[Severian]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

No way man. Comparing Beatles to Nirvana is like comparing Picasso to Banksy.

This may be true. Hell, it is. But Nirvana was the closest thing our generation ever had to the Beatles, like it or not. So the comparisons are inevitable. Just like Eminem has been ridiculously compared to Elvis fucking Presley.

Growing up, as the son of a Beatle-maniac, I think I consciously attributed some Beatle-like qualities to Nirvana, simply because it felt as though my father's generation had been such a meaningful one, and mine had been so empty and ultimately meaningless.

....

Still, Nirvana was just accepted into the rock n' roll hall of fame on their first year of eligibility. That's something only a handful of artists can claim, the Beatles being one of them. The world clearly views Nirvana as a band that defined an era better than anyone else. I think the case is closed on them being the band of the 90's. To say anything else is to admit obliviousness. If you didn't live through the 90's, or were too young to know what was going on, you probably think it was Radiohead. That's bullshit, though.

A better comparison is Kurt Cobain and John Lennon. As strange as that may sound, they were equally snarky, sardonic, pop-culture hating social justice advocates for their own time. Lennon did Bed-ins; Kurt slandered homophobic rock stars and middle american skinheads.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

This may be true. Hell, it is. But Nirvana was the closest thing our generation ever had to the Beatles, like it or not. So the comparisons are inevitable. Just like Eminem has been ridiculously compared to Elvis fucking Presley.

Growing up, as the son of a Beatle-maniac, I think I consciously attributed some Beatle-like qualities to Nirvana, simply because it felt as though my father's generation had been such a meaningful one, and mine had been so empty and ultimately meaningless.

....

Still, Nirvana was just accepted into the rock n' roll hall of fame on their first year of eligibility. That's something only a handful of artists can claim, the Beatles being one of them. The world clearly views Nirvana as a band that defined an era better than anyone else. I think the case is closed on them being the band of the 90's. To say anything else is to admit obliviousness. If you didn't live through the 90's, or were too young to know what was going on, you probably think it was Radiohead. That's bullshit, though.

To this I totally agree, and if anything, while I am hugely obsessed with radiohead I never understood the hype surrounding them, I don't see them as all that influential.

A better comparison is Kurt Cobain and John Lennon. As strange as that may sound, they were equally snarky, sardonic, pop-culture hating social justice advocates for their own time. Lennon did Bed-ins; Kurt slandered homophobic rock stars and middle american skinheads.

I can't agree with this at all. John Lennon was an entirely different kind of artist, and while both clearly had some fun with their music, John clearly took his art as being more serious than Kurt did. John's music often had some kind of purpose or statement, whereas Kurt was mostly having fun with his art, even if sometimes his songs also made somewhat of a cultural or social statement. I don't think Kurt was anywhere near the kind of almost natural intellectual that John was, and it showed in how abrasive John got towards the late 1970s. Kurt was never abrasive, he was just himself. John was himself too, but John's self was a bit more caustic at times. Also, John had a very high opinion of his art and his place in the musical pantheon (in other words he was a bit self-absorbed) whereas Kurt didn't seem much to give a shit about it, if anything, it became clear by 1993/94 that he didn't really care for the spotlight all that much any longer, and it is widely accepted that not only was Nirvana soon to be dissolved, but that Kurt was probably going to go off the radar musically and dive into something more indie or underground, whereas John almost pimped out his final record, and was in fact devastated personally when it didn't have critical acclaim or mass appeal by his fans. John cared about his Billboard numbers and sales charts, Kurt clearly could care less.

[Rob Instigator]

The Beatles, like I said earlier, influenced how people saw rockers, how rock music could be a creative ART, and the expectation that a band should write all their songs. NEW SONGS. Rock and roll before the Beatles was not about albums of music, but singles. They changed the whole face of rock music and the rock music industry. Writing all their songs and having them be so GOOD (over 50 Beatles songs are universal STANDARDS, played by Jazz musicians, pop musicians, garage bands, whoever, and known by people who never loved the Beatles, but know Something, know Blackbird, know Come Together....)
In terms of Hard Rock, Nirvana is Beatlesque. In terms of influence on the entire musical spectrum of the last 50 years? come on, MAN.

