Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 21 Sep 19 - 02:12 AM

OK, I was mistaken. Bach destroyed baroque; it was Mozart who destroyed classical music. Bradman destroyed cricket, Phar Lap destroyed horseracing, Jesus destroyed religion, and Newton destroyed mathematics. Any questions?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Sep 19 - 04:43 PM

https://come-to-think.dreamwidth.org/31821.html

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Dtm
Date: 20 Sep 19 - 02:59 PM

Nobody killed R'n'R. We're still playing Chuck Berry.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Gordon Jackson
Date: 20 Sep 19 - 09:17 AM

Difficult to destroy something before it actually exists ...

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Sep 19 - 01:13 AM

GUEST,Gerry wrote: Bach destroyed classical music

That's really funny.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 20 Sep 19 - 12:45 AM

Mobettahclicky: Paul Whiteman-King of Jazz?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 20 Sep 19 - 12:36 AM

The book's title had a job to do and it did it well.

The subtitle how-ev-er: "An Alternative History of American Popular Music."

American pop is a monster. The bibliography would run 336+ pages. An "alternative history?" No way. Wald is a complete miss on American popular music in general and Paul Whiteman's jazz or Belafonte's calypso, in particular... by a country mile.

Paul Whiteman-King of Jazz?

Between Wald & Ken Burns one might think Paul Desmond was born & raised in a sterile test tube and Paul Whiteman licked jazz off a rock somewhere.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 19 Sep 19 - 11:35 PM

The Beatles destroyed rock 'n' roll, The Weavers destroyed folk music, Whiteman destroyed jazz..., Verdi destroyed opera, Bach destroyed classical music, and don't get me started on Hildegard von Bingen!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Slag
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 06:09 AM

Just lightly scanned this thread. I promise I be back and give it a careful read later. At the time of the Beatles' first appearence I thought they were novel but I was not wild about them. I was into the surfing scene, loved the music, the beach, the sport everything about it. The Beatles kind of chenged the direction of everything and that I didn't like. My age and limited perception made me dump all the blame on them. They were a shaping force but so many things were going on in the early 60's, it was a tsunami of cultural upheaval and they were just a part of it. The gave popular music a new direction.

What is amazing is they were so off key most of the time and they were NOT accomplished musicians and yet look at the impact they had! A real phenomena. Yup, they killed the Elvis and 50's style rock 'n roll or rather re-ordered it and added a dynamism to it that was, until then, unimaginable. In a way they opened up the genre to reveal it full potential as a music form.

It would be interesting to do something like a genealogical tree and identify different individuals and groups who have had a profound and shaping effect on the creation and direction of the various branches of music genrea. The Moody Blues were a very powerful forces when the launched Days of Future passed. That was new and it was a synthesis with classical music and added a legitimacy to rock that invited all generations to come and have a second listen. The oldsters were beginning to realize that rock wasn't just kid-stuff. Subject for a new thread? Sounds interesting to me and sure to generate much disscussion.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:30 PM

Would that they had!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Jim
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:10 PM

When you look beyond The Beatles, you can see how far they are away from everything else, beyond The Beatles !!!!!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 03:50 AM

How the Beatles destroyed Rock 'n' Roll, I think is an over reaction. They were the first of a kind and it was the first time that kids could have something of their very own until they were packaged and chocolate boxed for the masses which is why they had to experiment with unique sounds and be more creative. Perhaps if they had been managed differently from the start things would have been different, or maybe the kids might not have understood their creativity at that point making them a disaster who knows? Every one in Rock has an important place, the genius of Buddy Holly or the jamming of Chuck Berry which incidently was an great influence to the early Beatles. When the Beatles split and they decided not to ever get together again it was the right thing to do there were other good if not better musical talent on the horizon so getting out while the going was good was wise. At least we can praise the good stuff and criticise the stuff that wasn't quite so hot without hating them completely.

