on the Beatles

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

There has been a lot written about the Beatles, and recently there has been some discussion here on the forum, pro and con.

 

So, passing on "I like" or "I don't like" the Beatles, what differentated them from the other pop bands of their era? Because make no mistake about it, though the Beatles considered themselves a rock band, and their live performance history indicates that they -should- have been a rock band, they were a pop band... promoted (at least in the states...) with the same fervor as N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys. Their first few albums were filled with pop-y songs perfect for the time.

 

Why did they get past all the usual hangups and become as continuingly popular as they did become?

 

It was a strange mixture of odd occurances that probably saved them as a band from becoming just another Hermans Hermits or Freddy and the Dreamers.

 

Because, no matter what your talent quotient may be, once you get into the industry machine, much of your professional life is out of your control.

 

At the time, pop music was disposable... you had a couple of hits, an album or two, and then you were gone. Nobody expected any pop artist to be remembered five years after their first hit. (Which is why the Beatles, following bad tax advice, sold their catalog; to their everlasting regret and Paul's later chagrin, when Micheal Jackson was willing to pony up more money for it than Paul was...) Managers, record labels, and the whole pop industry understood this and operated under that principle.

 

But the Beatles got a manager who wasn't as manager. He made some incredibly bad financial deals, but he was not a part of the pop industry, and he was not making -those- kind of deals.

 

And they ended up at a studio and with a producer who did not work with pop music. These guys didn't know how to make a pop recording. So instead of pumping out formula hits done using 'standard' methods, they had to figure it out for themselves... and as a result they drew upon a lot of creativity and used and accepted the creaqtive input of people who, in a 'normal' situation, would never have been asked or allowed to participate.

 

And they avoided the ego riffs that usually take out a band in five years... at least, they avoided the burnout for about ten years instead of five. This time factor is a critical part of the equation, as they grew into manhood and their tastes matured, and they were exposed to other things in their lives beyond girls and fun, and the western world happened to be at a jucture of social change... change that affected the band members, and was reflected in their music.

 

I happen to be a big fan of music from that period, the Beatles included. For me, Rubber Soul was a major creative turning point, and Revolver hit me the way that everyone else seems to have viewed Sgt Pepper. Like that music or hate it, it is hard to fault the creativity that presents to the pop world of the 1960s songs like Norwegian Wood, Taxman, Tomorrow Never Knows. Listen to these albums in context of the available pop music of the day, and it is really amazing stuff.

 

There were a lot of amazing talents in the 60s, and it is a shame that so few were presented with the oppertunities that the Beatles were given. Of the British bands, only the Stones were also able to push past the pop industry stigma, also because of their management and Mick's business sense. (The Stones have never had a traditional record deal... they have always had complete control over the product, recording it when and where they choose, and presenting the final product to the label in a 'take it or leave it' situation.)

 

I can only imagine what Nick Drake, the Animals, the Yardbirds, the Pretty Things, or some of the lesser known bands might have been able to achive under similar circumstances.

 

Bill

[Dr. Ellwood]

All very true Bill and nice rollup of facts too! I think the Animals,Kinks and Yardbirds could have done very special things given the same set of circumstances the Beatles found themselves in by happen chance. Like most things it's all down to luck,timing and strategic positioning within the context of what the industry would allow or the buying public would tolerate at that exact time. The latent talent contained within those three groups never had a real chance to be tapped.

[Guitar55]

The things that differentiated the Beatles:

 

- Strong melodies

- Sophisticated chord chnages (compared to most other pop of the time)

- McCartney's bass playing

- The confluence of major creative talent, esp. from Messrs Lennon, McCartney and Martin. Who also understood how to collaborate.

- The refusal to be kept in the box that the public would have been very happy keeping them in.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Guitar55:

The things that differentiated the Beatles:

 

- Strong melodies

- Sophisticated chord chnages (compared to most other pop of the time)

- McCartney's bass playing

- The confluence of major creative talent, esp. from Messrs Lennon, McCartney and Martin. Who also understood how to collaborate.

- The refusal to be kept in the box that the public would have been very happy keeping them in.

