Contributions The Beatles made to music.

  • user warning: Table './listology/profile_values' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT f.name, f.type, v.value FROM profile_fields f INNER JOIN profile_values v ON f.fid = v.fid WHERE uid = 110426 in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/listology.com/modules/profile/profile.module on line 229.
  • user warning: Table './listology/profile_values' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT f.name, f.type, v.value FROM profile_fields f INNER JOIN profile_values v ON f.fid = v.fid WHERE uid = 0 in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/listology.com/modules/profile/profile.module on line 229.
Tags: 
  • I Want to Hold Your Hand- first Merseybeat number one song in America
  • British Invasion- Started the British Invasion
  • Classic Rock- Help start the Classic rock era
  • Folk Rock- The Byrds went electric because of the Beatles
  • Jangle Pop- A Hard Days Night again before the Byrds
  • Country Rock- I Don't Want to Spoil the Party years before it was popular
  • Intentional Guitar Feedback- I Feel Fine first number one song with feedback
  • Guitar Drone- Ticket to Ride months before See My Friends
  • Yesterday- string quartet- chamber type rock
  • She A Woman- early ska influenced song
  • Eight Days A Week- first fade in?
  • It's Only Love- one the first songs with guitar through leslie speaker
  • Norwegian Wood- first raga folk rock song
  • Norwegian Wood- first rock song released with sitar
  • The Word- The first hippie universal love song.
  • Rain- The first song with backward fade out
  • Rain- The first song with backward music put into a mix.
  • Taxman- Funk bassline over distorted hard rock
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- Trance dance music
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- Maybe the first progressive rock song?
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- The first song with tamboura drone
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- The first song with backward guitar solo
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- The first song that uses Automatic double tracking
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- The first song that uses vocals through a leslie speaker
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- one of the first songs to use mellotron.
  • Tomorrow Never Knows- The first rock song to uses extensive use of tape loops?
  • Love You To- The first song to combine classical Indian with Rock.
  • Docter Robert- The first country- acid influenced song?
  • Revolver- The first progressive rock album?
  • Eleanor Rigby- The first song with no rock instruments with just string backing and vocals.
  • Eleanor Rigby- uses up close miking.
  • Think For Yourself- uses two basses one regular, the other bass distortion that acts as a lead guitar.
  • I'm Only Sleeping- backward guitar riffs
  • Strawberry Fields Forever- avante classical with rock
  • Strawberry Fields Forever- first song to use double fade-out
  • Strawberrry Fields Forever- first song to use reserve effects on drums
  • A Day in the Life- first symphonic prog song?
  • Within You Without You- First Indian Prog song
  • Within You Withou You- first song written using Eastern religious beliefs
  • Sgt Pepper first album with no long pauses between tracks
  • Sgt. Pepper first album with printed lyrics
  • Sgt Innver Groove- first hidden track?
  • Lucy in the Sky With Diamond- first song with phasing?
  • Sgt Pepper Reprse- the first reprise song in rock.
  • All You Need Is Love- first song in 7/4 to go number one.
  • I am the Walrus- first rock song to use live sampling?
  • Hey Jude- the first song to go number one over seven minutes.
  • Revolution- the first rock song to use extreme distortion?
  • Revolution- first punk rock song or heavy metal song?
  • Revolution#9- first song just composed of tape loops by a rock artist
  • Happiness Is A Warm Gun- first rock song with Polyryhthm?
  • Savoy Truffle- first rock song using distorted wall of sax sound
  • The White Album- first double to go number one in Britain
  • I Want You She So Heavy- first synth hard rock song?
  • Here Comes the Sun- first synth folk rock song?
  • Abbey Road side Two- first rock album with long double medleys
  • Abbey Road- using tape loops or sampling to connect to songs.
  • Total Deconstruction of 50's rock music- example Tomorrow Never Knows, Love You To and Strawberry Fields Forever creating new types of nusic for rock music.
  • Avant and Musique Concrete- used on a number of songs one of the first rock artists to do so.
  • Gave up touring and focused on music.
Author Comments: 

None

i could refute/recuse/diminish some of the your points (ignore this), but what i want to say is, ¿why do you care what scaruffi or anyone else has to say on the matter?

How is giving up touring a contribution to music? It almost sounds like you're saying they were a bad live band and they did the world a favor by not trying anymore.

Just seems weird to me.

Also, having the first double album to go #1 in Britain isn't really a contribution they made to music, is it? This goes for all the 'first song with...to go #1" entries. They're not contributions, just testaments to their incredible success. But nothing was really changed by it.

I think if you look at music today the Beatles really had a huge impact on music. The Beatles were not the first rock band, they did establish the self contained rock group over the singer frontman types.

They kickstarted the British Invasion and folk rock also I agree. They popularized feedback as a recording effect. Tomorrow Never Knows one of the most important dance records ever. With its sample like and repetetive drum and bass sound is all over the charts today. The record predates techno by 25 years.

Rain with its backward vocals used a lot in today music. They basically kickstarted progressive rock with albums like Revolver and songs like Strawberry Fields Forever. Helter Skelter is one of the first heavy metal songs. Happiness Is A Warm Gun what do you call that Math rock really they were great innovators.

Their influence is all over pop and rock music today. I have not even mentioned their songwriting.

I never really loved the Beatles. Though I have to give credit for Tomorrow Never Knows. Noise Rock, Techno, Acid House and pyschedelic rock owe a lot to this song. I think the Velvet Underground must have like this song and It's All Too Much another song in the Noise Rock vein. Strawberry Fields is a good example of dissonant music that sounds good

Revolution # 9 might have inspired a lot of techniques in rap music and it was influence on experiemental,sound collage artists. I am not big fan of their artful pop but I have to give them credit. They were more groundbreaking than The Stones or Dylan.

The Beatles did a lot for rock music and especially experimental music in rock.

AVANT-GARDE

Experimental or Novel
Contains elements that are non-traditional to popular music, but may have shown up in other forms of music earlier. Traditional popular music indicates the use of Western guitar / bass / drums / piano / keyboards / horns / orchestral instrumentation.
Rain. Tomorrow Never Knows. I’m Only Sleeping. She Said She Said. Love You To. Norwegian Wood. Yellow Submarine. Within You Without You. I Am The Walrus. Flying. Blue Jay Way. Only A Northern Song. It’s All Too Much. Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Getting Better. Lovely Rita. Strawberry Fields Forever. Jesse’s Dream. All You Need Is Love. The Inner Light. Revolution 9. What’s the New Mary Jane? Wonderwall Music (Soundtrack – Harrison). Unfinished Music No. 1 – Two Virgins (Lennon-Ono). Unfinished Music No. 2 – Life With The Lions (Lennon-Ono). The Wedding Album (Lennon-Ono). Electronic Sound (Harrison). I Want You (She’s So Heavy).

Social or Cultural Reform
Contains ideas, beliefs, or reflects elements that instigate change in society, or one particular culture on the whole.
Within You Without You. Tomorrow Never Knows. Taxman. Piggies. Revolution / Revolution 1 / Revolution 9. The Inner Light. I Me Mine. Savoy Truffle. Only A Northern Song. Think For Yourself. While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

Atonal or dissonant qualities
Contains elements that conflict with the accepted rules of Western harmonic theory, instrumentation, and consonance.
I Want To Tell You. Love You To. Tomorrow Never Knows. Only A Northern Song. Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Carnival of Light (Rave). Getting Better. Lovely Rita. Within You Without You. It’s All Too Much. Baby You’re A Rich Man. Strawberry Fields Forever. A Day In The Life. I Am The Walrus. Blue Jay Way. The Inner Light. Revolution 9. Long, Long, Long. Helter Skelter. What’s the New Mary Jane? Wonderwall Music (Soundtrack – Harrison). Unfinished Music No. 1 – Two Virgins (Lennon-Ono). Unfinished Music No. 2 – Life With The Lions (Lennon-Ono). The Wedding Album (Lennon-Ono). Electronic Sound (Harrison)

Sorry, but every one of these things are either meaningless or wrong.

Everything "experimental" the Beatles did was already done by another rock band, in a more extensive way, and in a less watered down context, before the Beatles. They just popularized these innovations.

The Beatles did not invent folk rock. Lots of bands before '65 had some songs which combined rock with some folk aspects or vice versa, the Beatles being one of them, but the Byrds invented the actual folk-rock style. The fact that the Byrds went electric because of the Beatles speaks to their popularity, not they're folk-rock-iness. The Byrds were influenced by the Beatles use of the 12-string Rickenbacker, but they proceeded to use it to make the jingle-jangle sound, which the Beatles didn't quite. Plus the band the Searchers preceeded both bands and influenced the Byrds.

I Don't want to spoil the party is not a country rock song.

The Yardbirds used feedback first, and being number one does not matter for these purposes.

Ticket to Ride does not have a guitar drone at all. That is a total myth.

Yesterday is not "chamber type rock" - it's not even rock - it's just a pop song with a chamber arrangement. Also she's a woman is not ska, jut r&b.

Eight Days a Week having a fade in is totally irrelevant. There's no need to value form over content in music. That's just a catchy tune, that's all.

It's Only Love does not have a leslie speaker. But it's useless to value songs for how they're made: it should be about how they sound. So it's more important to talk about how certain production effects allow for strange timbres. But they're not nearly as unique as other bands who didn't even use high tech studio means.

Norweigan Wood was preceeded by See My Friends by 6 months (recorded in october vs. recorded in april). See My Friends is far more Indian droney. Also the Yardbirds used a sitar first, that february.

Donovan was writing hippy-themed songs before The Word. Dick Dale used backward tapes long before Rain and I'm Only Sleeping. But it doesn't matter anyway, because all that matters is how it sounds as a result (not the method). If they made a backward recording of a sample of another song, which unbeknowst to them, just so happened to be backwards itself, they'd have a forward (normal) sounding song, but people would still be praising that.

Taxman is not hard rock.

Tomorrow Never Knows is basically a simple pop song with some effects. Wasn't the first with backward sounds or Indian droninig as I said before. Miki Dallon used tape loops much earlier. A tape loop is just a mechanism for repeating something - could have easily been done manually. Graham Bond used the mellotron much earlier. It's basically a machine that plays flute samples - no biggie and see my earlier comment about Leslie speakers.

Love You To was definitely not the first raga-rock song. The Byrds and others preceeded them by several months and Love You To is shallow compared to them. Dr. Robert has no country aspects at all and the Grateful Dead came first anyway. Lots of rock songs had unusual-for-rock instruments before Elanor Rigby. All that matters is how the instruments sound, not what they are, so for example, (not to do with the song) if a violin is used to sound like a guitar, might as well have used a guitar. Elanor Rigby isn't really a rock song anyway.

As great as it sounds, Revolver is just a polished pop-rock album with some already-tried experimental effects shallowly-added as window dressing.

Think for yourself uses "fuzz bass" - but big deal.

Lots of rock songs before Strawberry Fields made use of avant-garde classical music. Here's a rare case where they used it extensively and not just as decoration to a shallow pop song, but it doesn't compare to dozens upon dozens of songs recorded earlier by other groups.

By the same token as the comment about Revolver, A Day in the Life is not prog, nor is Within you Without You. And eastern religious beliefs in rock where around for a whole year before that one.

Regarding Sgt. Pepper, the no-long pauses, printed lyrics, and hidden track are completely irrelevant since they speak nothing of the content of the music. Lucy does not have phasing, that's Magical Mystery Tour, but the Small Faces beat them to it. Walrus is definitely a collage of all sorts of interesting effects, but that sample is barely audible and not important. There were plently of songs before All You Need is Love to have weird time signatures and hundreds of longer songs before Hey Jude the fact that they went number one does not speak to their creativity at all.
u
For Revolution, check out the Sonics songs from almost for years earlier, and countless other psychedelic blues-rock songs from earlier in '68. Lots were punkier or heavier or whatever. Revolution #9 is not just composed of tape loops. The's all sorts of other stuff going on. And the fact that it's by a rock band means nothing. It's not some kind of avant-rock (which lots of bands had been doing dating back to '65, by the way), just pure avant garde, and should be compared with lots of tracks from up to 20 years earlier. It pales next to Stockhausen.

Happiness doesn't have polyrhythms.

Savoy Truffle is a soul-ish pop song. That's all.

There were a bunch of double albums before the White Album, and going number one is not relevant.

There are like two dozen examples of synthesizers in rock before Abbey Road, often integral to the sound of musical pieces, wheres the Beatles just used it as a mildly intriguing production affect. Also, Abbey Road does not connect the songs with any technical wizardry. Just by having written connnected songs. And it wasn't the first to contain minisuites at all.

Sorry, but every one of these things are either meaningless or wrong.

Everything "experimental" the Beatles did was already done by another rock band, in a more extensive way, and in a less watered down context, before the Beatles. They just popularized these innovations.

That's is your opinion the Beatles were one of the most innovative rock bands in many people opinion.

The Beatles did not invent folk rock. Lots of bands before '65 had some songs which combined rock with some folk aspects or vice versa, the Beatles being one of them, but the Byrds invented the actual folk-rock style. The fact that the Byrds went electric because of the Beatles speaks to their popularity, not they're folk-rock-iness. The Byrds were influenced by the Beatles use of the 12-string Rickenbacker, but they proceeded to use it to make the jingle-jangle sound, which the Beatles didn't quite. Plus the band the Searchers preceeded both bands and influenced the Byrds.

Your wrong Roger McGuinn credits the Beatles for inventing folk rock and that's the reason the Bryds went electric

I Don't want to spoil the party is not a country rock song.

Gram Parsons calls this and I'll Cry Instead early country rock

The Yardbirds used feedback first, and being number one does not matter for these purposes.

The Beatles used intentional feedback on record on I Feel Fine before the Yardbirds or the Who.That's a fact

Ticket to Ride does not have a guitar drone at all. That is a total myth.

You are a clown there is guitar drone on this song. Do you you know what drone is.

Yesterday is not "chamber type rock" - it's not even rock - it's just a pop song with a chamber arrangement. Also she's a woman is not ska, jut r&b.

s

Eight Days a Week having a fade in is totally irrelevant. There's no need to value form over content in music. That's just a catchy tune, that's all.

It's Only Love does not have a leslie speaker. But it's useless to value songs for how they're made: it should be about how they sound. So it's more important to talk about how certain production effects allow for strange timbres. But they're not nearly as unique as other bands who didn't even use high tech studio means.

It's Only Love not only has guitar through a leslie speaker but it also uses a volume pedal.

Norweigan Wood was preceeded by See My Friends by 6 months (recorded in october vs. recorded in april). See My Friends is far more Indian droney. Also the Yardbirds used a sitar first, that february.

See My Friends is not the first song to use faux Indian drone, Ticket to Ride precedes it by more than two months. The Yardbirds only hired a session player to play a sitar that version was not released. Georgre Harrison on Norwegian plays sitar and that song is the first song released with sitar on it.

Donovan was writing hippy-themed songs before The Word. Dick Dale used backward tapes long before Rain and I'm Only Sleeping. But it doesn't matter anyway, because all that matters is how it sounds as a result (not the method). If they made a backward recording of a sample of another song, which unbeknowst to them, just so happened to be backwards itself, they'd have a forward (normal) sounding song, but people would still be praising that.

The first rock song to have backward vocals Rain, The first song to have backward guitar solos Tomorrow Never Knows

Taxman is not hard rock.

Taxman uses the distorted Hendrix chord a half year before Foxy Lady

Tomorrow Never Knows is basically a simple pop song with some effects. Wasn't the first with backward sounds or Indian droninig as I said before. Miki Dallon used tape loops much earlier. A tape loop is just a mechanism for repeating something - could have easily been done manually. Graham Bond used the mellotron much earlier. It's basically a machine that plays flute samples - no biggie and see my earlier comment about Leslie speakers.

Please you have no clue Tomorrow Never Knows with its tape loops or sampling over repetitve bass and drum sound was the future of modern dance music. Vocals through a leslie was innovation everyone copied after this song.

Love You To was definitely not the first raga-rock song. The Byrds and others preceeded them by several months and Love You To is shallow compared to them. Dr. Robert has no country aspects at all and the Grateful Dead came first anyway. Lots of rock songs had unusual-for-rock instruments before Elanor Rigby. All that matters is how the instruments sound, not what they are, so for example, (not to do with the song) if a violin is used to sound like a guitar, might as well have used a guitar. Elanor Rigby isn't really a rock song anyway.

Love You To is classical Indian with rock which is a lot different than faux Indian music the Byrds were doing. Doctor Robert is a country influenced psychedelic song there is country style licks on much of the song. Eleanor Rigby how many rock groups used no rock instruments, with vocals and a strong classical music influence

As great as it sounds, Revolver is just a polished pop-rock album with some already-tried experimental effects shallowly-added as window dressing.

It's much more pyschedelic than the Byrds Fifth Dimension. The Beatles were already messing with times signatures, using Indian ensemebles and using avant garde techniques.

Think for yourself uses "fuzz bass" - but big deal.

Lots of rock songs before Strawberry Fields made use of avant-garde classical music. Here's a rare case where they used it extensively and not just as decoration to a shallow pop song, but it doesn't compare to dozens upon dozens of songs recorded earlier by other groups.

Really give some examples of avant rock with classical music influence.

By the same token as the comment about Revolver, A Day in the Life is not prog, nor is Within you Without You. And eastern religious beliefs in rock where around for a whole year before that one.

Bill Bruford thinks this the Beatlse jumpstarted progressive rock. Many people think it's the first symphonic progressive rock song. That's right Love You To also deals with Eastern Religious beliefs

Regarding Sgt. Pepper, the no-long pauses, printed lyrics, and hidden track are completely irrelevant since they speak nothing of the content of the music. Lucy does not have phasing, that's Magical Mystery Tour, but the Small Faces beat them to it. Walrus is definitely a collage of all sorts of interesting effects, but that sample is barely audible and not important. There were plently of songs before All You Need is Love to have weird time signatures and hundreds of longer songs before Hey Jude the fact that they went number one does not speak to their creativity at all.

Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds has phasing and that was recorded before the Small Faces

For Revolution, check out the Sonics songs from almost for years earlier, and countless other psychedelic blues-rock songs from earlier in '68. Lots were punkier or heavier or whatever. Revolution #9 is not just composed of tape loops. The's all sorts of other stuff going on. And the fact that it's by a rock band means nothing. It's not some kind of avant-rock (which lots of bands had been doing dating back to '65, by the way), just pure avant garde, and should be compared with lots of tracks from up to 20 years earlier. It pales next to Stockhausen.

The Beatles were recording avant rock before the Velvet Underground

Happiness doesn't have polyrhythms.
Oh YES IT DOES IT'S CONSIDERED EARLY MATH ROCK

Savoy Truffle is a soul-ish pop song. That's all.

The song has distorted brass section with very distorted rock

There were a bunch of double albums before the White Album, and going number one is not relevant.

Just point the facts out it may not be relevant to you

There are like two dozen examples of synthesizers in rock before Abbey Road, often integral to the sound of musical pieces, wheres the Beatles just used it as a mildly intriguing production affect. Also, Abbey Road does not connect the songs with any technical wizardry. Just by having written connnected songs. And it wasn't the first to contain minisuites at all.