What is killing Rock 'n' Roll is the media selling pop pap to the young, Stock, Aitken and Waterman comes to mind from a little while back. Although sleazier (matter of opinion) Pussy Cat Dolls and the Saturdays, Lady Gaga and the like are packaging sex pop to the pink wearing pop pap youth which is, no matter how they dress it up (or undress) is still pap at the end of the day.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM

Maybe it's because "Won't Get Fooled" has lyrics that mean something.

And 17 minutes of self-indulgent melody-free synthesizer crap.

All of the doors' output came in 1967 and later.

I think that the studio phase of the Beatles' output was a continuation of the earlier phases -- they did what they thought was fun, and when they found the whiz-bang behind-the-scenes circuitry, they found out how much fun it could be to twiddle with it. John of course, under Yoko's influence, was interested in making avante garde "art" and that ended up with dreck like Revolution 9. But he also made Revolution, which is nothing if it isn't straight unpretentious rock and roll. And hardly a pastiche of anything.

The Beatles did a hell of a lot after SPLHCB that was very straightforward and not technical jiggery-pokery. A lot of Let It Be was very down-to-earth and homey. "Two of Us" is almost folk. "Get Back" is very simple and unpretentious rock with a wry smile. I'll stand Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun", and "Something" against 2/3 of anything in the same genre in 1968-1970.

Anybody who looks at post-MMT Beatles and only sees dial-twiddling has a very selective memory.

Overblown pretentious rock? 1973? Are we talking about the same 1973? The height of Jim Croce's fame. Beginnings of Bruce Springsteen's rising star (before his navel-gazing post-BitUSA phase). The height of funk, and the four-black-guys-in-satin-suits R&B sound. Elton John's early "fun" (if you will) phase. Houses of the Holy. Aerosmith's eponymous first. Piano Man (now there's a folk-structured song). Tull's Passion Play. BTO. Poco. Houses of the Holy. Doobie Brothers. Cat Stevens. Steve Miller (post-Space-Cowboy phase). ZZ Top. Steely Dan, master puncturers of pretension.

Sure there was pretentious stuff as well. ELO, Yes, Moody Blues (actually "I'm Just a Singer in a Rock and Roll Band" is one of their least pretentious songs!), Dark Side of the Moon, King Crimson, ya-da. But the mass of what you heard on the radio in those days was not overblown pretentious rock. I listened to the radio a lot in 1973. AM and FM both (back when that meant something!). And there's no way the majority of what was played was pretentious, overblown rock. That's just selective memory.

Quoting somebody from last year: Maybe it's because "Won't Get Fooled" has lyrics that mean something.

Oh dear. What a bad example. "Won't Get Fooled Again" was an overblown self-important rock "message" song interspersed with far too many minutes of totally melody-free Moog masturbation. It makes "Kashmir" look like a 2.5-minute dance record.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 12:11 AM

>>Paul Whiteman, who is widely condemned for almost destroying jazz by turning it from black dance music into white art music...<<

BS. He turned it into white DANCE music. Don't you white people flatter yourselves that it was art. The only reason white people say "art" is because they can't dance.   I saw a clip of James Brown playing live in front of a white audience. He stopped the song halfway through pissed off that they were still sitting in their seats. You don't go to a James Brown show to sit in your seat. He made everybody get up. "Get off your ass! Get Up!!"

And what destroyed rocknroll was Elvis. Real rocknroll was Fats Domino & Dave Bartholomew, Lloyd Price, Percy Mayfield, Al Hibbler, Johnny Ace, Joe Turner & Pete Johnson, Todd Rhodes, Ruth Brown, Wynonie Harris, Arthur Crudup, Billy Ward & the Dominoes, Roy Brown, Little Richard, Amos Milburn, Paul Hucklebuck Williams, The Clovers, Roy Montrell, B.B. King, Bobby Blue Bland, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, LaVern Baker, Peppermint Harris, T-Bone Walker, The Ravens, Sticks McGhee, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Young John Watson, Nolan Strong & the Diablos, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Muddy, Wild Bill Moore, King Porter, Tiny Bradshaw, Jimmy & Joe Liggins, Ike Turner & His Kings of Rhythm, Red Allen, Professor Longhair, Little Junior, Hank Ballad, Little Willie Littlefield, Shifty Henry, Chuck Willis, Guitar Slim, Little Willie John, Big Mama Thornton, Billy Davis, Earl Palmer, Shirley & Lee, CLyde McPhatter, Bill Doggett, Roy Milton, Lionel Hampton, etc.