That is the easy (and stock) answer, used by many, for many years. And I don't fault it on face value, but it also implies that the other acts did NOT have the talent to go further, wherein I say that they did not have the oppertunity; and in terms of crasfting a good pop song, don't forget that there were a lot of people like Jimmy Web, Boyce and Hart, and the whole Brill Building filled with incredible songsmiths.

 

We could also mention that the Beatles actually played (most of) their own stuff, whereeas very strong creative bands like the Beach Boys relied upon studio musicians... but again, I think that this reliance on studio players is indicative of and standard procedure of the pop music machine, not something that Gerge Martin and company were familar with.

 

You skipped 'strong singing and harmonies' also an important part of the equation, but not totally unique. But something that was remarked upon by Geoff Emerick in his interesting but souless book.

 

The freedom allowed them in their unique situation is what enabled them to grow. Totally an accident. Lesser artists would have floundered in such waters; and the fact that everything worked and worked in their favor is amazing. Could just as eaily fallen the other way, and all of that inexperience in the pop would could have stiffled talent rather than freed it.

 

Bill

[Guitar55]

I agree that serendipity played a huge part in the chain of events that helped foster their innate abilities.

 

The unanswerable question is what would have happened if John and Paul never met? Would they still have had some measure of success?

 

Dennis

[Billster]

I would include the Who as survivors of the pop music machine. Their first four albums were totally pop-oriented in that regard, and the whole "mod" thing was emphasized, but somehow Townshend managed to transcend all that and get Tommy released, which took the band (and in a lot of ways the genre) into a whole new era.

[Justus A. Picker]

The wide variety of influences the Beatles drew on in their work played a role too. They seemingly absorbed everything like sponges and filtered it back out with a unique spin.

 

It's a shame that the only filmed record of their working process is "Let It Be". It would be interesting to see how "Rubber Soul" and "Sgt. Pepper" evolved in the studio from bare bones tunes to the finished product.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

The wide variety of influences the Beatles drew on in their work played a role too.

Right... but that was later, after most pop bands would have already collapsed. A part of my point... they didn't collapse, and had a chance to grow and show. Paul's appreciation of English music hall material came out later, for example.

 

With songs like "Besame Mucho" having been a part of their sets... and how many of us -don't- have some basically wedding song material in our sets?... and other pop material... Soldier of Love, Chains, Anna, Matchbox... it is a long way from that fine pop material to Good Day Sunshine, Blue Jay Way, or In My Life. or Help!, even.

 

Bill

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by Bill@Welcome Home Studios:

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

The wide variety of influences the Beatles drew on in their work played a role too.

Right... but that was later, after most pop bands would have already collapsed. A part of my point... they didn't collapse, and had a chance to grow and show. Paul's appreciation of English music hall material came out later, for example.

 

With songs like "Besame Mucho" having been a part of their sets... and how many of us -don't- have some basically wedding song material in our sets?... and other pop material... Soldier of Love, Chains, Anna, Matchbox... it is a long way from that fine pop material to Good Day Sunshine, Blue Jay Way, or In My Life. or Help!, even.

 

Bill

True, but the stylistic changes came about in a relatively short time, especially by todays standards. 17 albums from 63-70! They grew in a very short period of time.

 

I wonder if anyone would be allowed to release that much stuff today?

[Scott Fraser]

<

 

Excellent topic starter, & one I think about often.

 

<< Because make no mistake about it, though the Beatles considered themselves a rock band, and their live performance history indicates that they -should- have been a rock band, they were a pop band.>>

 

At the time, there was no real distinction between rock & pop. It was all pop music, & rock emerged later as a separate subcategory, distinct from the sappy more commercial music of the day. As kids in the 60's we listened to top 40 radio, which at that time included everything from Tony Bennett to Slim Harpo, Pat Boone to Chuck Berry, Doo Wop to folk. The Beatles maybe rocked harder than a lot of these radio personalities, but as consumers they were all considered to be purveyors of the same basic art form.

 

<>

 

The Beatles really were in a whole different realm talent-wise than those bands, starting with the song writing, & including production craft. And I'd also include the sheer force of their personalities. Remember also that the Beatles were 4 distinct & identifiable characters. Most bands consist of a strong leader with a bunch of anonymous & disposable sidemen. Each of the Beatles became crucial to the overall sum of the parts.