First it's your opinion if it's good or not. I am just pointing the different ways they applied it to different gneres. Much of the Abbey Road medleys were recorded as one song and it was McCartneys idea to have them connected.
[ reply to seanseansean ]

sure there are lots of "interesting" things going on in Beatles recordings, but without real knowledge of the rest of the scene, they're all meaningless. Every single experimental aspect in the Beatles music which is related to the actual content of the music was not only preceded by other bands, but was done by the other bands in a far more radical way, compared to which the Beatles songs are like childs play. The other experimental aspects had to do with technology: the way they were recorded. This is all useless because all that should matter is the way it sounds, not how it was made. That being said, none of their songs had innovative technolgical aspects anyway when it comes down to it.

It's not just a question of who was first, but who made music which radically changed the possibilities of rock, and it was never the Beatles. They were just applying mild versions of the radical ideas into good tunes.

I think Floydsyd explain things perfectly for you anyhow Dick Dale is known for playing his guitar backwards not sounding or recording backward guitar. Anyhow I have something for you to look at. The influence of the Beatles on Modern dance music. You Scaruffoids are so concern who exactly did what first. I am only pointing the Beatles were ahead of the curve or one of the first do these thing in rock music. Also for using tape loops in their experiments in rhythmic musique concrete was very innovative. Yes also were one of the first rock bands to experiments in tape loop based songs. I don't mean the mellotron though the Beatles use of it in a psychedelic way was also innovative. Something for you Scarrfoids.

The 50 Most Influential Records of All Times
Under the Influence - How This List Was Made
Muzik wanted to define the records that had shaped the music we love today. The music that made Basement Jaxx, The Chemical Brothers, Roni Size and System F all possible. Not necessarily the best records ever, although they were hardly going to be stinkers, but the ones which pushed forward a genre, or fused styles to create a new hybrid. The qualities we were looking for were:

Effect on today’s music - Originality
Fusing of existing genres to create new musical styles Music that changed the club scene as well as the sound.

Chosen and written by Ben Turner, Frank Tope, Rob da Bank, Calvin Bush, Dorian Lynskey, Tom Mugridge and Michael Bonner The most important music of the 20th Century. The records which have shaped the music we hear today, from trance to trip hop, from big beat to Basement Jaxx. Everything starts with these...

The Beatles “Tomorrow Never Knows” (EMI 1966)(Revolver L.P.)
James Brown “Funky Drummer” (King 1969)(7”)
Marvin Gaye “What’s Going On” (Motown 1970)(L.P.)
Incredible Bongo Band “Apache” (MGM 1973)(Bongo Rock L.P.)
Augustus Pablo “King Tubby Meets the Rockers Uptown” (Island 1976)(7”)
Double Exposure “Ten Per Cent” (Salsoul 1976)(12”)
Donna Summer “I Feel Love” (Casablanca 1977)(12”)
Kraftwerk “Trans Europe Express” (EMI 1977)(King Klang L.P.)
Grandmaster Flash “Adventure On the Wheels of Steel” (Sugarhill 1981)(12”)
Afrika Bambaataa “Planet Rock” (Tommy Boy 1982)(12”)

seanseansean

Your case is full of holes like in swiss cheese. Jimi was he first person ever to play the guitar but he changed what people thought of the electric guitar. Were the Beatles first to use no, but the tape loops or samples on Tomorrow Never Knows with it's psychedelic groove had a strong influence on techno music, acid house and other types of music. I don't agree with everything Bleach said but some of your comments are random and it's Scaruffi oh I mean your opinion.

Ticket To Ride uses drone that's factual'
oldies.about.com/od/thebeatlessongs/a/tickettoride.htm
The direct sonic thrust of this song's production later led Lennon to claim "Ticket To Ride" as one of the first heavy-metal songs ever made. The droning sound of the guitars marked the very first documented case of Indian tonal concepts in rock music (predating the Kinks' "See My Friends" by three months -- and the group's introduction to LSD by one month

The Beatles folk rock- Roger McGuinn on the Beatles inventing folk rock this actually predates the Searchers.
"When the Beatles had come out, the folk boom had already peaked," McGuinn notes. "The people who had been into it were getting kind of burned out. It just wasn't very gratifying, and it had become so commercial that it had lost its meaning for a lot of people. So the Beatles kind of re-energized it for me. I thought it was natural to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music. And in fact, I heard folk chord changes in the Beatles' music when I listened to their early stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.' I could hear the passing chords that we always use in folk music: the G-Em-Am-B kind of stuff. So I really think the Beatles invented folk-rock. They just didn't know it."

The Beatles not only tamboura Indian drones but on Love You To they went full Indian with rock music. The other bands including earlier attempts by the Beatles were pseudo not classical Indian music.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun The Beatles used polyrhythm in their famous 1968 song Happiness Is A Warm Gun (from the seminal White Album). The song also changes time-signature frequently. Another myth disposed.

Gram Parson on the Beatles and country rock Songs like "I'll Cry Instead," and "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party," are drenched with Country guitar, thanks to Carl Perkins' influence. They even covered a Buck Owens song in 65. Well wasn't country rock popular in 1968
Another down the drain

One more for laughs Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds had phasing before the Small Faces.
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was the first song ever to employ an audio phase shifter. The sound was originally known as "flanging" because of the way it was first implemented, i.e. by laying your finger against.The phase shift is occurring as you change the timing between when the engine noise reaches your ears directly and the reflections bouncing off the ground. Early songs of note with prominent phase shifters are Itchycoo Park by the Small Faces and the drum solo in In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida by Iron Butterfly. Jimi Hendrix was a big fan of the phase shifter and used one frequently on his guitar. (Thanks to MG)

They were other artists but many of the experimental things the Beatles did if they were combining things led or helped other types of music. Scaruffi favorite Velvet Undergroud combined a lot of things the Beatles and others did already to create a new sound called noise rock. Oh wait a minute Tomorrow Never Knows, Only A Norther Song and It's All Too Much is good noise rock.

Ticket To Ride does not have droning souds. Just cuz you read that somewhere doesn't make it true.

The Beatles were one of many bands tentatively combining folk and rock. The full-blown style came later with the Byrds. And the jingle jangle style, mutually exclusive with folk-rock came much earlier, before the Beatles (Searchers are one example).

Sure Love You To has "classical Indian music", but not much rock anyway.

Happiness has a syncopated effected called a hemiola, often confused with a polyrhthm. Check Pollack's Notes On series. Lots of songs changed time signature by that time.

Gram Parsons is the official inventor of country rock. The Beatles songs in '64 were one of many bands bringing the two genres together vaguely.

The phasing thing is factually incorrect, man.Phil Spector was recording the "phasing" effect as early as 1959. And the Beatles didn't use it until the Magical Mystery Tour album.

Even if you wanna call Tomorrow Never Knows "noise rock", which is crazy, it was written probably no earlier than February 1966. The Velvets hadn't recorded by then, but had already been playing infinitely "noiser" noise rock

Happiness Is A Warm Gun does contain polyrhythm which most rock band were not using. Happiness is a Warm Gun - Begins in 4/4, switches to 3/4 for "I Need a Fix", then 1 measure 9/8 and 1 measure 10/8 for "Mother Superior", before ending with 4/4 (and a polyrhythmic 3/4 & 4/4 segment)

The Beatles were changing time signatures as early in 1963 A Taste of Honey but that is different than polyrhythms.

Phasing is indeed used on Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds

Beatles For Sale, Lennon called it their country and western album

Love You To is classical Indian with rock. There is electric guitar on Love You Too it's distorted and backwards.

Another thing the Beatles did was the use of volume swells they did it as early as Baby In Black and you could hear on Yes It Is and I Need You.

Tomorrow Never Knows is not the only noise rock song they did. It's All Too Much and It's Only A Northern Song falls in that list.

See, polyrhythms are what makes a song "funky". Happiness Is a Warm Gun is not really funky, so it's really a moot point that it has polyrhythms. Plus I think what's actually going on in that song is a "hemiola", but that's besides the point. And shifting time signatures in those songs are a moot point too, because it's not like they're used in a way to make you think "whoa what the heck is going on here, this is wild"

I think you're totally wrong about Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds having phasing. But, by the same token as my comment on Happiness, phasing makes for a weird timbric effect, which Lucy doesn't really have, so it doesn't matter what process they used. Plus Phil Spector used it in 1959, by the way.

The fact that Lennon called Beatles for Sale a country and western album doesn't make it so. And even if it was, it's not like the Beatles invented country music. I think you're trying to make a point that it's country-ROCK. Sure there's some country-ish songs on there, but it's not at all country rock, which wasn't invented until 1967.

I know Love You To has the real authentic classical Indian influence. But that doesn't mean much. Other bands had already encorporated all of the aspects of classical Indian which make it revolutionary within the scope of Western music. Love You To simply adds to that the OTHER aspects, rounding out the full blown Indian classical style, but those other aspects are the specific stylstic trapppings of the style, not the experimental-to-the-West parts, so no big deal.

Volume swells are not a big deal in the scheme of things. Pretty trivial. I mean, come on.

And Tomorrow Never Knows is not a "rock" song. It's an experimental piece. It's All Too Much is a pop song with long psychedelic jamming. It's Only a Northern Song pales experimentation-wise to the avant-rock of its day or of the previous year and a half of its reocording for that matter.

I mean, of course within the scope of mainstream pop-rock music, all of these experimental tidbits were pretty far out and mindblowing, but not compared to lots of other bolder rockers.

Dude you must be the same person who says the same things all the time. Some corrections

Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds-there is phasing on the mono version.

Ticket to Ride- has guitar drone

I Feel Fine- has guitar feedback on record before any Yardbirds song

Yesterday- that song influenced all sorts of chamber types of arrangements in rock music. Have you heard of Left Banke or the Beach Boys.

Eight Days A Week- with the fade in guitar parts why is that not important. You are deemer of what's important

It's Only Love- has a leslie guitar effect. In Fact it's one of the first to do so. The effect was used by everyone to Hendrix to the Byrds later

Norwegian Wood- was the first record released to have sitar

Love You To- is not even raga rock it more like Indian Prog which is a genre in rock music.

Doctor Robert- does have a slight country influence

Think for yourself uses "fuzz bass lead - but big deal well it was to Jack Bruce and others

Tomorrow Never Knows- did you say simple pop song with effects come on go ask the Chemical Brothers what the song song meant to techno

Strawberry Fields Forever- Go find a song that combines avant music with rock with classical music influence.

Happiness- does have polyrhythms

Walrus is definitely a collage of all sorts of interesting effects, but that sample is barely audible and not important- well I can hear it and who you are to say it's not important. ELO AND CAN BASED THEIR SOUND ON SONGS LIKE THIS

Revolution #9 is not just composed of tape loops. The's all sorts of other stuff going on. And the fact that it's by a rock band means nothing.

Again who are you to say that since it was a rock group doing it should you give them some credit for doing it. Revolution#9 backing track is actually a sample of one their songs so the whole song is basically tape loops, samples and sound effects. None of it was with the band recording music

Their work with backward tapes especially guitar and vocals were very influential on psychedelic music but also todays music. Dick Dale from what I read was known for playing his guitar backward like Jimi Hendrix not for backward tape.

Really does it matter in the end the Beatles were not two step behind like you make it. More like always one of the first.

Helter Skelter or Revolution is a big step from 1965 when it comes to Heavy Metal. Though you forget songs like PaperBack Writer or It's All To Much.

Whoever you are keep the jokes or laughs coming.

I replied to this exact same reply in another thread. But let me say this to summarize:

Literally every "experimental" sound in the context of a Beatles rock song had already been tried before in another rock song (and for details see my reply in the other thread). Plus these other artists used those innovative qualities in far more extensive ways, compared to the Beatles who used them as decorative aspects to songs which were rather poppy (mainstream-ish to begin with).

Often times, the "experimental sound" boiled down to using an instrument that was weird for rock or a seemingly "novel" way of making music technologically-speaking, but without actually using the instrument or technology in an experimental-sounding way - thus useless for this discussion.

This is not to say they were trying to rip those bands off, or follow trends or whatever. The most reasonable way of putting it would be that basically they were a bunch of extremely talented melodicists who wrote mostly melodic pop-rock songs and embellished them slightly with the experimental sounds of their day.
But to say that they originated the experimental directions in rock music or that they deserve the credit for having infuenced anyone else toward these experimental directions would be wrong, because that credit should go to actual the originators, many of which are not known or celebrated widely enough.

Pre-Beatles, the vast majority of "local" bands in the U.S. were of the three-chord surf or frat-rock variety, complete with a sax player in many cases. Usually a lead singer and "back-up" musicians, too, and little in the way of harmonies.

The Beatles changed that model in several ways:

1) They had four lead singers (or three-and-a-half, anyway!) and no "front man" per se.

2) They were resolutely guitar-based -- The Crickets were the earlier model, but the memory of them had faded. Yeah, surf combos were too, but they were primarily instrumental. A lot of sax players found themselves out of work or learning a new instrument after The Beatles!

3) Harrison's guitar work also upped the ante for guitar players, who heretofore contented themselves mostly with Chuck Berry-style leads.

4) Their emphasis on Everly Brothers- and girl group-influenced harmonies was another new element for local bands to come to grips with. In most cases, prior to this you had one lead singer with perhaps some Doo-Wop influenced backing vocals, and that was it.

Perhaps most important of all, those early Beatles tunes, with their unexpected chord changes and harmonies, significantly broadened the musical palette beyond the stock I-IV-V and I-vi-IV-V changes that most local bands dealt in.

I'm in the midst of reading a marvelous book entitled Songwriting Secrets of The Beatles by Dominic Pedler that goes into this musical revolution in exhaustive (yet very readable) technical detail.

I particularly appreciate the author's point of view that those who dismiss The Beatles' early work in favor of their later, more sophisticated productions are missing the boat. Even The Beatles' earliest songs showed a remarkable musical adventuresomeness that was unmatched by any of their contemporaries.

You underestimate the Beatles influence in so many ways Indian Music with rock is one example. Harrison at least played the sitar and the tamboura and merged it with rock music. It's laughable you dismiss the Beatles influence on Progressive Rock. Radiohead just on their last album said they thought it was as good as Revolver. Mike Portnoy considers Sgt Peppers the first progressive rock album.

Well, the fact that the Crickets memory had faded doesn't make them less relevant. and other bands used 4 singers too (although particially in the less rocking subgenres).

I'm not one for guitar skill/technique or whatever but Harrison's guitar playing was nowhere near lots of British contemporaries.

I basically agree with you that their earlier music was more interesting relative to it's time. All sorts of quirky chords and arrangement ideas, probably the most interesting pop-rock of their time for a brief period. Still no match for the boldness in the full fury of 50's rock.

See, prog was invented to make rock music more "sophisticated" and have it approach jazz and classical music. It was supposed to be the antithesis of the pop ditty. Compared to other bands who approached prog to a greater degree, the Beatles largely stuck to pop conventions as they experimented, and didn't exeriment as much anyway. Revolver and Sgt Pepper have some classic tunes on them , but whatever the guys in Radiohead or Dream Theatre think doesn't prove anything.

Progressive Rock comes from many different types music not just jazz. For No One and Eleanor Rigby has classcial Influence, Tomorrow Never Knows has Indian, avant and musique concrete, Love You Too has straight up Indian Classical Music unlike the Byrds. She Said She Said has very progressive drumming and mix time signatures. We are talking about 1966 this is one step ABOVE THE Byrds Fifth Dimension. The fact is most of the progressive rockers that evolved like King Crimson and Yes were far more influenced by the Beatles than the Doors or the Byrds. The Beatles were both complicated and pop at the same time. Again you were the same person who did not know what a polyrhythm was so how do you know what complicated is. You have dismissed the Beatles influence on Progressive Rock for what reasons I don't know. In 65- 66 many bands were doing similiar things but it was the Beatles who knew how make it for everyone. That is why Revolver and Strawberry Fields Forever opened the doors for the future of progressive rock.

As for the Crickets if you include Buddy Holly they were dominated by a front man. The Beatles were not basically most British bands after them were not led by one person.

There was a poll of over 190 drummers in Rhythm Uk Drum Magazine the Beatles had three of the top 50 most influnetial drum albums of all time.

Correction it's 50's rock and roll not 50's rock. Rock and Roll became rock with songs like Tomorrow Never Knows OK. I like 50's music but even Dylan stated when he heard the Beatles for the first time he thought they were chord usage was unique. Their chord usage was way ahead of Chuck Berry but you see I am not Scarruffi head like you complicated music does not mean better.

Your statements don't come from a musicians point of view. I listen to songs Don't Bother Me or Not A Second Time and instantly you can hear the Beatles chords were more complicated than Berry or Holly. I think you need to listen before you speak.

It seems like you're defining progressive rock as eclectic experimental rock music which elevates rock beyond the generic 50's patterns. Let's just say that's true. Still, lots of bands did that to a greater extent, and without the Beatles poppiness, which was a step backward compared to prog. And the statement "knew how to make it for everyone", which is true, just goes to show how tied to pop/tradition they were, which is why "everyone" liked it.

So sure, by being less "out there" they opened the door for experimental leaning music to be accepted by the mainstream, leading many bands in an experimental direction which created prog and such. But that's to the Beatles' credit as "cultural influencers" not actual "interesting music makers".

Most British rock before the Beatles was of the old school rock and roll variety, which centered on the "front man". But what changed that was the blues-rock and Merseybeat scenes, the latter of which the Beatles were a part, not the Beatles themselves.

"Rock" is a term encompassing 50's rock and roll and what came after it. The style started progressing clearly beyond the 50's patterns with the advent of British rock, not the Beatles in particular.

Yes their chords in the early days were unique within the scope of the pop-rock sounds of their day. I can definitely tell just from hearing them. But lots of other bands were "more unique", albeit in other ways.

I agree that complicated music is not inherently better. I mostly like simpler music.

You could be progressive and pop at the same time many bands have tried it inlcuding, Supertramp, ELO, Yes and even Rush. It's not as easy as you make it out to be. Strawberry Fields Forever is the perfect example.

The Beatles were just not a Merseybeat group have you heard of their early hard rock covers of Money That's What I Want or the use of distortion on It Won't Be Long and pounding twelve string work Any Time At All. To say the Beatles were just a part of Merseybeat is like saying the Beatles were another British Invasion Band.

Here are some qoutes from some progressive rockers
Robert Fripp
www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch04.htm
He admired and wanted King Crimson to emulate the Beatles' proclivity for packing many strands of meaning into a song, so that a record could stand up to repeated listenings: "The Beatles achieve probably better than anyone the ability to make you tap your foot first time round, dig the words sixth time round, and get into the guitar slowly panning the twentieth time." Fripp wished Crimson could "achieve entertainment on as many levels as that

John Anderson of Yes. on the Beatles
Yeah. Serious might be the wrong word. Inventive or revolutionary might be better. We wanted to do something different because the Beatles did it, you know?. I wanted, personally, to go along that path of inventiveness and adventure in music. I didn't want to be a pop star, and I thought I was too old anyway. I wanted to be a musician surrounded by musicians that care. If that's serious then so be it. It wasn't like we said we're gonna be above everybody. It was more a willingness to investigate the potential of being in a rock 'n' roll band and basically stretch the imagination

You're kind of bending my words around. By Mersebeat I don't mean just a bunch of poppy schlock, it's a type of melodic ROCK, still ROCK. With respect to Merseybeat, yes, they were far more interesting. And they did cover aggressive songs often, like Money. But their cover is kind of tame. And sure It Won't Be Long has aggressive guitar playing and distortion, but it's just a really cool sounding song and it'd be silly to call the Beatles a hard rocking band at all on account of that song or even any of them or any of them combined.

