The impact of the Beatles has often been noted but cannot be overstated. The “Fab Four” from Liverpool, England, startled the ears and energized the lives of virtually all who heard them. Their arrival triggered the musical revolution of the Sixties, introducing a modern sound and viewpoint that parted ways with the world of the previous decade. This list looks at ten examples of a Beatles song changing someone’s life. Obviously, this is a subjective list, but I’ve gone for performances where there is documented evidence that someone’s life has been changed because of a particular performance. Has a Beatles song changed your life? If so, tell us in the comments.
Influenced: EMI
It’s slightly odd starting with the Beatles last album, but it’s also a slightly odd influence; Abbey Road studios is named after the Abbey Road album, not the other way around. When the Beatles recorded there, it was the EMI London Recording Studio. The name was changed (and a zebra crossing logo developed) after the album was released, Abbey Road suddenly became the most famous recording studio in the world. Staff members became celebrities when people found out they worked there.
Influenced: Jeff Lynne and ELO
The first song to be recorded after the Beatles stopped touring and approached with the attitude that they were going to get it right – there was to be no compromise. The final recording is actually two different versions of the song edited together; thanks to heroic efforts by George Martin. Lennon was still dissatisfied – but he didn’t like most of his recordings.
The influence of this song was actually a few years later. In 1971, Jeff Lynne formed the Electric Light Orchestra with the intention of picking up from Strawberry Fields Forever; mixing traditional rock band instruments with classical instruments.
Influenced: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards
As Paul has openly admitted, this was not one of their better songs. It was given to Ringo as his contribution to With The Beatles. However, its biggest influence was when Mick Jagger told Lennon & McCartney they needed a follow-up to their first hit single. At that time, the Rolling Stones were a cover band – they didn’t write their own material. Legend has it that John & Paul disappeared for 15 minutes and returned with I Wanna be Your Man. It made Jagger and Keith Richards realise that writing their own songs was possible.
Influenced: Brian Wilson
Brian Wilson was “knocked out” by the Beatles album Rubber Soul; as he put it – each track “was a gas”. As a response he produced Pet Sounds. It was as a response to Pet Sounds that the Beatles produced Sgt Pepper. Paul McCartney has acknowledged that there was a definite feeling of competition between The Beatles and the Beach Boys. The clip is Norwegian Wood – my favorite track from the album.
George Martin recalled that when they listened to Pet Sounds, the Beatles asked “Can we do something as good as this?” Martin replied, “No. We can do better.”
Influenced: The Beatles and the USA
I Wanna Hold Your Hand changed the life of the Beatles; it was their first number one in America. As George Martin has pointed out, they had tremendous difficulties getting records released in the USA. EMI actually owned Columbia Records, and Columbia still wouldn’t release Beatle singles – the early singles were released on tiny labels (Swann comes to mind) in the USA. It was partly the successful sales of these singles that forced Columbia to release Beatle singles. I Wanna Hold Your Hand was a huge hit in the USA just as the Beatles arrived for their first US tour. Their timing, as ever, was perfect.
Influenced: EMI Staff at Abbey Road
This was a performance that amazed EMI staff. People working on the Beatles session have memories of playing the tape to staff members the next day and saying “Wait until you hear this!” Within EMI, it was realized that something special was happening. George Harrison recalled attitudes changing towards the band between their first visits to Abbey Road (to record their first singles) and after they’d had a hit – and recorded Twist and Shout.
Twist and Shout was recorded at the end of a single day in which the entire first LP (album in American) was recorded. EMI would only give them a day’s studio time, it was winter and the band had colds – Lennon’s was particularly bad. What makes Twist and Shout all the more remarkable is that it was recorded in one take and as a “live” recording – there was no overdubbing possible in those days.
George Martin did record a second take, but Lennon’s voice had gone so it was the first take that was used.
Influenced: Pop Musicians Everywhere
Tomorrow Never Knows was the first Beatles track to use artificial double tracking (ADT). In fact, it was almost certainly the first track anywhere to deliberately use the effect. Double tracked vocals (where the singer sings the same part twice) became popular when 4 track recording arrived – quite late at Abbey Road, around 1964. Lennon, in particular, didn’t like singing the same thing twice – it was obviously important that exactly the same words and phrasing were used, making such sessions tedious and tiring.
