Who made a bigger impact on music...

[Hickory Man]

Brian Wilson

The Beatles influence on Brian wilson, and Brians on the Beatles made for two of the best albums of all time, but Brian only really started being more than a pop writer after trying to top Rubber Soul.

[Del Zeppnile]

Thanks Del. I agree with your points completely. The Beatles may have popularized lots of styles of making music, in many cases they weren't the first. Psychedelia and concept albums were done long before Sgt. Pepper.

Thanks!

And it's not like I am not a fan of much of their music or their contributions to the genre. But I also don't think they belong as high up on a pedestal as some people put them. Just their "mainstream" appeal tends to make them as suspect in my mind as even the commercialized B movie form of the uniquely talented Elvis Presley ended up being. They were willing to be a Pop band, and that really bothers me. I wish I had seen them play when they were in Hamburg, just as much as I wish all of Elvis' music could have been more like Mystery Train.

[~tangerine~]

Thanks!

And it's not like I am not a fan of much of their music or their contributions to the genre. But I also don't think they belong as high up on a pedestal as some people put them. Just their "mainstream" appeal tends to make them as suspect in my mind as even the commercialized B movie form of the uniquely talented Elvis Presley ended up being. They were willing to be a Pop band, and that really bothers me. I wish I had seen them play when they were in Hamburg, just as much as I wish all of Elvis' music could have been more like Mystery Train.

The Beatles do belong at the top of the pedestal. Who in the history of rock n roll is more popular on a global scale?

[~tangerine~]

But the Beatles wouldn't have been without Chuck Berry et al, so from a standpoint of influence, I'd have to agree with others that someone like Chuck Berry had a greater impact on things. I don't want to knock their importance and influence in music but IMO I don't see the Beatles as "the" defining force.

To use your statement to make my point.... which is (because i'm not arguing or even caring so much about who or what defined or influenced anyone or anything)... as far as i can see, there is no more popular band in rock n roll than The Beatles. I am using you to articulate my statement to Del in regards to the Beatles being overrated (as i read his words in a round about way). and yes for the record, The Beatles have been my all time favorite band for close to 30 years (with Led Zeppelin in a close second, and for over 30 years).

[Del Zeppnile]

The Beatles influence on Brian wilson, and Brians on the Beatles made for two of the best albums of all time, but Brian only really started being more than a pop writer after trying to top Rubber Soul.

Good point.

But consider that there is also probably some other "California influence" in Rubber Soul probably by way of David Crosby and Roger McGuinn and some of the other pre psychedlia beat and folk infuences here in America, especially the west coast.

My quip about Brian Wilson was in response more to the manner in which the Beatles (by their own admission) were influenced by the almost flawless production and studio work done on Pet Sounds. The suggestion had been made that the Beatles almost from their own well of talent influenced everyone else. When I tend to think that they were a culmination of much outside influence along with their own added talent and superb managment as a more balanced view of their success.

[ninelives]

To use your statement to make my point.... which is (because i'm not arguing or even caring so much about who or what defined or influenced anyone or anything)... as far as i can see, there is no more popular band in rock n roll than The Beatles. I am using you to articulate my statement to Del in regards to the Beatles being overrated (as i read his words in a round about way). and yes for the record, The Beatles have been my all time favorite band for close to 30 years (with Led Zeppelin in a close second, and for over 30 years).

I don't think the Beatles are overrated at all. As I said, there's no denying their importance in the development of music. My point was I don't think they were "the" defining force in music. It's not about popularity that makes a band great - an artist like Britney Spears sells millions and IMO she has very little talent. I think the point of discussing the granddaddies of rock and roll is that they were the ones that opened the door. They created something that without it, we wouldn't have the music we've had over the years. So as far as discussing influential artists, I do think it's important they get a nod.

But...the original poster raised the issue of Lennon versus Jackson to which I'm not sure of the answer. I would probably say at this late hour Lennon was more influential on music from a political and lyrical standpoint whereas Jackson fueled a style of music/dance/video that's still being drawn upon today.

[~tangerine~]

I don't think the Beatles are overrated at all. As I said, there's no denying their importance in the development of music. My point was I don't think they were "the" defining force in music. It's not about popularity that makes a band great - an artist like Britney Spears sells millions and IMO she has very little talent. I think the point of discussing the granddaddies of rock and roll is that they were the ones that opened the door. They created something that without it, we wouldn't have the music we've had over the years. So as far as discussing influential artists, I do think it's important they get a nod.