King Crimson and Yes were among the first prog bands, and I guess they were inspired by the Beatles somwhat, but that doesn't mean that other bands before hadn't approached prog to a greater extent than the Beatles.

Helter Skelter or Revolution is a big step from 1965 when it comes to Heavy Metal. 1965?

I think your list is quite interesting, but at times may be a bit of a stretch. That being said, the Beatles were, without a doubt, the most influential, inventive and successful band of the 2nd half of the 20th century, the opinion of a few underappreciative reviewers aside. Their songwriting ability is second to none and their "great" song catalog dwarfs anyone else's, as does their "great" album catalog. No other band/artist has a discography on par with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road and Let it Be- and that doesn't even mention their earliest and most successful songs (think: I Want to Hold Your Hand-Help!-Hard Day’s Night). Folks who don't rank Beatles albums among the best ever are simply wrong- avant-garde elitist perhaps- and moreover by this fact alone lose quite a bit of musical credibility. And Messer Scaruffi is about as full of shit as he is of himself. He’s so anti-Beatles (with no good reason) it’s impossible to take him seriously.

See, I think you're confusing the criteria here.

Sure the Beatles were highly skillful composers of melodies, and they have a bunch of albums that rank among the best ever in that regard, but that has nothing to do with innovation or "contributions made to music" (the topic of the post).

All of the "innovations with the rock format" they're credited with should really be attributed to others who came before them. And compared to those bands, the Beatles incorporated experimental aspects to a lesser extent. Sure they wer able to make "better" songs than others out of the experimental ingredients, but they're just better in the sense of "more likeable", which is mostly because they were less experimental to begin with.

People like Scaruffi have sites dedicated only to the groundbreaking-ness/originality of artists, so they rate the Beatles justifiably lowly, but that's not meant as an insult, and Scaruffi is happy to say that, for what it's worth (which for his purposes is not much, given this criteria focusing on originality), they were brillian melodicists.

One thing you could say is that they had an importat sociological role in doing rock music a "favor" by watering down the latest underground trends to the point that the new ideas could be heard and spread, leading to more people making more interesting music.

Sean Sean, let me be another one to point out your mistakes. One the history according to Piero Scaruffi is filled with half truths or no balance in his statements.

The Byrds did not invent Folk Rock even they admit to it. The Beatles were the ones who influenced them to do it. The Byrds only put folk rock in the forfront like the Beatles put Merseybeat in the forfront.

As for the Beatles not being original no one sounded like the Beatles when they first came out.

Ticket To Ride has guitar drone go read Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles and How to Create and Play Great Guitar Riffs By Rikky Rooksby in which Ticket To Ride is credited for the advent of the use of drone that would be heard in later psychedelic rock. Another song using drone was If I Needed Someone and the outake If You Got Troubles.

I would say this songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields Forever and Love You Too are some of the most original songs in rock music ever, Sean cut the BS out who are kidding.

Bleach, The Beatles mixed Ska with rock on I Call Her Name. She's A Woman actually influenced the Tex Mex group the Sir Douglas Quintet song She's A Mover.

You hear the jangle sound on songs like All My Loving, A Hard Days Night, and especially on the Buddy Holly cover Words of Love.

The Beatles 12 string sound with the chiming acoustic sound on A Hard Days Night and Beatles for Sale is all theirs.

Sean, there is a lot of double talk with you. The Yardbirds invented raga rock according to you but the Beatles Love You Too is vaguely Indian. What a pile of BS, Love You Too is the most authentic of the Indian songs rock bands were doing at the time. I would not even call it raga rock its classcial Indian with rock.

I know his history is filled with a lot of mistakes, but they are mostly about trivial things. He's right about the big picture. His aim is to document the the artists/albums/tracks were were truly innovative within the scope of rock music

The fact that the Byrds don't think they invented folk-rock doesn't mean they didn't. Sure they admired the Beatles' folkiness in their songs and were influenced by them, but they took it further and invented the fullblown style. Also, there were lots of folk-rock predecessors before the Byrds invented the fullblown style, so the Beatles don't really stand out. I'll admit that the closest they got to it to it ("What You're Doing", recorded in 10/64, 3 months before "Mr. Tambourine Man") was pretty close sounding to the real style.

Of course no one sounded like them when they came out, but that's true of lots and lots of bands, to a greater extent.

I can hear what you're talking about with Ticket to Ride (definitely not Troubles at all though), but to call that an actual "drone" is a major exaggeration. And yeah If I needed someone has it, but that was much later (Rubber Soul era), way after the Kinks.

Norwegian Wood is great, but not a rock song. It's a FOLK song, one which has Indian drones in it. Light-years-ahead of their time guitarists such as Sandy Bull and Davy Graham were combining extensive (not just ocassional) droning with folk guitar since 1962. And and Indian drones had already entered the rock vocabulary by this time and there were a number of underground experimental or psychedelic rockers by this time, some of whom had already recorded psychedelic rock songs.

Tomorrow Never Knows isn't really a rock song either. There's is agressive drumming throughout, but it's truly a psychedelic experiment (not a "psychedelic rock" experiment). It's a bunch of pretty far out and trippy noises. Paul's trippy "seagull" like laughter, two trippy mellotron fragments, a dramatic orchestral chord, and sitar part with weird timbres due to studio treatments are all fasioned into loops and fed through the console. That's an experimental way to make music (and influenced by Stockhausen's Gesang der Junglinge), but it's not really applied in an experimental way. It's not like the tape loops were tampered with as they were fed through and it's not like much looping is done so that the sounds repeat over and over. I think I hear each sound repeat just one more time (meaning the loops were mostly filled with empty space between the glued together parts), so it's really just a collage of a few noises hear and there, the whole thing over a droning C chord with the tamboura and maybe organ and some weird backward sitar parts. Although not "rock", there were more creative rock songs around at this point anyway.

I Call Your Name is not a mixture rock and ska - it's only rhythmically. That rhythm was actually invented in a Memphis R&B song and then later absorbed into ska and so there is no such thing as "ska rhythm" really. So considering the Memphis R&B tune (Roscoe Gordon's "No More Doggin'", 1952), all that can really be said about I Call Your Name is that it uses a rhythm another rock song already used.

It really makes no difference if She's a Woman influenced that cool song, She's About a Mover. The Beatles influenced plenty of bands, but that fact in and of itself says little about the Beatles or the bands they influenced. It's just a tidbit.

Yup the Beatles influenced the Byrds with their jingle jangle sound (think I mistakenly said otherwise before), but bands like Searchers and Jackie DeShannon did so first. It's not like this has anything to do with folk rock though (although you're probably not implying that), because folk-rock and jingle jangle are actually mutually exclusive and just so happened to appear together usually (because of the Beatles' influence and the Byrds' sound).

I never said the Yardbirds invented raga rock. Just that they used a sitar in a rock song first. But that's not a big deal because they were just using it for its timbre, no Indian concepts or dronning.

Love You To definitely has the true raga/Indian Classical style in it rather than merely a few aspects of it and is therefore technically more authentically "Indian" than its raga-rock predecssors like the Byrds' "Why". But when we analyze that statement, it doesn't mean much. Bands like the Byrds had already absorbed all of the aspects of raga which make it "exotic"/"different"/"innovative" with respect to Western music. Love You To being totallly Indian Classical-influenced means it has those exotic aspects but ALSO the specific stylistic aspects of raga which weren't revolutionary (such starting with a slow intro of the themes to come, dividing the scale into distinct high and low parts, etc.)

Strawberry Fields Forever is a brilliant and classic song, but hardly the most original for its day in light of what many had done (from the Fugs to Bob Dylan to Frank Zappa to the Velvet Underground).

It combines two takes, like lots of songs had, but in this case they were two takes from two complete recordings in different styles (rather than a new take because of a mess-up). One style is more traditional than the other, so the songs is interesting for jumping styles. But it would have been more interesting if it was entirely in the "more interesting" style rather than contrasting. Also, the two parts were in different keys, but Martin used studio technology to bring the higher one down and the lower one up so that they matched. That's actually an uncreative element because it ruins the effect of the key change.

Hey- thanks for the incredibly cordial response. However, there's no confusion on my part whatsoever. The Beatles were indeed one of the most (if not THE most) innovative band of the rock era, and moreover made more important contributions during the era than anyone else. And really, it's not even that close.

There were two statements you made in your response that were extraordinarily inorrect. The first: All of the "innovations with the rock format" they're credited with should really be attributed to others who came before them.

This is completely false and is not backed up by any measure of historical accuracy. Certainly there were a few items on Bleach's list that were somewhat inaccurate, but certainly there were items that were completely correct. Perhaps saying ""Some" of the innovations...." would lead me to believe you've done your homework on this issue, but the historical record tells otherwise, as the Beatles are credited undoubtedly for many of the innovations mentioned.

The second: People like Scaruffi have sites dedicated only to the groundbreaking-ness/originality of artists, so they rate the Beatles justifiably lowly

This is where Scaruffi is totally off his rocker. (pun intended) The Beatles weren't Groundbreaking or original??? Utter hogwash.

I DO tend to agree with some (many) of Scaruffi's choices, but overall I believe his musical credibility is quite suspect. It's not really so much what he includes, but what he excludes that makes his opinion, in my opinion, suspect. And finally, what I saw from Scaruffi didn't seem to be based solely on those 2 criteria, but overall best rock albums ever made. Not including the Beatles is just silly. Maybe John or George did something unholy to his sister or his dog or summat.....

But seriously, check out this article from a music professor to see just some of the actual facts concerning the Beatles innovative nature.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4026/is_200304/ai_n9202278/pg_1

Then check out Alan W. Pollack, who seems to me just a TAD more credible than Scaruffi in his estimation of those ultra-innovative Beatles, and further includes actual musically based interpretations of their work.

Peace

Hey - sorry man, but looking at your post and the links you included (I've read all of Pollack before), there's not much substance in them.

No talk of what the Beatles' songs consist of and how they were made really says anyting at all (no matter how many times words like "innovative are used in a link) if it doesn't put it in the right context and include knowledge of their contemporaries. Pollack's site is pretty in depth, but still one-dimensional in that regard. And for that other link, for example, I know about how in "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" they encorporated randomly spliced together pieces of a chopped up piece of music, leading to sounds which don't sound related to each other. But that just made for a bunch of funny noises in an otherwise normal tune, which was no great shakes compared to the wildly innovative sounds of the era.

So..the fact that they "are credited undoubtedly for many of the innovations" means that the people doing the "crediting" don't have any "doubt", which mostly speaks of how little awareness they might have of the Beatles contemporaries rather than the idea that there shouldn't be doubt.

I know it's usually bad to use superlatives like "all", but if you've seen the rest of this thread, as weird as it may seem, I do get pretty detailed in pointing out the predessor of EVERY supposed non-superficial innovation.

The few cases where they seem to be innovators have more to do with the techniques used to make music, rather than the music itself. For what its worth, they and their produces did come up with SOME techniques which were innovative within a rock context (see, I used SOME, not a superlative :)). But I'm quick to point out these as being irrelevant in a discussion about musical innovation. (Musical innovation is about the WAY it sounds, without knowledge of HOW. If two songs are made with different reocrding METHODS, one experimental and one traditional, but otherwise sound the same, they're equally as creative MUSICALLY).

Other cases where they seem to be innovators are more to do with certain very specific distinctions between them and their predecessors, which are trivial. For example, the song "Love You To" might be the first raga-rock song to be "authentically raga influenced". All that means is that, in addition to the experimental-sounding (to Western ears at least) aspects of raga, it encorporates some specific stylistic trappings of it. But those aspects are not experimental or challenging like the other aspets, so it's a moot point to talk about them.

Scaruffi's site is dedicated to true innovation. His list of the best rock albums ever likely includes albums he doesn't even "enjoy" from a listenability standpoint, but he's making a point. The Beatles would probably rate highly on his list of great melodicists. Actually even his list of best pop albums factos in creativity/innovation, but even then Abbey Road actually rankds at # 40.

Sorry mate, you can spin this anyway you want it towards how you feel but you are dead wrong.

I Call Your Name- Does blend ska with a rock song. Not many rock bands were doing that in 1964

Doctor Robert- Ian MacDonald descibes Harrison
gutiar work as a unique fusion of sitar and country. Not that Sean you would ever give credit for something the Beatles did. Steve Earle has noticed the country influenced vocal harmonies on the track

Tomorrow Never Knows- not a rock song? Say what. Let's just say this with it's repetitive drum ( no drum fills ), bass sound ( doing a drone ) and tape loops or samples is very common in today music. On top that it has a groove it's 20 to 25 years ahead of it's time.

Ticket To Ride- with it's droning bassline, broken drum pattern and massive chiming sound was another unique soundscape.

Bob Dylan was great lyrically but him and the Band were not making anyhting soundscape wise as cosmically as Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields Forever.

I just read Lennon Uncut 30 greatest songs and Paul Weller said in his opinion Strawberry Fields Forever is the first psychedelic rock song.

Nowhere Man, Eight Miles High, Shapes Of Things is vaguely psychedelic rock but Tomorrow Never Knows is full blown psychedelic rock and there are many who feel the same way

I notice that you went from calling Love You Too as Scaruffi has suggested as vaguely oriental. Now you are not calling Love You To as very Indian and not much rock. You seem to be very bright but not on the subjcet on the Beatles influence. Keep on rolling with the hits.

Dude - I like the Beatles music. I'm happy to give them credit for whatever, if it's due.

I Call Your Name has ska RHYTHM (the rhythm of ska), not ska music. And I'm just saying that this rhythm dates back to a Memphis R&B song from pre-ska, 1952 (by Roscoe Gordon). So essenially it's just a rock song with that rhythm, no different in that regard than the '52 song (not groundbreaking).

Doctor Robert - even if it has country aspects, so what? Thousands of rock songs back then had country aspects. Means nothing. And country influences had already popped up in the Grateful Dead's early psychedelic rock.

So all you're now sayingabout TMK is that it is very common in today's music. True. But that alone doesn't mean anything other than maybe that the Beatles were popular. For what it's worth, I'd say the groove is closer to Bo Diddley than to the "future".

Ticket to Ride is a hard rocking folk-rock song. Might've been the hardest rocking one yet, as the full-blown genre was only a month old (Mr. Tamborine Man was recorded in January 1965 while TtR in February). But there is no droning in that song. It comes close, but the sounds don't "linger" long enough. And the word "soundscape" was innapropriate for this style.

Bob Dylan was more than just "great lyrically". Blonde on Blonde was rock music's first true work of art and masterpiece and makes use of "soundscaping" with it's blend of colorful and subtle organ sounds.

SFF is great and all but it's less psychedelic than dozens and dozens of songs from the previous year. And it makes no difference if Paul Weller said otherwise.

Eight Miles High is WAY more psychedelic sounding than TMK. As were other songs such as those by the 13th Floor Elevators, very early Grateful Dead, very early Doors, etc. And since, as I said, it's not a "rock" song, you should comare it in "psychedelicness" with the psychedelic music in general, outside of psychdelic ROCK (such as 1962 and 1963 pieces by Sun Ra, Sandy Bull, Davy Graham and Terry Riley), against which its child's play.

Dude, what I said about Love Yo To is not a contradiction. It combined Indian classica/raga with rock, like other songs had done. It has the parts of that style which were experimental to rock, which other bands had already boldy introduced, but which in this case were more tame. Itt also has the other parts (the specific stylistic trappings), rounding out the full blown Indian style, but those are the trivial (non-experimental to rock) parts. So it's simultaneously more "Indian" and less "provocatively Indian" with respect to rock (true even if it wasn't "not much rock" anyway" as I had said).

Sean these are the facts you are spin doctoring everything.

I Call Your Name- uses a Ska rhythm which is a fact and not many rock groups were doing at the time. We are talking about rock music not r&b.

Doctor Robert - Was recorded before the Grateful Dead and being in a band myself there is a strong country influence in Harrison guitar work in this song. Another one who cites this song as acid- country is Rough Guide to the Beatles.

Ticket To Ride - 1- certainly has guitar drone sorry get over it, it's really not that important. 2- Ticket To Ride might have invented the hard rocking folk song but the Beatles What You're Doing was a folk rock song in 1964 before the Byrds.

Many ARTISTS CITE Rubber Soul as rock's first great true rock album including Brian Wilson himself. Nothing against Blonde on Blonde even though Dylan can't sing a lick.

It's your clouded judgement that makes you think Eight Miles is way more psychedelic than Tomorrow Never Knows or not a rock song. It's your opinion. The Doors and the 13th floor Elevators first albums came out months after Revolver.

Love You Too is classical Indian with rock that's all. It's not raga rock it's a authentic combining of rock elements and classical Indian music.You are stumbling all over the place with this. The facts are the Byrds, The Kinks, The Yardbirds were not doing it.

Sean you have not proven anything except that you are a devout follower of Scaruffi.

R

Man - for one thing, R&B is a subgenre of rock - I knew that was coming though. But it's not like that rhythm or that song is a such a significant thing. It doesn't "challenge accepted dogmas" and "radically change" anything.

Yeah I know Doctor Robert was recorded before the Grateful Dead recorded any albums. But, anyway, they recorded several pretty psychedelic demos in early November 1965. The point is that by the time of Doctor Robert they (the Dead) already had the sound - and that it's not like the recording of Doctor Robert is a major groundbreaking event especially compared with other psychedelic songs.

Whatever about Ticket to Ride - we can't make an headway there I guess. What You're Doing is almost folk-rock, yeah, but just like lots of songs by October 1964.

I'd agree that Rubber Soul is one of the first great rock albums (not that it really matters who else, like Brian Wilson agrees), but I'm speaking in this thread of creativity/innovation/expresssion and such, not just "good music".

Eight Miles High is not necessarily way more psychedelic, but it's way more "psychedelic rock" sounding, because TMR, like I said, isn't rock. Simply an upfront rhythm over experimental noise does not a rock song make.

And it doesn't matter when other albums "came out", ie "were released". It matters when they developed their sound - even more than when they RECORDED it (which in the Doors case, is after Revolver, I know). If I invent Style X, then you hear me playing it, rip it off, and record it first, thereby invented the style of Recorded Style X, you really don't deserve it (I'm not saying they ripped anyone off of course, that's just an example).

Classical Indian music is the same thing as Raga. "Raga-rock" was the name given to music that combines aspects of this with rock.

Definitely Love You Too, unlike songs that came before, combines the full blow raga or Indian classical style with rock.

The other bands like the Byrds were not going all the way, but they were incorporating the aspects of Indian music which were experimental in a rock context (deep droning, spirituality), and doing so in a more indepth way than the Beatles. I say not going all the way because they were leaving out the rest of the style, the specific stylistic trappings, like starting with a slow overture-like intro and separating the two halves of the scale all the time - aspects which were just the minor details, not the innovative-to-rock parts.

So I'm saying the Beatles song has less of the far-out-for-rock parts, and more of the irrelevant-for-this-talk details. I applaud George Harrison for taking the time to study those specific details and I'll say that song is very "accomplished".

I'm not a devout follower of anyone really, I just don't like it when history gets distorted, you know.