THAT was rocknroll. When Alan Freed started his Moondog Radio Show in Cleveland in 1951, it was all black R&B, boogie-woogie and jump blues. It's theme song was "Blues for the Red Boy" by Todd Rhodes. They called it rocknroll as a code phrase for R&B pedaled to white kids. The phrase, although dating back to the late 10s or early 20s, was probably taken from Billy Ward & the Dominoes' "60 Minute Man."

When white artists saw the money being spent--out they came to do the same music. Elvis was at least original. Pat Boone and Georgia Gibbs were thieves. They were shameless. They were the perfect antidote to all the racial and social barriers rocknroll was smashing. Just put out the rocknroll hits redone by clean-cut white artists with all the sexuality removed (basically the same thing Paul Whiteman had done with jazz) and white kids felt safer buying those. As original and brilliant as Fat Domino was, he couldn't outsell Boone's covers of his material. Not hard to figure out when many of the white stations refused to play "race" records and would only play the white rip-off versions. Then came payola which nailed the coffin shut on rocknroll. Small labels pushing black artists--like Duke/Peacock--couldn't outpay big labels as RCA, Decca or Columbia to play their artists even though they had better artists and who mostly of not entirely black.

So you see, rocknroll is ONLY the black jump and R&B stuff and nothing else. Everything that followed called itself rocknroll but it was not. Rockabilly was country with a blues backbeat, for example. By the time the Beatles came along, it was long over.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 09:45 PM

It's true anybody who likes rock owes the Beatles a lot.   They really shook up the charts--against possible creeping Vegas-itis.   Their high-energy approach, wit, introduction of new instruments, and good harmonies were a real tonic on both sides of the Pond.

My thesis however, and it might be shared by the author of the book which is the origin of the thread, is that all of this had been accomplished before 1967.

Starting with Sgt Pepper, and continuing with some exceptions (e.g. Maxwell's Silver Hammer), they turned more and more away from music and wit, and succumbed to the temptations of twisting dials in a studio.



Paul Burke puts it wonderfully well:

"The Beatles' problem was finding out that they weren't pop musicians, they were Artists" .

That says it all.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Johnmc
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:01 PM

Bonzo asserted Pepper was pretty basic; I would cite For The Benefit of Mr Kite as an example of the originality and musical sophistication of the group. An then the lyrics, of course ! Try coming up with those chords sitting with a guitar.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Betsy
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:41 AM

The thread should be entitled How the Beatles broke the stranglehold of American and Texan music in Britain.
The B eatles were never Rock and Roll anyway - they were Original Popular Music.
At the age of 8 in 1955 and for my formative next few years - all I knew from the radio (Luxembourg), fairgrounds and wherever music was played, was American music - I didn't realise 'til the Beatles came along that I was from England / Britain.

God save the Beatles - we owe them SO much in the UK.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:16 PM

I think it would be some sort of musical structure that opens up like those pop-up tents.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 08:07 PM

Perhaps it might be the kind of chord that could only be played on a squeeze box...

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 08:00 PM

I think you're right--the "folding chord contruction" is a great technical term,and our sort of music here is a bit short on technical terms.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM

That sequence doesn't sound like any skiffle group I ever heard...

"Folding chord construction" has such an impressive sound to it. Even if McGuinn never said it, it deserves to have a meaning invented for it. Perhaps it could be where you play a chord as an arpeggio, and then close it up and play it as a chop...

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM

With a bit of rearranging, those are the chords to "Help!"--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:29 AM

G, Bm, Em, C, Am, to D?

