Most overrated bands ever?

[Laughing Boy]

They're both very unconventional pop albums that took risks and experimented but still remained pop albums. I mean I don't think when they recorded Norwegian Wood they were expecting another I Want to Hold Your Hand and I don't think Brian Wilson recorded a song that was literally Pet Sounds expecting another Surfin' USA. If that makes any sense.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

I find that unlikely, seeming as I've seen nothing to that effect in any Wilson interview on the topic, and the point that use of Indian instrumentation in folk rock had been done elsewhere (hence why the Beatles predictably thought to do it in the first place!).

Putting Sitar in a pop song was a pretty novel idea.

You may be correct that Wilson was also influenced not just by the apparent flow and unity of the tracks but by the use of sitar on that one song - though you ought to give a source if you make the claim, to give it some credence.

Whats your source for Wilson being influenced by the flow of the album and nothing else.

With regard to the rest of what you wrote, I think it suffices in showing that you don't really claim that prog wouldn't have existed without the Beatles. Clearly prog was going to happen and you know it, bro, Beatles or no Beatles.

But it probably would have sucked. Like I said before, many of the most significant prog bands were very influenced by The Beatles.

And with regard to the more diverse lyricism including stream-of-consciousness, again Lennon and McCartney were drawn towards that by other artists of the time, including of course Bob Dylan (who was a direct influence upon I Am The Walrus).

Yeah, and they put it in the context of music that blended various genres. You're just pointing out all traces of The Beatles influence and telling me it strips them of any originality. What they did was innovative in the context of POP music.

And I think being the most innovative pop act ever is more important than just a folk singer who decided to go electric.

By the way, boo boo, what are you actually referring to by Magical Mystery Tour?

US LP version.

The MMJ double EP had six songs on it - Magical Mysery Tour (half-arsed attempt at re-creating the opener to Sgt Pepper), Fool On The Hill (a truly good song with great lyrics), the relatively uninteresting instrumental Flying, Harrison's derivative Blue Jay Way, I Am The Walrus, and a standard McCartney 50s musical hall piece, Your Mother Should Know. The only particularly great offerings on it are Walrus and FotH. And the latter, while a great song in its own right, was unlikely to have much influence on the development of prog.

I disagree with the bulk of this. Strawberry Fields Forever, I Am the Walrus, Penny Lane, Hello Goodbay, All You Need is Love and Fool on the Hill are all great songs, everything else is good too, the only weak track IMO is Flying.

[boo boo]

Oh yes, that certainly discredits me for saying the The Beatles are the most important rock band.

[sleepy jack]

Bob Dylan was doing folk rock before the Byrds he was also doing it by themselves (the Byrds didn't even write some of their own music) and honestly I question whether or not Rainard has heard half the thing he's citing the Beatles stole from. I'm also curious as to where he's gained such insight into the White Album, The Beatles and Brian Wilson because he's coming up with accusations and thoughts that I've never heard before.

Even if it was just how the album flowed the Beatles still influenced Pet Sounds. You can't deny that, don't even try to or even discredit the Beatles for it. Brian Wilson has said the album wouldn't have happened without hearing Rubber Soul and I trust him as the authority on Pet Sounds. Sorry buddy.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Putting Sitar in a pop song was a pretty novel idea.

Sitar had been in folk rock elsewhere.

Whats your source for Wilson being influenced by the flow of the album and nothing else.

What he actually said in that famous interview quoted above. There is nothing beyond that that I know of, and thus no grounds for saying anything beyond it or for speculating.

But it probably would have sucked. Like I said before, many of the most significant prog bands were very influenced by The Beatles.

The foundations were looking pretty good in 1966. I don't see why it would have sucked. I think it would have been pretty much the same.

Yeah, and they put it in the context of music that blended various genres. You're just pointing out all traces of The Beatles influence and telling me it strips them of any originality. What they did was innovative in the context of POP music.

I agree with that. They put it into an accessible, catchy, memorable format.

And I think being the most innovative pop act ever is more important than just a folk singer who decided to go electric.