Could you explain to me Sean what song in April of 1966 was like this

Tomorrow Never Knows (Techno/Electronica/Kraut

Rock)
Combining swirling psychedelia with a repetitive melody, sampling and wicked sound effects,“Tomorrow Never Knows” could possibly be the first trance dance song. The Chemical Brothers didn’t take the drum track and bassline from this song for nothing.

Alright alright I've let this thing go on long enough without putting an opinion in, as I know that you and SeanSean know a lot more about rock music than I do.
That said Bleach, you're completely misusing terms and artists from electronic music (not electronica, please), and the Chemical Brothers were influenced by many sources other than just the Beatles (you said it yourself earlier), and by the later ones moreso.
Also, the Chemcical Brothers are possibly one of the most overrated electronic bands out there, much like Basement Jaxx or Fatboy Slim. They don't make techno, pure techno isn't anything like their style.
Another thing, Tomorrow Never Knows most certainly isn't the first "Trance Dance Song", there are many other rock bands who influenced all electronic music much more, such as Can (and Sven Vath, who actually did make techno & trance, is quoted as saying Can were a major influence) or Pink Floyd for their use with early electronic styles.
The Beatles were no doubt an influential band (and I do quite like them), but you give them way too much credit.

They were not the first band to use extensive use of tapeloops, psychedelia & avant garde rock groups and conventions had been doing it for ages. Also, Pierre Henry made avant garde rock before the Beatles, as did Pierre Schaeffer.
The Beatles made all short songs, all mostly 3 minute, a couple of 5 minuters, but nothing that truly has time to truly expand and change it's content - real krautrock can be upto 20 minutes. The Beatles didn't want anything that would challenge their listeners too much, as it wouldn't sell as well, and their market was primarily one to a mass audience. They took experimental and innovative ideas and made them palatable for mass consumption.

Exactly! The Chemical Brothers play a "rockist" variant of techno called "big beat", not the normal techno.

See I think there were only one or two rock examples of tape loops before Tomorrow Never Knows (all pointless if you follow that, like I said", it's not a rock song anyway). And, speaking to your point, they were used in the context of fully avant garde music for years (although not in avant garde "bands"). But it's not like they're used in TMK to produce repitition. The loops in that song are mostly filled with empty space, so after each noise plays, you only hear it play again one more time. And even if were used for repetition, it'd be the repitition that matters, not the fact that tape loops were used (the "content" not the "process"). Granted their is repetitiion in the song in other ways (the drum beat) and droning/sustaining of one chord, but that's not a big deal especially compared with more experimental artists who came first, and, for purposes of this post, more techno/trance-y artists who actually did set the state for techno/trance.

Ok, Blind so the Beatle were not the first to experiment with tape loops. Was Berry the first to play the guitar? Tomorrow Never Knows combines electronic, Indian elements, avant garde and musique concrete in the course of one song.

It's funny Bleach has said the Beatles I Am The Walrus influenced Can into the Kraut-Rock sound. Henry and Schaffer were not rock artists. Tomorrow Never Knows was recorded before anyhting Floyd did. Then you don't know the story about Syd Barrett listening to Revolver when they were just a pub band. In 1966 psychedelic rock, avant rock was in it's infancy and I highly doubt without the Beatles input or popularity both would have taken off. In 1966 not many Rock bands were using musique concrete either and certainly not in the way of Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields Forever. Strawberry Fields Forever uses reverse drum effects or drum looping both common in today's music.

It's not the mere fact that they weren't the first (like you said, Berry wasn't the first to play guitar). It's the fact that they applied it in a less extensive (more shallow) way than the "first" ones had.

Bleach doesn't say I Am the Walrus influenced Can into the Kraut-Rock sound. It's just that they started out in the avant garde, disinterested in or unfamiliar with rock, and gravitated toward avant-rock upon hearing that song, which in context of what they had heard, sounded innovative.

Tomorrow Never Knows sounds nothing like Pink Floyd. And yeah, they liked Revolver, but they were heavily influenced by free jazz, the Misunderstood, the Fugs, and others.

And the fact that not many were experimental in those ways before hand, but lots were afterward is mostly attributed to the fact that they were popular.

Ok..the fact that it has sampling technically doesn't mean anything. That's just a method for encorporating other sounds into a song. What's important is what those actual sounds are - what they sound like. There's 5 trippy noises each (or some?) repeated twice: orchestral chord, 2 mellotron flourishes, a sitar part, and Paul's "seagullish" laughter. There's also a backward guitar part which forms a trippy solo. The whole thing is over an extensive C drone with sitar and bass (organ too?) and is supported by a repetitive drum beat.

So this is overall just a psychedelic experiment, not even "psychedelic ROCK". The exerimental-sounding elements it has had already been tried before, and in more daring ways, especially when you consider the whole avant garde genre, but even compared to the early avant-rockers (Zappa, Velvet Underground, Grateful Dead, Nihilist Spasm Band, Byrds, Fugs...). Sure nothing sounded EXACTLY like it, but that's true of lots of songs from the era.

And the song has nothing to do with techno. There's nothing really even "electronic" about it anyway. Ok, let's say you give techno a really loose definition of "repetitive dance rhythm made of processed sounds". Well, yeah, Tomorrow Never Knows has both repetitive dance rhythm and processed sounds, but in the song they're mutually exclusive.

And the fact that the Chemical Brothers emulated it says nothing about the creativity of the song, so it's a useless point, more of a distraction. It just shows they liked the song and thought it was interesting and cool.

Kraut-rock has more to do with the Velvet Underground's concert style and "Sister Ray".

Tomorrow Never Knows, basically might be the first outblown psychedelic rock song. See My Friends, Shapes of Things is at best proto-psychedelic rock. Since the song is psychedelic and it's over a repetitive groove with samples it has been compared to techno and more precise psychedelic techno, acid house and trance dance.

The Beatles were one of many bands were recording avant rock in 1966 and they were recording it before the Velvet Underground got to it in May of 1966.

Kraut-Rock Can Holger Kuzakay after hearing I Am The Walrus decided to form a band.

See, I never said See My Friends was psychedelic. It's not. That came later in 1965 (Charlatans, Big Brother and the Holing Company, Warlocks/Grateful Dead, Big Boy Pete, Eyes, Great Society, Byrds, 13th Floor Elevators...)

Like I said, you can't really call Tomorrow Never Knows "rock" really, since it's too exerimental. Compare it with earlier trippy experiments like those by Terry Riley, Sun Ra, or Sandy Bull. And it doesn't matter tha the Velvet Underground, who far more experimental than the Beatles, hadn't recorded yet (their album was recorded later in Apil, then partially re-recorded in May). They had already achieved a far more innovative style live.

The fact that Holger formed his band after hearing the Beatles is just another one of those meaningless tidbits, when it comes down to it. It's true of thousands of bands. Thing is, he was a part of the avant garde at first, and probably was disinterested in rock music, thinking it was too commercial, until someone pointed out I Am the Warlrus to him and he thought it showed rock had potential (although it doesn't compare to some other stuff he hadn't heard yet).

Sounds like to me Bleach is making the better points. Tomorrow Never Knows not psychedelic rock that is as funny as Scaruffi claiming Love You Too as vaguely oriental or the Beatles writing nothing more than pop ditties. What other fabrications are you going to come up with. Your comment below which makes no sense at all.

Ok, let's say you give techno a really loose definition of "repetitive dance rhythm made of processed sounds". Well, yeah, Tomorrow Never Knows has both repetitive dance rhythm and processed sounds, but in the song they're mutually exclusive

They are part of the song not mutually exclusive and even it is according to you. The concept of both in the same song is common in today's music. Which means they were well ahead of the curve. Dude some of the points where you are obviously wrong and the explantions that you have made are pretty sad in my opinion.

People like you and Blind are too into time length of songs. The length of the song is not relavant sounds like another lame excuse to try to put the Beatles down. Most of your opinions in my opinion have been long winded and lame with no substance. I have said my peace and I am done with this topic.

You're totally missing the point.

Tomorrow Never Knows can't be rock. It's an avant garde influenced piece without any "rock" elements beyond maybe the fact that the drumming is aggressive. What I'm saying about "mutually exclusive" is that, in techno, all the sounds are percussive/rhythmic minimalist (yet funk-rooted) noises with futuristic timbres (usually through high tech studio processing or the use of high tech instruments like sequencers). TMR is an avant garde experiment with processed timbres (through techniques including "backward recording), which ALSO happens to have a repetitive (although too complex to be minimalist) and organic (non avant garde or electronic or whatever) rhythm part which is unrelated. It's less techno than even Zappa's Return of the Son of the Monster Magnet may be.

I'll say again that Love You To is more heavily indebted to the actual Indian classical style than earlier raga-rock songs had been, but that this doesn't really amount to anything. It just means that in addition to the attributes of Indian music which were experimental when it came to rock, it has the other stylistic details of Indian music. But the experimental-to-rock aspects were not as extensive as with other bands, the other Indian aspects are just trivial details (non-experimental), and the rock aspect is barely present.

I never said much of anything about length of songs. Usually longer = more pretentious, which is something I hate. And nothing I said has been an "opinion" at all. What I've said has been entirely based on objective facts, which much more (and more accurate) historical background based stuff and comparisons than in your posts, for example.

I think you are missing the point.

I have to say I saw this on the internet and I have to chime in. Tomorrow Never Knows is more Big Beat , the "big-beat" dance of The Chemical Brothers (who's "Setting Sun" sounds not dissimilar to "Tomorrow Never Knows. I don't really care if the Beatles invented techno or not. The fact of the matter is Tomorrow Never Knows with it's sampling and dance like drums and repetitive bass lines are all over music today. I don't think it's really a great thing but the fact is they did it years before it became popular they were ahead of their time.

Tomorrow Never Knows has so many elements in it and one of it is defintely rock.

Love You Too, man how many times have you repeated yourself on this it's Indian Classic style with rock elements. It's far different than what any rock group was doing at the time. Why can't you give the Beatles credit for that.

Norwegian Wood might be pure raga folk but you forget If I Needed Someone which Donovan has said in his biography is modal Indian Folk Rock Song.

Savoy Truffle not only has very distorted guitars in it but the brass was also distorted to copy the guitar sound.

What I find distressing with people like Scaruffi is his total one sidedness in his approach. He hardly mentions these points or does not bother to mention it.

1- When the Beatles broke in America their British rivals like the Stones and the Yardbirds were just cover bands. The Beatles wrote all their hit songs
2- Without the Beatles there is no Byrds
3- Without the Beatles using folk music their is no folk rock
4- The Beatles were using distorted feedback and combining it with a riff orientated song in I Feel Fine. Before the Kinks, Stones and the Who recording it on record.
5-Rubber Soul influences Pet Sounds
6- Revolver influences the Doors, The Byrds Younger Than Yesterday.

The Velvet Underground was no match to the Beatles they were barely listenable. The Beatles at least were listenable avant rock song like Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields Forever. The concept of being melodic and experimental were not Velvet Underground strongpoint.

Ok man - the fact that the Chemical Brothers made a song which tried to emulate Tomorrow Never Knows does not mean that it was the basis for their style in general. And even if it does, that doesn't prove either TMR or the Chemical Brothers to be innovative anyway. And the Beatles didn't invent sampling or musique concrete, nor were they the first to put it in a rock song (not that TMR is really rock anyway), so the fact that they were ahead of the popular trend is ignoring others who also were, and by a greater extent.

The rock aspect of TMR is the upfront rhythm track, but that's not enough. Call it rock-avant rather than avant-rock. Seriously though, this song gets way too much credit.

Please check my earlier post from 1/27 on Love You Too. Might be more clear.

If I needed someone is just vaguely Indian sounding. No match for what the Byrds were doing (even earlier than Eight Miles High), the Velvet Underground, etc. It's strength is it's oool riff (stolen from the Byrds, by the way, not that it matters).

Savoy Truffle - ok the brass is distorted, making for an interesting timbre. Not a huge deal, in consideration of the years and years worth of weird timbres out there.

The fact that the Beatles wrote their own songs while others were cover bands doesn't really prove anything. Bands like the Stones added more creative elements to their covers in the way they approached them.

Sure there'd be no Byrds without the Beatles. Sure that's true of a lot of bands. But the Byrds invented the full folk-rock style and you don't credit the Beatles for that simply because you credit them for their EXISTENCE. Why not credit David Crosby's mother then :).

Please check out Johnny Watson's "Space Guitar", with wild feedback in a song that's practically blues-rock, from 1954, as well another proto-blues-rocker, the 5 Royale's "The Slummer the Slum" from 1958. Plus the Yardbirds apparently used it in a version of Got to Hurry earlier 1964.

Rubber Soul didn't really "influence" Pet Sounds. The shear quality of the record inspired Brian Wilson to try to top it, but in doing so, he invented a new style, "Baroque pop".

Revolver doesn't seem to have any influence on the Doors' sound. Especially since they had fully developed the sound of their first album before recording it. And Younger Than Yesterday employed a lof the "techniques" on Revolver, but did so in creative ways, whereas the Beatles were just using them. For example, backward sounds actually sound "trippy" rather than barely weird.

When you say the VU were "barely listenable", that goes to show that they incorporated a greater deal of avant garde aspects into their rock. The Beatles didn't go deep enough into experimentation to affect the listenablity, but the VU's experimentation was less shallow and more challenging.

Well if you add the upfront rhythm track, with musique concrete and drone the Beatles still invented a style in rock music with Tomorrow Never Knows. I still consider it rock and you are the first person I have heard with that opinion. Rain is another song almost in that style but to many people the tune sounds almost Indie.

If I Needed Someone was recorded months before Eight Miles High. Eight Miles High is raga rock. If I Needed Someone though influenced by the Byrds is more influenced by Indian music hence the raga- folk rock tag of this song. The influence of both bands worked both ways

I disagree with this the Beatles were doing baraque pop as others before Pet Sounds. Songs like the baraque folk of You've Got to Hide Your Love Away and In My Life. Left Banke were baraque pop and they were already influenced by songs like Yesterday and Michelle they took it to the next level.

Maybe, I am being harsh but compared to the Beatles VU were not that harmonious. The Beatles for such a melodic band had many songs that incorparated dissonance. Many of the tracks on Revolver and Strawberry Fields Forever had strong use of dissonance. Even Day Tripper is more dissonant than bluesy. I don't think the Beatles experimentation is shallow at all. They approached it differently than VU because the Beatles were more polished as musicians and songwriters.

Having heard the track by the Yardbirds there is no actual sustain feedback like I Feel Fine. The other people you have mentioned did they sustain guitar feedback from broken tubes on the amps or did they intentionally use it like I Feel Fine. I read that guitar feedback in those days prior to the Beatles was from broken tubes from amps. An alternate take of Eight Days A Week on Anthology 1 uses extensive guitar feedback. What You're Doing uses bass feedback or it's very close to it.

I think it's also important that the Beatles influenced the Rolling Stones and their British peers to write their own songs. Would have the Stones wrote Satisfaction without the Beatles influence as songwriters? Without the British Invasion would Dylan have gone electric as early as he did?

I mean TMK just doesn't sound rock enough. There's too many experimental nosies going on
(plus I did some math for fun.... The rhythm track is the only rock part, it's only present 85% of the time, only hard rocking enough to be rock like 80% of the time it's there, and when it's there it takes up 70% of the song's influence. That leads to less than 50%.)

Musique Concrete just means "adds sound effects". Lots of songs had sound effects. But most of the effects on TnK are pre-recorded musical tracks (all except the segaull noise). You wouldn't say that any song in which the guitar is recorded separately and then overdubbed has "guitar sound effects". So all these fancy words (musique concrete, tape loops) are just ways to explain how they put the sounds in their song. You should be focusing on what the sounds are (what they sound like).

Right, If I Needed someone was recorded two months before EMH. But that's not "raga" rock, just rock (actually folk-rock, as you say) with
Indian droning. There's a difference, and it lies in the extent. Actually it's less droney than the Kinks' See My Friends, which wasn't quite raga rock either.

You've Got To Hide Your Love Away is a Dylan-ish folk song. Even it had "baroque" aspects, it'd be baroque-folk or baroque-"folk pop". Whereas the pop aspect in "baroque pop" is of the rock genre ("pop-rock"). I know there's that baroquey solo in In My Life, but the pop aspect in the song is not of the "rock" sort, not pop-rock. Same goes with Yesterday. It's a 30's-ish ballad with strings. Maybe the IDEA of the Beatles (a melodic rock band) making string quartet music influenced the IDEA of Baroque Pop, but it wasn't it. Pet Sounds was the real start of it - and the main influence of Rubber Soul on Pet Sounds was in the idea of making a full album of great songs, rather than the way it sounded.

When I say the Beatles' experimentation was shallow (or shallower) during the psychedelic years I mean that, most of the time, it was just coming from instruments added on to the arrangments in songs which were otherwise normalish. When they did do songs which were experimental even in the heart of the song, other bands were already doing it even more indepthly. Not that there's anything WRONG with that, and, for what it's worth, it made for better sounding songs than others, but it's just less daring, that's all.

It seems the Yardbirds' Got to Hurry might have an INTENTIONAL sound effect of the recording of "accidental" feedback, still INTENTIONAL though. Plus they were using it in concert. And besides, please check out Johnny Guitar Watson's Space Guitar from 1954. It's pretty much a blues-rock song with an avant garde feedback break. And What You're Doing wouldn't surprise me because it's from the I Feel Fine era.

True that other bands started writing their own songs INSPIRED by the FACT that the Beatles' wrote their own songs. That means they were influential in cultural terms. That doesn't mean that other bands' songs were influenced by the Beatles' actual sound (many WERE influenced by the Beatles' sound, but the Stones and Dylan, for example, sound much different).

The Stones were copying the Beatles during their pop-rock phase of 1965-1967 until they realized they were better at being a roots rock band.

The Last Time has the chiming acoustic guitar sound with the usage of 12 string guitar that is all over the place in the Beatles sound of 1964 example Eight Days A Week.

Brian Jones was influenced by George Harrison use of sitar and tamboura. He even was rumoured in wanting to join the Beatles.

Santanic Majesties Request great album but everyone knows who was the major influence on that album. We Love You was highly Beatles influenced.

As Tears Go By was arranged like Yesterday

The feedback on the 1954 track was it intentional or was it from the use of broken tubes amps? The way Beatles did it was intentional and from my research the feedback is coming from both the bass and a acoustic guitar. To me that was innovation.

The rest of your points I would consider In My Life as baraque pop-rock. Though timid using Scaruffi words If I Needed Someone is folk rock with Indian modal elements making it different than See My Friends and Eight Miles High. Tomorrow Never Knows I read the tape loops were mixed live in the studio.

The only thing I 100 percent agree with is You've Got To Hide Your Love Away is a Dylan-ish folk song. Even it had "baroque" aspects, it'd be baroque-folk or baroque-"folk pop". So did the Beatles invent baroque-folk-rock music?

The Beatles had their own sound it was most original to me in 1963-1964. Scaruffi claims the Beatles made rock and roll as white music or aryan as possible. If the Beatles are the one band who are responsible in taking the roll out of rock and roll then the Beatles must have been innovative or changed music. Like one of your posters have said Dylan and McGuinn remarked the Beatles chords and harmonies are what made the Beatles valid. She Loves You might sound like the proto-power pop song but it was their chords and harmonies that made stood them out to others. You could hear a little Chuck Berry in I Want To Hold Your Hand and more than a little Carl Perkins in All My Loving. It was some of Rubber Soul and Revolver really they made music that was not of their 50's rock and roll idols.