[Rob Instigator]

How many Nirvana songs are hummed by the average music listener? Two? Three? and of course one is the boring as fuck Heart Shaped Box....

[evollove]

Originally Posted by Severian

A better comparison is Kurt Cobain and John Lennon.

In fact, when Cobain didn't want to do something in the studio, Butch Vig told him Lennon did it and Cobain would give in. I think the issue was double-tracking vocals or something.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Yes, and again, I don't think it was the instrumentation, and I say this as a musician, I think they were influenced by the image, marketing, and popularity of the Beatles.

This is just fucking stupid. I whistle Beatle's tunes in the shower, not their image.

Regardless of how you personally feel about the Beatles, you must admit there have been literally billions of people in the world who have felt otherwise. Some of them started a band. (One of those people was Kurt Cobain.)

The influence of the Beatles musically and culturally is massive, and I don't know how I got suckered into responding to something so stupid. Must be bored.


.
.

Fun mind-game:

--Pretend Michael Stipe killed himself (or ODed maybe) after Automatic for the People. You couldn't slap the "Generation Spokesperson" on him fast enough.

Or what if Thom Yorke bit it after OK Computer?

Smith after Disintegration? Ooo, that would have been a great dramatic rock story. I can see the biopic now.

[Rob Instigator]

Geffen got the money maker with Nevermind that they hoped would come about as a result of them signing Sonic Youth.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

How many Nirvana songs are hummed by the average music listener? Two? Three? and of course one is the boring as fuck Heart Shaped Box....

What is funny, is I hardly ever listen to the radio, and even then every time I randomly have a radio on its more likely to have a Nirvana song playing than a Beatles song. Interesting

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

The Beatles, like I said earlier, influenced how people saw rockers, how rock music could be a creative ART, and the expectation that a band should write all their songs. NEW SONGS.

AGAIN, THIS WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE. My argument is that bands in the mid-1960s weren't trying exactly to sound like Beatles records. Further, nobody here as supported their claims with substantive rather than anecdotal evidence (i.e. a list of bands from the 1960s mainstream that sounded like Beatles copy-cats the way dozens of bands like Bush tried to sound like Nirvana )

In terms of influence on the entire musical spectrum of the last 50 years? come on, MAN.

THAT WAS NEVER WHAT THE FUCK I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I SAID BANDS CONTEMPORARY TO THE BEATLES WEREN'T TRYING TO SOUND LIKE THE BEATLES. I mentioned nothing about their massive influence after the 1960s..

Originally Posted by evollove

This is just fucking stupid. I whistle Beatle's tunes in the shower, not their image.

That is great and all, but I didn't realize you played in a band in the 1960s, which was what I was talking about. The musical influence of the Beatles on early-to-mid-1960s bands, and again, it was mostly image not sound. Bands didn't all sound like the Beatles, but plenty tried their best to look like them

Regardless of how you personally feel about the Beatles, you must admit there have been literally billions of people in the world who have felt otherwise. Some of them started a band. (One of those people was Kurt Cobain.)

(a) Did you actually read what I posted? I precisely said that the influence of the Beatles was to inspired so many bands to form and start bands. However, there is a world of difference between being inspired to start a band and being inspired to sound like a band.

(b) I was talking about bands contemporary to the early Beatles, you're talking about EVERY band since the Beatles and that was not what I was saying at all. Yes, of course many bands have been influenced after the Beatles, but I was talking about the musical (i.e. instrumentation) influence on the sound of the 1960s, and simply put, from 1964-1968 I can't think of even a handful of mainstream bands that sounded like the Beatles.

The influence of the Beatles musically and culturally is massive, and I don't know how I got suckered into responding to something so stupid. Must be bored.

Maybe next time you should read more carefully before totally trash talking me and being a total prick about it

[chocolate_ladyland]

http://pitchfork.com/news/53371-nirv...-hall-of-fame/

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

To this I totally agree, and if anything, while I am hugely obsessed with radiohead I never understood the hype surrounding them, I don't see them as all that influential.



