Do you think another artist would have taken the same mantle of changing and influencing pop music.
Or would the innovations done by The Beatles be divided by multiple different artists?
If the Beatles never existed
Do you think another artist would have taken the same mantle of changing and influencing pop music.
Or would the innovations done by The Beatles be divided by multiple different artists?
Not only was it the right place and the right time, it was the right people. No one who lacked John Paul and George’s outside-the-box personalities could’ve been impactful in quite the same way. From day one it was their ethos to do everything differently.
uh yeah considering they were just playing catch up their whole careers
Sgt. Pepper defeated The Beach Boys so badly, Brian gave up on music, so try again. It took Brian 4 different attempts to get even marginally close to The Beatles.
Regardless of the mental instability of Brian, Pet Sounds and the Smile Sessions are still better than any Beatles album
>Pet Sounds and the Smile Sessions are still better than any Beatles album
Said no one ever.
Wrong
Based and Beach Pillled
Beatles were great, but literally no one could beat the Beach Boys vocals harmonies.
The Beatles whole career post-Rubber Soul was based off of copying the Beach Boys lol.
No one wanted to copy Wild Honey, Friends, or 20/20, who are you kidding?
I guess Pet Sounds doesn't exist then. Paul McCartney literally told Dennis Wilson "Sorry for copying you". If Smile was ever completed, it would have blown anything The Beatles ever created out of the water.
>If Smile was ever completed, it would have blown anything The Beatles ever created out of the water.
Nice cope. All you can point to is an unfinished album, whereas everything in between Sgt. Pepper and Let It Be is ten times better than anything post-Pet Sounds for The Beach Boys.
You really need to listen to more music. The fact that you actually think "Let it Be" is great, already shows your ignorance. The Beatles are a mediocre band with the same 4-5 instruments being played on every track. The Smile Sessions and Sunflower from The Beach Boys already put The Beatles to shame.
>The fact that you actually think "Let it Be" is great, already shows your ignorance.
I never said it was great, I said it's better than post-Pet Sounds output. You need to learn how to read.
Except it isn't lol. Sunflower and Surf's Up are miles better. Why comment on things you don't even know anything about?
Ignore it, the Beach Boys and Dylan try hards always try to derail any threads about music in the 60's.
>The Beatles are a mediocre band with the same 4-5 instruments being played on every track.
I'm having trouble thinking of an instrument that didn't appear on a Beatles album lol.
You are dodging the topic. Your opinion on the Beatles doesn't change the impact they had starting in '63. They led the British Invasion and were wildly successful in ways that other bands were not.
OP is discussing that.
>Brian gave up on music
>Sgt. Pepper defeated The Beach Boys so badly, Brian gave up on music, so try again.
he came out with 3 of his best albums immediately after
>makes one Beatles tier album then fucks off
Biggest blue balls in human history.
Would prog exist without them? I’ve been wondering that.
Pink floyd was recording piper right next door to the beatles when they were making sgt pepper
And they loved Lovely Rita
What did they actually do to innovate music besides steal American Blues and classical Indian music?
created the modern pop boyband, which is why so many homosexuals on LULZ still post about them
>created the modern pop boyband, which is why so many homosexuals on LULZ still post about them
Oh, I thought that was the Rolling Stones.
Sorry.
Sound production. George Martin was an innovator in the field and the Beatles were his chosen tools. It worked better than anyone could've imagined
If you read Emerick's book, Martin was freaking the engineers at Abbey Road the fuck out, with the things he was doing, like using tons of compression. Abbey Road was typical for the era, it was stuck in stuffy 50's mentality, they were expected to wear a suit and tie to work, and never, ever mishandle the equipment from how the bosses dictated. Martin was a serious rebel in that respect.
They were the first band that recorded their own compositions. That was a huge thing back then. They were'nt label stooges who recorded what they were told to. They kicked off the entire 60's wave of bands playing originals.
They were also one of the first to lean into albums, instead of singles. Which was also a huge deal and changed the industry.
They also didn't steal blues, that was the Stones.
>They were the first band that recorded their own compositions
The Beach Boys did this a year earlier with Surfin' Safari and Dylan did it with his first two albums before the Beatles (albeit his first album was primarily traditional songs, but the Freewheelin Bob Dylan is almost entirely original, compared to Please Please Me where only about half the songs are original). can someone explain what the actual musical innovations of the Beatles were, not including shit like "they were the first to make something popular in the mainstream" or "they used some exotic instruments"? with all the praise of them being genius innovators, there must be something someone can point to
Invented power pop, jangle pop, shoegaze, proto-punk, and heavy metal.
