format is almost never heard in pop music though it is still the form used in jazz. 3. The Beatles were the first band to ever use guitar feedback and distortion. At the beginning of "I Feel Fine" there is a sustained guitar that creates feedback through the speaker. They also drove amps so hard that they broke up and distorted. That had NEVER been done. We all know the incredible influence of feedback and distorted guitar in rock music. 4. The Beatles were not the first pop artist to use classical instrumentation, but they did change how it was used. Martin was a classically trained composer and producer so he was comfortable in that setting. Nelson Riddle among many other composers had arranged orchestras for pop crooners from Frank Sinatra to Mel Torme, so it wasn't new. However, the Beatles changed how it was done. The use of single cellos, solo horns and wild dissonant strings had never been heard in the music world. In "A Day in the Life", they used an orchestra to create the massive build up in the middle of the song right before the alarm rings and at the end. The only instruction George Martin gave the orchestra was, "Do not play the same note as anyone near you. If you hear someone playing a note that is the same or a harmony to your own, change." 5. The Beatles changed chordal structure use in rock music. Jazz and pop had always used odd changes, but the Beatles combine the flavors of jazz and vocal standards with blues. Up until them, rock musicians played mostly blues progressions. 6. The Beatles introduces the Western world, virtually, to the instruments and music of India. From tabla to sitar to dumbek, the Beatles were the first pop musicians to use Indian music readily in their songs. The sitar has re-occurred many times in pop music since then. 7. The became the definition of real musical success. Someone once said that the Beatle's manager was the first and only person ever to say his band would be bigger than Elvis and be right. At one point in the 60's, the Beatles occupied 7 of the top 10 spots on the charts. No band has ever scored as many #1 singles and no band has ever had their music re-released to supplant pop music of the time on the charts as the Beatles did last year. The list goes on and on, but the fact is that there have been a very few truly important voices in the history of Western music. The Beatles rank right up there with Duke Ellington, Bach, Motzart, Beethoven and Gershwin. Their music is now a standard part of cirricula in the music history, theory and song classroom. They are as important to the history of music as any great composer. Whether you like them or not, their influence is undeniable. (NOTE: When I say "pop music," I mean rock, r&b, country, etc - anything that fits into the "popular music" category. I don't mean Brittany Spears or the Backstreet Boys alone.) ------------------ How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters
This is where I have to disagree. I was going to stay out of this thread because I did not have any opinions on the group that had not yet been expressed. However, I can't believe you think the beatles versions of these songs (as well as twist and shout, probably their most famous remake) were better than the originals. The beatles versions are nothing compared to the originals, IMO. ------------------
In all honesty, I agree with you. Their strongest material is their original material and the covers were simply done as a way to forward their careers when they were still young. After Help (I believe), they didn't make a practice of doing covers anyway. ------------------ How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters
Then why did the Beatles versions reach higher in the charts than the originals? (all except the Little Richard covers) The Beatles versions had a more danceable beat to them than the originals. The Beatles didn't "just do" covers. They played around with the arrangements (except for the Little Richard songs) and made them hits. ------------------ "For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Hamlet
Jeff and SFR, I think the important thing about covers anyways is not how many or how good are the Beatles' covers of other artists' music, but how many covers of BEATLES music can you find out there? My god there must be thousands! According to the last report from the Harry Fox Agency (the group that licences basically every song ever for cover purposes), "Yesterday" is still the most-covered song of all time. Maybe the coolest cover of a Beatles song of all time wasn't ever on record. Prior to the release of Sgt. Pepper's, members of the Beatles, Eric Clapton, Pete Townsend and others went to a local London club to see Jimi Hendrix. He had heard Sgt. Pepper's when he visited the Beatles during recording and played the song live in front of them. They were said to be thoroughly impressed and laughed their asses off. Then why did the Beatles versions reach higher in the charts than the originals? (all except the Little Richard covers) The Beatles versions had a more danceable beat to them than the originals. The Beatles didn't "just do" covers. They played around with the arrangements (except for the Little Richard songs) and made them hits. First off, everything the Beatle's touched turned to gold so it is no surprise they had bigger hits with these songs than the originators. Second, the Beatles had a much more potent machine for getting songs heard. By the early 1960's, Elvis' managers had given a glimpse into the early days of music marketing and merchandising. The Beatles took his cue and did much of the same. As for the arrangements, at the time the Beatles learned these tunes, they were playing "skiffle" music in Germany at strip joints. Skiffle was a British form of music encompassing a little rockabilly, some blues and a new sort of energetic thing that lent itself perfectly to rock and roll. One of the 50's models for that more rockin' music was Eddie Cochran's "Summertime Blues," which didn't shuffle like most rock, blues and rockabilly at the time. Their arrangements of covers were really just skiffle interpretations. Bands like Gerry and the Pacemakers did the same thing at the same time with less fanfare. It would basically be the equivalent of an alternative band covering songs from the 80's - just an interpretation of an earlier song. While I'm on the subject, I should mention something else the Beatles invented: the use of open hi hats. The hi hat cymbals on drums had been used in jazz and rock mainly to keep time either by foot closing or striking them while closed. Ringo Starr beat them really hard wide open in the early days to the Beatles to create more energy. He found it was louder and nastier than just hitting the ride cymbal. They were the first to incorporate that type of drumming which has been used on virtually every rock record since. ------------------ How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters
I have several bootlegs of Jimi doing Sgt. Peppers. He played it quite a bit on stage in '67-'68. There are versions of it on record. As for Skiffle, John Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen, was a skiffle group. Skiffle was big in England because it didn't take much talent to play. A washboard, a tea-chest bass and a guitar were all that was needed to play this style of music. Once Paul and George joined the Quarrymen, they no longer played skiffle. ------------------ "For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Hamlet [This message has been edited by BobFinn* (edited July 16, 2001).]
Jeff and SFR, I think the important thing about covers anyways is not how many or how good are the Beatles' covers of other artists' music, but how many covers of BEATLES music can you find out there? My god there must be thousands! Whether you like other artists' interpretations of Beatles songs better is a matter of your personal taste. Personally, I mostly prefer the Beatles' own performances, with Joe Cocker's "Little Help from my Friends" a notable exception. Sorry, Ringo. Either way, it's a testament to the pure songwriting ability of John, Paul, and yes George (although I'm certain Harrison would not have been half the songwriter he was without the influence of Lennon & McCartney). ------------------ [This message has been edited by Lobo (edited July 16, 2001).]
