The Beatles why do they sound so different from early Rock

[Karma Police]

I have to admit the Beatles though I do like a lot just sound different than their mentors. They sound modal "Things We Said Today" though without the obvious blues influence. Some of their rhythms on "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" for example includes a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections. Were they influenced by jazz?

Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You",

"Strawberry Fields"... not really blues tunes, They

were able to draw from diverse sources, like Indian classical music

(Within You uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor

thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and

dorian modalities). Lennon used forms similar to Tibetan chants.

McCartney and Lennon were both versed in the same types of cadential

cycles that had evolved from Dixieland and Tin Pan Alley, the pop

music of the previous era (and also a primary underpinning for jazz).

IOW, while most other bands of that era were still working within

simple I-IV-vi-V frameworks, the Beatles had assimilated musical

forms, languages and rhythms from around the world. They built their

own unique musical sounds, and wrote some of the most widely recorded

music in history.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Karma Police

[Chuck Nessa]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

[Teasing the Korean]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

k

thnx

bai

[Ted O'Reilly]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

k

thnx

bai

...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition.

[Hot Ptah]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

k

thnx

bai

...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition.

.....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music.

[JSngry]

It was time for it to happen, so it did.

As to why them, hey, who knows? Why Trane, McCoy, Garrison, & Elvin?

Evolution does what it will do when it needs to do it through whom it will be done. Trying to figure out the mechanics of it all is not nearly as important (and may not even be important...) as recognizing it for what it is and responding accordingly.

It's just a hunch on my part, but I suspect that the main purpose of life is not to give historians something to do with their time...

Edited November 5, 2008 by JSngry

[Dan Gould]

It just works out that way?

[JSngry]

In the end, yeah. I think it does.

And by the time you think you might have figured out why (when what you've probably really figured out is why it matters to you that it happened), something else has happened.

And so it goes. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Everything I needed to know, I learned from a shampoo bottle.

[Hot Ptah]

I think "it just works out that way" for creative artists, who are pursuing their vision.

For imitators trying to make a buck by copying what has come before, that's different.

I may be missing an entire vibrant creative scene currently out there, but it seems to me that it used to be a common situation that artists in different genres of music would release creative albums which were nothing like what had come before. It seemed natural that this would be happening.

Then at some point, many recording artists starting going for the deliberate ripoff of what had come before, and then that seemed like the norm.

When you get to that point, then it does seem unusual that a musical artist had created albums which differed from what had come before. But it did not always seem so unusual.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think in a strange way, the Beatles were a bit like Duke Ellington in their relationships to the main streams of their music. What each did was very personal and innovative but wasn't the starting point for some new thing. As far as modern Rock is concerned, the development was done by London bands like the Stones, Yardbirds, Manfred Mann, Cream and Led Zeppelin, who had come out of London blues bands like Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and the Mann-Hugg Blues Menn. Very little of that music seemed to me to owe anything at all to the Beatles, though everyone recognised the value of what the Beatles were doing.

So the Beatles (and Duke) stood outside the main flow, always able to join in when it suited them, but more often than not, not bothering with that flow.

MG

[JSngry]

When I say that "it just works out that way", I mean as far as what breaks through and makes its "revolutionary" mark, not to the work itself. Although ultimately, "it just works out that way" might happen (very little, if anything creative is accomplished by trying to be creative, if you know what I mean), it won't just work out that way without a lot of work being done to get ready to be in that place at that time.

[BillF]

.....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music.

I sure this was a very important factor. I was already a confirmed jazz listener when the Beatles albums were coming out and naturally sceptical about the attention they were receiving while my ears were trained on other (and generally ignored) new sounds from Coltrane, Herbie, Hubbard, Kirk, Shepp, etc. The Beatles' lurching from style to style had me saying this can't be all their own work, so Hot Ptah's comment on their producer seems very much to the point. However, now we know the truth about Teo Macero's part in Miles's "electric" work, I should as a jazz listener be less critical about how the Beatles' music came about, I suppose!

[Karma Police]

I think in a strange way, the Beatles were a bit like Duke Ellington in their relationships to the main streams of their music. What each did was very personal and innovative but wasn't the starting point for some new thing. As far as modern Rock is concerned, the development was done by London bands like the Stones, Yardbirds, Manfred Mann, Cream and Led Zeppelin, who had come out of London blues bands like Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and the Mann-Hugg Blues Menn. Very little of that music seemed to me to owe anything at all to the Beatles, though everyone recognised the value of what the Beatles were doing.

So the Beatles (and Duke) stood outside the main flow, always able to join in when it suited them, but more often than not, not bothering with that flow.

