Comment from: shawnkilroy [Member] Email
this is the best question i've ever been asked.
07/23/07 @ 08:06
Comment from: dr. john [Member] Email
This discussion seems guided by the "Great Men of History" belief, that is, that individuals, not larger collective movements, are responsible for history.

I disagree with this belief, especially with with regards to the question raised. There were plenty of innovative performers at the time, such as The Who, Hendrix, Dylan.

The world didn't need the Beatles to come along and make history; a larger social movement made it.

07/23/07 @ 13:43
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Dr. John, I'm not sure that I follow. Who's to say, then, whether The Who, Hendrix, and Dylan were actually innovative or whether they filled a role created by a larger social movement? Seriously, what the heck are you talking about in terms of the music of The Beatles or any of these artists?
07/23/07 @ 13:52
Comment from: dr. john [Member] Email
First off, are you really questioning whether The Who, Hendrix, and Dylan were innovative? A short answer: yes they were. Just in their guitar playing alone they were rewriting what the rules(The Who: controlled feedback, Hendrix: lead, Dylan electrifying folk).

The Beatles did not drop in from another planet. They were a product of a time and place. What I'm saying is if you removed the Beatles, yeah you wouldn't have their music, but you would still have all the cultural energies that determined their music (and which all the bands at the time were feeding off of).

The question is not really about the music of the Beatles, it is a question of how "unique" and "irreplacable" they were.

Yeah their music was great, I'm not denying that. But if you're looking for someone who changed history, I'd be more inclined to go with Dylan.
07/23/07 @ 14:51
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Dr. John wrote:
First off, are you really questioning whether The Who, Hendrix, and Dylan were innovative?

No, but now I'm questioning whether I was not clear enough in my use of sarcasm:)

Without comparing anyone's uniqueness, I'm still not sure that you've answered how, musically, The Beatles' contributions would be replaced, how musical history would have been changed, etc.

Granted, we're speaking hypothetically and with knowledge of the absurdity of the entire venture, but I spent some time playing guitar with an 8-year-old boy this weekend. The kid's really good, and he wanted to show me some stuff he was learning from his Beatles book. As I played along with him, I was quickly reminded of why I never got that good on guitar and why I never made much effort to learn and remember other people's songs. That same Beatles book for guitar was one of my first music books, and every time I was getting into playing a Beatles song some stinking augmented 11th chord would pop up. The hell with remembering that stuff! I thought way back then and just this past Saturday. Later in the day, as I tried to recall some songs I could remember, more or less, from start to finish, I hit on a wealth of Who songs: "Substitute", "I'm a Boy", "Can't Explain"... All tremendous songs but all songs only a step or two ahead of the works of any of rock's founding fathers and mothers. Not a stinking augmented 11th chord in the batch!

So what I'm asking is - again, leaving degree of uniqueness and innovation aside - what would these "cultural energies" be without the augmented 11th chords, the Rock Superhero Powers, and the like? And would these energies be anywhere near the same? I don't know. I'm not convinced that clips of hippies dancing in Golden Gate Park interspersed with news footage from Vietnam with "For What It's Worth" playing would be quite as significant without the contributions of a handful of humans who happened to be clicking during those times.

Who knows, this may be one of those cases in which we really agree with each other and don't yet know it.
07/23/07 @ 15:03
Comment from: mwall [Member] Email
Actually, Mr. Mod, I'm more in agreement with you on this question than on the previous "half a career" question.

The Beatles aren't SIMPLY the function of a time and place; they're also about the unique skills they brought to that time and place. I know that art is social, Dr. John, but it's not merely social; individuals do bring to it a specific set of conditions.

Rarely in the history of any art has an artist managed to be both earth-shatteringly popular and incredibly innovative, and to be that innovative without losing their audience. Dylan did this too of course, so if the question was which did the most to change rock and roll, that's a tough call. Dylan brought the music linguistic complexity and emotional/social depth; in that regard the Beatles were his followers, to the extent that they ever made it there. The Beatles did more to expand the possibilities in the SOUND of rock and roll.

The question with the Beatles then is this; would the array of sound possible within rock have been as complete without The Beatles?

I think the answer is probably yes. But what there would not be would be one band at the center of so many changes simultaneously. There did not have to be a band as popular and as original simultaneously as The Beatles were. Some band would have done an 11th chord. But they wouldn't have done all these other things too.




