If Music Could Talk

Heston wrote: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.

What you're describing, tho, is innovation. Tremendous innovation in terms of its effect, especially on other musicians, but it's not original. The template was still intact, with others able to emphasize or deemphasize what the Beatles brought to the form. This isn't a bad thing or a criticism—there isn't much room (if any) for originality. If you really want to trace things back enough, the R & B musicians of the 50s weren't original, but modifying prior forms. None of this in any way diminishes what the Beatles created and left behind.

Dr. Medulla wrote:What you're describing, tho, is innovation. Tremendous innovation in terms of its effect, especially on other musicians, but it's not original. The template was still intact, with others able to emphasize or deemphasize what the Beatles brought to the form. This isn't a bad thing or a criticism—there isn't much room (if any) for originality. If you really want to trace things back enough, the R & B musicians of the 50s weren't original, but modifying prior forms. None of this in any way diminishes what the Beatles created and left behind.

Oh great, you along with threecoffins hate the Beatles too.

edit: clarification for who is doing all the hating

Flex wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:What you're describing, tho, is innovation. Tremendous innovation in terms of its effect, especially on other musicians, but it's not original. The template was still intact, with others able to emphasize or deemphasize what the Beatles brought to the form. This isn't a bad thing or a criticism—there isn't much room (if any) for originality. If you really want to trace things back enough, the R & B musicians of the 50s weren't original, but modifying prior forms. None of this in any way diminishes what the Beatles created and left behind.

Oh great, you along with threecoffins hate the Beatles too.

edit: clarification for who is doing all the hating

Wait, aren't we arguing that white people are better musicians than black people?

threecoffins wrote:

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.

Agreed too.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Heston wrote: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.

What you're describing, tho, is innovation. Tremendous innovation in terms of its effect, especially on other musicians, but it's not original. The template was still intact, with others able to emphasize or deemphasize what the Beatles brought to the form. This isn't a bad thing or a criticism—there isn't much room (if any) for originality. If you really want to trace things back enough, the R & B musicians of the 50s weren't original, but modifying prior forms. None of this in any way diminishes what the Beatles created and left behind.

You're right again.

Dr. Medulla wrote:Wait, aren't we arguing that white people are better musicians than black people?

Hey, you're right. Welcome to America, my friend!

I still detect a bit of an anti-Limey stance here.
Heaven forfend we could have showed you how it's done.

On a related note:

Flex wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:Wait, aren't we arguing that white people are better musicians than black people?

Hey, you're right. Welcome to America, my friend!

As David Cross said of the Atlanta suburb where he grew up, it stays white out here later than anywhere else.

Heston wrote:I still detect a bit of an anti-Limey stance here.
Heaven forfend we could have showed you how it's done.

My record collection is massively unbalanced towards English and Scottish bands. Be it pop or punk, I've always found the British approach more to my liking.







Nevertheless: soccer.

Flex wrote:On a related note:

That should be adapted to a boot compilation, title and cover intact.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Heston wrote:I still detect a bit of an anti-Limey stance here.
Heaven forfend we could have showed you how it's done.

My record collection is massively unbalanced towards English and Scottish bands. Be it pop or punk, I've always found the British approach more to my liking

Good on you Squire. All's well that ends well.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Heston wrote:I still detect a bit of an anti-Limey stance here.
Heaven forfend we could have showed you how it's done.

My record collection is massively unbalanced towards English and Scottish bands. Be it pop or punk, I've always found the British approach more to my liking.

I probably like more american music that Hooky, but consider that the other two bands being discussed as capable innovation even if the Beatles didn't exist were the Stones and the Who. Both of whom were, last time I checked, British.

I guess eventually I brought up Bob Dylan, but he was approaching rock n roll from a pretty different angle than the Beatles et al. Two different parts of the equation (fused by later groups like the Byrds).

Flex wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Heston wrote:I still detect a bit of an anti-Limey stance here.
Heaven forfend we could have showed you how it's done.

My record collection is massively unbalanced towards English and Scottish bands. Be it pop or punk, I've always found the British approach more to my liking.

I probably like more american music that Hooky, but consider that the other two bands being discussed as capable innovation even if the Beatles didn't exist were the Stones and the Who. Both of whom were, last time I checked, British.

I guess eventually I brought up Bob Dylan, but he was approaching rock n roll from a pretty different angle than the Beatles et al. Two different parts of the equation (fused by later groups like the Byrds).

I need closure before I go to bed.
OK, I'm wrong.

Flex wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Heston wrote:I still detect a bit of an anti-Limey stance here.
Heaven forfend we could have showed you how it's done.

My record collection is massively unbalanced towards English and Scottish bands. Be it pop or punk, I've always found the British approach more to my liking.

I probably like more american music that Hooky, but consider that the other two bands being discussed as capable innovation even if the Beatles didn't exist were the Stones and the Who. Both of whom were, last time I checked, British.

I guess eventually I brought up Bob Dylan, but he was approaching rock n roll from a pretty different angle than the Beatles et al. Two different parts of the equation (fused by later groups like the Byrds).

I for one, like all international expressions of American pop music forms.