blastingas10

Obviously.

Another thing about the sun ra ordeal, What was the point of the comparison? Sun ra was doing stuff that was much more experimental than the Beatles at the same time sgt peppers came out, is that point? If so, then so what? You were the guy who said that superior technical ability didn't equal better music, so what difference does it make if sun ra was more experimental, other than just trying to prove a point?

blastingas10

I don't think anyone would claim that the Beatles were the first mold breakers. I guess Elvis was a better singer than Paul, who the Beatle that had the strongest voice, in my opinion. I'm not so sure, though, Paul had a great soft voice and he could get really loud when he wanted to. Elvis wasn't the multi-instrumentalist or the songwriters that the Beatles were. So even if he could sing better, I'd say the Beatles had the upper hand. No disrespect to Elvis, though. And I'm not trying to turn this into a Elvis vs Beatles debate.

Neapolitan

I'm not saying that they were not the first mold breakers. I'm only saying that they are not the only mold breakers in the history of music. For some reason it comes off as when the Beatles does something groundbreaking it the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if another band or artist does something groundbreaking it suddenly becomes inconsequential.

Whenever speaking of artist who recorded before the 70's a lot of times I guess because of the quality of the recording the songs doesn't get recognition it deserves or gets overlooked or disliked because of the sound quality. Imo there are a lot of Rockabilly songs that outweigh many Beatle songs when it comes to singing and guitar playing. Maybe I guess it's because I like Rockabilly a little bit more. And sometimes I feel artists like Buddy Holly, Elvis, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Johnny Cash don't get recognized for their groundbreakingness or moldbreakingness because they become seen as passé in light of the The Beatles.

__________________

NYSPORTSFAN

I could find so many examples of better guitar playing and singing on many Beatles tracks than rockabilly music IMO. Have you ever heard of "Blackbird" or "You Neve Give Me Your Money" or most of Abbey Road to start with on guitar. Vocally where do I start maybe try "Because", "Hey Jude" or "Oh Darling".

When did I say the Beatles were the only mold breakers? I was talking about the Beatles in what they did musically.

You would think me being a music fan and guitar player that I don't know George Harrison was highly influenced by rockabilly music "I Saw Here Standing There", "All My Loving", and "She's A Woman" all show influence from rockabilly music. Carl Perkins certainly noticed it when he first heard "All My Loving". I even detect it on some of their psychedelic songs like "Dr. Robert" and "Fixing a Hole".

You said "Buddy Holly, Elvis, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Johnny Cash don't get recognized for their groundbreakingness or moldbreakingness because they become seen as passé towards the Beatles"

I don't think that is quite true IMO and I would think people would know the original sound of rock and roll came from many of the people you mentioned. They might seem passe but I wouldn't single out the Beatles in this regard as there are a whole bunch of bands like Led Zeppelin who are more popular than the people you mentioned. The thing is the Beatles alway's acknowledged who they were influenced by.

The Beatles took their influences and went on to do something different that you can hear a direct influence on many of the bands in the last 45 years ranging from King Crimson to Nirvana. The Beatles had the right mix of presentation, melody, song structure, strange chord progressions and experimention that appealed to the masses and that includes musicians.

The Beatles weren't overtly experimental in every song but why should they there is more to music than releasing experimental music. In songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "I Am The Walrus" and "Being for the Benifit of Mr. Kite" were just as experimental as Sun Ra IMO but in a different way. The type of fusion of "It's Only A Northern Song" is not really far from early Pink Floyd and Miles Davis. Then again for all the hate "Revolution #9" gets it's probably the most dissonant track released on a commercial album.

blastingas10

That was the point I was trying to make but apparently the Beatles themselves were arrogant pricks who thought they were gods gift to the earth. I'm not so sure about that. They were pretty modest and actually joked at the praise they received from some musicologists at the time. There's of course the famous joke about Lennon thinking that aeolian cadences sounded like some kind of "exotic bird". They were never really hesitant to confess who their influences were. I can think of several interviews when they spoke of the influence that Bob Dylan had on their music.

I would definitely say that Zeppelin was a lot more arrogant than the Beatles. They weren't as original and you could even say they plagiarized, or "heavily borrowed" other artists music for their own songs. Not saying the Beatles didn't do that, but zeppelin did it to a greater extent.

NYSPORTSFAN

The Beatles might have been arrogant but it's maybe they were more secure than being arrogant. The Beatles countless times credited Bob Dylan and Smokey Robinsion for being an influence on them. George basically idolized Bob Dylan. Paul McCartney has gone on record saying Pet Sounds for influencing them. John Lennon said he embarrased performing "Twist and Shout" live because he thought it was done better by soul artists. The Rolling Stones were much worse in giving credit who they were influenced by. George Harrison and John Lennon who were good friends with the Rolling Stones criticiized them for not being forthcoming in the Beatles influence on them.

Everyone has influences and everyone borrows. One of rock and roll first major hits Chuck Berry "Maybelline" was based on some country song from the 1940's. The Beatles "I Feel Fine" is based on an R&B hit and gave the original song writer credit for it's influence.

Led Zeppelin takes the cake they would take large portions of other people songs like "Dazed and Confused" and give themselves the writing credits. I really like Led Zeppelin though but it's hard to respect how arrogant they were.

Rjinn

As for dissonant fading in and out sounds, Karlheinz Stockhausen is a great example of that. Much more experimental and pushes the boundaries further than The Beatles if you ask me.

I'm not a Beatles hater, just don't think they are the most creative gods in the world.

__________________
last.fm

Neapolitan

Blasphemy!

__________________

NYSPORTSFAN

Ah, I was talking about the unsusual song form combined with the dissonance that ends with "Strawberry Fields Forever". I never mentioned Stockhausen but hey if you can find me a Stockhausen track that ends like "Strawberry Fields Forever" then I would appreciate it.

Stockhausen was an influence on the Beatles but he was actually a huge fan of the Beatles.

blastingas10

I can't disagree with any of that, other than the fact that I don't think Elvis is that much better at singing than Paul McCartney.

I have no problem with saying that Robert Johnson was a much better guitarist than any of the Beatles, but that being said, the Beatles weren't bad. John Lennon used a lot of more advanced chords, but Johnson did as well. I have no problem saying that son house was a better singer. I don't think any Beatle could give A vocal performance accompanied by handclaps only as good as son house's "grinnin in your face".

I don't think other artists being descredited has everything to do with over obsessed Beatles fans. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they were at the top of questionably the most popular era of music in the 20th century. Who do people recognize more these days, bo diddley or the Stones? Howlin wolf or led zeppelin? It's not just a Beatles thing.