The fact that some of their songs influenced the Stones doesn't make them innovative. I mean, I'd say that the specific 65-67 era Stones songs which copied the Beatles were the ones which were their LEAST interesting. It's their baroque pop and psych pop songs. Also, lots of bands used 12 strings and a chiming sound. Besides, above all, The Last Time is a raw rocker with a cool thorny riff.

Yeah I know Brian picked up the the sitar because of George, but Paint It Black is still original sounding. It conveys a dark sense of anguish.

The actual sound of Satanic Majesties owes more to Pink Floyd's debut. And Yesterday is just a string-laced balland (yet brilliantly melodic tune) like thousands of others and not a rock song anyway, so it doesn't matter if it influenced As Tears Go By.

The '54 one WAS intentional feedback. I think the "broken tube amp" you hear in some other very early songs is unintentional DISTORTION.

I really don't think In My Life can be considered baroque pop rock because its only baroque element is the piano solo. It's less baroque than the Beach Boys' California Girls (probably the real start of the evolution to Pet Sounds).

I know If I Needed someone is different than the the Kinks song we're comparing it to, but then MOST songs are different from each other, so it's a moot point. The point is that IINS doens't really sound "challenging". And there were other examples from before it anyway, which we haven't discussed, including some full-blown psychedelic soungs.

Like I said, Hide Your Love Away is a folk-based song. Let's just say for the sake of the argument that it's baroque folk in particular: wouldn't be the first. And the added pop element is not of the rock sort. Think about it...it's not a folk-rock song.

I totally agree with your last point. Relative to it's time, their early style was more original, due to their eccentric chords. But it's the quirkiness (in the chords and harmonies), not the "whiteness", which was original. The mere fact of making "unprecedentedly white" rock is not one of the aspects of their early music which was "innovative". Simply adding a new element does not necessarily mean innovating and being creative, especially if that element is a stricly commercial element (also, Merseybeat bands like Gerry and the Pacemakers came first in "whitening" rock).

I never understood what was so great about the Rolling Stones. They stuck to their basic three chord format and when they branched out it was Brian Jones who made it happen in my opinion. Paint It Black is a brilliant tune. Santanic Majesties, I always thought was copped from Pink Floyd also. The way the album is presented and sequenced is stolen from Sgt Pepper. Also vocally they took a lot from the Beatles. Kieth Richards had stated at the time he wanted to do vocal harmonies like the Beatles.

The Beatles formed before the Gerry and the Pacemakers and Love Me Do and Please Please Me were hits before Gerry and the Pacemakers were on the charts. I never thought the Beatles tried to to be white they just sounded different than American rock and roll. When the Beatles starting using a lot of Indian influence even Taxman had Indian influence or unusual sounds like backward tape is when you could say they took rock and roll away from it's roots. They were others also like Pink Floyd but becuase of the Beatles massive popularity they get singled out like someone like Scaruffi.

To me Hide Your Love Away is pure folk with some blugrass and baraque elements. The tune actually uses acoustic drone.

Sean Sean you should read Can't Buy Me Love written by a jazz musician he notes that Ticket To Ride uses drone. He disects almost every
Beatles. From a rock standpoint the Beatles were haromincally more innovative than most rock bands at that point according to this book.

Well there's definitely more to music than chord progressions. The Stones should hit you on a more visceral level and also on a bodily one. The Stones introduced a new provocative/dangerous/sexy way of making music. And the practically invented blues-rock (although there were precedents), which is key to most post-60's music. And it makes no sense to discredit their "creative" period on the basis of it being "only Brian Jones", after all he was a member of the band (and you could say the same about Brian Wilson).

Yeah the Beatles FORMED before Gerry and the Pacemakers (who formed in 1959). But when the formed they were playing a skiffle/rock and roll blend like many others. They didn't start playing in the more poppy style which evolved out of that (Merseybeat) until later. And Love Me Do is more of a Bruce Channel/Delbert McClinton style song.

I think it'd be fairer to say that because of their popularity they get singled out...by everyone else.

Hide Your Love Away is definitely pure confessional-style folk. May have some baroque aspects and maybe droning (like countless Irish folk songs). All I was saying is that it's not some kind of early baroque-in-rock song because it's not a rock song.

I definitely hear this kind of droney sound in the Ticket to Ride bass, but it's just "kind of". Plus anyway, the Kinks' song was written in January, probably around the same time as the Beatles' one.

I know they were more "harmonically" interesting than most rock bands. But other bands were more interesting in other and more extensive ways which should overshadow that, even in the early era. And it makes no sense to due a detailed musiclogical study of one band and just generalize the others without going into depth on them. That's the flaw in stuff like Pollack's Notes On series.

I never thought the Stones were that unique or innovative. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life and I Am The Walrus are almost a subgenre of it's own in rock music. Then you have the psychedelic brass band type of song like Good Morning and Magical Mystery Tour. The Beatles did a lot of unique style blendings Got To Get To You Into My Life has the Motown/Stax sound laced with acid lyrics or It's All To Much drenced with feedback with a psychedelic sounding brass band.

When I Want to Hold Your Hand came out not only was it harmonically unique but the beat was relentless. I would classify a lot of their early stuff as power-pop like Please Please Me. The Beach Boys never rocked as hard as the Beatles.

Baraque pop-rock, the Stones did some of this also Play With Fire and Lady Jane show baraque influence.

The Beatles could be one of the first rock bands to explore Indian modality.

As for Scaruffi I never understood his stance on the Beatles. I actually thought he would like them considering the Beatles were able to the one thing the Velvet Underground could not to was mix avant with pop-rock or put it on the map.

Yes some of the songs you mention are "unique" (SFF, A Day in the Life, Walrus, All Too Much), but others in that time were..."more unique". And I wouldn't really call Good Morning Good Morning a "psychedelic song". It's just "brass rock" with some sound effects. And by this point in time there were already 2 or 3 full blown early jazz-rock bands like the Free Spirits. I also wouldn't call Got to Get You Into My Life a "style blend" of soul and psychedelic music because the acid aspect, as you say, is in the lyrics, no the music.

Play With Fire doesn't really count as baroque pop-rock. It's just one of the proto songs of that style. Not sure your point there.

Yup, they were one of the first to explore Indian modality, but they did it to a lesser extent than the bands who actually WERE the first. Why not talk about THEM.

See, the Beatles definitely were among the first to make an avant garde POP-rock. But others before them were doing avant garde NON-POP rock, which is inherently more bold or respectable (because all it really means when it comes down to it is that compared to those earlier bands, the Beatles were less experimental and more pop).

And the Velvets could definitely write great pop-rock songs (as they actually focused on later in their career) as well as interesting avant-garde rock experiments. They just never chose to blend them, because in their more experimental early career, they were interested in music wasn't as banal.

I would call Magical Myster Tour and It's All Too Much as brass rock psychedelic. Got To Get You Into My Life is brass rock with a soul sound. Then you have the hard rock brass sound of Sgt Pepper. Whether the Free Spirits formed in 1965 is irrelavant. They were not recording the type of psychedelic and hard rock brass rock the Beatles did.

There could not be a better example of Indian modality in rock music at that time then Love You Too. Tomorrow Never Knows and Ticket To Ride also show Indian modality in rock music.

You seem to be hung up on bands who did nothing with the styles that the Beatles were very influential at. What's more amusing the Beatles were always one of the first to attempt these styles.

It seems anyone who loves the Velvet Undergroud can not admit to the fact that songs like Rain and I'm Only Sleeping are very Indie sounding. Or that Tomorrow Never Knows is a great song that uses drone. Eleanor Rigby even uses drone that comes from a string octet. I don't either dislike or love the Velvet Underground. They are many songs in the Beatles that are very Indie or altenative rock sounding. I consider The Velvet Undergroud as one of many bands who was important to modern rock. If I had my vote the two most important rock artists for modern rock are the Beatles and the Velvet Underground.

I think you're totally misinterpreting what I said in a lot of piecs...

Yeah MMT and Too Much count as trippy brass rock, but so what? Even outside of the specific "jazz-rock style" other rock bands were jazzier (espcially in psychedelic rock), so all we're talking about is the specific "brassiness", the timbres, which weren't that far out anyway, at least in those songs (not that It's All Too Much isn't far out in other ways though).

Love You To is definitely very Indian sounding, and in ways which other songs didn't quite reach. But that's a misleading statement. What it has which earlier songs lacked are the specific details found in the Indian classical genre (slow out of tempo intro, separation of the scale into parts which never cross, specific riffs), aspects which weren't revolutionary to rock (unlike the other aspects like the intense spiritual-sounding drones, which other bands presented in a less compromised way).

I never said Tomorrow Never Knows doesn't have drones. It's definitely an psychedelic/avant garde minimalist drone experiment (with some sound collage aspects thrown in which add further trippiness). I was just saying it's so experimental so as not to be rock, and should instead be compared with earlier fully avant garde projects.

And whatever Indian aspects might have been in Ticket to Ride are so vague so as to be irrelevant (in the sense that you wouldn't miss them if they weren't there).

When you say other bands did "nothing with the styles that the Beatles were very influential at", that's a kind of empty statement. Influentiality is bound to be one of the Beatles' top attributes because they were popular, but doesn't necessarily say anything about the creativity of the influential style we're talking about in and of itself.

Plus, they're only different in style from the other bands we're talking about in the sense that, unlike those bands, they added a pop element, which really makes them less respectable anyway. When you get down to such specifics and ignore the big picture, pretty much any band had their own unique style. Why not talk about innovators within a genre (for example, "rock") rather than a sub-subgenre (for example, "psychedelic pop-rock")?

I know they were always one of the first to do a lot of stuff, but others WERE the first, plus were bolder in their experimentation to begin with.

Rain is a psychedelic rock song and I'm Only Sleeping is a somewhat psychedelic folk-rock song. These songs rely on weird timbres (through backward recording...although it's the timbres and not the method which mattesr), pop-style production quality, nice harmonies, etc. That has nothing to do with alternative or "indie" rock other than in the general sense of being "indepedent" from the mainstream (to the extent that those songs are obviously not bubblegum). I'd be the first to admit that Tomorrow Never Knows is a "great" song. Funny how you mentioned three "Indian" aspects in talking about "Indie". Probably just a coincidence..but obviously they mean different things, you know.

The Beatles are very important to rock because they were able to make the rock world "safe" for experimentation (on the basis of their reputation from their early melodic songs and on the more traditionally melodic aspects of their experimental songs). This led to lots of creativity from lots of bands.

So their importance is really in the cultural sense. That's no different than saying drugs, or the Vietnam War, or the inventor of the electric guitar, or the lifestyle of a rocker's cool long-haired high school friend were influential on music. Other bands (and the Velvet Underground are not alone) are far more important...to music itself

Folks who don't rank Beatles albums among the best ever are simply wrong

Because they have different opinions...

This is a dumb debate in my opinion. The Beatles basically on their own estabilished the modern concept of a rock band. Buddy Holly was just like Berry a focal point behind a band. The Beatles had no leaders. Any musician who writes, arranges and plays the guitar have listened to the Beatles and taken ideas from the Beatles. Acts like the Velvet Underground or Bahaus influence only a partial segment of musicians the Beatles have.

Getting back to the Beatles were instrumental not only the British Invasion and classic rock they along with the Searchers don't get enough credit for influencing the start of folk-rock. Many of the points here are like window-dressing to me not really that important.

The early Beatles sound was harmonically and melodically different than any of their blues based peeers. The Beatles sound was a energetic drum sound, very melodic, chord centric based music with a emphasis on vocal harmonies. The Stones were very retro sounding based on riffs. The Beatles had a new sound and everyone knew it including Dylan. To me it's pointless this debate the Beatles had a new sound the public loved it and the musicians loved it some actually changed thier musical direction by hearing the Beatles.

The Beatles influence on the start of prog-rock is very huge. They might not have been the actual first but who is really. Recording songs like Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields Forever and Harrison going full hog Indian on Revolver. If you add the Beatles popularity and influence. The Beatles influence on the start of progressive rock is a key factor. The debate on whether Tomorrow Never Knows not being rock has not merit.

Tomorrow Never Knows

Psychedelic? Yes.
Groundbreaking? Definitely.
Progressive? Yes

Happiness Is A Warm Gun is definitely more proggier. It's only about 3 minutes long, but the song keeps progressing all the time and there are so many different sections! Not to mention the use of unusual time signatures and even polyrhythms.
A Day in the Life is also a truly progressive song by the Beatles. As well as I want you (She's so heavy).

Hey - so yeah just about everybody has been "influenced" in some shape or form by them, but that doesn't speak to any kind of innovation or originality/newness in their music necessarily, mostly just to their exposure/popularity.

Definitely being so exuberantly melodic compared to their predecessors/peers is a "newness" of sorts but it doesn't imply "creativity". In and of itself, all that means is that they added a "new" element of high accessability.

Mostly, the loads of musicians who changed direction inspired by the Beatles - in particular the folk singers who electrified (Dylan included) - were inspired by a *perceived* interesting quality in their music. That largely goes to show how mainstreamed and bland rock and become and how much the Beatles stood out at the time, especially to those unaware of other more interesting, but more underground music (even in the early 60's).

The Beatles certainly had a big influence on folk-rock and had a bunch of proto-folk-rock songs in 1964, but none of them were as folk-rock-y as some of their contemporaries so it's all a moot point really, except for the popularity aspect.

The Stones might have been retro in the sense that they mixed chicago blues, R&B, and rock and roll - but, besides being original in merging them, they basically amplified the "dangerous" aspects of those styles and broke new ground in the fields of provocation and sexiness for example. So even though the standard blues-rock style might imply retro riffs and rhythms, they still managed to be innovative - even before writing their own songs.

Regarding the songs you cited as examples of songs which influenced prog:

- Rain: this was a psychedelic rock song, kinda trippy but definitely less so than the two dozen or so others which preceded it. It had a more or less futuristic production effect of backward recorded vocals in the coda and it wasn't the first rock song to use this effect. What backward recordings do is reverse the rates of "attack and decay" of instruments, making different timbres. But it's not like the timbres are that weird here (other artists, the Beatles included, would procede to use backward tracks to make timbres which were themselves part of the psychedelic quality of their songs) So having that effect is a piece of trivia and a comment on how the song was made rather than what it sounds like. The song is less "progressive" than it's predecessors too.

- Tomorrow Never Knows: Great song (like Rain), but for what it's worth it didn't really break any ground. Tape loops (like backward recordings) are just a means of making music - so saying it has then doesn't say much about the music itself (plus they weren't the first anyway for what it's worth). In the song they're used to make some trippy noises (sitar, segullish laughter, mellotron, etc.) so it's more important to talk about those noises than the fact that they're tape loops. The song is an avant garde and psychedelic song (minimalist C drone, random trippy noises, backward solo) with a slightly bluesy yet "bugel call-ish" and kind of child-like(no offense) "taunting" vocal melody treated with trippy effects over a quirky drum beat and hypnotic bassline. It's less psychedelic and less experimental than some earlier songs. It adds a different element of having a dance beat - but if you think about it, the beat sounds superfluous to the music so it's not like it's "set" to a dance beat. Other songs were more prog-rock leaning, literally and figuratively. Same goes for other songs on Revolver - although kudos to them for getting into the "progressive" spirit relatively early in the game.

Strawberry Fields Forever - now here's a song that more directly sounds like progressive rock than their others. It's a cross between psychedelic rock (meter changes, weird chords, surreal textures) and baroque pop (mellotron-heavy arrangement, changes in the arrangement) with an eccentric song strucuture (fadeout). But there was other, still more original and much more "challenging" music out there at the time which is overlooked.

Happiness is a Warm Gun: progressive in terms of song-structure since it's a mini suite of different and very unrelated parts. This is the kind of stuff that Frank Zappa was doing and might have been a tribute to him (as some of their Abbey Road songs were). By the way, the rhythm effect you here there is a "hemiola".

A Day in the Life: another multipart song distinguished by having very unrelated parts. But none of them are particularly far out or proggy in an of themselves. There's psychedelic folk verses and refrain, the grand orchestral swell parts, Paul's music hall section, that big piano chord, and the silly tape looped voices section.

I'd agree about I Want You, but this was 1969, and by then it was commonplace.

Total Deconstruction of 50's rock music- example Tomorrow Never Knows, Love You To and Strawberry Fields Forever creating new types of nusic for rock.

I agree with this point entirely. Even if there might be underground examples in rock music. There are no examples like this before these songs came out. The Beatles were the group that took rock and roll away from it's roots. The Bryds, The Stones, The Yardbirds were not creating music like this. Shapes of Things and Eight Milies High at least sounds of it's time.

Rain with it's backward vocal coda fade out was the first rock song that I know that uses that trick.
Yesterday certainly influenced many songs by other rock artists. With it's solo acoustic and sad strings influenced songs like Dust in the Wind and the recent smash Deliah.

Hey Jude is another innovative song how many rock songs do you know that have wordless vocal freakouts lasting for more than three minutes in a fadeout.

Other points that I agree with

Think For Yourself- uses two basses one regular, the other bass distortion that acts as a lead guitar.
I'm Only Sleeping- backward guitar riffs
Strawberry Fields Forever- avante classical with rock
Strawberry Fields Forever- first song to use double fade-out
Strawberrry Fields Forever- first song to use reserve effects on drums
A Day in the Life- first symphonic prog song?
Within You Without You- First Indian Prog song

A Day in the Life is a progressive rock song certianly in 1967 standards.

Tomorrow Never Knows is a psychedelic song with a dance beat that uses sampling and backward tape. It does break ground becuase it's the use of sampling or tape loops over a dance beat is common in today's music. It predates many types of modern dance by decades.

Hate to say it man, but all of these points are trivial even when they're totally true at times.

About the "total deconstruction" - that doesn't mean anyting at all. Just a cool phrase someone made up. And it'd apply to lots of other artists anyway (Frank Zappa above anyone else, especially in the literal sense of the phrase).

When you say "there are no examples like this before these songs came out", that's only true if you get way way down to the real specifics, but, again, at such specifics, the same comment is true of millions of bands' songs. What matters is not the "specifics" but the aspects of a song which account for it being such a radical departure from norms.

[Eight Miles High by the way, was recorded in December 1965, and was light years (light years!)ahead of its time for rock music.]

The thing about backward recording is just a piece of trivia. It's a comment on how the song was recorded, technology-wise, not necessarily how it sounds (and in this case the backwardness didn't really make for a weird sound timbric-ly speaking so it's all a moot point). Like, if they made a backward recording of a sample of a backward recording, you'd be praising it for being innovative, but all you'd have is a normal "foward" sound. Plus backward recordings in rock date back to "Telstar" by the Tornados if not earlier (although again if you want to get "specific", unlike Telstar, Rain uses backwards recorded VOCALS and puts them in the FADEOUT).

Of course Yesterday INFLUENCED many songs by many other rock artists. But all that really goes to show how wide the exposure of the Beatles' music is. It doesn't say anything about the originality of it. Plus there's thousands of songs like Yesterday dating back to the 30's.