I can't agree with this at all. John Lennon was an entirely different kind of artist, and while both clearly had some fun with their music, John clearly took his art as being more serious than Kurt did. John's music often had some kind of purpose or statement, whereas Kurt was mostly having fun with his art, even if sometimes his songs also made somewhat of a cultural or social statement. I don't think Kurt was anywhere near the kind of almost natural intellectual that John was, and it showed in how abrasive John got towards the late 1970s. Kurt was never abrasive, he was just himself. John was himself too, but John's self was a bit more caustic at times. Also, John had a very high opinion of his art and his place in the musical pantheon (in other words he was a bit self-absorbed) whereas Kurt didn't seem much to give a shit about it, if anything, it became clear by 1993/94 that he didn't really care for the spotlight all that much any longer, and it is widely accepted that not only was Nirvana soon to be dissolved, but that Kurt was probably going to go off the radar musically and dive into something more indie or underground, whereas John almost pimped out his final record, and was in fact devastated personally when it didn't have critical acclaim or mass appeal by his fans. John cared about his Billboard numbers and sales charts, Kurt clearly could care less.

Um, I really don't want to sound like an asshole here, but what T&B said about brushing up on your rock history needs to be repeated. And underlined.

Have you ever attempted to slog through the veritable OCEAN of posthumous Beatles reading material documenting how each songwriter grew into an extreme, of sorts, and how the "Lennon & McCartney" song credits were largely the result of an early desire to distribute credit equally between the two chief songwriters? Well, by the end of it, Lennon was so disgusted with McCartney's pop gloss that he dissed him publicly in his solo albums (which sold downright poorly compared to McCartney's, despite his number of singles that became notable hits.

Lennon hated commercialism by the time the Beatles reached their commercial peak in the late '60s. By the 70's, he was releasing work that would have no place on any Beatles album (Imagine and Plastic Ono Band actually remind me a lot of Nirvana. Especially the vocals, and the grit and sincerity of the delivery.

Lennon wanted fame at first, but I honestly don't think he gave a dick whether his albums sold by the time he was solo. Some of his shit is just painful to listen to. But Plastic Ono Band is as gritty as a Stooges album.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Um, I really don't want to sound like an asshole here, but what T&B said about brushing up on your rock history needs to be repeated. And underlined.

Maybe it is you and Toilets who need a refresher course? YOU HAVEN'T NAMED A SINGLE BAND FROM 1964-1968 that sounded like the Beatles, so I'm still not convinced as y'all side-step the issue at hand. I NEVER INTENDED TO DISS OR MINIMIZE THE BEATLES. my point was to talk about music and sound, and again, IT IS MY OPINION that the Beatles were less influential to the sound of bands in that time. This doesn't negate their explosive influence to motivate other musicians to start bands, and as Rob mentioned, to focus on original song writing, but I still dispute that these bands' sound was influenced by Beatles, and in all y'all's posts nobody has yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Not even one band!

Have you ever attempted to slog through the veritable OCEAN of posthumous Beatles reading material documenting how each songwriter grew into an extreme, of sorts, and how the "Lennon & McCartney" song credits were largely the result of an early desire to distribute credit equally between the two chief songwriters? Well, by the end of it, Lennon was so disgusted with McCartney's pop gloss that he dissed him publicly in his solo albums (which sold downright poorly compared to McCartney's, despite his number of singles that became notable hits.

In several interviews across the 1970s both John and Yoko babble on about their goals for commercial success. Did they cater to a corporate image of themselves? No. Did it stop them from going more experimental on some records? Hardly. However, John was ALWAYS very attentive to his album sales, his chart positions, and his critical acclaim. You can read all the books you want and it won't hardly change that reality. Yoko even mentioned about how pissed off John was that his last record wasn't that commercially successful initially, and she lamented that it was only his death that catapulted it to number one on the charts.

Lennon hated commercialism by the time the Beatles reached their commercial peak in the late '60s. By the 70's, he was releasing work that would have no place on any Beatles album (Imagine and Plastic Ono Band actually remind me a lot of Nirvana. Especially the vocals, and the grit and sincerity of the delivery.

He still cared about his sales and acclaim, even if he was sort of nonchalant about it. He often felt dissed and that Yoko especially was dissed when people in the mainstream didn't particularly dig their records.

