Best Ever Albums

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

19loveless91 — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:50:33 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 12/18/2011 18:50

but he's such a nice fella

Link

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Jackwc — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:37:31 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 12/18/2011 18:37

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

I just... I just want to wail on his stupid face with a meat tenderizer. Is that too much to ask?

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

weedygonsalez — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:23:21 GMT

Author: weedygonsalez

Posted: 12/18/2011 18:23

Hayden wrote:

If this topic was brought to modern music, you could technically say Skrillex killed dubstep.... 😨

But this is actually very, very true. (Well, him and Bassnectar too)

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

alelsupreme — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:12:04 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 12/18/2011 18:12

I've always taken Rock&Roll to mean the sort of music made in the 60's by Chuck berry, Elvis, Little Richard etc... The death of that scene had nothing to do with the beatles. it was due to a myriad of events that happened to all the key players.

Bill Haley's popularity died down.
Little Richard turned to gospel music.
Chuck berry got put in jail for transporting a minor across borders.
Elvis joined the army for two years.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin which raised uproar and killed any chance of breaking through the UK which might of kept his career going longer.
Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens died in a plane crash.
Eddie Cochran died in a crash.

All this left was Bo Diddely who was always more of an R&B guy.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Hayden — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:53:02 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 12/18/2011 17:53

....

I just read this, and I think this guy is uninformed about his information, or just plain wrong 😕

Rock & Roll was still around in the 70's... 😐 And why is it 'The Beatles' anyways? if anything, I would blame Frank Zappa or Cpt. Beefheart for it 🤣

If this topic was brought to modern music, you could technically say Skrillex killed dubstep.... 😨

I'm not going into any further detail.....cause this is just too dumb to argue 🤣

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Bork — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:28:29 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 12/18/2011 17:28

That was a case of an article that wants to be important but isn't. Stupid.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

monosyllables — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:16:16 GMT

Author: monosyllables

Posted: 12/16/2011 21:16

Another super-interesting/music-scene-altering hypothetical to consider: The story goes that when the Beatles were first discovered, playing shit clubs all over Germany, they were actually a band of raucous assholes (even Paul!) who ate food on stage, swore at audience members, things like that. Once somebody wanted to put them in studio, though, they had to clean up their act, or else!
Always made me wonder what a Beatles (Quarrymen?) album would have been like if they hadn't been encouraged in a more polite direction. Would we have had another group of proto-punkers the likes of Iggy Pop? Would John have gone on to work with Bowie or Eno? How cool would THAT have been? Imagine (no pun intended) a world in which punkers actually *like* the Beatles!

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

gussteivi — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:04:09 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 12/16/2011 20:04

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

The debate of music as a listening art or as entertainment is nothing new and probably goes back to the first cavemen howls. Even classical composers as Mozart and Liszt have been accused of killing the music scene in their days by writing music for the masses ... No one in their right mind now studies music history and says of Mozart that he killed the music scene of his day ... or do they?

Mozart no. Liszt yes. There are very few works by Liszt with actual substance in them, they´re mostly show off pieces. (Just a footnote, has nothing to do with the actual topic, sorry.)

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Jackwc — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:38:04 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 12/16/2011 19:38

itsit wrote:

The Beatles didn't snub live shows because they didn't like the oncept of concerts, the music they were preforming was too sophisticated to be done properly on stage, that and they could barely hear themelves over the teenage girl crowd's screaming.

A bit of both, actually.

The Beatles were HORRIBLY strained from touring - they didn't have tours like band do today, they were ALWAYS on the road, and the shows they were playing were hectic and the crowds were unruly and psychotic. Their was way too much stress on them to do all this while being expected to throw out almost two albums a year and be writing constantly when given free time, and John was starting to gain a lot of weight, so...
They sorta just called it quits on touring - which then allowed them to realize that not touring would allow them to put more emphasis on song-writing and more complex arrangements which they could never have done live.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Robert Anton Wilson — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:17:46 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 12/16/2011 19:17

Nah, this guy's description of what happened is right on but his interpretation of it is irrelevant. He gave this title to his article probably only for shock value in order to draw people to read his article. Most of his interpretations is fallacious at best. He forgets to address the "how come" things happened. He writes as if the Beatles had purposefully decided to have crowds of screaming young teens as fans.

The debate of music as a listening art or as entertainment is nothing new and probably goes back to the first cavemen howls. Even classical composers as Mozart and Liszt have been accused of killing the music scene in their days by writing music for the masses ... No one in their right mind now studies music history and says of Mozart that he killed the music scene of his day ... or do they?