I-iii-vi-IV-ii-V?

Seems doubtful. (But I get the point)

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:04 AM

I had that same question, McGrath--and it was reinforced by a feeling that I'd had that our poster didn't know anything about music--I did a bit of digging and found that a lot of the commentary posted here was really lifted from a thread that is about the roots of psychedelic music Last FM Psychedelic Music
The "Folding Chord Construction" comment is there, in a quote attributed to Roger McGuinn--I usually understand everything Roger is talking about, and I suspected that it was a misprint or something like that--I did a search and found an interview with him here McGuinn Interview, Modern Guitars Magazine, 2.15.06 Here is what he really said:

"The Beatles came out about that time and I got really jazzed by the Beatles. I loved what they were doing and they were doing a lot of passing chords. Like instead of just going like G, C, D, they'd go G, Bm, Em, C, Am, to D. So, the minor and passing chords I liked and, I thought these are really folk music chord changes. I kind of got it from what they were doing, I guess because they'd been a skiffle band."

So it was not "folding chord construction" it was "Folk music changes". My guess is that the English language text was translated to another language, and then that was translated back to English--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 06:52 PM

This is feeling a bit like a musical version of kids squaring up to each other with "MY Dad is bigger than YOUR Dad".

To step away from that for a moment, can anyone explain what "folding chord construction" (in GUEST Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:37 AM) actually means?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Eve Goldberg
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:39 PM

Riverdale Farm, you mean? It was great! I have played with Debbie a bunch of times and it's always fun to accompany her. We brought our little friend Eric and we met up with another friend and his son. Debbie and I only played for a couple of minutes but there were a whole bunch of storytellers, and we walked around and looked at the chickens and the sheep. I love Riverdale Farm!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:35 PM

how did the Riverdale gig go?

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Eve Goldberg
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:33 PM

GROAN!!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM

Eve, if you do write that music to acclaim. you'll be the "Toaster of the Town".

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Eve Goldberg
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 10:19 AM

Wow, thanks for posting that M.Ted, love it!

Actually, to be serious, I have heard some amazing music with "found sound" and/or industrial sounds-- including kitchen appliances.

As for the Beatles, I have absolutely no perspective because I love them too much. I love all their early pop stuff, I love SPLHCB, I love Abbey Road and the White Album and Let it Be. I have a hard time listening to those later releases of outtakes and alternate versions because they just sound WRONG to me, and my brain does not accept them.

There was certainly a lot of hype around them, but I don't think you can deny they were boundary-busting musicians whose music stands the test of time. I teach guitar lessons, mostly to adults, but the few kids that I teach all know and love the Beatles. I can't think of any other music from the sixties that so many teenagers will still listen to and like.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:51 AM

"..l nature of gender identification"

And don't forget, according to one feminist thinker, Beethoven's 9th illustrates the pent-up rage of a frustrated rapist.   So evidently, this phenomenon has been around for quite a while. We only needed intellectuals to explain it to us.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:45 AM

OK M. Ted, then you can hear my 20-CD collection of George/Tammy duets, accompanied by autoharp and ukulele.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM

You're just joking around, Eve, but they're not--Recycled Appliance Music

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Eve Goldberg
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 06:34 PM

Personally, I want to be remembered as a pop musician.

That's why my next album will consist of one 45-minute symphony created by using the sounds of electric kitchen appliances looped backwards, combined with multiple tracks of wine glasses and sitar.

The symphony is a meditation on the kitchen as a metaphor for the temporal nature of gender identification in a post-modern dialectic.

We expect it will get massive amounts of airplay on commercial radio and that I will make me a household name all over the world.

And you'll all be able to say "you knew me when..."

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 06:25 AM

we should all have such problems.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Paul Burke Cookieless
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 05:00 AM

I don't know:

Bonzo Dog
Baron Knights
Freddie and the Dreamers
Tiny Tim
Gary Glitter
Leonard Cohen...