With this in mind, Ken Townsend – EMI engineer “had an idea” driving home after such a session. The singer would sing the part once, and then a copy made and played along side the original with a slight, varying delay – the affect was double tracked vocals without having to sing the part twice. Lennon loved the effect but not being in the least bit technical, had no chance of understanding the technique involved. George Martin gave him a pseudoscientific explanation (“There’s feedback on the sploshing flange”) and after that, Lennon started calling the affect “Ken’s Flanger” and said in interview that “Every track on Sgt Pepper had flanging, it’s great!”
To this day, the effect is called flanging – some people claim that it is named after pressing the flange wheel on a reel to reel tape deck, but if you tried that on a professional tape deck, you’d lose a finger!
Influenced: George Martin and Dick James
After recording Please, Please Me, Martin was able to tell the Beatles, “Congratulations Gentlemen, you have recorded your first number one”. A big moment for the Beatles, but also for George Martin himself.
George Martin was known as a producer of comedy and novelty records. His highest placed record, before Please, Please Me was Love Me Do – but that only reached number 17. Before that his only “hit” had been the Robin Hood theme tune, sung by Dick James. So, when Please, Please Me was being recorded Martin was the most junior producer in EMI (he was the youngest, and Parlophone, Martin’s label, was the smallest). A year later, he was one of the most famous producers in the world.
The aforementioned Dick James became a music publisher when baldness ended his singing career. He had given a song (How Do You Do It?) to George Martin for the Beatles, which the Beatles hated. The Beatles offered up Please, Please Me instead. George Martin, to his credit, let them record their own song. Dick James recalled getting a phone call from Martin which started “You know that song the Beatles *were* going to release?”
There is a happy ending for Dick James, he offered to publish Please, Please Me and became the Beatles song publisher – forming Northern Songs especially for the band.
Influenced: George Harrison – and more or less everyone
Raunchy was never released by the Beatles but it was George Harrison’s audition piece which got him into the Beatles and performed at Paul’s prompting to John on top of a Liverpool bus. According to Paul, George’s guitar work was “perfect”. George was three years younger than John; you can imagine John’s attitude (being nearly 18) to a 14 year old wanting to join the band. George must have been pretty good!
Influenced: John, Paul, George and Ringo and pretty much everyone since.
Never recorded by the Beatles, this was the song that Paul played to John when they first met at a garden fĂŞte where John was performing with his band (The Quarrymen). John was so impressed he asked Paul to join the band the next day: he delayed because he was trying to reconcile strengthening the band with the weakening of his own position as band leader and the fact that Paul was two years his junior. Finally, he decided that the improvement to the band was most important.
In fairness, the surviving members of the Quarrymen can’t remember what Paul sang – John couldn’t remember as he was somewhat drunk at the time (despite being 4 years under age). However, if the story is true, Paul performing Twenty Flight Rock might be the most influential performance in pop history.
@Mark.
The sentence I objected to was ” I really do hope one day that that decrease in popularity finishes with the older generations leaving us – no more crazed Beatles fans – so the world can get on with music without crappy clichĂ©s like that that restrict it.”
If I waded incorrectly through that garbled mire and drew the conclusion that you saw a ‘decrease in popularity of the Beatles to an eventual dissapearance along with Beatles fans” as positive, I can hardly be held accountable.
I don’t care if you like the Beatles, Dave Dee Dozey Beaky Mick and Titch or Karl Wolf. I do care that people don’t respect influential movements in Art, or pretend that they didn’t exist, or are inconsequential.
The bands I do not like are few, but as part of my job as a freelance journalist sometimes I have to cover them, for example I once had to interview Good Charlotte, who were drunk and obnoxious. And while their eventual dissappearance from the commercial radio gene pool will come as no suprise to me, I can see that they have had influence in the current psudohard rock genre.
What have the individual personalities of the Beatles to do with anything? Do you think that Limp Bizkit would care about you? You seem to think that I am regarding them as saints or messiahs.
and as far as the Beatles influencing Led Zepplin, well the Yardbirds “Heart Full of Soul” is intensly Beatlesque, as is “Shapes of Things” or whatever that song is titled.