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

alelsupreme — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:42:06 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 12/16/2011 18:42

The Beatles didn't snub live shows because they didn't like the oncept of concerts, the music they were preforming was too sophisticated to be done properly on stage, that and they could barely hear themelves over the teenage girl crowd's screaming.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

monosyllables — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:59:36 GMT

Author: monosyllables

Posted: 12/16/2011 17:59

It's easy to see all the doors that close as music changes without thinking of what we've gained. Just imagine how livid this writer would be if in the 70's the Ramones had become so hugely successful that nobody wanted to make carefully crafted pop records like the Beatles anymore!
It's not about lamenting what you've lost, but eagerly participating in what you could discover.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Mother Nature's Son — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:25 GMT

Author: Mother Nature's Son

Posted: 12/16/2011 17:50

The first thing i read was that the beatles destroyed rock n roll, like the beatles killed good music. Well, that didn't make any sense, until i read further. I agree with Mr. Shankly that they didn't destroy rock n roll, only changed it.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

monosyllables — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:45:36 GMT

Author: monosyllables

Posted: 12/16/2011 17:45

I agree with what he's saying, for the most part, that what happened to rock music was tragic, and that we might have an incredibly innovative, genre-bending music scene today if not for how completely the Beatles dominated the music scene in the 60's, BUT!
But, you can hardly fault them for that, can you?
I don't know if the Beatles realized how much influence they were wielding over the future of music, and maybe if they did, they wouldn't have been as hardline against playing live shows (a lot of that, though, stemmed from the limitations of 1960's PA equipment in the face of unprecedented crowds of manic teenage girls. No, seriously, sometimes Ringo would find he had been playing a different song than everyone else the whole time because they couldn't hear each other on stage)
Also, while I certainly side, if the choice need be made, with listeners rather than dancers, I think the Beatles may be partly to blame for why we need to make that decision in the first place. Then again, aren't we (weren't they--I know I wasn't buying many records in the 60s) as much to blame? For idolizing the Beatles so completely, to the exclusion of literally almost everything that didn't sound similar, such that innovative acts were pushed into the periphery.
I dunno, it's a complex issue, I guess! And that's probably where this article fails: It simplifies things way too readily. Shouldn't some of the blame rest on the shoulders of the people who gave up on trying to integrate their sounds?

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

nrs182 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:28:38 GMT

Author: nrs182

Posted: 12/16/2011 17:28

Just.. 🫵

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:10:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/16/2011 14:10

40footwolf wrote:

So what this article is saying is that The Beatles destroyed rock and roll by making it more artful and complex. Would that so many other bands could "destroy" rock in the same way that he's saying the Beatles did.

Well you greatly simplified what he is saying but it seems like that's the point 🤔

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Mr. Shankly — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:08:58 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 12/16/2011 13:08

I guess it all depends on how one defines "rock n roll." If you define it as incredibly narrowly as the author of the article does than I suppose you could come to that conclusion. But it's stupid because the author is ignoring the natural progression of history. The only absolute in the universe is change. Deal with it. The Beatles didn't destroy rock n roll, they changed it., along with many other artists. There's a big difference. Rock n Roll simply evolved, just like everything does.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

weedygonsalez — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:25:18 GMT

Author: weedygonsalez

Posted: 12/16/2011 08:25

Jackwc wrote:

The Beatles killed rockabilly. I don't really miss it. It was a horribly stagnant, derivative genre.

"Rock" as we know it today was invented by them. And it's good. So... yeah, thank god for the Beatles.

Rock as we know it today is owed to Pearl Jam. Rock as we know it "today" is mostly owed to James Brown, but also Albert King and Vanilla Fudge. "Rock" as we "know" it "today" is owed to The Beatles, but also The Ronettes and Roy Orbison. Of course, the vaguer we have to get, the more major influences crop up at the fringes. The formation of the sound we now identify as Rock, and by extent Pop, owes a lot to the Beatles, but total ownership isn't theirs. It would be tough to argue for primary responsibility, too, since their early records were drag copies of girl group singles, and their later records synthesized world sounds and psychedelic experiments being performed by other groups. That they had the greatest appeal, musically and commercially, is inarguable though, and definitely the most important part of their lasting impact.

As for "killing" Rock and Roll, they didn't. Rock and Roll was already killed by Caucasian radio executives in '59.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

Jackwc — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:27:34 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 12/16/2011 07:27

The Beatles killed rockabilly. I don't really miss it. It was a horribly stagnant, derivative genre.

"Rock" as we know it today was invented by them. And it's good. So... yeah, thank god for the Beatles.

Re: The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll!!!!

40footwolf — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:23:56 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 12/16/2011 06:23

So what this article is saying is that The Beatles destroyed rock and roll by making it more artful and complex. Would that so many other bands could "destroy" rock in the same way that he's saying the Beatles did.