Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:03 PM

Never understood the reverence for Pet Sounds. Apart from one or two cuts, it seems to me to be sophomoric.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:13 PM

"Pet Sounds" was remarkable and ground-breaking in regard to the sound it created. Listeners primarily interested in lyrical content, and/or even melodic creativity, are sort of missing the point. It was all about the sonic atmospehre that Brian Wilson was able to create.

My nominee for most atmosphric recording of all time, incidentally, predates the "knob-twisting" art-rock era by at least a full decade: "I Only Have Eyes for You" as performed by The Flamingos.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:25 PM

The White album is a good double album with a REALLY great single album buried inside.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:35 PM

Sgt Pepper was not really the first album by the Beatles to experiment studio as an instrument. Rubber Soul which influenced Brian Wilson was the first signs by the Beatles starting to experiment in the studio and then Revolver.

BUT...the commercial success of The Beatles, coupled with their progressiveness - because, let's face it, "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" were huge leaps - created an industry environment in which experimentation and exploration were encouraged, with regard of course for the bottom line but maybe (?) a little less blatant regard than today. (Maybe?) They really went way beyond the restrictions of two guitars, drums, and bass sound. Even their use of strings was way different than say what Buddy Holly was doing in the 50's

You can't dismiss the Beatles on how they recorded their music and it's impact on popular music. I agree the music is what matters but you can't dismiss what the Beatles did in the studio. Pet Sounds is a continuation of Phil Spector though the music is more complex and it influenced loads of musicians. The Beatles had influences as everybody else but the studio as an instrument for creating psychedelic effects via tape speed manipulation, backward music, and pre- recorded loops was different than what Brian Wilson and Phil Spector did.

Any doubters should go listen "Tomorrow Never Knows" immediately. There wasn't anything in 1966 that even resembles it. As nuts as Freak Out! and The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators probably were at the time, they're still essentially live-instrumental, blues-influenced records. They were not touching the sounds on that track. Nobody else was doing that stuff back then. Much of pop music is based on loops and an up-front bass & drum sound.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:50 PM

I'm not dismissive of Sgt P, or the Beatles, but they are only part of the story, and I would hold up "Good Vibrations", recorded in early 1966--as proof that Brian Wilson was leading, rather than following--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:56 PM

Well "Good Vibrations" was finished in October of 1966 months after Revolver was released and by the time "Good Vibrations was finished it was influenced by the Beatles Revolver. Then again

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

"Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, "I really wasn't quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before".

Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, Smile. Wilson first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through. He then remarked to his passenger that The Beatles had already reached the sound The Beach Boys had wanted to achieve.

---

Please note that anonymous posting is no longer allowed at Mudcat. Use a consistent name [in the 'from' box] when you post, or your messages risk being deleted.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 08:55 PM

Revolver was released well after the main recording sessions for GV were completed--but Brian and Sir Paul are members of the Mutual Admiration Society, so it's all good--

The story about what happened to "Smile" is considerably more complex, and interesting, than that, there is a book for die hard fans--when I finally got to hear it, I was pretty amazed, and not just because it was finished. I suspect it is much different than it was, or would have been back in 1967--it would have lost the audiences then, but now that they've grown up, I think it speaks to them.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:08 PM

I think that you can make fairly credible arguement that Sgt Pepper led a lot of performers to aspire to create things on a scale that they ultimately couldn't manage.   Ultimately, Rock has tended to work best as a three minute single, with a very few exceptions, SP being one--even the holy grail of pop music, the "concept album" needed to have a strong single to succeed, and, as Michael Jackson established, the more singles it has, the better the album.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Art Thieme
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:45 PM

I think everything derived from Ray Stevens' seminal arrangements for "Deep Purple" and Misty." Everything before those two, and after them as well would never have happened---if not for Ray.

(ART THIEME ;-)

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Midas
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:00 AM

In all honesty the Beatles were more radical with their style than the Beach Boys. Like the statement above me the Beatles went away beyond the normal two guitar, bass, drums, and keyboard sound. It sounds like revisionist history but the facts are "Good Vibrations" was finished way after tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Eleanor Rigby" was recorded. "Good Vibrations" was finished in October of 1966 and the Beatles tracks was finished in April of 1966 about a half year earlier. The Beach Boys were more like "Baroque Pop rather than the psychedelic experimental nature of the Beatles songs.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" has pre-recorded loops, and drones from Indian instruments, Norwegian Wood" would include modes like Mixolydian and Dorian Modes in one song. "Love You To" is clearly based on Indian modal practice: the tamboura drones sa and pa (tonic and dominant notes of the mode), the tabla sets forth a sixteen-beat tala (rhythm), the introductory improvisation in the alap follows Indian melodic practice, and as Harrison stated, he was trying to express himself in Hindu terms. "I'm Only Sleeping" has backward guitar solos, "I Want To Tell You" with it's flat 9th dissonance is derived from diminished harmony actually a few of the Beatles tracks combines dissonance with a keen sense of melodies in which "Strawberry Fields Forever" takes that to great lengths.