 

<>

 

Ultimately, I feel the cream rises to the top. The same strictures were applied to all British pop bands, yet the Beatles outshone all the others, probably as much a result of their ambition to be the best as anything else.

 

<>

 

Pop music always has been disposable & continues to be. Every generation, though, has its great song writers, & Lennon & McCartney are the greats from the 60's, alongside the Gershwin brothers, Cole Porter, Rogers & Hart (& later Hammerstein), Irving Berlin, & a handful of others from previous generations.

 

<< they ended up at a studio and with a producer who did not work with pop music. These guys didn't know how to make a pop recording. So instead of pumping out formula hits done using 'standard' methods, they had to figure it out for themselves... >>

 

Yes, although, the first tune Martin wanted them to record was "How Do You Do It", a piece of pure pop fluff which Gerry & the Pacemakers had a hit with later, because The Beatles dug in their heels & insisted that EMI should release a Lennon/McCartney tune. So, George Martin wasn't trying anything different in the beginning. The Beatles showed him that they had something more interesting to offer than pop crap, so Martin took the challenge & ran with it.

 

<>

 

Ditto.

 

<

I can only imagine what Nick Drake, the Animals, the Yardbirds, the Pretty Things, or some of the lesser known bands might have been able to achive under similar circumstances.>>

 

I believe the other bands & artists WERE presented with the same circumstances as the Beatles. It's just that the Beatles towered over all the rest talent-wise. Yes, they were definitely in the right place at the right time, & those circumstances will never present themselves again. But the Beatles outshone all the others because of a combination of factors contained within themselves; a strong camaderie within the group, historically great song material, blind ambition & a vision to succeed, extremely refined technical chops from years in the clubs of Hamburg & Liverpool, etc. It all came together to create a perfect storm in popular music which we shall never see again.

 

Scott Fraser

[Dr. Ellwood]

"I believe the other bands & artists WERE presented with the same circumstances as the Beatles."

 

But how do we know this? Where the same producers who worked with the Beatles the same as the ones working with those other bands? If it was within the same time period using the same support personnel this is a strong possiability, but I don't think we really know? Another possiability that I know from personal knowledge in the business is that a high money making band can suck resources away from other deserving bands in the same stable!

[picker]

I like what George told a guy one time. He said, "I just fell in with the right bunch of guys." The four of them just happened to be in the right place at the right time doing the right thing. Yeah, they were talented, but their luck exceeded their talent dramatically.

 

What I wonder about is how does someone like Eric Clapton, who didn't have nearly the social impact that the Beatles did, have a career as long as He has, with as many comebacks? Many guitarists like him or better didn't last past their first album. How has he managed to pull that off?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by ellwood:

But how do we know this? Where the same producers who worked with the Beatles the same as the ones working with those other bands? If it was within the same time period using the same support personnel this is a strong possiability, but I don't think we really know? Another possiability that I know from personal knowledge in the business is that a high money making band can suck resources away from other deserving bands in the same stable!

There is so much more to it than this though. The landscape is littered with excellent bands that never made it, due to managerial issues, label issues, and other business-related issues having nothing to do with their talent or abilities. Crack the Sky is a favorite exampleof mine... what great talents, how baddly handled and presented. If you have seen the excellent Turtles DVD, at the end of it Mark and Howard go into the simple math of changing managers and such... it is hilarious, but it is also disturbing and has been very true in the entertainment industry. Usually, the popular baqnds are what fuels the development of up and coming bands.... where did you think that the money came from? Labels generate money by selling product.. that product is the popular music that everyone is buying. A part of the money generated by the big sellers supports the lesser acts. (And at one time, the prestige artists like symphonys, and jazz, and other non-sellers/low sellers that could not support themselves. The margins are just too low to support these acts any longer,though.)

 

That is my main objection to all of this 'the internet will save music' talk. The label system supported and nurtured performing acts, kept them visible, and often on the road and working until they were ready for prime time. There is no provision in any replacement system that I have seen proposed which will replace this primary function. Now, when you book an act from their internet promotion, you never know if they have ever really played in front of an audience before.