Lennon wanted fame at first, but I honestly don't think he gave a dick whether his albums sold by the time he was solo. Some of his shit is just painful to listen to. But Plastic Ono Band is as gritty as a Stooges album.

I didn't say fame, I said commercial success. I wasn't trying accuse John Lennon of being a fashion whore, rather, just mentioning that he wasn't exactly aloof from record sales, chart positions, and what rock critics and writers had to say about his records. BY THE WAY IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I AM QUITE FOND OF 1970S JOHN LENNON, so please don't naively misinterpret the situation so as to think that I don't dig it, or that I don't know what he was about in that time period, 1970s Lennon was the John I liked the most, the revealing, crass yet funny, intellectual, honest, creative, and especially fun but sometimes abrasive person that he was. John shove the fame up its own ass, but it doesn't mean he stopped caring again about his sales, chart position, and critical acclaim. I just never see Kurt focusing on ANY of that. Also, Kurt wasn't as serious an artist as John was, clearly Kurt was more having fun and John was focusing more on his passions as an artist. In this regard they have very little in common.

By the way, you know that we can have a decent conversation about music without all of y'all throwing out ad hominem insults about my intelligence about music, we can discuss the issues without it having to be personal. I know this comes as a shock to SYG, but its not always personal if we have a difference of opinion about things.

[Severian]

SuchFriends...

I'm not really arguing with you, man. I just know that Paul McCartney was the definition of chart ambition. John Lennon was a sneering, gritty, Snarky, angry man who felt that music should come from a different place. Sure he wanted people to like him. He couldn't believe his solo albums didn't match the successes of the Beatles. But he also went out of his way to sing about unnerving and uncomfortable shit.

"Woman is the Nigger of the World"? Mother? Well, Well, Well? God? These are all songs where he spits at the world, the status quo, and empty pop culture. He definitely mellowed out toward the end, but listening to his "primal scream" era yowling, I can't help but think of Kurt Cobain's world sick larynx straining "All Apologies" chorus.

All I'm saying is this: for kids who were born in the early '80s, like my geriatric ass, Nirvana was most definitely our generation's Beatles. More because nobody else fits the bill than for any other reason, but still- they were it. And while they only released two major, spotlight albums in that decade, they were the band that crashed into pop music from out of fucking nowhere and changed it's trajectory forever. The world went from Michael Jackson to Nirvana just like the world went from Elvis to the Beatles. Both bands, no matter how different they are, were more cultural events than simple rock musicians.

Btw: in all honesty Radiohead is definitely closer to the Beatles in the way their career has progressed, and the consistent quality (from a critical perspective) of their work. But they're not an event. They didn't change much of anything. They just went with the flow, and did more with their version of pop music than anyone else at the gold/platinum level. But will they ever have even one #1 single? Nope. Will they ever sell 10 million albums? Maybe OKC, in a thousand years. I guess if you take Radiohead's experimental take on pop and combine it with Nirvana's undeniable cultural magnitude, you probably have the makings of a Beatle like band.

Also: 60's bands that sound like/admit to being influenced by the Beatles? Give me a fucking break!
The Monkees
Dave Clark Five
Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan (what? Yes.)
David Bowie
Elton John
Badfinger
Kinks
Beach Boys

And there are bands today, specifically indie rock bands like Spoon, who have been more influenced by the Beatles than any other band.

But if you really want to talk about artist whose career trajectory is similar to that of the Beatles.... I'm sorry, but Kanye West has taken the pop chameleon, expedited evolution thing, where each album is a completely different kind of statement, and he's rolled with it more successfully (both critically and commercially) than anyone, Radiohead included.

But what's a black Beatle anyway? A fuckin roach?

Hah. Anyway, I'm with ya bro. I just like talkin about this shit.

[Rob Instigator]

If Nirvana had never gotten off of Sub Pop and everything else stayed the same, Nirvana would be a blip in musical history.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

If Nirvana had never gotten off of Sub Pop and everything else stayed the same, Nirvana would be a blip in musical history.

