Neapolitan

I don't know when The Beatles surpassed any of their influences when it comes to playing guitar or singing. The Beatles never surpassed Elvis as vocalist. And they didn't surpass many of the guitar players that influenced them. Only when it comes to their songwriting ablity. None of those songs would be the finished products as we know them if it wasn't for the talents of George Martin and the musicians of the studio orchestra that played on their recrodings.

__________________

NYSPORTSFAN

Those songs were composed by the Beatles and the idea for the orchestra was McCartney's. From I have read Lennon even produced the mono version of "I Am the Walrus" even though I am not downplaying George Martin. What about the people who played on Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley records?

Compared to Elvis and their mentors they had the whole package. Elvis was just a vocalist not a songwriter or musician in the caliber of any of the Beatles. The Beatles songs in terms of melodic and chordal content goes way further than someone like Chuck Berry and 50's rock and roll in general. The Beatles not only had classic singles but a album run of Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album and Abbey Road that none of their mentors could approach.

Rubber Soul and Revolver combined Eastern, country-western, soul, and classical motifs with trend-setting covers, breaking any mold that seemed to contain "rock and roll." In both albums, balladry, classical instrumentation, and new structure resulted in brilliant new concepts just hinted at in earlier works like "Yesterday" and "Rain." Songs such as "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Eleanor Rigby," and the lyrically surreal "Norwegian Wood" made use of sophisticated recording techniques. .

Janszoon

I feel like the bolded sentence is an unfair comparison. The heyday of people like Chuck Berry was a time before the era of albums, so naturally they can't be evaluated in terms of what kind of "album runs" they had.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

NYSPORTSFAN

Well that's one of the areas the Beatles surpassed their mentors as you say no one expected 50's rock and roll to think in terms of albums. The Beatles had the songwriting and musical ability to think past of having a hit single. Basically rock band has followed that blue-print ranging from Led Zeppelin to the Black Keys.

It's like many of the Merseybeat bands like Gerry and The Pacemakers and the Searchers couldn't adapt to the emerging psychedelic and progressive rock movement but the Beatles did and was a key influence on many of the key players of that movement including the Byrds, King Crimson, Pink Floyd and yes the Beach Boys. Chuck Berry and Elvis didn't really adapt to these changes.

Howard the Duck

yawn!

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Janszoon

They surpassed their mentors by becoming popular in a different era? I'm not so sure I consider simply being born later as much of an accomplishment.

The Beatles didn't adapt to the 70s. According to your logic I guess that means The Clash were better than them.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

NYSPORTSFAN

Elvis and Chuck Berry were recording music when the Beatles were around weren't they? The Beatles weren't recording music in the 70's so your logic has no grounds. By your logic because the Beatles were recording later than Elvis or Chuck Berry or after the birth of rock and roll the Beatles couldn't surpass them. Please give me a break.

You can't dismiss the fact the Beatles had a long string of geat albums in which you could basically put anything on vinyl ranging from world music, avant garde, classical and anything else this was unheard of by previous standards of 50's rock and roll. They could have stayed the course and keep writing songs like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" but they progressed into something entirely different. Of course they surpassed their mentors in many ways but I wouldn't say in every facet though. The string of albums of Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, The White Album and Abbey Road not only marks a clear progression from what they were influenced they in turned influenced thousands of musicians, songwriters and music producers. Neither Elvis and Chuck Berry had an album run like the Beatles and something that IMO is something you can't dismiss easily.

Janszoon

Every member of the Beatles released music in the 70s. And none of it was music that had adapted well to the new era.

In what way is that "by my logic"?

I don't personally consider a sequence consisting of one weak album, two good albums, one weak album and one good album "a long string of great albums". But, hey, that's just me.

Once again, the game was different in the 50s. Artists and labels didn't think in terms of LPs so that comparison makes no sense.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

NYSPORTSFAN

We are talking about the Beatles as a group not as a solo act and there was no way they were going to compete what they did as a group. Since you mention this John Lennon Plastic Ono Band a very important influence on many acts ranging from White Stripes to even many punk acts. George Harrison unique guitar slide style has been influential on many guitarists.

Once again Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley were recording when the Beatles were around so again I don't buy your logic for one minute. Yes you might think Rubber Soul to Abbey Road as not all classics but hey that's your opinion but not what the general consensus of what other musicians will tell you.

So you are the saying the game was different in the 50's then I guess it took the Beatles and Bob Dylan to change the parameters of what the rock album should be?

Look it's not matter of complexity which the Beatles have in spades over the likes of their mentors it's a matter the craft of writing, playing your own songs and using the studio as an instrument. It's no coincedence the Beatles songs are the most covered in the rock era along with Bob Dylan.

The Beatles experimented in just about every way possible — phased vocals ("And Your Bird Can Sing"), dreamlike guitars running in reverse ("I'm Only Sleeping"), the wild abuse of tape loops ("Tomorrow Never Knows") — the songwriting was as strong as it had ever been. Its dissonance was modern, and the wake it's left is audible in everything Animal Collective has achieved.

The Beatles were not a mere "pop" band. Only a real simpleton would make THAT charge. Nor did they compose a lot love songs (some of the not as a group ). Some of their songs, in fact, were actually quite radical, sophisticated and even weird (for their time period) both musically and thematically,.. namely songs like 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ( L.S.D. ), Strawberry Fields, and I Am the Walrus ( as a few examples ).

They also had a lot of varying musical influences other than just pop and rock 'n roll ( like Asian, classical music, British vaudeville, showtune, psychedelic and so on ). They were pretty much the progenitors, or certainly at least ONE of the early progenitors, of what came to be termed "progressive rock". Calling them and I am not saying you a "pop band" who wrote "catchy tunes" and "silly love songs" shows amazing stupidity from some of the people I have read here.

Unknown Soldier

Yawn!

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History