 

Bill

[Dr. Ellwood]

I think I know how, and it is another example of initial impact CREAM! He made so many fans with his first big albums that that fan base stayed loyal all these years. His earlier exposure got his name noticed as a part of a band with some hits but CREAM solidified it for him to this day. You know it's easy to understand though when you consider that allot of bands that maybe had two or three hit albums can keep working with that name and making a pretty good living. Look at all the acts that get to play pretty good playing gigs all over the country that keep going this way. It's the same kind of thing with Eric, his consistant involvement with blues has helped his fame stay in the ears of the public.

[mdrs]

Great thread, and many, many interesting points of view here.

 

There are many complex reasons why one band, or one talent, endures, while another fails to. It is never simple to understand. But, don't underestimate TALENT.

 

John, Paul, George, and yes even Ringo all had a touch of genius in each of them. Then they came together, under George Martin, who didn't know how to produce pop records. So, together they ended up creating someting new. And, it was BRILLIANT!

 

Eric Clapton is similiarly brilliant. Sure there have been "better" guitarists. But, go back and listen to him from John Mayall and The Bluesbreakers, and then The Cream. His playing was like nothing ever heard before. I think one of his great strengths is his ability to take someone else's music (ie the early bluesmen), and with the help of the very first of the modern amplifiers capable of overdriven tone, create something pretty much entirely new and inovative. He was incredible in that stage of his career. He arguably could be called the most influential guitarist in Rock music, based on that early music. His talent has allowed him to "re-invent" himself and has sustained his career all these years.

 

The Who are another great example of how innovative talent can sustain a career. Pete Townshend has come up with so many innovative "firsts" during his career, it's amazing. I believe the pure raw talent of the various members of The Who allowed them to "blast" thru the early pressures to produce 2 minute pop songs, and create enduring, innovative, brilliant music.

 

The wierd thing is that we all know so many amazingly talented musicians who never make it. That is the tough part of this buisness, from my perspective.

 

By the way, Bill@welcome.....I ordered a Fulltone Clyde Deluxe today....I should have it tomorrow!! I can't wait! Thanks for the heads up about it.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by ellwood:

I think I know how, and it is another example of initial impact CREAM! He made so many fans with his first big albums that that fan base stayed loyal all these years. His earlier exposure got his name noticed as a part of a band with some hits but CREAM solidified it for him to this day. You know it's easy to understand though when you consider that allot of bands that maybe had two or three hit albums can keep working with that name and making a pretty good living. Look at all the acts that get to play pretty good playing gigs all over the country that keep going this way. It's the same kind of thing with Eric, his consistant involvement with blues has helped his fame stay in the ears of the public.

For Clapton you can add in that he allowed his labels to push him in the direction of market trends and choose songs for him that were going to sell. That allowed him to pursue the blues stuff almost as a side project to his more commercial releases.

[Scott Fraser]

<<"I believe the other bands & artists WERE presented with the same circumstances as the Beatles.">

<>

 

I'm referring mainly to promotion, radio play, tour support, press, etc. Initially it wasn't apparent that the Beatles would pull so far ahead of the others & they were all rather lumped together support-wise.

As for production, initially record production was not really a distinguishing feature with early British bands. George Martin grew into his role just as the Beatles grew into theirs as masters of studio technique.

 

<>

 

Very true, & it didn't take long for the Beatles to outsell all other bands of the day.

 

Scott Fraser

[Dr. Ellwood]

At the time I was familiar with MoTowns production and recording techniques. At the time was what George Martin did with the Beatles considered to be ground breaking in the business of studio engineering and production? OR was it that advanced techniques where known but not used with reguard to pop or rock band recordings? Just asking.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Originally posted by ellwood:

I think I know how, and it is another example of initial impact CREAM! He made so many fans with his first big albums that that fan base stayed loyal all these years. His earlier exposure got his name noticed as a part of a band with some hits but CREAM solidified it for him to this day. You know it's easy to understand though when you consider that allot of bands that maybe had two or three hit albums can keep working with that name and making a pretty good living. Look at all the acts that get to play pretty good playing gigs all over the country that keep going this way. It's the same kind of thing with Eric, his consistant involvement with blues has helped his fame stay in the ears of the public.

For Clapton you can add in that he allowed his labels to push him in the direction of market trends and choose songs for him that were going to sell. That allowed him to pursue the blues stuff almost as a side project to his more commercial releases.