So would the Beatles by the way, if anything this is what really connects both bands. Neither thought they would become the biggest bands of their era, they were just bands making a go at it in the club scene, and because people really enjoyed their music they blew up! You'd be crazy if you thought Nirvana wasn't popular on the merits of their music, they weren't created or manufactured, their music just struck a chord with a lot of people and as we say in this era went viral.

Originally Posted by Severian

SuchFriends...

I'm not really arguing with you, man. I just know that Paul McCartney was the definition of chart ambition. John Lennon was a sneering, gritty, Snarky, angry man who felt that music should come from a different place. Sure he wanted people to like him. He couldn't believe his solo albums didn't match the successes of the Beatles. But he also went out of his way to sing about unnerving and uncomfortable shit.

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not suggesting that John was changing his art to make it more commercially viable, rather that even while experimenting or producing art that was part of a sincere vision, John was still often interested it, concerned with, and even depressed about his sales, chart position, and critical acclaim. When his records were released, he would read articles and he would even frequently call up the label for sales/chart position updates. It doesn't mean he was selling out, or commercially focused, but it does mean he was at least thinking about it. He didn't just abandon these for a "devil may care" approach.

"Woman is the Nigger of the World"? Mother? Well, Well, Well? God? These are all songs where he spits at the world, the status quo, and empty pop culture. He definitely mellowed out toward the end, but listening to his "primal scream" era yowling, I can't help but think of Kurt Cobain's world sick larynx straining "All Apologies" chorus.

True, but the thing with artists is their art is like real life, it is not a singular vision. You can't define an artist by one song or even one album. While John often vented in his music, and indeed wrote many tunes with a kind of crassly sarcastic social commentary, it doesn't mean he had abandoned the world like some kind of post-hippie era John the Baptist. The guy was a complex figure. Again, I LOVE 1970s John Lennon by the way.

Both bands, no matter how different they are, were more cultural events than simple rock musicians.

This was never in dispute, what I have been arguing about is the idea that the Beatles music influenced the sound of the mainstream 1960s. I just don't hear it in other bands or records. Most definitely the Beatles were a huge culural influence, but I'm not sure we can say the same about musical sound and style (structurally speaking).

Btw: in all honesty Radiohead is definitely closer to the Beatles in the way their career has progressed, and the consistent quality (from a critical perspective) of their work. But they're not an event. They didn't change much of anything. They just went with the flow, and did more with their version of pop music than anyone else at the gold/platinum level. But will they ever have even one #1 single? Nope. Will they ever sell 10 million albums? Maybe OKC, in a thousand years. I guess if you take Radiohead's experimental take on pop and combine it with Nirvana's undeniable cultural magnitude, you probably have the makings of a Beatle like band.

I think the Pink Floyd/Radiohead comparisons have always been much more apt.

Also: 60's bands that sound like/admit to being influenced by the Beatles? Give me a fucking break!
The Monkees
Dave Clark Five

These are bands that were purposely constructed to imitate and copy the Beatles, they weren't sincere projects started by sincere artists who were sincerely inspired, so it doesn't quite count to having been "influenced by the Beatles" now does it?

Rolling Stones

BULLSHIT, the Stones were a straight up blues band, if anything, the Beatles started to sound more like the Stones.

Bob Dylan (what? Yes.)

What? No. Further, I dare say that both in 1963/64 AND also in the post-electric guitar upset, Dylan was MORE directly influential on 1960s music than the Beatles ever were (musically speaking)

David Bowie

Seriously now? Come on...

Elton John

Not really

Kinks

A bit here, but I think the Kinks had a muddier sound that sounded more like The Who than early Beatles

Beach Boys

Yeah right, suuuuuure they do

And there are bands today, specifically indie rock bands like Spoon, who have been more influenced by the Beatles than any other band.

I was never talking about today, or even the 1970s, very specifically I'm arguing that the Beatles from 1964-1968 didn't influence the sound of that time, just the culture and image.

But if you really want to talk about artist whose career trajectory is similar to that of the Beatles.... I'm sorry, but Kanye West has taken the pop chameleon, expedited evolution thing,

Meh, it is almost cliche for you to compare Kanye to the Beatles, and I'm surprised you didn't mention Jay Z who tried his hardest to go for that.