Yes, Hey Jude is the only song we can think of with a 3+ minute coda of wordless vocal freakout. So technically, yes, it was "innovative". But that's nothing, innovative-wise, compared to hundreds of other songs which radically altered the notion of what rock could be. I mean, it's not like the Hey Jude coda is some kind of wild free form jam like the Red Krayola would do. It's just...a catchy tune.

All your saying about Think For Yourself is that it has a cool distorted sound (and that it's accomplised with a fuzz bass, accompanied by a regular bass). Not a big deal in the long run, compared to lots of other more distorted sounds in that era.

I'm Only Sleeping - backward guitar riffs might technically be innovative if you get down to the specifics (since Telstar probably has a different instrumment). But nothing about the backwardness in and of itself (meaning the fact that it's backward) makes the song sound different than if it weren't bacwkard. (The backward part happens to has a psychedelic quality to it's MELODY though).

Strawberry Fields Forever - this has not much to do with "avant classical". Plus there's Frank Zappa and the Velvet Underground before them - far more avant garde. Definitely one of their most unique and interesting songs though, if not the most. The double fade out thing is just another one of those trivial comments. All it does is give the song an interesting structure, more than just verse-chorse-verse-etc. But there were already several songs in multi-part suite format by then. anyway. And while the reverse drum sound (not just the fact that they used it, but the actual sound) WAS definitely unique, other bands were...more unique.

A Day In the Life - close to prog rock, but not quite prog, since it can't really be called a rock song. It's a mult-part suite of several different styles, including, but not limited to, a little rock and a little symphonic/classical influence. Definitely one of their most original songs too. Others at the time came closer to the prog sound though.

Within You Without You has nothing to do with prog at all. It's a nice long Indian raga-ish ballad.

Also, you can't really say that Tomorrow Never Knows "broke ground" simply because some of its aspects are common today. That's not what breaking ground means. The ones who broke ground in those regards are the ones who first incorporated those aspects into rock, before the Beatles. Plus even if they were the first to do those things, saying so would be just another one of those pieces of trivia about how the song was made, rather than a point about what it sounds like. A sample is only as valuable as what its contents sound like, not in the fact that it's a sample. Same goes for tape loops.

As for what it sounds like, it sounds nothing like any genre or subgenre of modern dance music. I'd be tempted to call it innovative sounding for rock but then again it's not really a rock song: It's an organ/tambora drone (avant garde minimalist influence) supported by an aggressive drum beat(rock influence) that's accompanied a trippy bass part (psychedelic) over which Lennon sings a droney vocal through an effect (psychedelic/blues/pop/bugel call), intersperced with trippy sound effects - which happen to be fed through tape loops - (psychedelic influence), which is interrupted by a backward solo (psychedelic/blues/rock). It's basically a avant garde/psychedelic experiment reaching out toward mainstream sounds (blues/rock/pop) rather than the other way around.

Tomorror Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, and A Day In the Life have gotta be their 3 most unique and interesting relative to their time songs in their catalog. But none of them broke as much ground as a lot of their contemporaries

Telstar has a backward recording of toilet bowl flushing, so there are no instruments. Strange but true. Nothing like backward guitar solo's or tape loops.

Many people these days in music now label songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life and Strawberry Fields Forevever as psychedelic progressive.Though all three of those songs have avant elements. I would not call the Velvet Underground or Frank Zappa as psychedelic progressive. Both were more avant the Beatles. We are talking different bands.

One more point Scaruffi man he states the Beatles are heard on only on elevators. Where I come from you hear them on alternative, classic rock, oldies and adult contempory. The Beatles broke up nearly 40 years ago. Artists like Presley and Berry don't even get a sniff on oldies anymore. The Beatles music from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road is ahead of it's time.

The Beatles were neither as bluesy as the Yardbirds, they did not sound nothing like a garage rock band. They rocked harder than the Beach Boys, Byrds and at times the Rolling Stones. The certainly were as unique as any band in the 60's. Their sound especially in in the mid 60's like And Your Bird Can Sing and Everybody's Got Something To Hide sound very different than the blues stylings or more original than Cream or Led Zeppelin.

Man - this is all silly...

Any object whose sound is used in art is an "instrument". Doesn't matter if it's a toilet bowl flusing or not. When you're hearing an instrument you're evaluating how it sounds and what sound it's making. A guitar made to sound like flushing and actual flushing would be making the same sound, so would be equally as valid.

And there's really no such thing as a tape loop's sound, at least in TNK's case. It's just means they did something to make a sound repeat. Would sound the same if they just...played it again manually. So that's why I say the fact that it's a tape loop is just an irrelevant detail (on the other hand, other rock musicans would later use tape loops the avant garde way, such as making two loops go in and out of synch at)

You're making weird unecessary distinctions.
Sure being psych/prog-ish would make a band "different" from another band which is more avant garde. But "different" doesn't necssarily mean "more creative". It could actually mean "closer to mainstream" / less creative (compared to the other).

Let's just generalize and say psychedelic rock usually incorporates into rock the avant garde-leaning (with respect to western music) styles of indian raga, free jazz, folk, blues, sound effects, production effects. Progressive rock expands rock to include not just that but a wide variety of the more "sophisticated" end of non-rock styles. Avant-rock incorporates a wide variety of musical concepts from the pure avant garde, which are unique not just to rock but to western music as a whole and often music as a whole. A far more daring application of the same ideas.

Another thing which is downright silly is disputing someone's argument on the basis of some OTHER wrong things they said. I mean, obviously the Beatles are played in more than just elevators, so he's wrong. But that has nothing to do with the rest of what he says.

Also, it just makes no sense to say that the fact that the music from Rubber Soul onward is are played on modern rock radio stations shows that the music is ahead of it's time. It just means that executives thought (correctly) that people today would like them.

Of course they rocked harder than the Beach Boys and Byrds (and on rare occassions the Stones) - that says nothing. Of course they were not just a typical pop band and were unique in some ways, but to say they were "as unique as any band in the 60's" has no merit.

There are dozens and dozens of bands which were more unique - more removed from traditional and popular rock sounds (and more removed from even the typical way in which bands were removed). By the way, you should probably check out the rest of scaruffi's site if you haven't already.

scaruffi's site, I checked it out so many times. He is very revisionist on the history of rock music. Sorry you can't change history. The Beatles had a new and fresh approcach to rock music. They opened up avenues that Chuck Berry and Elvis could not do during the previous decade.

Because they were popular should they be criticized. Their music headed the British Invasion,influencing folk artists to go electric and helping rock and roll music expand their sound examples, backward tape, Indian Instruments and various guitar and vocals recording techniques like Automatic Double Tracking. Yeh they were popular but Scaruffi does not bother to put in his site it was their music that influenced so many things that would occur in rock music later. Just plain irresponsible journalism. You dig deep into what the Beatles were doing and then you would say that at most times it was acts like the Byrds and the Stones who were copping the Beatles.

again - you're not looking at this right...

Of course the Beatles had a fresh and new approach to rock music, doing things Chuck Berry and Elvis and co. could never do. But that's true of a lot of artists. Why not talk about them or at least know/read about them. You can't really argue anything by only picking a few artists to compare them with.

In no way is Scaruffi "changing history". His site just has a lot of relevant, yet usually unkown, facts about the artistic developments of lots of other artists. It's really MORE historical than what most people know. Granted he gets a lot of actual facts wrong, but not in the big picture. I mean, he implies that the Beatles hadn't tried LSD yet in 1965, which is wrong. But it has nothing to do with anything else he's talking about, so this wrongness shouldn't be used to try to disprove the rest of his points.

He's not criticizing them because they were popular - but because they don't deserve the credit for what they're often credited with. He even holds lots of very popular artists in high regard and lots of unpopular ones in low regard. I mean, yeah, his Beatles' page mostly reads like just a long list of things which debunk conventional wisdom. It's written that way because it kind of has to be to show what he's trying to say. The other pages are not like that at all. So you really have to read a lot more of it.

This whole thing about "influence" is meaningless. If a band is making interesting/innovative/ground breaking music in its field, that's something you'd be able to tell by just comparing them to who came BEFORE (rather than by the fact that what they did later became widespread or that others took what they did further and became significant themselves).

So basically, the fact that they were influential is not something his essay has to dwell on - the essay is about the music itself.

About the Stones...They started out plyaing raw aggressive blues-rock styled covers of blues and rock songs. Then they started writing their own songs inspired by the FACT that the Beatles did, but they didn't sound like them. Then in 1966 they started using ecclectic and exotic instruments, partially inspired by Rubber Soul, but again, not sounding at all like it. They're 1967 psychedelic pop and straight psychedelic music sounds like a Kinks/Dylan/Pink Floyd hybrid rather than the Beatles (although they were inspired by theIDEA of Sgt. Peppers as a variety show/concert concept). Then they got much rootsier, inspired by a wind of change in the whole industry (and by getting bored with psychedelic).

The Byrds' early music (before they were the Byrds) sounds Beatles-ish as did many others in that day. But their first album is in the full-blown folk-rock style, 1964 Beatles-inspired to a degree, but not like them at all (much much folkier). It influenced Rubber Soul.

Their second album is kind of the same but with several songs (still pre-Rubber Soul) which point toward their later psychedelic and raga-ish sound (to a greater degree than Rubber Soul). And their private raga experimentation during that era influenced George Harrison.

Eight Miles High (written before Rubber Soul was released by the way) and their third album sounded nothing like the Beatles or anyone else for that matter and pushed the Beatles toward exploring Indian music further on Revolver.

Then their 4th album used a lot of the production effects from Revolver but in different ways that sound nothing like Revolver and in ways which actually make a huge difference creatively and actually infuenced Sgt. Pepper.

Their 5th album takes those ideas further but also adds more lavish instrumentation (perhaps influenced by Sgt. Pepper) and a contradictory turn toward country music. In it's ecclecticism and high and low art aspect, it influenced the White Album.

Their 6th album, after full blown country-rock inventor Gram Parsons joined, was one of the earliest country rock albums - and predated the White Album in it's rootsy quality too.

To be nice you are not looking at things correctly. They are deserving of the credit they received. I would not call their influence meaningless. Would you call Velvet Underground influence meaningless.

The things they get credited for like the British Invasion is correct.

Influencing folk artists to go electric and mix with rock is correct.

Making the self contained the rock group the norm in music is correct.

Not matter how you argue the points Scaruffi has made. The facts are you cannot find anyone sounding like the Beatles before they came out. The Stones you can hear they were aping blues acts. The Beach Boys were just a surf rock act who werer taking a lot from Berry. The Four Seasons were sounding much like doo- wop act. The Byrds jangle style and folk rock style came largely from the Beatles and the Searchers who seemed to be forgotten

The facts are they played and wrote their own songs in 1964. None of their peers could say that and that includes the Stones and even the Byrds.

The Byrds third album is still mostly folk rock with some bad covers like Hey Joe.

The Byrds fourth album sounds like they were trying to copy Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm Only Sleeping, Rain and others.

The Beatles were doing lavish instrumentation way before the Byrds ever attempted it.

The Beatles sound always had a strong country influence going back to Beatles For Sale. They even did a rootsy tune in early 1968 in Lady Madonna.

The White Album is a eclectic album not really a rootsy album. The Beatles were always eclectic have you heard how eclectic Revolver is.

All the Stones did was mimic their idols big deal. Without the Beatles influence on writing their own songs they would have been just a covers band. Kieth Richards has stated they were only interesting in doing blues music but writing their own was the only way to compete with the Beatles.

You make an interesting point by saying the Stones were influenced by Floyd psychedelic style rather than the Beatles. The Kinks and Dylan were by no means in the direction of Beatles when it came to pyschedelic music. The Beatles again approach was more unique and innovative. The Beatles psychedelic style, was a mix of backward tape, Indian Instrumentation, tape loops, asssorted guitar sounds, and avante styled string sections. The Stones used all those techniques after the Beatles did it first. The Byrds also are guilty of this.

Songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever and A Day in the Life are certainly groundbreaking and innovative music. Even I Want To Hold Your Hand was grounbreaking and most of the Hard Days Night Album.

Yes, the Byrds and the Stones also influenced the Beatles. You forget one key point the Beatles influenced them first and more importantly
inspired by the Beatles use of folk with rock the Byrds would have never happened. The Stones would have been just a cover band or would have never expand their sound.

One more point why Sean are you so consumed in discrediting the things The Beatles did. The Beatles were a huge and innovating influence on music, just not rock.

What I'm saying is the concept of "influence" is itself meaningless. If you're judging the "groundbreakingness" of an artist, you compare him or her to what came before. The artist can be significant even if he or she gets no imitators in the future at all or even if no one even hears him/her. So while I definitely agree that folk-rock wouldn't have "happened" if not for the Beatles' "influence", that's not what I'm talking about.

When you say "making a self contained group the NORM" you're just saying it became the norm because they made it popular to do so. Again, this is only about "influence" - not ther merit of the thing being influenced in and of itself. And the British Invasion is merely the popularization-and-bringing-to-America of British rock. Of course they get credit for that. But in and of itself, that doesn't mean anything either.

Again I agree that when you get down to it, no one sounded like the Beatles before them. But that's true of lots of artists to an even greater extent. And you can't really prove otherwise by just picking out a few others to compare.

The Beatles weren't the first rockers to write their own songs. And while they were definitey doing it at a time when a lot of their peers weren't, it doesn't really matter. Writing your own songs sounds like it matters because of the "creativity" involved. But you can write your own ripoff...and in the reverse, without writing, you can still make an even more creative COVER of a song with a unique arrangement. It's the creativity in and of itself that matters. Also for the record, the Byrds had written a whole bunch of their own songs in 1964.

The Byrds 3rd album is not mostly folk-rock (and saying Hey Joe is "bad" has nothing to do with what we're talking about). There's 4 fully psychedelic songs, 1 sound-effects-ish song, 2 ethereal ballads, 1 country song, 1 R&B instrumental, and Hey Joe. Not to mention several other psychedelic songs from the same period. But these "quantity" comparisons don't really matter.

The fourth album uses a lot of the same "technology" as Revolver, but employs it in a way that sounds much different. None of the songs sound like the 3 you mentioned.

There's only a few songs by the Byrds that have "lavish instrumentation". I was making a point that the album was very ecclectic.

Lots of rockers have had a strong country influences, dating back to 1951. As for rootsiness, 1968 was the YEAR of rootsiness. That's when roots-rock started. So the Beatles doing an updated Fats Domino style boogie song is not a major event.

The White Album is rootsy in the sense that it has a lot of songs which go back to the roots by not having experimental qualities and which are folkier, more countryish, or more early rock and roll-ish. It's pretty ecclectic. Sure their other albums were ecclectic too but not as much.

I agree that the Stones mimicked their idols, but they ecclipsed them. They introduced a new level of provocation. They introduced the singer/guitar dynamic from hardcore Chicago blues into rock. Maybe they would've been just a cover band without the Beatles, and maybe they were initially just money hungry in making the transition, but that doesn't take away from the merit of what their songs (covers and not) sounded like.

In your psychedelic comparisons half of what you're saying is that the Beatles were the first (at lesat comparing them with the Byrds and Stones) to use certain "techniques". Techniques are not music. It's the music that matters here. What I mean is that Tomorrow Never Knows, for example, would sound equally as interesting if the weird sounds were made by John Lennon making weird noises with his mouth.

The rest of the comparison, where you ARE talking about the music itself sounds - not the how - is guilty of being kind of limited. No one's saying the Beatles were 100% ripoffs. They did do something things which made them sound unique. But not to the extent of many others - even if they were more unique than the the Stones and Byrds in SOME ways.

I'd agree that TNK, SFF, and ADL are their 3 most innovative songs and that in it's own way even I Want To Hold Your Hand was grounbreaking (A Hard Day's Night not as much as some of their even earlier songs).

The thing about both pairs of bands influencing each other but the Beatles influence being more important has no merit (especially given what I said above). But yeah for what it's worth, there was definitely some cross influence of some sort.

I don't really think I'm consumed with discreditng the Beatles. Certainly not any more than others are consumed with the opposite. I like the Beatles a lot.

The Beatles were a breath of innovative fresh air in a sea of Elvis clones and Buddy Holly wanabees. They invented a sound that hadn't been heard before in the same way that Glen Miller created a sound that is completely identifiable with his orchestra.

Yes, the Beatles were influenced by skiffle and Rock and roll, but no one was doing stuff like Please Please Me in those days. The combination of melodies, harmonies and clever lyrics with a strong rock and roll beat had not been done by anyone. If you can name something similar to say She Loves You that came before I'd like to hear it.

I know this guy also who dislikes the Beatles and even he admits that tunes like the single version Revolution and Helter Skelter were more influential or closer in sound and style to Nirvana than Gimme Shelter by the Stones.

Also remember except for Love Me Do the Beatles did not rely on session musicians or songwriters especiially for hits. The Rolling Stones were a cover band as were the Yardbirds. The Kinks first album drummer was a session musician and also used Jimi Page. The Byrds relied heavily on session musicians and outside songwriters. The Beatles Hard Day's Night all the songs were originals, and they played all the instruments. George Martin helped on some piano though. They influenced even the Yardbirds to venture into more mainstream music. The songwriter who wrote the first Yardbirds major hit For Your Love wanted to give it to the Beatles origianally.

Anyone who know rock music that the British Invasion was one huge domino effect that was caused by the Beatles. If you want to hear an album by the Beatles that was rootsy album that predates the White Album go listen to Beatles for Sale. If you want an eclectic album in which each song sounds different go listen to Revolver. The Rolling Stones were not an innovative band. One listen to Strawberry Fields Forever the blending of pop, psychedelia, rock, Indian and avant garde. I love the innovative use of instruemnts or making other instruments sound like other insturments that prevail much of their work.

Dude. No one's arguing that they weren't original in some ways. It's just that others were more.

The guy who was talking about Nirvana is probably talking about the level of distortion in the song (still, wasn't the most distorted at that time, for what it's worth), which makes sense.

Strange as it may be, I think "songwriting" gets too much credit. There's more to creativity that coming up with a melody (which is what songwriters get credit for, besides lyrics), so a cover artist can be very creative too. A song like For Your Love sounds nothing like the Beatles melodically (even if that was Graham Gouldman's reference model), and was given a very innovative arrangement.

Of course the British Invasion was caused by the Beatles. But what IS the British Invasion exactly? It's the popularization-in-the-US of the British rock, rather than British rock itself.

Beatles for Sale is definitely folk and country influenced, but that's not what I meant by rootsy. I meant it in the sense of going BACK to the roots after the psychedelic era started fading. Also the actual roots-rock genre is more of a blend of different rootsy styles.

Ecclecticism is not necessarily an attribute, so I don't know why we're talking about this - but yeah, they were definitely ecclectic before the White Album. And yes, Strawberry Fields Forever has gotta be considered pretty brilliant. But it just doesn't sound right to say the Stones were not an innovative band.

I saw this program Roots Of Alternative Rock" and the opening track was "Tomorrow Never Knows". I think the Beatles were truly ahead of their times. The Rolling Stones were a copycat band but a good one at that though.

Let's face it - this just is another mere tidit - doesn't mean that song has anything to do with alternative rock necessarily - just means someone who made a tv show felt bound to include it.