>power pop, jangle pop
so they wrote pop music with slightly different instrumentation/production than what was standard at the time
>shoegaze, proto-punk, and heavy metal.
no
>so they wrote pop music with slightly different instrumentation/production than what was standard at the time
Yes.
>no
Yes.
I like the beatles but they did NOT invent proto-punk lol
It probably would have happened eventually, but maybe not as quickly. When Beatlemania happened, rock was on a bit of a down-trend due to all the icons dying (just like emo rap died recently) and rock 'n roll was still tightly bound to blues songwriting so it felt like there was no where else to take it. The Beatles mostly just innovated by breaking that convention and adapting rock to pop songwriting. Turns out it worked really damn well.
But honestly, yeah it would have happened. The Beatles weren't a one of a kind phenomenon - Beatlemania was just an amplification of the same fervor around Chuck Berry ~10 years before them. It's hard to understand since we never lived in this world, but Beatlemania (and the Chuck Berry excitement) was a big change since Western society didn't really idolize people like that before. Until that point, cultural icons were more people that adult men would admire and aspire to be like, such as influential politicians, businessmen, writers, and inventors. With Chuck Berry's fame, suddenly the youth were deciding what was important in our culture and the Beatles cemented this. And again, due to Chuck and the rise of TV this was kinda inevitable. But The Beatles were still musical geniuses.
>Until that point, cultural icons were more people that adult men would admire and aspire to be like, such as influential politicians, businessmen, writers, and inventors
boys and young men aspired to be like those kind of people too
True. My point is old men had a bigger hand in shaping the culture. Before the 50s, celebrities had to be outstanding people with some trait that society in general admired, like Charles Lindbergh. Rock stars like Chuck Berry had none of those qualities the old society respected, which is why silent genners hated them so much when they got popular. It kinda flipped the whole Western cultural tradition on its head
There's a whole movie made about this concept btw. It's not bad...
According to Martin and Epstein, if the Beatles had never formed a band, they were ready to go with Gerry and the Pacemakers. They were looking for an established artist to be the face of RnR at Parlophone. They could very well have led the British Invasion instead of going along for the ride.
Gerry and the Pacemakers didn't have the teen sex appeal the Beatles had. You have to remember, Beatlemania was teen aged girls literally throwing their underwear at them and drenching theater seats during shows.
THIS would have not done shit for teenage girls. They looked like their fathers. The Beatles looked young.
There's a good case for the Yardbirds. They were formed in '63 and had Clapton, Page and Beck at various times.
I imagine the Rolling Stones would be regarded as the best rock has to offer. But I don't think that title would be worth as much. The Beatles have such a deep song catalog that's permeated society. Besides maybe Satisfaction I don't think there's a Stones song more popular than even Twist and Shout.
>inb4 >songs
Most plebs don't listen to albums.
A couple points in response to that
1) The Stones would not have had a recording career without the Beatles, not only figuratively because the Beatles created the opportunity for any rock and roll group to have a shot at the mainstream but also literally because it was the Beatles shouting them out on TV that convinced Decca to sign them.
2) Mick and Keith simply didn't have the built-in ambition that John and Paul had. Lennon and McCartney were writing songs from the beginning while Jagger and Richards had to have that talent babied to a useful level. They obviously grew into a creative powerhouse of their own, but it's doubtful they could've done it without the Beatles providing competition and Andrew Oldham holding their feet to the fire because of it.
I'm not too familiar with the history but I heard the Stones would have made it big regardless. They were drawing huge crowds.
Of course some other band of hippies would have dropped a ton of acid and made boomers shit their pants in exactly the same way. This is a stupid question.
Name 10 bands right now.
Duke Ellington
Miles Davis
Dion and the Belmonts
Elvis Presley
Link Wray and his Wraymen
Buddy Holly
Ritchie Valens
Beach Boys
Aretha Franklin
The Stooges
>Except it isn't lol. Sunflower and Surf's Up are miles better. Why comment on things you don't even know anything about? Also I suck cock.
Music would be much better.
The Kinks would've had the reputation that they deserved.