And if you don’t know the Yardbirds, you ain’t a Zepplin fan.
I’m amazed how young these guys were when they started playing music together. 14?!!
119. BongoShaftsbury : That is an insanely racist comment. We’re not in the bloody 50′s anymore mate. There is no “White folk music” and “Black person music”, no restrictions on what type of people listen to what style or artist. Get your head out of your ***** colon and you may have a chance to redeem yourself, otherwise, don’t bother replying.
121. AussiegalinCanada : Good effort *pats freelance journalist on head*… Influence and influential movements in music are important. But Beatles fans are no saints themselves in that regard, most of them – and you to an extent – massively understate Zeppelin’s influence. You even try to do it by painting The Yardbirds as “quintessential” Zeppelin – “And if you don’t know the Yardbirds, you ain’t a Zepplin fan.”, which is crap in itself, exaserbated when read into.
I’m not trying to downplay The Beatles influence, just put it into perspective. Just look at 115, seriously, look at it. Do you see where I’m coming from? Too many people view The Beatles as the greatest thing *ever* in music, when there are more than enough challengers for that title. I also find that Beatles fans will, for want of a better word, explode whenever *anything* that could even be taken *slightly* as an “insult to the Beatles ‘honour’”, such as what you’re doing now. You read too far into something and now you won’t just step back and say “Yeah, maybe Beatles fans can be a bit overzealous at times…”.
The cliche that no-one will ever reach The Beatles and that they are ultimately the *best* thing that has or will ever happen to the industry is a stain, very hard to remove at that. That’s all I’m saying, I would rather people approach music as something they like to listen to rather than “Because it’s the Beatles, duh, that’s why I like them!”. That way, many musicians would be better off for their already insanely large workload, which could finally be paying dividends. Like Death Metal bands, whose music is quite enjoyable if you give it the time, but most people won’t “Because it’s metal.”
Can’t we all play nice??
To be as popular as the beatles or elvis, u have to be at the right place at the right time with some talent, of course. I never understood beatle-mania. Their songs were good, no doubt, but so many other great singers and performers have come and gone wihtout getting their dues. Just not fair.
Mark you just don’t seem to get it. Reread what MartinL wrote in post99.
*You had to be there.*
Prior to the Beatles there was nothing (certainly since Elvis had done his Army stint). Basically the entire Music Industry as it is today comes back to the Beatles. It was the Beatles that creatively opened the industry up so that a much broader variety of artists could get recorded and airplay.
It was the Beatles that showed the Industry how much Money could be made from pre to teen age kids (which idea flowed to the advertising industry – unfortunately). You stated earlier;
*However, the music industry holds bands such as them and Zeppelin to an extent and The Who and The Stones and Elvis, to such a high level that no-one will *ever* reach them again.*
Of course no one will, The Beatles, Zep and Elvis (and to a lesser extent the Stones) all broke new ground and took it to much larger/broader audiences than pretty much any band since. They did that by selling records in unheard of numbers and hence making money – the ONLY thing that counts in the Music Industry – and they still do. Witness the sales and chart positions of Elv1s and The Beatles 1 albums.
Another fact that mitigates against your modern bands is the fractured and cynical nature of modern music fandom. Example; Pick your favourite band, or even the biggest selling current act and tell me the most singles they have had in the Top 10 (anywhere) at one time. The Beatles would have called that a bad week. They UTTERLY DOMINATED the music charts for the majority of their career. That just is not possible today. This whole thing for the new means that while a band will sell Nx10 millon copies of their breakthrough album by the time their next album comes out it will struggle to get half that many sales.
Cheers
Lee
PS Why do you consider ANZAC Day *wacky*?
Hyla (124)
This is Nice!!
Cheers
Lee
126. k1w1taxi : It’s not me that doesn’t get it Lee. I know the impact that these bands had on the *industry*, but the frank truth is that I don’t care, it’s as simple as that. I listen to music for the sake of listening to music, I don’t see it as an industry. Fair enough The Beatles, Zeppelin and Elvis were huge and revolutionized the way music “worked”, that doesn’t mean that they should be praised as god by all of us, the listeners and consumers. Why do we care that the industry now rips us off to the max in every transaction? Why should we? No, we should respect bands for their *music* above all else – and I think that writing original stuff now is much more impressive than pre-Zeppelin era.