Agreed! Smart, very smart!

[mdrs]

Bill@Welcome Home Studios mentioned Geoff Emerick's book in one of his comments above. If you are really interested in all this Beatles stuff, and want to gain some really great insights into how the Beatles recorded, check out this book;

 

Here, There, and Everywhere. My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles", by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey.

[Dr. Ellwood]

But Doc, THAT would require READING! I took a oath the day I walked out of my last masters class before graduation that I would never see the inside of a lecture room again and that if I did the walls should fall down upon my tired head! I did not however take a oath not to run a tape player of cd player.... I wonder, is this available on TALKING BOOKS?

[mdrs]

Here you go, El;

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143058592/ref=ed_oe_a/102-5703634-9594508?ie=UTF8

[Dr. Ellwood]

LOL!!! well I'll be hornswaggled!!! ok I'm ordering it NOW!!! thanks Doc!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by mdrs:

Great thread, and many, many interesting points of view here.

 

But, don't underestimate TALENT.

 

Sorry, talent and art are incidental quotients in the music industry. (Art moreso than talent.) Billions of incredibly talented individuals sit at home while far less talented individuals make big money in the industry. Fact. The business does not survive on talent, though it certainly is great when an act displays some.

 

Bill

[Squ]

Don't dismiss and insult the success, impact and talent of the Beatles by claiming it was all due to luck. Yes, society moves art along. Groups of people. But remember that groups of people are made up of individuals. Was Hendrix lucky?

[mdrs]

I hear ya, Bill. From my post you can see that I mentioned the unfortunate fact that many amazingly talented musicians never "make it".

 

I've been frustrated by this fact for years. I've know so many musicians that I simply can not believe never "made it big". I realized this at a very young age. The fact that "the odds" are so stacked against "making it" even if you have amazing talent quite literally scared me away from considering a career in music. Perhaps I lacked courage. But, I'd simply seen too many hugely talented folks never get where they deserved to go. That scared me away. Well, that, and that time when I smashed my brand new French Horn when I was in 4th grade, and got kicked out of the school band!!! (true story, by the way!!)

 

I think that really talented individuals occasionally do find a way to suceed. And, their success is based on much more than luck.

 

Although, a little luck never hurt anybody....

[LPCustom]

Originally posted by Squ:

Don't dismiss and insult the success, impact and talent of the Beatles by claiming it was all due to luck. Yes, society moves art along. Groups of people. But remember that groups of people are made up of individuals. Was Hendrix lucky?

I don't think anyone is saying that it was all due to luck. They're just saying that by changing a couple of seemingly minor things the Beatles might have had a very different history and impact. Call it the Butterfly effect if you will.

 

We are all the sum of the decisions made up to present in our lives. Some decisions didn't make much if any difference. But some decisions have had profound effects on who we are. The same is true of bands. All it takes is a few different seemingly unimportant decisions and your whole life changes.

 

My whole married life comes down to accepting an invitation to go to a party 27 years ago to check out a drummer. That party is where I met my wife. I almost didn't go. It didn't seem important and I had other things I wanted to do. Had I not gone, my life would be completely different, now. And my son would not even exist. That's a big change from just one seemingly insignificant decision.

[Scott Fraser]

<< check out this book;

Here, There, and Everywhere. My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles", by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey.>>

 

This is essential reading for the hard core Beatles follower who wishes to know how the records were made, from the engineering side of the glass. Lots of observations on the role of George Martin in the process.

 

Scott Fraser

[Scott Fraser]

<>

 

That came later in the process as the Beatles pushed George Martin to come up with a different sound for every song. Both the Beatles as well as Martin really came into their own as masters of the studio process after the Beatles decided to stop touring & concentrate on recording. Prior to Rubber Soul their recordings were done pretty quickly & don't really show any production which didn't already exist throughout the pop industry.

 

Scott Fraser

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Scott Fraser:

<< check out this book;

Here, There, and Everywhere. My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles", by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey.>>

 

This is essential reading for the hard core Beatles follower who wishes to know how the records were made, from the engineering side of the glass. Lots of observations on the role of George Martin in the process.

 

Scott Fraser

I'm glad that I read it, but the book as no heart or soul. I felt empty, and uninvolved.

 

Bill