07/23/07 @ 17:38
Comment from: mwall [Member] Email
And the other thing is this: would everyone have cared so MUCH about rock and roll without the phenomenon of The Beatles? My guess is they might have cared a little less. It wasn't like rock and roll was the only thing going on in the sixties.
07/23/07 @ 17:41
Comment from: Al [Member] Email
Anyone who argues against the Beatles as *the* force of the '60s as Dr. John does I think has to explain why it wasn't some other band. Why was no other band even close, if it was the times and not the individual?

Not that the times weren't important; they were. But, the Beatles had so much that no other band had - unbelieveable musical talent, personalities, a savvy manager, a producer, cool like no others, and on and on. If it wasn't The Beatles I don't know who it was going to be.

The Beatles vs Dylan is a question I've long pondered (and is probably worthy of a separate thread). I mentioned recently that it would be interesting to debate which artist had the largest combined musical/cultural impact. I threw out Sinatra, The Beatles, Dylan, and Michael Jackson as possibilities. As a huge fan of the first three, I've never come to any conclusion of my own. I love to read the musings of RTH on this.
07/23/07 @ 19:09
Comment from: mwall [Member] Email
Sounds like another worthwhile thread, but if we were to limit it to American music and offshoots, these would be the contenders, to my mind:

Louis Armstrong
Duke Ellington
Charlie Parker
Frank Sinatra (maybe)
Hank Williams
Muddy Waters
Elvis Presley
The Beatles
Bob Dylan

Not quite making the cut:

Billie Holiday
Robert Johnson
Dizzy Gillespie
Miles Davis
James Brown

07/23/07 @ 19:22
Comment from: 2000 Man [Member] Email
I can't agree with you on that, dr. john. I think Jeff Beck did more with distortion than The Who, and was usually sooner. But without The Beatles, no one in the US would have ever heard The Yardbirds or The Who for that matter. Beatlemania was almost as powerful a force on 60's culture as the Vietnam War. The Beatles were everywhere, all the time. While I think there were certainly bands as worthy (if not more) to listen to musically, no band has ever had the impact of The Beatles, and with the way media is fragmented today, I doubt any band ever will.
07/23/07 @ 19:56
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Feel free to let that Beatles vs Dylan debate take place here. I'm currently having a little trouble getting my head around it. I'm also scratching my head over Townsman Mwall's inclusion of The Beatles in his list of "American music and its offshoots," but I think I know what he's getting at.
07/23/07 @ 22:39
Comment from: dr. john [Member] Email
Good points 2000 man. But as far as Beatle-mania goes, what specific cultural effects were the Beatles solely responsible for? One that comes to mind is the uproar over Lennon's "We're more popular than Jesus" remark.

What others were there? And did any have the impact of when Dylan went electric?
07/24/07 @ 12:16
Comment from: saturnismine [Member] Email
ummm....common sense (mostly derided in academia, and unfairly, I think) tells us that it's not *either* "great individuals" (in the Burckhardtian sense) *or* social / cultural contexts (in the Foucaultian sense) that shape human history, it's BOTH. In (viable) theory and practice (which always trumps theory), both "great" individuals and culture exist -- in fact thrive -- in a symbiosis with one another.

And by "great" I don't wish to invoke the elitist genius concept; i mean something more subtle: individuals possessing talent and vision, sure, but upon whom fortune smiles, as well, who ultimately loom large in the public sphere and either achieve, or at least approach, iconic status.

Certainly the Beatles are a product of a rich cultural context (everything from Elvis to post-war prosperity and its technological refinements of the industrial era's earlier invention of leisure time).

But are we disingenuous if we point out that the cultural context that sparked Beatles included individuals who performed specific acts that are essential to the Beatles? Marconi invented the radio. Elvis shook his hips. Buddy Holly wore glasses. Each of them are individuals who *responded* to their cultural contexts at places and times that brought them into contact with greater and greater means for their ideas, or greater audiences.

We're being more disingenuous if we pretend that either individuals or contexts move history.

It's a chicken and egg question.

So if the Beatles "hadn't shown up at all" there were certainly others who were interested in Rock and Roll, and *something* would have happened, but it wouldn't have happened the same way. You can't take that away from those individuals.

And as for all this guitar shit, dr. john, to a man, dylan, hendrix, townshend, and beck are ALL cited as having credited the Beatles as being extremely important for them. The Beatles loomed large in the contexts that helped shape them. They not only admit it, they enthusiastically state it. They are, in fact, some of the "specific cultural effects" you're after. Criminey, Dylan's decision to go electric was a response to the Beatles.