Also, The Beatles completely dominating the charts was due to the times, that argument works both ways. If you look from the days of The Fab Four, through to the 70′s, 80′s, 90′s and finally today, I’m sure you’ll find an inverse correlation between chart dominance and date.
It’s a rather obvious phenomena that people are currently still writing very original and quality music, but they don’t get the recognition The Beatles got – that they really do deserve – all I’m saying is how is this fair?
I don’t consider ANZAC Day wacky, I was calling it important and interesting – not to mention confusing
Now if only ‘Paul wasn’t dead’, John would still be alive as well and George’s lungs would still be in perfect working condition and i would have couple passes to their reunion concert next month…
The Drum Intro in Tomorrow Never Knows was acheived by Ringo releasing the stick on the 2nd last beat and allowing the weight of the stick to play the last beat, genius, a much underestimated drummer.
@Mark
I am not talking about fans, Beatles or otherwise. There are manic fans of all bands and singers.
I also never said that the Yardbirds were quintessential anything – thats like saying that Nirvana is the quintessential Foo Fighters which is just ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that if you don’t know the Yardbirds you are not a Zepplin fan, because it is impossible to think one came without the other. The recordings first made by Zepplin were called “Led Zepplin” by the Yardbirds.
They changed direction but they did not change track.
I think you have run out of points Mark, you want me to agree that Beatles fans are obsessive, sure, never said they weren’t. I don’t care what music you do or don’t listen to, never did. I understand from your last statement to me, your knowledge of music is more limited than most people of your generation, (Im assuming you are about 20) so having a real musical debate with you is kinda pointless.
you keep changing your story.
Whether you like the beatles or not, this was a decent list. You can not deny that the bands you love have been influenced even by bands you loathe. Just because your favorite band like another band doesn’t mean you have to.
Personally, I’m not a big Beatles fan. Back in college, a lot of my 4:20 friends would swear that The Beatles were the best thing ever, get high and give it a listen. I never got into them (even when high).
I will admit, though, that there are a few Beatles songs that I like, I just refuse to give them a free pass just because I like a couple of songs, and the are The Beatles. However, I do enjoy Zep (my 8 year old daughter LOVES the immigrant song).
131. AussiegalinCanada : Rofl, you’re trying to paint me into a corner, and guess what, you think you’re doing a very good job of it. Whoops, did I just start too? Sorry, it is rather annoying isn’t it?
“…I am not talking about fans, Beatles or otherwise. There are manic fans of all bands and singers…”
Agreed, and I think they’re all crap
“…I also never said that the Yardbirds were quintessential anything – thats like saying that Nirvana is the quintessential Foo Fighters which is just ridiculous…”
Aye, it is. Although I would have to say that if you like the Foo Fighters, you should give Nirvana a go.
“…I stand by my statement that if you don’t know the Yardbirds you are not a Zepplin fan, because it is impossible to think one came without the other. The recordings first made by Zepplin were called “Led Zepplin” by the Yardbirds…”
Ok, I can’t help but be picky for a second – Led Zeppelin, it has 2 E’s. Sorry, but that’s a pet peeve if mine. Anyways… You obviously don’t know all that much about Zeppelin and The Yardbids, either that or you’re assuming I don’t – whoops! I didn’t just do it again did I? – however, you would be sorely mistaken. I have a rather large knowledge of Zeppelin and I also happen to know that when Zeppelin started performing they were billed as the “New Yardbirds”, there were no recordings under this name to my recollection however. The problem with your argument is, well, Jimmy was the only Yardbird still in the band, what’s so different between that and the Nirvana one again?
“…They changed direction but they did not change track…”
I’m sorry but that went straight over my head, could you clarify?
“…I think you have run out of points Mark…”
I think you have as well, either that or you’re just a very inexperienced LVer – whoops, again?
“…you want me to agree that Beatles fans are obsessive, sure…”
That would be a start. Next week, teaching a Beatles fan humility… That may take a bit more than a week…
“…I don’t care what music you do or don’t listen to, never did…”
That’s good, because this shouldn’t be about what we prefer.