In 1968 Great Britain became infected by the concept album/rock opera bug, mostly realized by Beatles contemporaries: Tommy by the Who, The Village Green Preservation Society by the Kinks, Ogden's Nut Gone Flake by the Small Faces, Odyssey and Oracle by the Zombies, etc. So, with the usual delay, a year later the Beatles gave it a try."

Was that another of Scaruffi ignorant comments. I think he forgot to mention that Sgt. Pepper predated all those albums

This another joke. Sgt. Pepper is the album of a band that sensed change in the making, and was adapting its style to the taste of the hippies. It came in last (in June), after Velvet Underground & Nico (January), The Doors (also January), the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday (february), and the Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February) to signal the end of an era, after others had forever changed the history of rock music.

I think he forgot to mention The Word in 1965 was already dealing with universal love and Nowhere Man deals with surrealism. Then there was Revolver and Strawberry Fields Forever in 1966. So what that Zappa and Dylan were writing 15 minute songs. The Velvet Underground were writing avant songs so were the Beatles in 1966. This is man has no concept what he is talking about.

Sgt Pepper definitely helped start a 'concept album' trend in rock, which was widespread in the following year, 1968. However, other, pre-Sgt. Pepper "conceptual" albums were MORE conceptual that it was, so it's not like it's a milestone really. Also, albums weren't really conceptual in the true sense of the word until '68 (SF Sorrow and Ogden's, and such).

Abbey Road is a product of the post-'68 fully conceptual rock idea. It's MUSICALLY conceptual since it has a suite that references earlier parts of itself (and of the rest of the album).

The Word and Nowhere Man are interesting lyrically, but these comments have nothing to do with MUSICAL experimentaion. And yeah of course, as far as musical experimentation goes, they were already taking a stab at it in late '65 then in '66, what with Revolver and SFF, as he and anyone else acknowledges. But other bands who were doing it even earlier were doing it to a much greater degree (And it's not about the song length, that's just one facet - one way to break the paradigm).

I think we all know by now you live by the words of Pierro Scaruffi. I took a class in music and one of the topics was Scaruffi take on the Beatles. The teacher disected and debunked everything he said.

On 03/18/08 at 5:30 PM, sydfloyd wrote:
In 1968 Great Britain became infected by the concept album/rock opera bug, mostly realized by Beatles contemporaries: Tommy by the Who, The Village Green Preservation Society by the Kinks, Ogden's Nut Gone Flake by the Small Faces, Odyssey and Oracle by the Zombies, etc. So, with the usual delay, a year later the Beatles gave it a try."

Was that another of Scaruffi ignorant comments. I think he forgot to mention that Sgt. Pepper predated all those albums

This another joke. Sgt. Pepper is the album of a band that sensed change in the making, and was adapting its style to the taste of the hippies. It came in last (in June), after Velvet Underground & Nico (January), The Doors (also January), the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday (february), and the Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February) to signal the end of an era, after others had forever changed the history of rock music.

1. Sgt Pepper was released before those albums.
2. Abbey Road is not a theme or a narrative album like Tommy
3. Albums like Pet Sounds or Freak Out are not structured at all like Sgt Pepper.
4. Sgt Pepper is a loosely themed album with songs connected to each other with a rerpise
5. Sgt Pepper is basically a hybrid of albums like Pet Sounds and what came later like Tommy.
6. The Beatles already wrote a hippie type song in the Word.
7. Revolver came out before Velvet Underground, The Doors, Jefferson Airplane and Younger Than Yesterday.
8. So when came to writing hippie songs or making psychedelic music they were not even close to being last. They were actually early. It's arguable the Beatles beat the Byrds on Rubber Soul

These were Scaruffi comments either he is wrong or he biased against the Beatles. He is obviuosly wrong.

There are others like Gerry Pacemakers popularizing Merseybeat. The Beatles first big hit Please Please Me number one on some charts was before Gerry and The Pacemakers. Oh by the way Led Zeppelin did release singles on their first four albums and Whole Lotta Love was a top ten song. So they were not some underground band. They started off calling themselves the New Yardbirds. On contrast the Beatles Sgt Pepper and the White Album had no singles released.

You can debunk a lot of what he says. All those unecessary statements like the implications that they were unfamiliar with LSD, never left their hotel rooms, etc. But the bottom line is all true (that the "interesting" qualities of their music had more unique predecessors).

If a "theme" album is a concept album, then there were dozens of them in rock dating back to 1961. It must mean more than a theme and be some kind of narrative, like you say. That's why it didn't really get off the ground until 1968. Sgt. Pepper's is kind of like a theoretical bridge between those two ideas, like you say, but the actual concept it has (fake concert) had already been done ayway. Also, Zappa's Absolutely Free has connectes songs and a reprise. Regardless, what should matter is the way the music contained within the album sounds, not the pretense of it being under some kind of concept or whatever. Otherwise it's not a musical innovation.

The Word is not really a hippie type song - just lyrically. And there were much stronger precedents in artists such as Donovan.

Revolver came out before all 4 of those albums, but VU&Nico was partially recorded earlier, plus, more importantly, the Doors and VU had already developed their sound before Revolver was written.

No one said they were "last" (besides Scaruffi, wrongfully using hyperbole). But they didn't beat the Byrds. I'll explain below.

Re Led Zeppelin: Yes they did so happen to release singles, but that's besides the point. They were popular on account of their live playing and their LPs. Besides, Whole Lotta Love was on their second album. Also, while they definitely evolved out of the Yardbirds, who had had pop hits, the Yardbirds were a pretty underground band by this point - (also not that it matters but LZ never actually called themselves the New Yardbirds). Finally, it's not like the Beatles were the first band to make an album without release singles.

Rubber Soul did not really beat the Byrds:

Drive My Car and Run For Your Life are more or leass straight foward old-schoolish songs that aren't in the "innovative category".

Same goes for Michelle and Girl - just really nice sophisticated old fashioned pop ballads with a greek touch.

What Goes On is a country song.

You Won't See Me, I'm Looking Through You, and Wait are just nice folk-rock songs (thought lacking the jingle jangle sound). The first one is more of a throwback to the Help! album, the second one is kind of country-ish and shifts to a harder rocking sound, and the last one actually dates back to the Help! album and is more organish.

The other 6 ones are the ones to talk about.

Think For Yourself - distorted/fuzz bass sound functioning like a guitar (in conjunction with a regular bass). Pretty cool but not such a big deal compared to other disorted fuzz-rockers (not that the Byrds were doing anything like this though, if it matters).

Nowhere Man - kind of a dreamy proto-psych folk-rock song. The double-tracking in the vocals creates a dreamier thicker sound than usual. Compare this with lots of songs on Turn Turn Turn (Byrds' second album).

In My Life - basically just a non-innovative mainstream pop song for the most part but with a baroque-ish solo (made by screwing with a piano's timbre to make it sound like a harpischord). Nothing like the Byrds.

(The last 3 are drone-related songs, which actually do relate to the Byrds...Eight Miles High was written around the same time...and their It Won't Be Wrong predates them all by even more time).

The Word - simple song with a cool R&B bassline and harmonium drones in the background twice in the second half. The drones don't make a big impression on the song.

If I Needed Someone - basically just an exploration of a folk-rock riff. The verses and refrain sound like the riff and each other. This riff was borrowed from the Byrds, and some say recast in a dronier way, but not really. One definite precedent would be the Great Society's "Free Advice" (yet to be released at this point) and of course See My Friends (technically a folk-rock song even with all it's droning).

Norweigan Wood - a folk song with Indian droning provided by a sitar. Not a rock song or even a folk-rock song. There had been plenty of expamples of this hybrid dating back to 1962, in more in depth ways.

The Beatles were already using drones on Ticket to Ride which predates the Byrds again and the Kinks.

Sgt Pepper is hybrid of themed or a narrative album with a musical concept. This is unlike rock albums that came before them.

Led Zeppelin at the start billed themselves as the New Yardbirds. Sgt Pepper was the first major rock album without singles to sell in huge volumes.

See My Friends is not a folk rock song. It's faux raga rock.

The Beatles might have beaten the Byrds to pysch rock.

Norwegian Wood- folk rock song with psych Indian drones. First true use of sitar by rock group. The Yardbirds only toyed with it and it was released way after this song

Nowhere Man- the Beatles style of folk rock started on Beatles for Sale with acoustic rhythm and some jangly guitar with proto psychedelic haromonies and guitar solo.

The Word- song deals with universal love and the drones on the record makes it at least proto-psychedelic.

Lets talk about the other songs that I agree are not proto- pyschedelic

What Goes On- Country rock way before it was popular

In My Life- there is no chorus in this song. The baroque solo was one of many experiements in making other instruments sound like other instruements. Certainly innovative

Think For Yourself - distorted/fuzz bass sound functioning like a guitar (in conjunction with a regular bass). Actually that is innovative.

Run For Your Life- Is very country influenced also rocker

When it comes to classic rock the differnce between when rock and roll becomes rock. There is no bigger pioneer than the Beatles.

Revolver came out before all 4 of those albums, but VU&Nico was partially recorded earlier, plus, more importantly, the Doors and VU had already developed their sound before Revolver was written.

Sorry that's important because it implies the Beatles were followers which they were not. The Beatles sound is unlike the Doors and the Velvet Undergroud and it was recorded and released before those albums. So again you are incorrect.

Sgt Pepper innovation of songs connecting by tape loops, animal noises and crowd noise was copied by Floyd and others.

The Beatles might have beaten the Byrds to pysch rock.

Well they actually did and Tomorrow Never Knows is cited by many the first psychedelic rock song.

Revolver came out before all 4 of those albums, but VU&Nico was partially recorded earlier, plus, more importantly, the Doors and VU had already developed their sound before Revolver was written

While most rock artists were billed as blues rock or garage or pop in late 1965-1966. The Beatles were creating proto- psychedelic rock, avant, Indian, strange time signatures, using classical ensembles in a psychedelic way. Strawberry Fields Forever for when it was created is progressive rock. Tomorrow Never Knows and Helter Skelter are cornerstone tracks to modern rock music.

Ticket to Ride does not have drones. This is one of those myths that never dies. Either way, it was written in the same month as See My Friends.

Sgt. Pepper has no "narrative". Even if it did, it doesn't make a difference. This whole point says nothing about the musical style.

Until calling themselves Led Zep, when they first toured, they were actually billed as "Yardbirds featuring Jimmy Page". This is pretty minor though - just sayin.

The Byrds wrote Eight Miles High in November 1965 and recorded it in December. In comparison, none of the songs on Rubber Soul are psychedelic rock. Norweigan Wood is NOT a rock song. It's a Dylanish folk song with Indian droning - way shallower than stuff like Sandy Bull. Also, the fact that the Yardbirds didn't release their song doesn't make it any less valid.

I know the Beatles were playing in a proto-folk-rock style on Beatles for Sale, but Nowhere Man is a little different. It has dreamy timbres/production values. Still other earlier songs came much closer to the psychedelic sound. Same regarding The Word.

It makes no sense to talk about them doing something "before it was POPULAR". There were other country-rock precedents even earlier - and What Goes On is not rock anyway and is not a part of this topic. And Run For Life is really no different than plenty of 50's songs.

It shouldn't matter if one instrument is made to sound like another instrument. In My Life would've sounded equally as interesting they had played it using an instrument that sounds like that naturally. What should matter is the resulting sound. And lots of songs had no chorus. Same thing with Think For Yourself - if it sounds like a fuzz guitar then it is as interesting as a fuzz guitar, regardless of the fact that it's actually a bass. You're kind of hung up on the "process".

I am completely correct about the 4 albums. All I said was that the Doors and VU developed their 1966 album's styles earlier, which is a fact. As a side note, regardless of how "different" they are from it and each other, those albums presented original and innovative ideas to a greater extent than Revolver.

You can't really say the Beatles pioneered rock as opposed to rock and roll. There are obviously key differences in the styles, but in no cases were the Beatles responsible for introducing those differences (given evertyhing I've said above or whatever else).

Also, man, you're definitely using the term "tape loop" wrong. A tape loop is a spool of tape fashioned into a loop so as to repeat it's contents. The Beatles used this on Tomorrow Never Knows, and from Sgt. Pepper, Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite and A Day In the Life. Tape loops are not the mechanism by which the Pepper songs were strung together. If you wanna talk about THAT, it's more significant to takl about the mere FACT that they were strung together rather than the method. And for what it's worth, they weren't the first to do that anyway, let alone animal or crowd noises anyway....Plus, besides, granted some of their songs were vaguely unique relative to the rest of rock music, but the same can be said of many of their contemporaries.

One you are not musician so you are not knowing what you are talking about.

Ticket to Ride has drones and it was recorded two months before See My Friends.

Only part of Eight Miles High was recorded in December of 1965. It was re-recorded at a later date.

It does not matter if Nowhere Man is a psychedelic pop-rock song. It's still predates the Byrds. This is the topic please you wander with your thoughts.

What Goes On is certainly country rock and the Beatles did it on I'LL Cry Instead earlier in 1964. Run For Your Life certainly has a country influence. What don't you comprehend. All I said the Beatles were using a country influence with rock before it became popular in 1968

I am completely correct about the 4 albums. All I said was that the Doors and VU developed their 1966 album's styles earlier, which is a fact. As a side note, regardless of how "different" they are from it and each other, those albums presented original and innovative ideas to a greater extent than Revolver.

No your not correct the facts are the Beatles were recording their music before the Doors and The Velvet Undergroud. It's your opinion that Doors and the Velvet Undeground were more innovative than the Beatles. I hear nothing but pyschedelic blues with the Doors except for The End. Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields is more original and innovative than the Doors.

You can't really say the Beatles pioneered rock as opposed to rock and roll. There are obviously key differences in the styles, but in no cases were the Beatles responsible for introducing those differences (given evertyhing I've said above or whatever else).

Oh yes I can say they were one of pioneers of classic rock. Only a person with a limitted knowledge would say the Beatles were not one of the the cornerstones of classic rock.

As for the tape loops you are lost. The Beatles connected their songs on Sgt Pepper with crowd noises and animal sounds.

Plus, besides, granted some of their songs were vaguely unique relative to the rest of rock music, but the same can be said of many of their contemporaries.

The differnce their music influenced musicians at the time and they were able to fuse it with pop music. Something you seem to not comprehend is important.

You have bullied everyone with your thoughts. You have been debunked so many times. You are a Scaruffi apologist

1.The Beatles did folk rock, country rock before the Byrds

2.The Beatles did jangle pop before the Byrds. Have you heard their version of Words of Love. A big influence on McGuinn

3.Recording psychedelic rock before the Doors arguably the Byrds.

4.Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry at worst early examples proto- prog-rock

5.The only time avant rock was ever popular was when the Beatles were doing it.

6. Sgt Pepper is a loosely themed album with a musical concept

7. The Beatles are considered one of the cornerstones of classic rock.

What 7 points here that you don't understand. I am not trying to be nasty.

How do you know I'm not a musician?
Does't matter which song was recorded first, Ticket to Ride and See My Friends were written in January 1965.
Eight Miles High was recorded in it's entirety in December, then re-recorded in a slightly different way in January. Same thing tough.
In no way does Nowhere Man predate the Byrds. It doesn't sound like any of their songs.
I know Run For Your Life has a country influence (that's what i meant by "like lots of 50's rock songs") and I'll Cry Instead is almost country-cok. But Not What Goes On. And the fact that they predated the POPULARITY is not a biggie..
The songs on Revolver which can truly count among the more innovative side of the 1966 music spectrum are Love You To and Tomorrow Never Knows. These predated the VU's RECORDINGS, but what should matter is who developed their sound first.
No question they were one of the pioneers of classic rock. But not as much as others, so it's all moot.
Sgt. Pepper's songs are connected via pieces of music and sound effects like you say. I think you mean the tracks were all put on the same "spool" of tape. Loops are a different concept altogether. As for the track-to-track connection idea, Zappa did it earlier.
I'm well aware that unlike others, the Beatles managed to influence the rock scene directly and managed to fuse their sounds with pop music. Consider those one and the same point (the latter causing the former). Still that's no great shakes compared to others doing it WITHOUT pop music. I mean it's like you're saying the more diverse the better and therefore "diverse plus extra pop equals more diverse equals better" which is a weird idea that shouldn't apply. I'm not being nasty either, but it's just silly to say that the fully psychedelic December 1965 version of Eight Miles High had any predecents in psychedelia in the Beatles music. That's just messed up.

"The only time avant rock was ever popular was when the Beatles were doing it."

their avant moment (revolution 9) is their most hated song, isnt it? within you without you is probably number 2.

avant rock was never as hated as when the beatles were doing it.

Has it occurred to you that the Beatles had their own sound. Songs like What You're Doing to I'm Looking Through is more soulful than the folk rock Byrds and Dylan would do later. The prototypical jangle sound the Byrds would devolop is on The Beatles version of Words of Love, The jangle sound was actually done on a Gretsch guitar. Thats innovation. Here is a history lesson for you.

The Beatles were the source that made the Byrds and others go electric. Roger McGuinn studied what made the Beatles sound different. He noticed in their sound was chord changes common to folk music. That combined with a energetic rock band made them sound different. Here are albums and songs that helped shaped folk rock.

The Beatles, Meet the Beatles (1964, Capitol). Not a folk-rock album, but the one record that more than any other awakened young American folk musicians to the possibilities of electric rock music. The Meet the Beatles LP, as opposed to With the Beatles (their second British LP, which has much of the same material and is the one that was reissued on CD), is what's necessary to re-create the impact, as it's almost wholly devoted to original songs, including two great ones ("I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "I Saw Her Standing There") that don't appear on With the Beatles.

The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night (1964, Capitol). Songs from and recorded right after the making of the movie of the same name, which was about as influential on early folk-rock musicians as the Meet the Beatles album was. You can hear some folky influences creeping into their work, too, on songs like "Things We Said Today" and "I'll Be Back."

The Beatles, Beatles for Sale (1964, Capitol). More music that, if only unconsciously, continued to help bring folk and rock closer together, explicitly so on "I'm a Loser" and "I'll Follow the Sun."

The Beatles, Help! (1965, Capitol). A fine album on any terms, as all Beatles albums are. Within the context of folk-rock, it's notable for several songs that show a definite folk-rock influence, like "You've Got to Hide Your Away" and "I've Just Seen a Face," as well as the appearance (not influenced by the Byrds) of a prototypical ringing 12-string electric guitar riff in "Ticket to Ride."

The Beatles, Rubber Soul (1965, Capitol). The Beatles' most strongly folk-rock-influenced album, from Lennon-McCartney songs like "Norwegian Wood" and "I'm Looking Through You" to George Harrison's Byrds homage "If I Needed Someone."

The Beatles, Unsurpassed Demos (1991, Yellow Dog, bootleg). Twenty-four acoustic White Album demos, recorded in May 1968 at George Harrison's house, including songs they wrote in India while they and Donovan were studying with the Maharishi. This is the chance to hear the Beatles as an unplugged band, highly enjoyable as well as educational, and often bootlegged in part or whole under different titles as well.

Ah yes, but the jingle jangle sound was pioneered earlier by the Searchers. Also this whole concept of "soul" is kind of subjective, but to my ears, Dylan is way more soulful. (And if you just mean in the literal sense, of course the Beatles' music was "blacker" than the Byrds).

It doesn't matter if they inspired bands such as the Byrds to go electric. That doesn't necessarily say anything that proves they had an interesting sound. (I mean, that should be shown by their music, not some band's interpretation of it). Other bands had folky chord changes too anyway.