It should again be noted, I got no beef with the Beatles and I especially dig 1970s John Lennon. I'm just discussing the musical influence of the early Beatles, which I think has always been overrated because of all the hype and success that surrounded "Beatlemania" of that time. I would never intend to minimize the significance of the Beatles, we pretty much owe all greatest music in the 1960s to them, but not in the kind of direct way I think most people assume. Almost EVERY single band in the 1960s were INSPIRED by the Beatles, but I just don't think the SOUND of the music reflects a direct INFLUENCE.

[Bertrand]

I only own Nevermind.
The singer was actually alive when I listened to the music.
I liked and still do like the music.
This album I don't see as an album by somebody who was dead when it reached my ears, and it has a rhythm section that was soo good. Plus their pictures were fun to watch then, I'd have loved to have Novoselic as a friend.

Then I didn't pay attention that much to what came afterward.

I know Cobain died and it shocked me, but I can't paint things blacker than they were.

Nirvana, on Nevermind, had a terrific sound and good songs. Some I can hum (Something in the Way).

***

The Beatles played or recorded 483 songs (don't check, I've no idea), Nirvana less than 60 (don't).

***

The Beatles were no longer when their first song entered my world. It was on the radio. It was good. It's always been there. I never paid attention. I don't own any Beatles record. Their songs are everywhere, everyone's.
Then Lennon died and he was the one to love.

***

When I first listened to the Sex Pistols, it was because they were the punk band AND because there had been a tragedy. The band no longer was.
At the time, the hero was Sid, the villain John. The friend who copied me their album relunctantly agreed to add some PIL on the tape but despised the music. I loved it more. Still I thought the Pistols were the ones to be liked and stayed away from PIL for a while for that reason.
Then, slowly, rewriting the story, Malcolm was the villain, Sid a dupe.
Then John was the one.
Then Jon Savage wrote England's Dreaming and stressed the importance of the guitarist...

Now, when I listen to the Pistols, do I like them?
No.
The production is horrible.
Do I like some PIL albums?
Yes.

***

Death sometimes influences opinions, and those opinions might influence yours.
Shouldn't pay attention to it.

[evollove]

Sorry you thought attacks were personal.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I'm just discussing the musical influence of the early Beatles, which I think has always been overrated because of all the hype and success that surrounded "Beatlemania" of that time.[/u][/i][/b]

Oh, now I see. When The Beatles were the most popular active band in the world, no one was influenced.

Then they broke up and the influence was massive.

Makes total sense.

Hollies and a thousand other Brit Invasion bands (seriously, get any British Invasion compilation and spin it a few times), Byrds, the way the Stones responded to Sgt Pepper with Their Satanic Majesty's Request , Strawberry Fields kicking off psychedilia (so add early Pink Floyd and a bunch of others).

And the fact that they wrote everything was novel and pushed others into writing their own material. First double-album in rock. Lots of other ways they influenced popular music.


Here's a list of the top selling albums in UK in 1960s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom


Beatles albums make up half the list, 7 of them in the top 10. I find it hard to believe that no one took any musical cues from them at the time.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by evollove

Sorry you thought attacks were personal.

Thank you kindly, its just a discussion about music, not each other.

Oh, now I see. When The Beatles were the most popular active band in the world, no one was influenced.Then they broke up and the influence was massive.

Actually, that is sort of exactly how it worked. You can definitely here the influence of Abbey Road and Let It Be on several bands from 1970 onward, and even more you can hear the influence of Paul and John's solo records. However and again, IN MY OPINION, you just don't hear a "Beatles' sound" in the mainstream bands from 1964-1968, and nobody has yet to post any bands that did in fact sound like the Beatles so I am less convinced than before...

Hollies and a thousand other Brit Invasion bands (seriously, get any British Invasion compilation and spin it a few times), Byrds,

I can see a bit of it in the Byrds, but I would also suggest that the Byrds were an influence on the 1960s of their own. Also interesting how some of the best received Byrds cover songs were NOT Beatles songs at all..

the way the Stones responded to Sgt Pepper with Their Satanic Majesty's Request ,

Yeah, they responded, but I don't think with a record that sounded like the Beatles, it was a record that sounded even more like the Stones, and I would dare say that looking at who was playing what before 1967, I'd almost say that it could be argued that it was the Beatles were responding to the Stones with Sgt Pepper and not the other way around.

