If Music Could Talk

Heston wrote:

Flex wrote:

Heston wrote:

Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.

What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.

My two points were fully consistent with eachother.

You really believe that even though the Rolling Stones formed before the Beatles had released any music (except maybe "Ain't She Sweet"), they would have never formed if the Beatles hadn't existed?

How?

Addendum: Yeah, just looked it up. "Love Me Do" hadn't even been released when the Stones formed.

Flex wrote:

Heston wrote:

Flex wrote:

Heston wrote:

Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.

What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.

My two points were fully consistent with eachother.

You really believe that even though the Rolling Stones formed before the Beatles had released any music (except maybe "Ain't She Sweet"), they would have never formed if the Beatles hadn't existed?

How?

Addendum: Yeah, just looked it up. "Love Me Do" hadn't even been released when the Stones formed.

By "owed their existence" I meant the Beatles opened the floodgates for bands of their ilk to have commercial success. The Stones hadn't even considered writing songs until the Beatles broke the mould of how bands should be operating. The Stones would have been just another obscure blues band without the Beatles upping the ante.

Heston wrote:

Flex wrote:

Heston wrote:

Flex wrote:

Heston wrote:

What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.

My two points were fully consistent with eachother.

You really believe that even though the Rolling Stones formed before the Beatles had released any music (except maybe "Ain't She Sweet"), they would have never formed if the Beatles hadn't existed?

How?

Addendum: Yeah, just looked it up. "Love Me Do" hadn't even been released when the Stones formed.

By "owed their existence" I meant the Beatles opened the floodgates for bands of their ilk to have commercial success. The Stones hadn't even considered writing songs until the Beatles broke the mould of how bands should be operating. The Stones would have been just another obscure blues band without the Beatles upping the ante.

To be picky, Johnny Kidd was writing rock n' roll originals well before any of the aforementioned (Please Don't Touch '59, Shakin All Over '60)

threecoffins wrote:To be picky, Johnny Kidd was writing rock n' roll originals well before any of the aforementioned (Please Don't Touch '59, Shakin All Over '60)

Nope. Without the Beatles going back in time and teaching him the meaning of ROCK, he would have just been playing obscure blues music.

Edits: I meant it as a toss off, but I just realized, I don't want to add anything that might extend this conversation any more.

Flex wrote:

threecoffins wrote:To be picky, Johnny Kidd was writing rock n' roll originals well before any of the aforementioned (Please Don't Touch '59, Shakin All Over '60)

Nope. Without the Beatles going back in time and teaching him the meaning of ROCK, he would have just been playing obscure blues music.

Natch

threecoffins wrote:To be picky, Johnny Kidd was writing rock n' roll originals well before any of the aforementioned (Please Don't Touch '59, Shakin All Over '60)

Yeah, but the Beatles weren't writing your average rock n' roll songs. Their chord sequences and arrangements were on another level to basic rock n' roll.

Heston wrote:

threecoffins wrote:To be picky, Johnny Kidd was writing rock n' roll originals well before any of the aforementioned (Please Don't Touch '59, Shakin All Over '60)

Yeah, but the Beatles weren't writing your average rock n' roll songs. Their chord sequences and arrangements were on another level to basic rock n' roll.

If you listen to the two Pirates singles I mentioned, they're hardly your typical 12-bar blues that say Vince Taylor was doing. The Beatles are undeniably great and they inspired a lot of bands to form and write originals, but the blueprint was definitely already drawn up. The Pirates were just too weird and scary to be successful anywhere else.

Edit:

threecoffins wrote:If you listen to the two Pirates singles I mentioned, they're hardly your typical 12-bar blues that say Vince Taylor was doing. The Beatles are undeniably great and they inspired a lot of bands to form and write originals, but the blueprint was definitely already drawn up. The Pirates were just too weird and scary to be successful anywhere else.

Why do you hate the Beatles so much?

Flex wrote:

threecoffins wrote:If you listen to the two Pirates singles I mentioned, they're hardly your typical 12-bar blues that say Vince Taylor was doing. The Beatles are undeniably great and they inspired a lot of bands to form and write originals, but the blueprint was definitely already drawn up. The Pirates were just too weird and scary to be successful anywhere else.

Why do you hate the Beatles so much?

Because it's cool, okay!?

threecoffins wrote:

Heston wrote:

threecoffins wrote:To be picky, Johnny Kidd was writing rock n' roll originals well before any of the aforementioned (Please Don't Touch '59, Shakin All Over '60)

Yeah, but the Beatles weren't writing your average rock n' roll songs. Their chord sequences and arrangements were on another level to basic rock n' roll.

If you listen to the two Pirates singles I mentioned, they're hardly your typical 12-bar blues that say Vince Taylor was doing. The Beatles are undeniably great and they inspired a lot of bands to form and write originals, but the blueprint was definitely already drawn up. The Pirates were just too weird and scary to be successful anywhere else.

Edit:

I know both those Pirates songs very well, great songs they are too. They're still rooted in the blues though, the Beatles queered the pitch by adding music hall and classical influences to their songs. Without being too muso, songs like "She Loves You" were incorporating unexpected chord changes and harmonies to a well worn template.

If nothing else The Beatles are probably best because no one else at the time thought to collaborate with Jay-Z:
[youtube][/youtube]

Heston wrote: I know both those Pirates songs very well, great songs they are too. They're still rooted in the blues though, the Beatles queered the pitch by adding music hall and classical influences to their songs. Without being too muso, songs like "She Loves You" were incorporating unexpected chord changes and harmonies to a well worn template.

Again, you're right. I never was looking to deny the Beatles their due. All I'm saying is that previous acts had laid the groundwork for British R&B bands breaking away from the American paradigm. I'm also saying that without the Beatles, an inherently adventurous band like the Who would have still ventured away from the blues, although perhaps an traditionalist band like the Stones wouldn't, for lack of being forced in that direction.

threecoffins wrote:Again, you're right. I never was looking to deny the Beatles their due. All I'm saying is that previous acts had laid the groundwork for British R&B bands breaking away from the American paradigm. I'm also saying that without the Beatles, an inherently adventurous band like the Who would have still ventured away from the blues, although perhaps an traditionalist band like the Stones wouldn't, for lack of being forced in that direction.

Don't forget Bob Dylan back in the States, he likely would have made Highway 61 Revisited (or something) whether the Beatles existed or not. He's generally considered (and I would consider him) the other half of the puzzle. I don't know what that adds to the discussion, other than the basic point that the Beatles aren't the Alpha and the Omega, which isn't meant to disrespect their achievements in any way.

Flex wrote:

threecoffins wrote:Again, you're right. I never was looking to deny the Beatles their due. All I'm saying is that previous acts had laid the groundwork for British R&B bands breaking away from the American paradigm. I'm also saying that without the Beatles, an inherently adventurous band like the Who would have still ventured away from the blues, although perhaps an traditionalist band like the Stones wouldn't, for lack of being forced in that direction.

Don't forget Bob Dylan back in the States, he likely would have made Highway 61 Revisited (or something) whether the Beatles existed or not. He's generally considered (and I would consider him) the other half of the puzzle. I don't know what that adds to the discussion, other than the basic point that the Beatles aren't the Alpha and the Omega, which isn't meant to disrespect their achievements in any way.

That's all I'm saying as well.

threecoffins wrote:That's all I'm saying as well.