MG

I know in jazz musically things are different and much more complicated but compared to the Rolling Stones or 50's Rock and Roll. The Beatles differed even when they did blues music. The old blues masters were content to create entire songs out of multiple repetitions. As songwriters in the Tin Pan Alley/Brill Building mold, Lennon and McCartney weren't comfortable with that degree of formal repetition--at least they weren't in 1964.

When they started incorporating the 12-bar blues pattern into their songwriting--so they ended up creating something more complex.. In the verses they'd follow the 12-bar, 3-chord blues pattern, but in the bridge they'd use a chord pattern more appropriate to a pop ballad (incorporating minor ii, iii, and/or vi chords). The result was a kind of blues/pop hybrid.

I agree about the Beatles when it comes to Hard Rock. The Beatles had a huge influence on the start of Progressive Rock, Power Pop and Folk Rock. Songs like "Rain", "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I'm Only Sleeping" have been huge influence on Indie Music. I think their influence on Modern Music towers over Elvis or the Rolling Stones right now in 2008.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Karma Police

[Alexander]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

k

thnx

bai

...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition.

.....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music.

George Martin was more than just a schooled musician. He was every bit the creative genius that the Beatles themselves were. Part of his genius was his ability to know when to get out of the way and let the Beatles be the Beatles. Very few rock producers of the era when the Beatles were first signed would have been able to do that, which is why it is significant that Martin had almost no experience producing rock music when the Beatles became his project. And it started right away. Martin initially tried to act like the typical major lable rock and roll producer by telling the Beatles who they could and could not have playing on their recordings (he immediately vetoed Pete Best and initially opposed Best's replacement, Ringo, in favor of session drummer Andy White) and what sorts of songs to record (he initially vetoed "Please Please Me" in favor of the professionally written "How Do You Do It"). But in both cases, he actually listened to the concerns of the band and eventually let them have their way. This set the stage for a much more collaborative relationship between producer and artist than otherwise might have existed. It created an environment where Martin COULD suggest more elaborate arrangements or more sophisticated voicings than the Beatles themselves might have come up with and where they were glad to listen and take his advice. He also clearly proved to be a marvelous teacher, because the Beatles quickly picked up on Martin's ideas and were soon working with him as equals, even though none of them were trained as Martin was.

To me, the Beatles were the perfect storm of talent, opportunity, good luck, and the right creative environment. I firmly believe that had they been signed to Decca, for example, they would have had a completely different career. Probably a much shorter one, and nowhere nearly as influential as the career they had under Martin's tutilage.

[JSngry]

To me, the Beatles were the perfect storm of talent, opportunity, good luck, and the right creative environment.

Add "at the right time in musical/cultural history" and you got a deal!

[Karma Police]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

k

thnx

bai

...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition.

.....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music.

George Martin was more than just a schooled musician. He was every bit the creative genius that the Beatles themselves were. Part of his genius was his ability to know when to get out of the way and let the Beatles be the Beatles. Very few rock producers of the era when the Beatles were first signed would have been able to do that, which is why it is significant that Martin had almost no experience producing rock music when the Beatles became his project. And it started right away. Martin initially tried to act like the typical major lable rock and roll producer by telling the Beatles who they could and could not have playing on their recordings (he immediately vetoed Pete Best and initially opposed Best's replacement, Ringo, in favor of session drummer Andy White) and what sorts of songs to record (he initially vetoed "Please Please Me" in favor of the professionally written "How Do You Do It"). But in both cases, he actually listened to the concerns of the band and eventually let them have their way. This set the stage for a much more collaborative relationship between producer and artist than otherwise might have existed. It created an environment where Martin COULD suggest more elaborate arrangements or more sophisticated voicings than the Beatles themselves might have come up with and where they were glad to listen and take his advice. He also clearly proved to be a marvelous teacher, because the Beatles quickly picked up on Martin's ideas and were soon working with him as equals, even though none of them were trained as Martin was.

To me, the Beatles were the perfect storm of talent, opportunity, good luck, and the right creative environment. I firmly believe that had they been signed to Decca, for example, they would have had a completely different career. Probably a much shorter one, and nowhere nearly as influential as the career they had under Martin's tutilage.

George Martin gets a lot of credit. The Beatles though wrote the chord progressions, lyrics and many of the ideas like backward tape collages, Indian Music, Mellotron, feedback, musique concrete and tape loops came from the Beatles themselves.

I think George Martin gets real credit for helping and making suggestions but all good producers should do that. His classical influence certainly influenced McCartney to go in that direction.

[Ted O'Reilly]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Everything I needed to know, I learned from a shampoo bottle.

I always thought that it was a marketing man who came up with Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Either it makes you buy twice as much shampoo, or the product isn't good enough to work the first time around.

[Guest Bill Barton]

There are some very insightful takes on the genius of The Beatles and of George Martin in this thread.