The Beatles didn't get into the full-blown folk-rock genre until Rubber Soul. All those 1964 songs are proto-folk rock and Help! is kind of close in songs like Ticket to Ride, but the point is the Byrds came first in the full style. You've Got to HIde Your Love Away is just folk and I've Just Seen a Face is basically a bluegrass song.

Not sure your point about the White Album demos other than to say they were capable of making more "intimate" sounding music, of course true.

The Searchers Needles and Pins so called jangle sound is not clean as to say All My Loving or Words of Love. The Byrds jangle sound is clean which was their sound.

Sean you have musicoligists and musicians saying Ticket To Ride has guitar drone but you are still saying it's a myth. Honestly what is the big deal about guitar drones and you getting so flustered about the Beatles doing something before an artist.

You have the Byrds themselves say that the Beatles invented folk rock or they were the reason they went electric. You still deny it. I'll Follow The Sun and What You're Doing are folk rock songs get over it. If I Needed Someone is a folk rock song with a definite raga flavor.

Please Dylan could not sing a lick the Beatles vocals were much more soulful.

You are missing the point Revolver came out before all the albums Scaruffi listed. What is not true about that statetment. Anyone who says the Velvet Undergroud were not original would be lying. The difference is the Beatles songs like Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields they are original and they were good. The Velvet Underground strength was not their listenabilty.

I am still trying to find a precedent to Love You To, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, I'm Only Sleeping and the bass and drum style of Rain, A Day in the Life, I Am The Walrus or even the hidden track that ends Sgt Pepper in rock music.

Take away the psychedelic touches of most of the songs on the Doors first album and it's very blues influenced. Granted the Doors had a original sound but it's still based mostly on blues.

The Velvet Underground to me are a different story. They used a lot of drone and feedback on thier songs. They were more original in their approach. They were not bluesy like the Beatles. They were more avant garde. The Beatles mixed avant with pop.

The last topic songs like Nowhere Man and Norwegian Wood especially Nowhere Man is closer to psych- folk rock. The Beatles devoloped thier own sound their psycededlia eveloved from a strong acoustic base sound to using tape loops and a strong Indian influence.

The Beatles were the biggest reason classic rock started.

I wasn't refering to Needles and Pins - there's others from even earlier. And All My Loving is not jingle jangle at all. More like a "chiming sound (Words of Love IS though).

Doesn't matter if some musicologist says so, Ticket does not have a drone. Even if it did, it'd barely make an impression in the song and therefore be no big deal creatively. On the other hand, a song like See My Friends was very groundbreaking and was a big deal.

It makes no difference how the Byrds classify the Beatles' 1964 music. Doesn't make it actually folk-rock. I'll Follow the Sun is folk-pop. What You're Doing is close to folk-rock but not quite. I'd agree about If I Needed Someone, but by this point it was the end of 1965 and there were songs such as the Great Society's "Free Advice" and much earlier the Byrds' "It Won't Be Wrong".

Soulfulness pretty much means "emotion", which has nothing at all to do with ability to hit the notes. Dylan is far far more soulful despite his often ugly-sounding (to some people) voice.

I'm well aware that Revolver came out before the other albums. But release date is not relevant. Recording date is more relevant, or better still, composition date.

You could say the same thing about any experimental leaning band - take away their experimental qualities and you're left with their normal side. That doesn't mean anything. The Doors music conveys a dark, creepy, and dramatic sensibility which was VERY unique despite their bluesiness. That's what matters.

Of course every band sounds different, so you're bound to find some unique or innovative aspects in their music, but it's all a matter of degree.

Obviously the VU were more purely experimental rock compared to the Beatles who were more poppy experimental rock. So you can say they were "different" - and since "different" is an interesting thing to be in music, that sounds like a compliment (to their creativity)..but really it's just a disguised way of saying that they less daring in terms of how far they strayed from the norm.

Norwegian Wood cannot be in anyway considered a rock song. Nowhere Man surely comes close to being an early proto-psych song, but that'd be ignoring lots of other predecessors.

They were definitely the biggest reason classic rock (basically just a radio format term, by the way) started, but that fact is attributed to people liking their music and finding it interesting and wanting to follow in it's footsteps - rather than to any innovations in the music itself.

Ticket to Ride is a groudbreaking song. The massive jangling sound with the broken drum part was unlike anything The Byrds recorded. The drum part is almost like the tabla sounding drum part of Tomorrow Never Knows another innovative drum part by Ringo.

One me being a guitarist I hear droning on the bass just as prevelant as See My Friends is on guitar. What You're Doing is folk rock as Every Little Thing is also. It Won't Be Wrong is not a raga-folk song just hearing it today for the first time.

It matters that Revolver was recorded and released before the Doors because there is no real precedent in rock music for songs like Love You Too or Tomorrow Never Knows for that matter Eleanor Rigby. Revolver was released when The Doors were recording their first album and some of the tracks were released before the Doors were recording their first album.

Many of the songs on Revolver were written months before they started recording in April of 66.

The composition date does not really matter becuase the sound and arrangement could drastically be altered when you start recording a song. Have you heard the first version of Got to Get You Into My Life. The alternate version is psychedelic folk the finished version turned out to be a Stax Rock track. Heck some of the Beatles songs were written years before they recorded the song.

I don't hear anything soulful in the R&B tradition in Dylan voice. I hear it many of the Beatles folk rock songs like What You're Doing, We Can Work It Out there goes a song that sounded unique and I'm Looking Through You.

I would put Strawberry Fields Forever and Within You Without You as way out there.

Norwegian Wood is considered a folk-rock song. Nowhere Man is a early psych-pop song

The only thing I might agree with you is All My Loving not jingle jangle at all.

By the way you are Scaruffi troll aren't you so of course the Beatles did nothting according to you. What's his famous comment

The Beatles said nothing because they had nothing to say.

What a loser. Have you heard the lyrics of songs like In My Life or Blackbird.

No question Ticket to Ride is a unique song, but so were plenty of others in that era. Why single it out. The vageuly droney bass in the song is not as prevalant as the all around drones in See My Friends, and likely has many precedents. More importantly, both songs were written around the same time.
...I know It Won't Be Wrong is not raga-folk...Just vaugely droney in parts...I was just making a folk-rock comparison...Every Little Thing is a great quirky pop song, but nothing to do with folk-rock. What You're Doing like I said is close but not quite folk-rock. Just not folky enough (there's more to the style than the jangling). Other earlier songs came closer so it's all a moot point.

About composition dates, I know a song can change a lot during it's arranging process after behing written. I'll have to check out the other Got to Get You version. But most of the Beatles' songs from this era were written within a few months of being recorded. She Said She Said was probably written in March but started out as a simple folky song. The melody and lyric for Tomorrow Never Knows were written in January, but the creativity in the song is mostly due to the weird sound effects from the tape loops. The Doors sound was fully formed by like February.

Not sure you understand the "had nothing to say" comment. It doesn't mean what it sounds like literally. It has nothing to do with lyrics. It's an expression from the 60's about making artistic statements. People would say that artists who don't offer any innovative ideas musically speaking don't have anything to say.

McCartney was experimenting with tape loops right around Rubber Soul so the ideas in the air. Not that should matter. They of course did not use it until Tomorrow Never Knows. What You're Doing is jangling but it's very folk based if you listen to the rhythm of Lennon acoustic playing. So the Beatles beat the Byrds. Also I'm A Loser combines both folk and country. The song is also Dylan influenced. So really what are you on about. To you the Beatles were either almost there and when they did it was after the fact. It's just your clouded opinion. I have referenced musicians and musicoligists. One of my peeves with you is A Day in the Life that is considered by many the first progressive rock song. You say it's almost there. To many it's already there. "The Word" has a great sound and the lyrics are very much in tune with "flower power/psychedelia. But musically it's like early R7B funk rock. I defy you to find to something their British rock peers that sounds like this.

This comment is laughable by you.
It's an expression from the 60's about making artistic statements. People would say that artists who don't offer any innovative ideas musically speaking don't have anything to say.

When the Beatles Rubber Soul came out the artistic statement the Beatles made to their peers especially to artists like the Rolling Stones and Brian Wilson is you can make Rock music that has all good songs. That to me is much more innovative than someone like the Velvet Underground. When Sgt Pepper came out it was message to prog rockers like Robert Fripp who said This type of Rock music was interesting and you can listen to it and now you can record it also.

The Beatles recorded stuff came out before the Doors so at least show some class give them credit. Honestly I don't care when the Beatles songs were written or when the Doors songs were written either. It's when they fully realized on record that matters. What comes out live can sound very different in the studio.

Yeah I've read about his experimentation with tape loops in December 1965. That's pretty cool.

I'm not denying that the Beatles' music circa Beatles for Sale was folk-influenced or jangly. But that doesn't change my point that others were approaching folk-rock too that the actual true blue genre of folk-rock originated with the Byrds.

I'd definitely rate A Day in the Life as one of their most important songs..and I know you can't really find anything that sounds quite like The Word. But you can say the same thing about lots of songs by lots of bands. We should be comparing bands by the *extent* to which they differed from the norm.

About the 'artistic statements' thing - the notion that you can make an album of good songs is not an ARTISTIC statement - just a statement. What I meant is that this phrase/expression meant that it was the artist's role to challenge the status quo and be original via innovative works of art (so an innovative work of art is both a thing in itself and a "statement" that such a work is possible).

If we use "fully realized on record" ("recording date") as the benchmark, you're definitely right that the Beatles made several records in the new "experimental/artsy" sensibility that emerged in '65 (on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and associated singles) before the Doors did (and in a few cases, before some Doors' songs were written). But with the possible exception of Tomorrow Never Knows and Love You Too, none of them were really breakthroughs compared to what was before them (from other bands besides the Doors)

You are entitled to your opinion after hearing thousands of records I have yet to hear a lot of the things done in rock context as a lot of the Beatles songs. I certainly would put them ahead of everyone except the possible exception of the Velvet Underground. There is one thing missing with VU, The Beatles constantly sounded different but were still able to be mainstream. That is one thing most musicians strive for.

I think besides the fact the Beatles are the most cited artist in terms of influence on rock and pop music. I think their use of eastern music and I mean true use with musique concrete example tape loops, or with avant ideas in a rock context was pionerring or at least influential in prog rock, experimental rock, art rock and pop music in general. Tomorrow Never Know concepts or rhythmic music concrete is similiar to many styles that would come later in future dance music. This was done before the Velvet Underground got to the recording studios. Love You Too, I am The Walrus a influence on Can, A Day In the Life, Rain, Blue Jay Way and others are songs and styles that were not heard before in rock music.

What's more important these songs still were able to retain their pop sensibilities.

Everything you're saying is totally right, it's just that..

If they "still were about to retain their pop sensibilities" while experimenting, that's really testament to having not experiemented THAT much.
Also, "influence" is really a meaningless term if it's not backed with also being the originator (otherwise it's just a factoid).

It's been proven by the Beatles you can do both. Syd Barret tried this concept on a number of songs like See Emily Play or Arnold Layne. The concept of pop sensibilities" while experimenting was tried by many bands at the time including the Rolling Stones themselves. I will stick to opinion the tracks I mentioned the Beatles did were just as innovative as the Velvet Underground or the Doors.

I can also understand that someone who might love experimental rock which is my favorite music to listen to would object to many of the Beatles pure pop songs. Though I have to give them credit a lot of their experimental rock songs are strikingly original and their catchy as hell at the same time. I really can't say that about European Son.

I think you're confusing "artistic achievemeent" and "difficult achievement".
It's obviously pretty hard to write a catchy tune and to make a tune that's both catchy and experimental at the same time, so on a "skill" basis they have just about everyone beat in that sense. But I'm talking achievements in "boundary breaking".

Tons of Beatles songs are great to listen to (I really love She Said She Said, I Feel Fine, Fixin A Hole, It Won't Be Long, and others). But when I'm listening to European Son I'm filled with, what I'd calll "respect".

I am having a similiar debate with someone else but I will post the same message.While I don't dislike VU, The Doors, Dylan, and I love Pink Floyd there are Beatles tracks that I consider more progressive. Since your tastes reflect more of a avant taste. I think Lennon Revolution # 9 political avant garde collage very daring and new in rock music. I add a review of Eleanor Rigby a song that I like a lot.

The techniques used to make "TMK" (some of which are also used on "Rain", "She Said, She Said" and "I'm Only Sleeping") are blindingly progressive and way ahead of their time - but ultimately, the fab 4 did indeed make something more akin to modern dance music than Prog Rock with "TMK".

There is a thriving Progressive Dance set of genres, based on exactly this sort of methodology - except using the far easier to use computer/sampler based setup. The difficulty in these genres is sorting out the few really creative artists (and there are some!) from the copy and paste merchants.

Of the tracks on "Revolver", with Love You Too on a different planet musically for rock music I'd say that "Eleanor Rigby" is probably closest to Prog Rock - I mean, a pop/rock song set only for "classical" instruments but still feels like a Beatles' song, telling a complete story that is dark and completely outside of popular culture, that pulses with alive rhythms and yet maintains the feeling of a string quartet with finely harmonised voices is just something else!

I don't think Revolution # 9 counts as daring and new in rock musisc since it's a purely avant garde track and the only connection it has to rock is that it's on an otherwise rock album. It should really be compared to the previous 16 years of tape and collage experiments (Stockhausen's "Hymen in particular).

Again, I don't think it matters at all how daring the "techniques" of a song are. It's about the results of those techniques. Tomorrow Never Knows sonuds different than the rest of Revolver, the rest of the Beatles' 1966 songs, the rest of the Beatles songs thus far, and most of rock music at the time. That's what should matter. And yeah it comes closer to modern dance music than "prog" but that's not saying much either - only in the most general sense (like how the Stones sound closer to the Sex Pistols than to Indonesian Gamelan music).

About Elanor Rigby, saying it has "finely harmonized voices" is more of a comment on how you (or let's say people in general) find the song pleasing in some way - a point which stretches outside of this talk about being innovative. I guess you're saying it's just interesting to find "alive rhythms", nice harmonies, and vocals in general (basically, "song" things) in a piece that's still classical. Not that I know anything about classical music but there's probably lots of examples of it being put in a "short song with vocals" format rather than the "instrumental and long piece" format. And I'm sure "alive" rhythms had been around in the style for a while (for example, classical music had used syncopation since the 1840's or so). Also, the fact that it tells an interesting, and uniquely dark and serious story has nothing to do with how interesting the music may be.

"I took a class in music and one of the topics was Scaruffi take on the Beatles."

Are you making this up? That's hilarious. Who is the teacher?

If i took a class in music, the beatles are the last thing i'd want to hear about. You can hear about them anywhere.

I think if you want to know where scaruffi is coming from, you'd listen to everything *but* the beatles; listen to something you havent heard a thousand times before.

The Beatles were the biggest influence on rock music. They were able to make outwardly experimental rock music whether it was avant or Indian and still able to focus on melody. Frank Zappa and VU were overtly experimental. Dylan was very lyrical. The Beach Boys were pop. The Beatles were all those elements. Strawberry Fields Forever is the perfect example of this fused style that is called Beatlesque.

Strawberry Fields. 2 different versions of a song in different keys, slowed down, speeded up and joined together, genius. Different endings also is present

Bleach the list is fine. What's more important is that the Beatles were able to make overtly experimental music for everyone to enjoy without making mindless noise rock. One song I like that was unusual in structure was Come Together. The unison bass and drum pattern that starts and dominates the song. Very innovative

This sounds a little too opinioned...ou're saying thatcompletely amelodic music is "mindless" and implying that it's not as relevant since everyone can't "enjoy it". It'd be just as easy to draw the exact opposite conclusions from the same info. (that it's uncreative and insignficant to apply the radical ideas of the era into a more cautious and likeable setting than to just go all out with experimental-isms)

I actually don't consider noise as music. Music is about feel and melody and how you put chords in a musical form or language. When you apply those principles into experimental music it's actually more creative and significant. I consider the Beatles the prime example of being creative without losing melody and feel in music. Pink Floyd tried it basically every experimental rock artist have tried at one time or another. Anyone with some musical talent can make noise and that's what I consider many of the Velvet Underground songs.

There's no difference between noise and music. Both are sounds of particular frequencies, timbres, and volumes assembled as a means of making art. When it comes down to it, I think the only difference is that noise usually means "music I don't like" - but that's always been the case throughout history: today's 'noise' is tomorrow's 'music'.

I think what you're really saying is that putting together a likeable (or better still, likeable yet unique) combination of sounds is difficult to do and therefore respectable as an achievement of sorts (pretty much anyone would agree there). But now we're talking about being an "artisan" and having a "skill", which is a different story. Of course, you might put skill on a higher pedestal than originality, but at least let's call a spade a spade.

Looking at this list here are some minor corrections that I would make. Guitar drone is actually used on Baby's In Black 1964 briefly. Songs like I'm A Loser and What You're Doing have a strong folk influence. I Don't Want To Spoil The Party, Baby's In Black show a strong country influence and the Beatles covered Act Naturally. The Beatles of extensive instrumentation on Yesterday and novel instruments sitar Norwegian Wood influenced Pet Sounds besides being mostly great songs according to Brian Wilson.

Tomorrow Never Knows is certainly progressive but it's more of a new type of Musique concrete music. Strawberry Field Forever is the first song by the Beatles that could be considered progressive rock. Love You Too is Classical Indian with rock elements. Doctor Robert has acid inspired lyrics mixed with Country elements on the vocal harmonies and on guitar at certain moments.

Within You Without You is very classical Indian with psych elements and the use of a string arrangements makes this a unique song.

A Day in the Life is progressive rock. The symphonic elements are influenced by classical avant music. The drumming and bass work are complex and the drum rhythms are unique.

Norwegian Wood is folk with Indian and psych elements. The alternate version of the song could be called psych rock.

The Beatles made a huge contribution to recording technology of course with help from George Martin and to multiple genres from Power Pop to Progressive Rock. Countless acts went electric because of the Beatles influence namely the Byrds, The Grateful Dead and the Jefferson Airplane which later sparked Psycdelic Rock.

Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, SMiLE. Wilson first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through. He then remarked to his passenger that The Beatles had already reached the sound The Beach Boys had wanted to achieve. Paul Revere & the Raiders were among the most successful US groups during 1966 and 1967, having their own Dick Clark-produced television show, Where the Action Is. Mark Lindsay (singer/saxophonist) heard the song on the radio, bought it, and then listened to it at home with his producer at the time, Terry Melcher. When the song ended Lindsay said, "Now what the fuck are we gonna do?" later saying, "With that single, The Beatles raised the ante as to what a pop record should be".

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" does have phasing on the mono mix it actually influenced Jimi Hendrix as does "From Me To" the later on accident. Both pre-date the Small Faces. "Love You To" the first pop song to emulate non-western form in instrumentation. "A Day in the Life" too many is Progressive Rock and maybe to someone who dislikes the Beatles or would not know what music is. "Hey Jude"- the first song to go number one over seven minutes. Well to some who don't like the Beatles might say big deal but in 1968 is was a big deal. Lastly "Space Guitar" does not have feedback whoever started that myth. "I Feel Fine" it does not matter if it was the first or not. It was an important influence on this recording effect on Pop

Some of these contributions don't have really anything to do with music.

Yeah never mind...