The Beatles' problem was finding out that they weren't pop musicians, they were Artists.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:33 AM

Rap started with The Last Poets, who prove my point--but I know what you mean--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:35 PM

Oh, I don't know -- a lot of hiphop and rap is full of fun.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:51 AM

I do agree with the idea that music lost it's sense of humor with the advent of the Vietnam war--and this was true across the board--pop, rock, folk, jazz, and classical--and it continues to this very day--the only bright spot is polka music--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:40 PM

George Jones is actually one of my favorite singers, but I like Tammy Wynnette way more than Melba Montgomery--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Nelson
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM

The Beatles on one hand influenced loads of musicians to write and play their own songs. The problem is there hardly anyone who could combine great songcraft with experimental music.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 10:32 PM

Obviously it also depends on what you're looking for in popular music. I completely agree with PoppaGator that "I Only Have Eyes For You" is just a wonderful song. The echo chamber or whatever they used just adds to the dream atmosphere---but doesn't detract in the least from the great melody. It's also just great fun--and fun to sing.

That's probably another thing I have against Sgt. Pepper. Starting then, the songs which are fun to sing became harder and harder to find. And Rubber Soul was the last album with mostly songs the Beatles themselves tried to do out of the studio. After that, there were more and more which could only be done in the studio.

Fun pop songs--songs you can sing if you can carry a tune-- are lopsidedly concentrated before Sgt Pepper. There are some after, but the overwhelming majority are before.

I suppose this is partly a lament for the sunnier, more upbeat world we had before the Vietnam war heated up.   And it's of course ironic that during the whole time pop rock was so sweet, we were under the shadow of nuclear annihilation.

Of course there were some really fun songs after 1966. Foundations--Baby, Now That I've Found You, and Build Me Up Buttercup--were fun to belt out. Beyond bubblegum but still fun.

But there weren't many. A steady diet of pop music reflecting the chaos and hopelessness of modern life isn't really that attractive.   Just like it isn't in modern classical music either--yet it's what lots of modern composers seem to think is what they need to do.

By the way, MTed, I'll be glad to listen to your VU medley--if you're willing to listen to my 10 CD collection of George Jones/ Melba Montgomery--accompanied by autoharp and ukulele, of course.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 07:18 AM

As I noted in my last posting, "Cover of the Rolling Stone" was a devastating satire on rock of that era.   And there was a reason. Shel and Dr Hook knew what they were doing-- overblown pretentious rock was perhaps the dominant feature of the scene at that point (1973, approximately.)

And the real plague started with Sgt. Pepper. (Though I'm also not a big fan of the backwards loops, and other technological "creativity" in Rubber
Soul either).   There's nothing wrong with sitar and other actual instruments--Norwegian Wood is an excellent use, as I recall. And Rubber Soul has some absolutely wonderful songs. Sgt Pepper has far fewer.   "Fixing a Hole", "Good Morning", "Within You Without You", "She's Leaving Home", all have very weak melodies, if any.

Geschmacksache (matter of taste), obviously.

But Led Zeppelin, (except Stairway, which has a discernible melody), Cream, ELP, Genesis, Hendrix, Yes, all leave me totally cold. I'm not in the least impressed by pyrotechnics in rock. (Just like I'm not smitten with bluegrass virtuosi who think the person who gets to the end of the song first wins.)   The apocryphal comment on Mozart, which does not fit Mozart, does fit every one of these in my judgment--too many notes.

If I want pyrotechnics in music I can easily go to Rimsky-Korsakov, Wagner overtures, Verdi overtures, Orff (Carmina) etc. Making a guitar scream and moan can't hold a candle to these and other real composers, as far as I'm concerned--even for color and spectacular effects.

Maybe it's because I'm actually far more vocally and harmonically oriented--and even more towards co-operation in music rather than showing off.   Being in a good group singing the Brahms Requiem, or Tallis Lamentations etc, for instance is an unearthly experience.   I never found Hendrix, Cream etc, to be anything of the kind.