But...the original poster raised the issue of Lennon versus Jackson to which I'm not sure of the answer. I would probably say at this late hour Lennon was more influential on music from a political and lyrical standpoint whereas Jackson fueled a style of music/dance/video that's still being drawn upon today.

Hi ninelives, i was only using your post, as i said, to make a clear point about what Del said. I read his statement as saying the Beatles (to him) are overrated. To Del, maybe they are. But to say The Beatles don't belong at the top of the pedestal, or in other words, saying they are overrated, is ridiculous. I really wasn't expanding into any other part of this discusssion. Just had to defend my boys, lol I know that "popularity" doesn't mean a band or artist is talented (talent is often subjective anyway)... but the Beatles were unquestionably talented, and "popular" and while i would say that Britney has fizzled out quite a bit, the Beatles have remained at the " top of pedestal" in rock music for four and a half decades, so far.

[ninelives]

Hi ninelives, i was only using your post, as i said, to make a clear point about what Del said. I read his statement as saying the Beatles (to him) are overrated. To Del, maybe they are. But to say The Beatles don't belong at the top of the pedestal, or in other words, saying they are overrated, is ridiculous. I really wasn't expanding into any other part of this discusssion. Just had to defend my boys, lol I know that "popularity" doesn't mean a band or artist is talented (talent is often subjective anyway)... but the Beatles were unquestionably talented, and "popular" and while i would say that Britney has fizzled out quite a bit, the Beatles have remained at the " top of pedestal" in rock music for four and a half decades, so far.

Hi Tangerine No worries - I knew what your point was. I was in a poorly stated way agreeing that they aren't overrated at all but IMO, I wouldn't put them at the top. But that's reflective of my taste - of course everyone's is different and they'll see it as they do

[Del Zeppnile]

The Beatles do belong at the top of the pedestal. Who in the history of rock n roll is more popular on a global scale?

I think the problem with that statement is that when you attempt to define greatness by the yardstick of a "global scale" especially with popular music, you often end up with 'greatness' or you end up with 'popularity'. The pitfall then becomes: Britney Spears should be at the top of the pedestal because she is more "popular" on a global scale than say Otis Redding ever was... (on a global scale). When if fact we all know, or should know, that Spears is crap and Redding was talented.

I personally think that the Beatles were in fact talented, AND they were also made "popular" by many of the same likes of people who would stand through a 2 hour concert and scream at the top of their lungs just like they do at a Miley Cyrus concert. So if you ask me if Madonna is more talented than Muddy Waters was, I would say absolutly not! Because my scale is not "global" -- my scale is based on talent/genius... it's not stricktly a popularity contest.

to articulate my statement to Del in regards to the Beatles being overrated (as i read his words in a round about way). and yes for the record, The Beatles have been my all time favorite band for close to 30 years (with Led Zeppelin in a close second, and for over 30 years).

I find that to be an odd 1 -2 combination.

Sort of like saying Herman's Hermits and The Who.

[CaliforniaÜberAlles]

I would disagree with this. They may have ended up being the most popular force, but I would not say that they defined it. I mean how can you say that when they were at the beggining basically covering music by Chuck Berry, Elvis and Little Richard? And then even when they started doing their own stuff, I still wouldn't call it "defining" by any stretch. I would say that in their era, Bob Dylan was by far more of a defining force, especially since it took Dylan's critisizim of Lennon/McCartney's songs to sort of wake them up.

When I say they defined it, I mean that for better or for worse, love them or hate them, they have been the model for all pop/rock acts to follow in their wake. Get a group of friends together. Make a band, choose a name. Get a couple of guitarists, a bass player, and a drummer. Write and perform your own songs. I'm not saying they defined the sound of rock or popular music, and they sum up everything that came before and after. No no. I'm saying they changed the landscape, they changed the thought process that went into making popular recordings in a way that hasn't changed much since they've been gone.

I mean, do I really have to go through all the ways they instigated basic core changes in the music business, in the sound of rock, in the ways the studio can be used to not just capture a live performance but really SHAPE the sound of the music? Or how they changed perception of rock music from a bunch of racket that supposedly only appealed to teenagers to a serious, viable, respectable art form with albums like Sgt. Pepper? It's not that I think that rock music before them wasn't a respectable art form, but it was largely the Beatles whose influence changed that larger public perception.