“…I understand from your last statement to me, your knowledge of music is more limited than most people of your generation, (Im assuming you are about 20) so having a real musical debate with you is kinda pointless…”
This bit just cracks me up! You are hilarious, seriously. I’m 16, however I listen to my father’s entire record collection and enjoy a rather large portion of it. I also incidentally have a rather large knowledge of music *period* – more heavy metal, but I’ll go anything so I’ve picked up a few things here and there. Don’t go assuming, you’ll make an ass of yourself – not to mention leave yourself open to critical interpretation by those of us who prefer fair and unbiased arguments. But I’m 16 and the regulars know it, so I can’t get one of those on LV
“I also incidentally have a rather large knowledge of music *period* – more heavy metal, but I’ll go anything so I’ve picked up a few things here and there.”
I know we’ve had a few arguments, Mark, but I just wanted to let you know that any friend of Metal is a friend of mine:D
Also don’t know what people are getting so worked up about over music? It’s probably one of the most subjective art forms in existence, hence the infinitely massive genre’s and cross-genre’s we see. Christ, Metal alone has about 10 major genre’s and a massive variety of sub-genre’s alone.
Each to their own, I say.
There is a BIG one missing. The “music movie” for Rain was the first “music video” . We all know where that led.. MTV.
According to Paul McCartney, the band played the song faster in studio than it appears on the final release, and then slowed it down during post production to achieve the “gloopy” sound. Despite the “gloop,” the song was one of the first to feature Paul’s signature loud, booming basslines.
“Rain” is not featured on an original album and did not make it onto a compilation album until Hey Jude in the US and Rarities in the UK.
The song also introduced the world to the concept of music video. The band, sick and tired of performing/miming their hits on an endless sting of cheesy television programs, decided they would create promotional films instead.
Here’s the video.
Mark #123, first of all I can’t log on with YogiBarrister for some reason. Secondly, although ringtailtoxy’s comment wasn’t meanspirited in any way it was a culturalk gaffe. I wouldn’t call her racist, but you obviously missed my point. The whoile of humanity does not bgreak down into two convenient stereotypes of white people. I’m surprised Mark, you usually are more perceptive.
How is my comment racist? How is ringrail’s comment not racist?
Mark, if you are going to play Randall on this blog you need to improve your game mate.
Mark needs to remove the can of Foster’s he has lodged in his ass, been listening to too much AC/DC and Men at Work IMO.
133. Mark: “But I’m 16 and the regulars know it, so I can’t get one of those on LV”
Were you going for the “oh poor me” or were you just be funny? (not picking on you, just need to clarify) You know you do get a fair argument (once in a while) from us. I know you are 16…for the most part you stand up well. Sometimes you come off as a cocky kid so you have to understand that with age comes experience so us “older” people are going to jump on that.
I am NOT knocking you or your intelligence. You are more well-rounded then most 16 year olds I know and I happen to know a bunch due to my kid.
” I am a firm believer there are ONLY 2 kinds of people in this world…Beatles people & Elvis people.”
Not to harp on this but the comment is only valid for the early 60′s. In ’55 it would be Elvis people vs. Sinatra people. Then there are Beatles people and Rolling Stones people, Beatles and Led Zeppelin, Beatles and the Clash. The Hip-hop community breaks down any number of ways, same with Latin music, jazz, blues, you name it. Every race, every generation, every individual blogger can make the same assertion as ringtailroxy, about any two musical acts, and it would have as much validity.
@Mark, I am pretty impressed that you are 16 and you are obviously intelligent.
I don’t think I have said anything that made an ass of myself however!
I am not a regular on this site, I was not aware it was a social club – I pretty much just read the music or literature lists.
I was referring to the 1st session recordings of the Zeppelin (I can barly spell my own name, letalone hard mulit-syllable words)that were sent around to studios as Led Zeppelin by the Yardbirds.
By changing direction but not changing track, I was referring to a very smooth transition in sound.
117 Mark: John thought – in all seriousness – that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. That was a complete and utter lack of humility
Taken in the context that he intended that off-the-cuff remark to be taken, he was arguably more correct than not. Here you are, some 40 years later, continuing to foster the out-of-context misinterpretation. Lennon may have had his foibles, but this wasn’t one of them.