And by the way, I would not lump Santana in with the rest--Latin influence makes a huge difference and Santana has more atmosphere than the rest of the above rock groups can dream of. Also, the Band (Big Pink) is great stuff--and actually down to earth and singable--which makes a huge difference.

If the author dates the onset of serious hardening of the arteries in rock to Sgt Pepper, I think he's on solid ground.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM

Commercial music always has the same problem--they find something good and when it catches on, they need more and more, so they start creating "product" for their "market" and then it gets scary--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 02:48 PM

Actually lots of recent world music is pretty dire -- as if they took the worst of western music instead of the best.   Traditional world music is amazing, ear opening, creative -- and then, voila, submerged in derivative ghastliness (my opinion).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Bill
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 01:52 PM

"Art is not a sack race." -Jim Harrison

I love The Beatles AND The Beach Boys. I agree 1966 was a peak for pop-rock, BUT I love a lot that came after (The White Album, Philly soul, reggae, The Clash, etc.) I don't feel the need to choose one group or album over another or say "this is definitively better than that."

Yes, popular music today is mostly horrible and robotic, but if you ignore top 40 and look for obscure stuff by musicians who actually play instruments and sing you'll find quality. Not like '66 but it's no fun living totally in the past.

Besides, there's a world of good pop out there if you go beyond English-language music. What I most hate about American media is the boring provincialism. There'a a lot of fantastic music that we never hear on radio or see performed on U.S. television. For example, Brazilian pop, especially since 1968 and the psychedelia-inspired Tropicalia movement, is often brilliant. Check out the best albums from the 1970s by Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil, etc. Then there is Afro-pop. And rock en espanol artists from Latin America like Julieta Venegas, Cafe Tacuba, Los Fabulosos Cadillacs, who represent the true heart of rock music after 1990.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 04:12 PM

I don't think the main influence on the Beatles use of different chords was folk or skiffle. In Hamburg they found themselves learning tunes like "Besame Mucho" and "Till There Was You," and others, so as to service the servicemen. If you listen to the Beatles "Live at the BBC", they were magpies.

(Thanks M.Ted, you are sure right about Harry Partch records, no one has them anywhere -- have to get them online. But thanks for the tips.)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 03:58 PM

"In Britain, the Beatles are seen as delivering us from soft teeniebopper pop"

They also saved us from some pretty dire stuff that was coming out of the U.S.A. at that time. Revenge is so sweet....

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 03:16 PM

Worth pointing out that The Beatles had Phil Spector produce "Let it Be", and that he then
worked with John on "Imagine", and George on "All Things Must Pass" and "The Concert for
Bangladesh"--clearly, they didn't have a problem with sounding like Phil Spector--

And, not withstanding Roger's comment, The Byrds,   first hit single, Dylan's "Mr. Tabourine Man" featured Brian and Phil's Gold Star Wrecking Crew, and if you think about it when you're listening, you realize that the Folk/Rock Backbeat is the Beach Boys backbeat--

On top of that, I was recently reading a quote from Henry Diltz, about recording "This Could Be the Night", the Modern Folk Quartet's hit-that-never-was, and talking about how Brian Wilson was sitting in the control booth, wearing his famous bathrobe.

The point being that, whatever our perceptions, these guys all knew each other, shared ideas, worked together, and supported one another--George and Roger both played Rickenbacker 12-strings--coincidence? I think not!

(PS-Both those guys are on my short list of great guitarists, and I periodically rue the
day I walked out of a music store in South Jersey without buying the Rickenbacker 12 that I'd playing for 20 minutes--it was gone when I went back the next week, and I've never seen another one that I could afford)

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 02:33 PM

The main effect of the Beatles was that record companies started looking out for musicians who wrote their own songs, rather than relying on songwriters. Obviously, the songwriters weren't happy with this...

Anyway, the main influence on the Beatles was Buddy Holly and the Crickets. Even their name was a homage. So blame Buddy Holly!