The latter is a more profound idea.

US LP version.

Wasn't a Beatles idea, and was created by Capitol, so I don't think it should be referred to as a Beatles album.

I disagree with the bulk of this. Strawberry Fields Forever, I Am the Walrus, Penny Lane, Hello Goodbay, All You Need is Love and Fool on the Hill are all great songs, everything else is good too, the only weak track IMO is Flying.

Yeah, they are all great songs. I was referring to the double EP though, the actual Beatles release.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Bob Dylan was doing folk rock before the Byrds he was also doing it by themselves (the Byrds didn't even write some of their own music) and honestly I question whether or not Rainard has heard half the thing he's citing the Beatles stole from. I'm also curious as to where he's gained such insight into the White Album, The Beatles and Brian Wilson because he's coming up with accusations and thoughts that I've never heard before.

The Byrds gave Dylan's Mr Tambourine Man the full electric treatment, pretty much pioneering folk rock (though they weren't the only ones, I'm not claiming that - there were others at the same time). Albums like Mr Tambourine Man, though yes it had numerous covers, were the most important of the early emerging folk rock sound.

Even if it was just how the album flowed the Beatles still influenced Pet Sounds. You can't deny that, don't even try to or even discredit the Beatles for it. Brian Wilson has said the album wouldn't have happened without hearing Rubber Soul and I trust him as the authority on Pet Sounds. Sorry buddy.

Yes, the Beatles did influence Pet Soundes as Brian Wilson himself said - but not the actual sound that Wilson created.

Dudes, I love the Beatles. I'm not trying to discredit them. I'm just trying to make sure they get the right credit for the things they really did do, not for the things they didn't. I've listened to the albums I quote, I have them on my computer - I'm not trolling. We can discuss the albums elsewhere if anybody wants. I'm trying to make a good discussion here, not annoy people.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

The Byrds gave Dylan's Mr Tambourine Man the full electric treatment, pretty much pioneering folk rock (though they weren't the only ones, I'm not claiming that - there were others at the same time). Albums like Mr Tambourine Man, though yes it had numerous covers, were the most important of the early emerging folk rock sound.

Bob Dylan released Bringing It All Back Home only like two months after that song came out and it was much more folk rocking than the Byrds could ever hope to be.

Yes, the Beatles did influence Pet Soundes as Brian Wilson himself said - but not the actual sound that Wilson created.

So? They still influenced. Brian Wilson had never heard anything like Rubber Soul before. Brian Wilson :: Official Web Site Read that, Pet Sounds simply wouldn't have happened without Rubber Soul.

Dudes, I love the Beatles. I'm not trying to discredit them. I'm just trying to make sure they get the right credit for the things they really did do, not for the things they didn't. I've listened to the albums I quote, I have them on my computer - I'm not trolling. We can discuss the albums elsewhere if anybody wants. I'm trying to make a good discussion here, not annoy people.

You're claiming the Beatles were basically unoriginal style thieves, that's discrediting them.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Bob Dylan released Bringing It All Back Home only like two months after that song came out and it was much more folk rocking than the Byrds could ever hope to be.

Sure, I wasn't saying the Byrds were exclusive pioneers. They were important however, there's no denying that. They were also very important to the development of country rock and acid rock.

So? They still influenced. Brian Wilson had never heard anything like Rubber Soul before. Pet Sounds simply wouldn't have happened without Rubber Soul.

Correct, I believe that's the same interview/statement quoted above in the thread that I discussed before. The reasoning though was that each song seemed to flow into the next - basically, the apparent unity of the songs. Not just a random assortment but real thought into the arrangement. That inspired Wilson.

You're claiming the Beatles were basically unoriginal style thieves, that's discrediting them.

Nah I don't say they were style thieves - I just say they didn't really pioneer any of the new emerging styles of the 60s. It's legitimate to take styles and work within them. The Beatles took styles and made them into memorable, good pop music. That's their legacy. Not creating the styles. That's my only point. I don't think the Beatles' innovation should be overstated.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Sitar had been in folk rock elsewhere.

