50 Years ago this coming Sunday………..

[Len44]

Here's a few good articles on the subject, if you want to learn:

http://listverse.com/2012/10/11/10-beatles-innovations-that-changed-music/


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1452393.stm


http://community.digitalmediaacademy.org/12758-how-the-beatles-changed-music

Hey, Rich -- Thanks for posting these links. Very informative. I confess to missing much of the Beatles phenomena at the time due to focus on college, marriage and then overseas with the Air Force and Vietnam. Also, it was a sore point with me that early-on The Beatles spouted off with disparaging remarks about American women. (Sure wish I could find the direct quote.)

As a result, I never much got into The Beatles. It has only been very recently that I have begun to (somewhat grudgingly) dip my toes in the water regarding this group. I will now agree that some of the music is kinda, sorta catchy. But I will have to listen more.

BTW, which do folks here enjoy more -- their mono or stereo recordings? Just wondering…

Oh, and I'm watching the Grammy Salute as I type this note...

 

[risabet]

Right, which is why today no one listens to or appreciates the contributions of composers like Bach, Beetoven, etc. or blues artists like Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, etc. or any of the Jazz greats. I could go on and on. Great music is timeless. I see kids today rocking to classic artists all the time. And many of the great artists of today will list groups like The Beatles as having a huge influence on their work.

In fact, Pearl Jam, who you mention, listed as some of their influences The Who, Neil Young, and Jimmy Hendrix, all of whom, by the way, were heavily influenced by, you guessed it, The Beatles!

As one who never developed an appreciation for the majority of the Beatles songs, though there are a few I deeply enjoy, I can still appreciate their influence on the development of R and R. One doesn't need to like an artist to realize their contributions to the field.

 

[FoxMulder]

I have stated this many times over the years: Rock-N-Roll "as we know it today" wouldn't exist or would be completely different, if it wasn't for the Beatles...period.

The special last night was wonderful! I got great sound out of my home theater through ComCast. Very impressive.

This is just a "small" portion of my Beatles shrine in one of my record rooms.

 

[bonzo]

Big Led Zep, Clapton, Dylan fan here. What I don't like about the Beatles is that they did a 100 retakes, while Zep did 2 or 3.

Also they didn't use the right cables.

 

[twich54]

FWIW, rebroadcast of Sunday's show is on again tonite

 

[Rich]

Also they didn't use the right cables.

Ha ha. Good one. Gotta love British wit.

 

[sb6]

I didn't get a chance to read any info from the links, but in my opinion, here's some of what the Beatles did (in a few bullets)

- Ushered in the British invasion with their appearance on Ed Sullivan.
- Experimented with instruments, mixing techniques and technology not done before in a studio environment, yet were still classified as, "Rock n, Roll". Think "A Day in the Life", "Eleanor Rigby"
- Catapulted the viability and credibility of songwriter + singer in 1 package. Beforehand, most roles were separate.
- Reinforced blues to mainstream America, albeit in a more pop format.
- Brought about more complex songwriting techniques to Rock n' Roll more commonly used in old American standards (use of minor, dim 7ths, augmented chords, etc for more complex rhythms. Think "Strawberry Fields", "And Your Bird Can Sing", etc...
- Brought about more complex lyrics including onomatopoeia, alliteration, symbolism, etc. Lennon was the master at this. Think I am the Walrus, White Album....

 

[bonzo]

Ha ha. Good one. Gotta love British wit.

Indian. Though in London.

 

[oscaralbro]

I am not so old so i have not seen it.