Strawberry Fields kicking off psychedilia (so add early Pink Floyd and a bunch of others).

NOW YOU'RE JUST TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS. The authentic (as opposed to crassy marketed commercial imitations) "psychedelic" bands came from their own scene, and were not imitating or copying anyone but themselves. When this sound got surprisingly popular, it is quite clear that the Beatles radically changed their initial sound to explore the psychedelic style. So I would say that its not that the Beatles greatly influenced psychedelica, rather quite the opposite, that it is clear BY THE CHRONOLOGY OF ALBUM RELEASES that it was the Beatles who were greatly influenced by psychedelic bands. Remember, both John and Paul were completely enamored with Jimi Henrdix, in fact they quite literally gave him his first start, it was Paul who got Jimi the gig at Monteray Pop Festival when he turned it down and suggested Jimi to the promoters as a consolation prize. WHAT IS FUNNY IS Y'ALL KEEP TELLING ME I NEED TO TOUCH UP ON MY ROCK AND ROLL HISTORY, AND YET IT IS CLEARLY Y'ALL WHO HAVE YOUR CHRONOLOGY AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MIXED UP. The Stones came out AT THE SAME time as the Beatles first records, and neither were necessarly influenced by each other, because when both were completely unrelated dive-bar bands, they each had their own respective sound which was typified in their first records. Later the Beatles put out records that were less pop, more blues, clearly a response to the rising competition of the Stones' sound.

And the fact that they wrote everything was novel and pushed others into writing their own material. First double-album in rock. Lots of other ways they influenced popular music.

I AGREE COMPLETELY, BUT I THINK THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INSPIRATION AND INFLUENCE. Inspiration is when a band or artist motivates another band or artist to do their own thing. Influence is when a band or artist directly influences the sound and style of playing of another band. IT IS CLEARLY THAT ALL THE BANDS OF THE 1960S WERE INSPIRED BY THE BEATLES, BUT DEFINITELY NOT INFLUENCED.

Here's a list of the top selling albums in UK in 1960s:


Beatles albums make up half the list, 7 of them in the top 10. I find it hard to believe that no one took any musical cues from them at the time.

Again, there is a world of difference musically between INFLUENCE AND INSPIRATION

[Genteel Death]

No time to read the whole thread now but wasn't Paul McCartney the Beatle who had the most interest in experimental music, art and literature when the band was still going? I thought it was a well know fact that he was an early fan of VU's first album, attended AMM gigs and his was the decision to include William Burroughs on the cover of St. Pepper's.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

The worst part of his suicide is it totally altered the reality of who he really was

Then why was no one that surprised when he did it?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Then why was no one that surprised when he did it?

What you are saying doesn't even make sense. Go back, watch Live!Tonight!Sold Out! and 1991: Year That Punk Broke, and once you settle down from laughing your ass off try and convince yourself that Kurt was anything but a jovial dude!

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

No time to read the whole thread now but wasn't Paul McCartney the Beatle who had the most interest in experimental music, art and literature when the band was still going? I thought it was a well know fact that he was an early fan of VU's first album, attended AMM gigs and his was the decision to include William Burroughs on the cover of St. Pepper's.

Yes, this is true, it was only later that John went out on a limb. Paul was more interested in all kinds of different things. However, I think eventually John became more directly fixated on experimenting than Paul, sort of like Paul grew out of the phase and John grew into it..

[Rob Instigator]

And Lennon requested Alistair Crowley!

SGT PEPPERS (June 1967)

 

Their Satanic Majesties Request (December, 1967)

 

Ha!

The Stones are and were and will always be a fucking JOKE. fuck em and fuck their bullshit rip-off crap. Fuck Brown Sugar, fuck everyone that sings that shit not realizing it is about a slave master raping his latest slave girl "just around midnight." Fuck Under My Thumb.
Every single blues-man I have seen footage of playing with the Stones has a look on their face like they are suffering those idiots. Charlie Watts is the man though.