Folk/=/Pop

And heres something that might be fun, try citing some damn examples.

The foundations were looking pretty good in 1966. I don't see why it would have sucked. I think it would have been pretty much the same.

Absolutely not.

The Beatles directly influenced a lot of important prog artists.

The Beatles influence on Gilmour era Floyd is pretty clear. Yes were very inspired by The Beatles as well as influenced by them, and even covered Every Little Thing for their debut album. Robert Fripp also admires the Beatles, Fripps former band Giles, Giles & Fripp played folk rock influenced by The Beatles, and The Beatles had a strong influence on King Crimsons early work, they covered songs like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds when they first formed, hell they even did a song about them called Happy Family (from Lizard). Genesis were also influenced by The Beatles, in fact their first album From Genesis to Revelation was VERY Beatles-esque.

And there you go, Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson and Genesis. The 4 most important bands in progressive rock. None would be here without The Beatles.

I agree with that. They put it into an accessible, catchy, memorable format.

And for a pop group, what they did was hella original.

The latter is a more profound idea.

So blending nearly every genre into one giant melting pot is not innovative but simply playing Woodie Guthrie songs on electric guitar is?

Wasn't a Beatles idea, and was created by Capitol, so I don't think it should be referred to as a Beatles album.

GOD.

What is WRONG with you? It was released as an album, therefore it's a freaking album, why is that hard to swallow? I'm talking about the songs on the album more than the album as a whole.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Sure, I wasn't saying the Byrds were exclusive pioneers. They were important however, there's no denying that. They were also very important to the development of country rock and acid rock.

Um, I wouldn't even place acid rock anywhere near the Byrds. Acid rock was pretty much a San Francisco movement. Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, etc all that. As for country rock I think Bob Dylan was much more important to the development of that as well as Buffalo Springfield, The Band and The Flying Burrito Brothers were more important to that. Anyway as for saying the Byrds were pioneers check out this:

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.

I imagined that they were more folk oriented than they really were. I thought they were probably more a folk band that could play bluegrass banjo and mandolin, but they chose to do pop music because it was more commercial.

Turned out not to be the case. But in my imagination this whole thing developed and I started mixing up old folk songs with the Beatles beat and taking them down to Greenwich Village and playing them for the people there. To the point where a guy put out a sign outside that said, "Beatle Imitations." I was kind of put off by that.

Roger McGuinn from the Byrds. The Beatles basically inspired him to combine folk and rock. I find it really amusing how you've gone about the Beatles taking from the Byrds and the Beach Boys and both Wilson and McGuinn's biggest influences were the Beatles.

Correct, I believe that's the same interview/statement quoted above in the thread that I discussed before. The reasoning though was that each song seemed to flow into the next - basically, the apparent unity of the songs. Not just a random assortment but real thought into the arrangement. That inspired Wilson.

Please click the link and read it as opposed to assuming what it is. It's not even an interview it's a nicely written article which explains Pet Sounds and Rubber Soul. If I knew where my Brian Wilson biography was I'd copy that out but it basically says the same thing.

Nah I don't say they were style thieves - I just say they didn't really pioneer any of the new emerging styles of the 60s. It's legitimate to take styles and work within them. The Beatles took styles and made them into memorable, good pop music. That's their legacy. Not creating the styles. That's my only point. I don't think the Beatles' innovation should be overstated.

I think the Beatles innovative is being greatly understated by you.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Um, I wouldn't even place acid rock anywhere near the Byrds. Acid rock was pretty much a San Francisco movement.

The Byrds' importance to acid rock can be discussed elsewhere, it's a good topic.

Roger McGuinn from the Byrds. The Beatles basically inspired him to combine folk and rock. I find it really amusing how you've gone about the Beatles taking from the Byrds and the Beach Boys and both Wilson and McGuinn's biggest influences were the Beatles.

That is interesting, what you quoted. That's the sort of counter-argument I've been hoping for all along.