Again, I'm not just talking about what they did when they were first starting out. I'm not saying they came in out of the blue, without any influences, and did what they did. Yeah, they did cover other musician's songs when they began. No artist lives in a vacuum. If that's what everyone is getting their panties in a twist about, than what makes Elvis all that much more influential than the dudes that influenced and inspired him? The Beatles took what Elvis and Chuck had done, internalized it, re-contextualized it, combined it with a ton of other influences including country, folk, classical, avant-garde, etc. etc., brought it to a larger audience on a larger scale than anyone previously had. They changed the way the record business worked. They were the driving force behind the increased popularity of the genre. They changed the long held beliefs about how rock music had to be sold and marketed. This idea that persists to this day in rock music of the LP being the great, sacred medium of the genre rather than the single...started with them. And more than anything, they influence millions of young men and women to pick up an instrument and make great music and get known and make money and get famous on the validity of their songwriting talent.

So yeah, despite all the objections I'm seeing in this thread, I still think it's fair to call them the defining force in popular music in the 20th century. Haha. It's not like I'm going out on a limb by saying that or anything. The Beatles didn't just poppify stuff. They didn't invent every genre like some people suggest, but they're affect on the purely musical evolution of music was as huge as they're affect on the social.

Without Elvis and Berry the Beatles never exist. And without Robert Johnson and Hank Williams, Elvis and Berry don't even exist.

Yes, I realize that, thank you.

You are just flat wrong. They did not in the beggining write their own music. It was Brian Epstein who had to encourage their talent to get to that point, and it was George Martin in the studio who brought it all together.

Um. Ok? I'm not trying to slight George Martin or Brian Epstein. Hell, I've often said there hasn't been a producer and engineer of such a caliber paired with songwriters of such skill that also happened to compliment each other just so since The Beatles. Again, just the perfect storm.

But I don't see how I'm flat out wrong about anything. "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You", the first two songs on their first single...they wrote that, didn't they? How about "Please Please Me"? How about every single they released from the time they signed a recording contract? They didn't just release singles that were hit songs written by other musicians/composers and handed to them by the studio, and that was unique back in 1962. And again...a band of musicians, without a true "leader" or single songwriter, coming up with tunes as an ensemble and preforming them. Hmm. Yeah, I think that's still pretty common practice these days.

Any real appreciation of the historical roots and significance of what came to be coined "rock and roll" existed long before the people who made it popular with folks like Elvis and Berry. In fact, Rythem and Blues already WAS, and even without Elvis there still would have been a Muddy Waters, a John Lee Hooker, a Fats Domino and then by logical extension a Yardbirds, Cream and a Led Zeppelin. And all without a link going through the Beatles. But without the Beatles path which came through Elvis, Berry and Little Richard, alll the Beatles ever would have been was a Skiffle band.

Do you see the point I am making?

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in principle. But so what? Things worked out the way they did, the Beatles were inspired by Elvis and Little Richard and the like, and they went on to have a greater influence on more people than any group of musicians in the 20th century.

That was only because the record labels and big money started screwing with it and corrupting the sound. But obviously that intrusion of the art form was not sustainable because the roots and popularity was already there. So even if rock and roll music went through a stage where it was being reformated for a mass palet. You still had young men like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page and Eric Burdon collecting obscure records of REAL artists and mimicking their style into a form that eventually had to exist as it was without any meddling by recording studio executives.

For you imply that it was just a fad is again evidence of your complete lack of understaning of the art form, it's history and it's roots. And eventually the extent of the infuence as well.

Gah. Me imply that it was a fad? I did no such thing. Don't tell me about my complete lack of understanding of the art form and it's history, I have plenty thanks. Again, I'm talking about how it was viewed at the time, in the late 50s and early 60s. Like you said, it was taken by the record labels and reformatted for greater popularity. There wasn't a respect for the genre, even by these record labels that made millions off it. They were already looking for the next big "thing". Some record labels, like Capitol, never even cashed in on that initial rock and roll phase because...yeah, THEY thought it was a fad that passed. The Beatles made sure that didn't happen.

Brian Wilson

Oh, at his best Brian Wilson was on par with the Beatles. Unfortunately he wasn't nearly as consistent.

[Aquamarine]

You haven't "often" said anything. This was your seventh post--theoretically.

[CaliforniaÜberAlles]

You haven't "often" said anything. This was your seventh post--theoretically.

Haha. Maybe not on here, but it is something I believe and that I have said it many times in other discussions.

[Del Zeppnile]

When I say they defined it, I mean that for better or for worse, love them or hate them, they have been the model for all pop/rock acts to follow in their wake.

See I just don't see it in the same absolute terms in which you seem to be articulating your point. Obviously from a business model all record labels and management would have wanted to copy the same type of commercial success as we saw with the Beatles and even Elvis Presely before them. But to say "for all" who followed in their wake just isn't true. There have been many models to success, it's just that most have never been as popular.