I do get your point, that pop stars (media superstars in general) rarely if ever are able to “keep it real” with us common folk, and pretty much agree. I’m just saying that IMO using Lennon’s so-called Jesus controversy to support that argument misses the mark.
111: Jacobi: Yes, just in case you are still around, I remixed the actual ‘Love’ album from top to bottom, adding all kinds of fillers, extras, and special effects to make it more, well, more of a Beatles tribute. The acapella ‘Because’ still opens the show, but I have added a live atmospheric soundtrack in the background; which moves from a meadow to the mountains to the plains, and reaches the outskirts of ‘civilisation’ by the first note of Hard Days Night and Get Back. I am very happy with it.
120 was stupid and I don’t have to expand on that. You (Mark) are exactly the type of person I’m talking about. Get out and do something constructive with your life instead of hating on everything you’re too ignorant to understand.
“Mormon crickets have no taste in music, and Nevadans are using it against them. Residents of Tuscarora are getting ready to blast their boomboxes to ward off the crickets’ semi-annual invasion, after the townsfolk realized three years ago that the pests don’t like Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones…”
Must be Buddy Holly fans
@Mark
It is great to hear from a sixteen year old who has some sense about him. Now only four years removed from that age I still try to speak with humility about things beyond my years. This is just a friendly reminder not to be to hard on the people who literally grew up with the Beatles. More to come but for now I have to run to the vet.
I did briefly consider having Rain/Paperback Writer as the first music video, but to “qualify” for the list I wanted documented evidence of someone saying “this changed my life” – I don’t think that’s true of those films; bands had been making film versions of songs for years – to promote songs abroad, ISTR Little Richard claimed that Tootie Frootie was the first “pop video”, but there are films of Louis Jordan performing from the 1930s, so it’s not really that new.
-Andrew
@ Mark your whole comment on Lennon’s comment about the beatles being bigger then Jesus shows that you should do some more research before you say these things. Lennon said that commenting on the number of fans they had, that more people liked them then they did Jesus. He wasn’t saying it egotistically he was just making an offhand remark about the number of fans they had.
Mark: instead of being an jerk about this why dont you stop posting on this list? we all know YOUR views on the beatles already so just shut up ok? Conversely you HAVE defended your point of view very well so i give you props for that but…
and about the two greatest songwriters of modern music i cant think of anybody else who WOULD be. can YOU? no wait. dont answer that i dont want you posting any more!
Let’s keep this on topic, shall we?
Okay. I will have to say that I certainly believe that The Beatles “Rain / Paperback Writer” IS indeed the first short form music video that was produced as a promotional clip.
The “videos” that Andrew mentioned as being by Little Richard, “Tootie Fruity” and Loius Jordan “Caldonia” were actually incorporated in to full-length motion pictures of their day and doesn’t quality as a Short-form Music Video (Promo).
As and far as someone or anyone not declaring that it didn’t change their world, has apparently never seen a channel that USED to play music videos called MTV. That alone has changed the landscape of what would be considered a definite change in life’s musical landscape. I dunno about you, but that changed MY WORLD.
Wow Mark, I’m now dying to hear the “Death or Doom or Avant-Garde or even Funk Metal” that you’re listening to – the ones without any Beatles influence. Because for that to be the case, they would have to be recording without any multi-tracking, over-dubbing, or ping-ponging; without any stereo split, or any vocal double-dubs; without any compression, distortion, limiting, phase shifting, or back-masking; without anything beyond standard blues chord changes; without non-standard instrumentation, non-standard sound production on standard instrumentation, soundscape presentation, or other examples of music concrete. And that’s just a start concerning recording techniques. We can go further into hair length, clothing, political climatology, satellite television appearances, length of singles beyond 3 minutes, record label independence, marketing (including power *****ysis), music videos, etc.
Mark #83
45. bucslim : No, The Beatles influence isn’t infinitely far reaching as you seem to think. I’ll put on my Death or Doom or Avant-Garde or even Funk Metal and I won’t hear The Beatles *period*. It really doesn’t matter what Beatles fans would like to see their band have a hand in, it doesn’t make it true.
