Poll: Which of These 2 Beatles Albums Are Your Favorites?

[Nowarezman]

Overt Beatle influence seems to come and go and then come back again. Right now....it's hard to hear echoes of the Beatles when I dip into the current current. Taylor Swift has mentioned the Beatles as a big, early influence. And, in bands that still make the rounds like Wilco, The Flaming Lips, Arcade Fire I hear Beatle-ish moments and gestures.

 

Among bass players, McCartney is still a major name, a hero to emulate and imitate.

 

Also - the whole Indie scene seems to me to be in part an attempt to keep the flame of creativity burning in a way that harkens back to the Beatles who inspired countless popsters and rocksters to up their game and take the music more seriously as an art form, pushing out into new directions and such.

 

And you have to credit Paul's "McCartney" album as a prefiguring of something that was almost unheard of in 1970 but is ubiquitous now - the singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist tracking albums of original material at home. Like me!

 

nat

[Chip McDonald]

If the Beatles had been surgically removed from musical history, I wonder if today's music would sound totally different, or more or less the same.

 

The problem there is that to get to EDM you have to cross a bridge of "pop rock music tied to counter culture".

 

 

STAND BY FOR CRAZY CHIP STATEMENT:

[align:center]

I say the Beatles on Ed Sullivan was probably the most important event in music history.[/align]

 

 

Nothing else is referenced by so many as being so specifically the EXACT reason they made music. In conjunction with the revolutionary change in societal attitudes, which is large part simply started with what otherwise would have been a limited phenomenon in London, the "insanity" of MEN WITH LONG HAIR - the combination of counter culture tied to an approach to music, had a potency unmatched.

 

We'd maybe had some sort of rockabilly progression, and offshoots that may have cross pollenated with musicals, soundtracks. But the Beatles set an example that influenced so many artists - and *people* - to set off in diversionary paths, I don't see how the terrain of "music as we know it today" would have been as elaborate, diverse, and certainly the technology and production techniques would be more basic.

 

Hmm. Actually thinking into this, what would have happened is "rock music" would have proceeded in the more staid manner it set out on initially, but *a form of punk may have still happened*. Musically, the Sex Pistols may have still came about in almost the same form; musically the basic harmonic ingredients would still exist, the instruments and amps, drums. Mid 60s recording technology not moved forward much by a less energized pop music industry. While I was too young to experience the explosion of the Ed Sullivan show, when I was a little kid I *do* remember the Sex Pistols making the news for awhile - and the reaction, the starkness of the punk scene contrasted against the White Urbane Conservative, which without a doubt would still have existed in a non-Beatles timeline.

 

In essence, without the Beatles, the Sex Pistols could have been the next most revolutionary musical event.

 

There were other non-Beatles pre-requisite watershed moments, though - but without the counter culture movement I don't think it would have mattered. Nascent Kraftwerk was amazingly ahead of their time - I think they could have happened without the Beatles on the planet, but without the acceptance provided by the evolving counter culture movement I don't think they would have gained any acceptance at all. Unlike the Sex Pistols, there wasn't any societal rebellion, or innate sex appeal, youth culture aspect that would have jump started something based around them. Or maybe there was an angle there relative to German culture at the time that could have made them spring forth from Germany like the Beatles from England?

 

Would Brian Wilson be the same? I don't think Hendrix would have, but possibly? Genre-inspiring, culture inspiring change?

 

 

I think pretty much else requires the watershed of "saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan" or being surrounded by people spurred on by that, an a youth culture with their innovation leading the way.

[KuruPrionz]

Chip, I will easily admit that watching the Beatles on Ed Sullivan (yes, I AM that old!) was a major influence on me.

 

The potential "wild card" in your scenario would be the rising up of Motown. Before I saw the Beatles I was prone to putting a small radio right by my ear and staying awake late at night listening to top 40 radio. Motown was a creative force on there and in fact a HUGE influence on the Beatles themselves - who covered some of the tunes on early albums. Mr. Postman, You Really Got a Hold On Me, and some of the Motown competitors songs like Anna and Twist and Shout. Yes, they were also influenced by Chuck Berry (who wasn't?) and Carl Perkins but I hear more influence in their early material of Motown than anybody else.

 

Not saying I have this nailed down, just looking at the evolution of the revolution. If we ponder what rock music would have been like without the Beatles, we must also ponder what would the Beatles have been like without Motown. My conclusion is "not the same band at all".

[Notes_Norton]

I missed "Twist & Shout" too. I consider it an Isley Brothers song that the Beatles did a less than stellar cover of (IMO not their best work)

 

Same for "You Really Got A Hold On Me", which IMO they did a better job than "Twist & Shout" but isn't up to the Smokey Robinson/Miracles version.

 

Not to take anything away from them, IMO those songs just didn't fit their style.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Anderton]

And you have to credit Paul's "McCartney" album as a prefiguring of something that was almost unheard of in 1970 but is ubiquitous now - the singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist tracking albums of original material at home. Like me!

 

Actually, that honor belongs to Les Paul. The only reason more people didn't do it was because he was also a TV star (something people often forget about), so he had the requisite bucks.

[Nowarezman]

And you have to credit Paul's "McCartney" album as a prefiguring of something that was almost unheard of in 1970 but is ubiquitous now - the singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist tracking albums of original material at home. Like me!

 

Actually, that honor belongs to Les Paul. The only reason more people didn't do it was because he was also a TV star (something people often forget about), so he had the requisite bucks.

 

I yield to your greater knowledge, Sir Encyclopedia.

 

But perhaps it can still be said that McCartney was much more influential in spreading the idea, and blessing the clearly home-grown - I did have McCartney in mind when I bought my first TEAC reel-to-reel All Those Years Ago...

 

nat

[Anderton]

Totally agreed the Beatles on Ed Sullivan was huge, but was it more for cultural or musical reasons? Remember the context - those were dark times. The bright, energetic, positive, edgy Beatles vibe was in the right place, at the right time.

 

There were groups in that era who owed their sound more to the folk era than to the Beatles (Byrds, Mamas and the Papas), and the whole garage punk thing like the 13th Floor Elevators didn't have much to do with the Beatles either. Whether any of those groups could have done the breakthrough the Beatles did is doubtful, though.

 

As to the Sex Pistols, I thought their first album was a masterpiece. Still is. Sure, it was all about marketing, but so what? When they came along, rock had become increasingly convoluted and inward-looking, as exemplified by prog rock. The Sex Pistols had a real impact on shaking up the music of that time. I didn't care they were acting like everything was stripped down and basic, while Steve Jones was laying 20 tracks of guitars . But they sure were a breath of fresh air.

[KuruPrionz]

And you have to credit Paul's "McCartney" album as a prefiguring of something that was almost unheard of in 1970 but is ubiquitous now - the singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist tracking albums of original material at home. Like me!

 

Actually, that honor belongs to Les Paul. The only reason more people didn't do it was because he was also a TV star (something people often forget about), so he had the requisite bucks.

 

Les Paul started multi tracking on a home made record cutter that he cobbled up. He'd cut a record and add a track while it was playing, cutting a second record. He would do several tracks like that.

I believe this was before he had much money and the truth of the legendary Ampex 8 track tape recorder (the first ever made) is that Bing Crosby financed it - HE had money.

 

It's a fact that Les Paul changed the way things are recorded forever. A great player but also a bit of a genius inventor.