Where is the Beatles model in the Led Zeppelin experience? I would argue that Atlantic Records gave Jimmy Page and Peter Grant far more leeway starting at the ground floor than the Beatles had from Capitol/EMI. I would also argue that the Beatles' relationship with their label, while being all about business, would not be my model to follow. Especially since EMI's royalty rates eventually resulted in a lawsuit by the surviving members of the band, not to mention the sad way the lads lost the rights to their own music.

[ninelives]

Haha. Maybe not on here, but it is something I believe and that I have said it many times in other discussions.

You mean other identities

[~tangerine~]

I think the problem with that statement is that when you attempt to define greatness by the yardstick of a "global scale" especially with popular music, you often end up with 'greatness' or you end up with 'popularity'. The pitfall then becomes: Britney Spears should be at the top of the pedestal because she is more "popular" on a global scale than say Otis Redding ever was... (on a global scale). When if fact we all know, or should know, that Spears is crap and Redding was talented.

I personally think that the Beatles were in fact talented, AND they were also made "popular" by many of the same likes of people who would stand through a 2 hour concert and scream at the top of their lungs just like they do at a Miley Cyrus concert. So if you ask me if Madonna is more talented than Muddy Waters was, I would say absolutly not! Because my scale is not "global" -- my scale is based on talent/genius... it's not stricktly a popularity contest.

I find that to be an odd 1 -2 combination.

Sort of like saying Herman's Hermits and The Who.

When you define greatness in Rock n Roll, the Beatles are at the top. This is a fact, and it is based on a band that is still popular after 45 + years. The Beatles may not be one of your favorites, but that doesn't change the way they have been defined since the mid 60's. Those girls were screaming back then, and if the Beatles were resurrected today, the girls now would be screaming just as loud,

Comparing Britney (a pop singer, who as far as i can see has lost most of her momentum, and has always sucked) the Beatles are a rock n roll band. The Beatles most poppiest pop songs are still rock n roll. To use your analogy, comparing the two is an odd 1 - 2 combination.

My scale is also based on talent/genius, and i don't think too many would argue that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, as a collaboration, fell short on either of those traits. They have stood the test of time, and will continue to be the epitome of rock n roll music for eternity.

[CaliforniaÜberAlles]

See I just don't see it in the same absolute terms in which you seem to be articulating your point. Obviously from a business model all record labels and management would have wanted to copy the same type of commercial success as we saw with the Beatles and even Elvis Presely before them. But to say "for all" who followed in their wake just isn't true. There have been many models to success, it's just that most have never been as popular.

Where is the Beatles model in the Led Zeppelin experience? I would argue that Atlantic Records gave Jimmy Page and Peter Grant far more leeway starting at the ground floor than the Beatles had from Capitol/EMI. I would also argue that the Beatles' relationship with their label, while being all about business, would not be my model to follow. Especially since EMI's royalty rates eventually resulted in a lawsuit by the surviving members of the band, not to mention the sad way the lads lost the rights to their own music.

Well, where you quoted me I was really referring to how they were the model or prototype for the popular notion of the "rock band", a self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. But if you want to talk about their business model...I mean look. The specifics of how the Beatles' business dealings with EMI is obviously unique to them. Being the pioneers that they were, they had to break down a lot of doors and deal with issues that bands after them just didn't have to. For example, when they first signed their record contract, royalties on records sold weren't even considered a major point of contention. It was assumed that record labels kept just about all the money it made off selling records to cover the cost of recording and cultivating talent and finding new talent, etc.

So how did the way the Beatles changed the music industry effect the Led Zeppelin experience? Obviously having the benefit of starting in the record business 6 years after the Beatles did a lot. They wouldn't have had that leeway from the record label in 1962 that they gained in 1968. Rock musicians had a lot more artistic freedom from record labels, greater control in the studio and over the product they released. Not to mention that before the Beatles, the influence of rock music only flowed one way across the Atlantic: from America to the UK. The U.S. was where the genre had it roots, and U.S. record labels just didn't take UK artists seriously. The Beatles had to sell millions of records and cause a major frenzy in Britain before they received any significant radio airplay or even thought about having their records released by Capitol in the United States. And obviously, after the Beatles, bands from outside the U.S. didn't have to deal with those barriers. I could just go on and on, but point is, while the way that they dealt with their record label and vice versa wasn't any sort of model, the way that record labels had to view rock musicians, especially from the UK, and the way they had to deal with them, and the kind contracts they offered them all were by-products of the Beatles' huge success.