Look, it’s not my intention to brow beat a 16 year old for not ‘getting’ the Beatles. I’m not telling you to do anything. Listen to anything that interests you. But you are just wrong here man *period*
You can thank the Beatles and George Martin for pushing the limits of the recording process and modernizing it in almost every way. No computers back then to save, mix, edit and put effects on everything, sure, but it’s difficult for me to believe that what artists have now would be anything like it if not for the Beatles demanding better and better equipment and techniques every time they recorded an album. Do you realize that for the most part, before the Beatles, the artist would go into the studio with a backing band and just bang out the tunes in a couple of takes and if they got it, then that was it? They didn’t revolutionize the technique of overdubbing and effects, but they damn sure made it a standard practice.
The Beatles would go into the recording studio and turn everything on it’s ear to get the kind of sound they wanted, largely at the prodding of George Martin who would try anything to make something sound original and unique, something that you can get by pushing a button now was probably tinkered around with by Martin first or soon after first. Audio recording companies were having a difficult time keeping up.
So no, your music that you listen to right now might not sound like or be influenced directly by Lennon or McCartney. Might not show up in the lyrics, the music style or genre. But you can be damn sure the band you’re enjoying is benefitting from pioneering efforts in the recording studio by the Beatles.
Of course their influence doesn’t end there, I’m just responding to your post.
Come on man, expand your horizons, take a good listen to their catalog and you won’t be disappointed. Just keep in mind the sounds, effects, editing and production techniques were done without the synths and electrical processes that engineers and bands take for granted now.
Let’s keep this on topic, shall we?
Okay. I will have to say that I certainly believe that The Beatles “Rain / Paperback Writer” IS indeed the first short form music video that was produced as a promotional clip.
The “videos” that Andrew mentioned as being by Little Richard, “Tootie Fruity” and Louis Jordan “Caldonia” were actually incorporated in to full-length motion pictures of their day and doesn’t qualify as a Short-form Music Video (Promo).
As and far as someone or anyone not declaring that it didn’t change their world, has apparently never seen a channel that USED to play music videos called MTV. That alone would be considered a definite change in life’s musical landscape. I dunno about you, but that changed MY WORLD.
*made some edits. (See what happens when stuff gets under my skin?? I hate that there is not an option to edit these posts.)
sheesh warrreagl, thanks for hijacking my comment with something more intelligent and succinct.
151. CBGB1977: Couldn’t agree with you more! I loved MTV when it was Music Television! Now…I don’t even know what the hell it is. I have banned it from my house and along with VH1 because it’s just a few steps up from *****o.
)
(nothing against *****o, but I have a kid in the house
156.oouchan..samething happened up here in the North,our version Muchmusic went the sameway
oouchan-
Thank you. And now we scratch our heads and wonder why there is no creativity in music anymore.
As long as there are stupid chicks with big boobs and horny, egomaniacal “musicians” out there who betray their craft for some disgusting cold-sore ridden contestants, then we are in trouble! ‘Oi Vey!
I don’t even know why MTV still has VMA’s. Where are the videos??
I know, I went off topic….
CBGB1977: We get off topic here alot.
My cable co has about 100 channels now for music only. You have every type of genre out there and they play just the music. On the screen is usually a picture of the band along with some trivia or information. That is about it. I have that on when I am doing housework.
My favorite channel is the oldies where they will have a mix of 50′s, 60′s and 70′s. The best part is there are no commercials!
Too bad they don’t have any videos that were made for the Beatles. MTV and the like came after.
oouchan-Go to top 15 Beatles songs on LV. There are a few Beatles videos there.
Check out their live video of Daytripper and turn it up loud. Georges guitar rocks !
MTV does suck a lot. I love softcore ***** to drum machines and autotune as much as the next gen Y er, but when they do play music it is such a limited range!
In Australia we have a reasonabley decent program called ‘rage’. While the prime time section of the show is mainstream pop and psudo rock, late at night it is often a crazy eclectic mix of vintage, psycadelia, random eurotrash dance and alternative bands.
Awesome when you come home drunk on a friday.
160. bigski: Thanks! You would think I would have checked there first. oops!
Re:No9 – The influence of this song was actually a few years later. In 1971, Jeff Lynne formed the Electric Light Orchestra with the intention of picking up from Strawberry Fields Forever; mixing traditional rock band instruments with classical instruments.