11/07/08 @ 12:06
Comment from: dr john [Member] Email
At the risk of betraying my non-common sense perspective, I agree with you, saturn.

But, I think it might be worth thinking about it this way. What if the Beatles had arrived a decade earlier, without the benefits of the cultural upheavals in the mid to late 60s? Would they have been as popular?
11/07/08 @ 15:21
Comment from: saturnismine [Member] Email
Hmmm...at the risk of sounding like a positivist ( : 0 ), I suppose that if the Beatles "had arrived a decade earlier," they wouldn't have sounded like the Beatles. They couldn't have. Lots of the things that went into making them the Beatles (your "larger collective movements") didn't exist yet. So how could they?

I'll admit to having no imagination whatsoever for the notion of a band looking and sounding exactly like the beatles in 1953 rather than 63. We could argue any response to them! a. A greater number of people would've thought they were weird than would have in 64. But would they have ever made it onto the tube for people to see them? Was England ready for their sound in 53? Probably not. Is the other side of the argument is that they would have appeared even more novel, more advanced, and people would have loved them? Of course that's less likely. So, no, they probably wouldn't have been as popular....I guess. But so what?
11/07/08 @ 16:04
Comment from: dr john [Member] Email
My point is that many really important bands got that way by having perfect timing. For example, the Beatles popularity in England rose greatly after the Profumo scandal, because people were looking for a diversion, and seized on the group's pleasing harmonies, catchy hooks, cheery attitude, and their self-conscious English-ness as fashion
statement.

In short, I'm arguing that bands fit the historical moment, rather than the other way around.

11/07/08 @ 17:04
Comment from: mockcarr [Member] Email
Would it be possible to be more popular? What artist was? If you go from Rudy Vallee to Sinatra to Elvis to them, what comes after that raises the fad bar?
11/07/08 @ 17:05
Comment from: saturnismine [Member] Email
John, if you're arguing that bands fit the historical moment rather than the other way around, then you might not agree with what I wrote above, despite your proclamation of assent. It sounds like you're still privileging context over the individual's ability to have any vision whatsoever.

I could be wrong but as you articulate your model above, it sounds like the historical moment is a golden goose that laid an egg called the Beatles, unbeknownst to even them, unwitting participants in said moment.

But there were *so many* bands, contemporaries of the Beatles, and what of them? They were looking to seize the conditions before them and take advantage of them too (i.e. conquer the market...get famous...write hits...what have you). The Beatles had a nice combination of vision, talent, and thus the ability to produce songs that copped a feel on the collective ass of a LARGE percentage of the english public. And they *liked* it.

And yes, the historical moment IS important. But when I was talking about timing, I wasn't talking about historical, epochal time. That's too abstract, too big. I was talking about the little things. For instance, the fact that they managed to get a recording of their cover of "My Bonnie" into stores and Brian Epstein *happened* to be in one while a teen-aged girl was throwing a fit because she had either just gotten her hands on a copy, or was unable to (can't remember exactly which), is extremely fortuitous.

11/07/08 @ 18:19
Comment from: mwall [Member] Email
I would definitely privilege context over the individual's ability to have any effect whatsoever, even while I acknowledge that the individual can have a significant effect. But of course it's the combination of history and individual that makes things happen. Right people, place, and time--miss any of the three, and who knows how it all turns out?

It's hard to know, for instance, how well a band with the range of the Beatles' abilities would have done in the Led Zeppelin era, when a heavier sound is what began to sell records. Would Harrison have powered up that guitar? Would Lennon or McCartney have been able to belt out the macho hard rock vocal sound?

The point, I think, is that the Beatles, with their music, were talented enough (and lucky enough: getting the breaks counts) to be able to get to the heart of what was possible for popular music at their time, just as Zeppelin would do later. They were the ones that made the history that was there to be made.

The individual, I would say, can make history, but never stand outside it--and there's only so much history to be made.
11/07/08 @ 20:29
Comment from: dr john [Member] Email
I think the Beatles did make history--by breaking up. Not only for many did it mark the end of the "sixties," but it left the musical marketplace wide open. What happened next was the rise of Taylor-era Stones and post-Beatles pop of CSN(Y).
11/09/08 @ 14:21

Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.

« This Is Your Rock Town Hall!Message to Stereolab's Chemical Chords: I Am Not For Sale! »