[2bitnogoodjive]

Without the Beatles huge success in the U.S., I seriously doubt that the other British Invasion groups (Stones, Who, Kinks, Animals, Yardbirds, etc.) would have had much chance at all of breaking really big outside the U.K. Just something about the Fab 4 that created genuine rock n roll hysteria and generated the buzz that set the standard for the other bands to emulate.

[~tangerine~]

Without the Beatles huge success in the U.S., I seriously doubt that the other British Invasion groups (Stones, Who, Kinks, Animals, Yardbirds, etc.) would have had much chance at all of breaking really big outside the U.K. Just something about the Fab 4 that created genuine rock n roll hysteria and generated the buzz that set the standard for the other bands to emulate.

Whether or not it's true that without the Beatles success in the U.S. others would not have made it.... i agree whole heartidly with what you have said! EXCELLENT!!!

[59LesPaul]

Chuck Berry directly influenced two of the greatest...

The Rolling Stones....and The Beatles.

'nuff said.

[Del Zeppnile]

Chuck Berry directly influenced two of the greatest...

The Rolling Stones....and The Beatles.

'nuff said.

I wonder if the times were different, in fact I'm pretty sure of it, that Chuck Berry would have been called The King of Rock & Roll. I mean even with the race factor in America in the 50s, Berry's appeal could not be diminished. He is the real king as far as I'm concerned.

I love Elvis' older stuff, everthing recorded at Sun. But Chuck Berry just stays with me so much more now as I am getting older, and I really appreciate the simple rhythems and chord progressions of the roots.

The other day I was listening to Pink Floyd -- you know one of their 8 minute songs, and I actually thought, "FUCK THIS CRAP, it's boring me to death!" So I got out AC/DCs High Voltage and played the whole album just to cleanse myslef in ROCK & ROLL! And that is what Chuck Berry brought to R&R, not all that studio sythesized overdubbed hullaballoo. Somebody here said his stuff was "too simple" or repetative or something like that. WTF?

But I agree with you. The very best stuff that the Beatles and the Stones did screams CHUCK all the way!

[Gospel Zone]

If the question was The Beatles or Michael Jackson, I'd say The Beatles, but I'm not sure about John Lennon himself.

Also, the word impact doesn't necessarily mean a positive impact. There may be more artists out there having a negative impact than there are artists having a positive impact.

[59LesPaul]

I wonder if the times were different, in fact I'm pretty sure of it, that Chuck Berry would have been called The King of Rock & Roll. I mean even with the race factor in America in the 50s, Berry's appeal could not be diminished. He is the real king as far as I'm concerned.

I have always believed the same thing,and I think the racial element was a crucial part that's been swept under the rug.

Chuck Berry set the standard for what rock-n-roll is,and should be:A band where the members write the songs,and can go out and play them...

Or,has he said so himself......

"Hail,Hail Rock-N-Roll"....

[jimmie ray]

I have always believed the same thing,and I think the racial element was a crucial part that's been swept under the rug.

Chuck Berry set the standard for what rock-n-roll is,and should be:A band where the members write the songs,and can go out and play them...

Or,has he said so himself......

"Hail,Hail Rock-N-Roll"....

So is Berry going to be given all the accolades Jackson got, when he passes? I picture a half page in the obits, at best - then gone. Too bad he didn't prance around in a zombie outfit on MTV...

[59LesPaul]

So is Berry going to be given all the accolades Jackson got, when he passes? I picture a half page in the obits, at best - then gone. Too bad he didn't prance around in a zombie outfit on MTV...

If I have any say in it,he will.

The only bigger Chuck fan than me is Keith Richards.

....and look where it got him.

[Nathan]

Elvis Presley created Rock and Roll. The Beatles created Pop. Bob Dylan was the first true musical social critic. John Lennon followed suit, and added to the music genres in definition. Jimi Hendrix made the guitar solo famous (even if he wasn't the first to truly play one). Pink Floyd invented a whole new genre out of Psychedelic Rock: Progressive (Saucerful of Secrets has been called the first Progressive Rock album). Led Zeppelin was the first band to bridge quite literally dozens of different styles, and, some say, played a roll in inventing Metal along with Black Sabbath. Michael Jackson made Pop truly famous.

The most influential on the landscape would have to be Elvis Presley. None of what we have today would exist, including pop, if it weren't for Elvis. The 50's, 60's, and 70's are rightly considered the three greatest decades in music.

Between Lennon and Jackson, I'd say Lennon (that's who I voted for), but it's really not a fair choice because Jackson was as influential. The biggest difference, besides musical genre, is that Lennon was a social critic, whereas Jackson just wrote songs. Jackson didn't actually try to say anything. but beyond that... it's not really a fair question.