I think you will find that Roy Wood formed ELO …
To #161:”random eurotrash dance”? Did The Beatles invent that too?
I like the idea of a music tee-vee station that starts off the day all clean cut and mouth washed followed by a primetime jolt of pop candy (just enough before the vomit in the back of the throat starts to flare up), and then gallops into the early wee hours all degredated in glitter sweat stench and LSD freakouts.
Every thing gets sweeped up and the next day begins all over again.
bucslim – that’s what I’m here for, bro. I had a lot more jabs to go, but I knew you were right behind me with the left hook.
The Beatles are great. They are one of the best bands ever.
Pink Floyd and The Beatles actually recorded in the same studio and picked up a lot of eachothers work. Just take into account “For there revealed in flowing robes was Lucy in the sky” from “Let There be More Light” off of the “A Saucerful of Secrets” album 1968.
167. Eugene: Also in “Dark Side of the Moon” when they caught Paul’s voice for the song “Money”.
I’m still to be convinced that Paperback Writer/Rain really started many people thinking that they should produce film/videos to promote their songs – my memory of the period is that Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody video was the start, I would imagine they did that as a video because it was so hard to perform it live. If someone has a reference with Freddie Mercury saying they decided to do it after seeing Rain/Paperback writer then great – we can add it to the list.
Similarly, although Yellow Submarine may well have been the first pop song to use samples from other songs (the brass band solo was constructed from another recording), I wouldn’t claim it was an influence on other artists as the start of sampling – mainly because it was disguised to prevent royalty claims from the actual performing artists.
Roy Wood/Jeff Lynne? I stand corrected – it look like Roy was the one who had the idea but after “tensions” between Wood and Lynne, Roy left the band and Jeff Lynne controlled the agenda. If I ever find out how to edit a list(!), I’ll correct it.
-Andrew
#169: apepper, it looks like you answered your own question. My interpretation of “Paperback Writer/Rain” was that The Beatles produced those two videos so that the VIDEOS could “go on tour” without The Beatles having to do so. If that’s the case, and if you feel that “Bohemain Rhapsody” was produced for the same reason, then it would seem that The Beatles started the whole thing off.
oouchan – Eugene, The Dark Side of the Moon doesn’t contain McCartney’s voice. They recorded him, but felt his answers weren’t very genuine or noteworthy. He knew they were going to use them in some way on the album so he sorta told them what he thought they wanted to hear. Instead they used crew members and studio employees.
It was recorded in the summer of 73 when McCartney was in Wings and at Abby Road recording the Band on the Run album.
I think Wings guitarist Henry McCullough contributed the line “I don’t know I was really drunk at the time.” at the beginning of ‘Us and Them.’
bucslim (172) I believe John Lennon helped in some way on “Money” and it was a roadie who said “I don’t know. I was really drunk at the time.”
Thank you, warrrreagl.
I was thinking the same thing about the Paperback Writer / Rain MUSIC VIDEOS. If you have seen the Beatles Anthology DVDs, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney say it themselves. It’s on disc 4, I believe. And as far as finding a Freddy Mercury statement goes, seeing that he has been deceased since 1991, it may be difficult.It is clear that Bohemian Rhapsody was released years after the fact. Is that convincing enough?
bucslim: You are right. They taped him but didn’t use his voice. My error on that.
See the article below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3404611
Eugene – didn’t know that about Lennon on Money, and I hate to disagree with you pal, but it was McCartney’s guitarist who said that line.
When the Beatles recorded ‘All You Need Is Love’ live and broadcast via satellite around the world, wasn’t that another ‘first’ or something?
178: Lifeschool,
Yes it was, It was first performed by The Beatles on Our World, the first live global television link. Broadcast to 26 countries and watched by 400 million, the programme was broadcast via satellite on June 25, 1967.
bucslim (177) Paul’s guitarist Henry McCullough said that line (“I don’t know. I was really drunk at the time.”) This was in reference to a fight he had with his wife.
I was thinking about the Irish doorman at Abbey Road named Gerry O’Driscoll who said, ” There is no dark side of (in) the moon. Matter of fact, It’s all dark.”
BTW I’m not a guy. I picked “Eugene” cuz of “Careful With That Axe, Eugene. I’m an old fan of “Verse. We’ve chatted many times old friend.