This was a new turn for the Beatles and for rock music in general and we have not go to Pepper yet.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 May 09 - 09:48 PM

Please don't trot out all that stuff on my account--I went to music school, studied Shoenberg, Harry Partch, and played Balkan and Middle Eastern music to boot, so modes, and dissonance, and even playing music backwards are pretty much business as usual--and none of it was new in 1966-

The truth of the matter is that the "psychedelic" effects in 60's music tended to be used for the "wow" effect, and they got old awful fast. Bottom line on it is, say what you will, "Tomorrow Never Knows" will never beat "California Girls"--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 31 May 09 - 03:10 AM

Well, "A Day in the Life" alone beats all of Pet Sounds.

What would you recommend of Harry Partch's? I always wanted to hear some of his stuff.

yurs,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Midas
Date: 31 May 09 - 10:59 AM

Hey Ted for what rock bands were doing no one was using backwards guitar solos and using thick sitar soundscapes in fact jazz musicians or rock musicians were not doing anything like "Love You To" or "Tomorrow Never Knows".

I think your love of the Beach Boys is blinding your opinion of what the Beatles were doing musically. The Beach Boys were still sounding like Phil Spector while the Beatles were pushing the boundaries of pop music. "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" makes Pet Sounds sound dated.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 May 09 - 02:40 PM

Of course, the UK perspective on the Beatles is very different than the USA view. In Britain, the Beatles are seen as delivering us from soft teeniebopper pop music( Adam Faith etc). Also, in the early 60s in Britain, access to American pop/rock/soul etc was very limited. The BBC virtually refused to acknowledge rock music, and simply hoped it would go away. And,in those days, there was only one radio broadcaster in the UK: The BBC. There were no regional pop/rock stations, and no independent radio stations. Dire times!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM

Midas--you've got a a bad case of perserveration. Wake up. Smell the coffee. Love to You and Tomorrow Never Knows are not the Alpha and Omega of Rock music nor even of the Beatles music.

I actually like the Beatles, a lot. But there are a lot of other, and sometimes better, things out there. I doubt, for instance, that any of the fab four could have held their own with John Coltrane. And, though their music is highly creative, extremely listenable, and has remained popular over the years, it hasn't been the primary driving force in pop/rock music over these last forty years.   

As far as Brian Wilson goes, there is, and always has been a kind of melodic and harmonic development in his music that no one else in rock had. And the dance beat, which is really what rock and roll is all about, is never far away.


PeterT--

It is kind of hard to find any Harry Partch stuff, so don't pass anything up that you come across. Beyond that, "Barstow" is probably the most accessible, and I've always been fond of "Daphne of the Dunes"--however, the master work is "Delusion of the Fury" which is available both as a CD and as a DVD-

Here's the decription from the Innova catalog:

"Delusion of the Fury is a 72' totally-integrated, corporeal, microtonal, elemental work of ritual theater, incorporating almost all of Partch's hand-built orchestra of sculptural instruments. Using mime, dance, music, vocalizations, lighting, and costume, Partch presents two tales concerning reconciliation of life and death, one after a Japanese Noh drama, the other after an Ethiopian folk tale."

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:37 AM

Again, Ted I don't dislike the Beach Boys but they were barely rock and roll after they started out being a surf rock band. The Beatles were commented early on for their melodic and harmonic development. As for a song like "Love You To" maybe it's not great to you or compares to Coltrane. Then again at least the Beatles attempted in "Love You To", a genuinely Indian-styled usage of mode, melody, rhythm and instrumentation. I hardly think anyone has been more influential to pop music or rock music than the Beatles. I don't hear any influence in the modern rock scene by the Beatles mentors like Elvis or Chuck Berry.

Roger McGuinn of the Byrds

As I said, we were influenced by The Beatles, and we wanted to be a band like that, and when I was working with Bobby Darin, and then in the Brill Building, my job was to listen to the radio, and emulate the songs that were out there. I had already been working on mixing The Beatles' music with folk music in Greenwich Village, and I had noticed that they were using folk-influenced chords in their music. They used passing chords that were not common in rock'n'roll and pop songs of that time. I remember listening to them, and thinking that the Beatles were using folding chord construction. That comes from their skiffle roots, they will have learned those chords in their skiffle days, and just brought them into their own writing."

Bob Dylan

"They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go.

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!

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: 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' 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: 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: 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' 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' 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: 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' 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' 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' 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: 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: 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: 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' 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: 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' 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' 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: 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' 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' 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 - 04:33 PM

GROAN!!

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 - 04:39 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: 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' 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 08:00 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 - 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 - 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: 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.