One thing that strikes me though is that we seem to be comparing the fully developed post-Revolver Beatles with early rock and that seems curious to me.

The moptops that blissed out the teenyboppers on The Ed Sullivan Show were very different than the hipsters who created "Norwegian Wood" etc.

In fact, I hear direct connections to early rock in the early Beatles. Maybe it's just me

As a teenager at the time I was a developing jazz snob, and when my two female cousins, who were full-fledged Beatlemaniacs, tried to turn me on to the Fab Four, I was profoundly unmoved and unimpressed. "She Loves You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah." No, no, no. They bored me to tears. It wasn't until the turn of the 1970s that I began to get it.

I'd like to think that I'm a bit more open-minded now than I was when I was 17 or 18, but for my tastes it's still the post-Revolver Beatles that I can go back to and feel something: The White Album, Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper... etc.

So, for my tastes and from my perspective, The Beatles when they hit the big time were too close to early rock, which wasn't my cup of tea.

[Hot Ptah]

The Beatles were curious about many other types of music, and about trying out unusual ideas.

Not that many rock groups which came before or after them were like that, especially after a certain point in time.

[Alexander]

They came a decade later and were from a different culture.

k

thnx

bai

...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition.

.....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music.

George Martin was more than just a schooled musician. He was every bit the creative genius that the Beatles themselves were. Part of his genius was his ability to know when to get out of the way and let the Beatles be the Beatles. Very few rock producers of the era when the Beatles were first signed would have been able to do that, which is why it is significant that Martin had almost no experience producing rock music when the Beatles became his project. And it started right away. Martin initially tried to act like the typical major lable rock and roll producer by telling the Beatles who they could and could not have playing on their recordings (he immediately vetoed Pete Best and initially opposed Best's replacement, Ringo, in favor of session drummer Andy White) and what sorts of songs to record (he initially vetoed "Please Please Me" in favor of the professionally written "How Do You Do It"). But in both cases, he actually listened to the concerns of the band and eventually let them have their way. This set the stage for a much more collaborative relationship between producer and artist than otherwise might have existed. It created an environment where Martin COULD suggest more elaborate arrangements or more sophisticated voicings than the Beatles themselves might have come up with and where they were glad to listen and take his advice. He also clearly proved to be a marvelous teacher, because the Beatles quickly picked up on Martin's ideas and were soon working with him as equals, even though none of them were trained as Martin was.

To me, the Beatles were the perfect storm of talent, opportunity, good luck, and the right creative environment. I firmly believe that had they been signed to Decca, for example, they would have had a completely different career. Probably a much shorter one, and nowhere nearly as influential as the career they had under Martin's tutilage.

George Martin gets a lot of credit. The Beatles though wrote the chord progressions, lyrics and many of the ideas like backward tape collages, Indian Music, Mellotron, feedback, musique concrete and tape loops came from the Beatles themselves.

I think George Martin gets real credit for helping and making suggestions but all good producers should do that. His classical influence certainly influenced McCartney to go in that direction.

I'm certainly not saying that Martin deserves all, or even most of the credit, for the Beatles' musical success. But I stand by my statement that it took a certain type of producer to encourage the creativity that the Beatles displayed at the middle of the decade. If Martin had not created an environment in which experimentation was encouraged, would the Beatles have come up with the backwards tape collages, etc.? They might have, but another producer might well have shot them down. "Just make another "She Loves You." That's what the kids are buying." Martin gave the Beatles the creative freedom to try out new ideas, even when they themselves had no idea how such an idea might be achieved. A lot of technical innovation in the recording studio came out of Martin and his engineers trying to figure out how to take the Beatles' vague ideas about how something should sound and make it a reality. Think about "Strawberry Fields Forever." John liked two different takes of the song and asked Martin if there was some way they could combine them. Martin said no, the two takes were in different keys. John insisted that he wanted the two takes joined, so Martin had to find a way to alter the speeds of the two takes and join them seamlessly. Altering the speed isn't hard, but tryng to do so so that two different recordings appear to be at the same pitch without altering the speed too much, that takes work. But Martin and his staff did it.

The Beatles really came to value Martin's suggestions as well as his arranging abilities.

[clifford_thornton]

The Beatles will always be "Miscellaneous Music" to me.

[BruceH]

They'll always be "Essential Music" to me.

[Teasing the Korean]

I prefer Beatles tunes when covered by aging jazz or EZ artists trying to get hip to today's sounds.

[Dave James]

There's a reason George Martin is sometimes referred to as the fifth Beatle.

Up over and out.

[Teasing the Korean]

There's a reason George Martin is sometimes referred to as the fifth Beatle.

Up over and out.

His lame-ass, flaccid stereo mixes are surely not part of that reason, unfortunately.

The Beatles need to be heard in MONO!