Entertainment For Lively Minds
'They changed the course of history'
Posted by robram on 31 December 2009 - 11:22am.
Caught some of the current R2 Here, There and Everywhere doc and was struck by the ubiquity of the phrase, 'changing the course of history'.
I'm not doubting the influence of The Beatles, but surely everyone influences someone, even in a small way.
I put it to the Massive that all game-changing music acts could conceivably have been replaced by someone else in the event they hadn't come along.
- More from robram.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I was struck by the phrase:
"They are still timeless. Even today."
Written by David Brent?
It sounds to me like...
... the 'they' Prezza mentions in his/her quote might be referring not to individuals but to the cliches riddling the text of said documentary.
Rob's on to something with the notion that many other people in music can be said to have 'changed history', often in very subtle ways - but ripples in a pond move outwards a long way from the tiny pinprick of disturbance on the water which start them.
Roy Harper once told me, after an anecdote about meeting a fan one night and how the fan was gushing about how much Roy's music meant to him, that 'every time we meet someone we do so historically'. Because of the potential implications for good or ill he took it very seriously - the question of how he should behave towards a fan, even if he was tired or distracted etc. It was another day at the office for him, but maybe this fan's Big Day. It could, indeed, change history. Interesrting perspective.
OK - but who would have been the Beatles?
Whoa, getting into heavy stuff here. Philosophy of history anyone? Quantum physics?
Ignoring the wonders of alternative universes a question:-
If The Beatles hadn't come along who would have been the game-changing act?
We've heard all the possible alternative Beatles, none come up to their standard.
It's not as if other labels didn't try and create alternative Beatles (or Dylans for that matter). I can't think of any act from the early to mid sixties that would have had the same impact as the Beatles.
It is, for instance, difficult to see the Stones becoming big stars without the Beatles appearing first. Without the Beatles my guess is that they would have languished in specialist clubs and wouldn't have been advanced on to the national stage.
The only possibility would be to discover an artist who stopped playing music when he/she heard the Beatles on the basis that after the Beatles there was no point in going on, seems unlikely however.
It's a catch 22, doc...
...it's somewhat akin to the business of 'verifying' non-canonical sayings of Jesus: scholars may recognise that there may be 20 or 30 possible contenders but the catch 22 there is that only those sayings which seem to be pretty much already what JC said in the Biblical sources, or similar in content/intention, end up being cautiously accepted; anything 'new' or 'different' isn't.
With the Beatles 'what if' that you're postulating, you're approaching it with the caveat of (to paraphrase) 'who else was there who sounded like the Beatles and who wrote songs like the Beatles and who could have made an impact just like the Beatles?'. In truth, we needn't be looking for someone LIKE the Beatles at all - they were what they were, and consequently the reaction they caused in the music world and among the populace was to a large extent specific to the 'ingredients' that made them what they were (their personalities, their clothes, their harmonies, their chord structures, Epstein's management, Martin's production, etc). As we all know there were 1001 copycats or direct influence-ees who came after, and you'd be right to question whether any of these people could have 'come first', as it were.
It might be better to look around the undergrowth just before the Beatles made a national impact and imagine if any of the little known pioneers of various other left-field sounds/styles (and remember, the 'beat music' sound that emerged in Liverpool was very much a localised creation, just as Jamaican ska was a localised variant of American R&B) could have either forced a path to international celebrity/influence or - much more likely - could have influenced another individual or band, with more celeb-appeal, to build on their innovations.
Just to take one example from an area I know fairly well: by 1962 (pre Beatles as a nationally known entity) Bert Jansch in Edinburgh was writing his own songs and instrumentals, and using some seriously peculiar instrumental templates (Robin Williamson recalls hearing one early instrumental and believing that Bert had somehow single-handedly stumbled upon 'the ancestor of the blues'); in London by mid '62 Davy Graham had invented the DADGAD guitar tuning in order to interpret a modal Irish trad tune (the tuning led directly to the 'soundworld' created by Zeppelin's 'Black Mountainside' and 'Kashmir' - a uniquely British contribution to the American rock template). Long before even 1962 ex Navy man Cyril Tawney had become arguably Britain's first professional folksinger, writing his much-covered 'girl in every port' number 'Sally Free & easy' as a specifically English response to the American delta blues form. Ewan MacColl had already written 'The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face' - an immortal melody subsequently covered by Elvis Presley et al.
There are just some examples of the pre Beatles bustling in the folk hedgerow that might well, had the cards shuffled in a different way, have led to a 'folk boom' that outstripped the 'beat boom'. We'll never know. When Bob Dylan appeared a little later in Britain it wasn't that he was writing topical/non-danceable songs with an acoustic instrument that was especially new, it was the combination of that, his enigmatic persona, his thrusting management, his penchant for controversy, and the prolific aspect of his output. He - and Donovan in the UK, who absorbed and distilled more obviously some of the UK based antecedents mentioned above (though apparently even Dylan has covered 'Sally Free & Easy') - had managed to build on a set of pioneers wholly different to the US pioneers the Beatles had built on (the soul and R&B and early R&R people) and create a commercially acceptable brand from those influences.
Had there been no Beatles, perhaps Donovan would been king of the world. And all the Brian Pooles and Chris Farlowes and Marmalades would have been donning fishermen's hats and singing about hoboing down to Cornwall and fairies at the bottom of the garden. He certainly had the pop sensibility.
Or maybe Johnny Kidd and the Pirates might have built on Shakin All Over and bands right into the 70s might have been sporting eyepatches... Or maybe John Mayall or Alexis Korner might have tweaked their hard-core blues sound a little more to the right and had a slew of hits in 1962, leaving all those nascent Liverpool acts sounding yokel-ish and silly... Or maybe some young heart-throbish guy at the right moment c.1962 might have entered the (still successful) Acker Bilk/Chris Barber world and had a run of hits with that (danceable) sound, creating a slew of immitators, with British pop developing much more substantially from a jazz instrumentation basis that the beat group template...
But, really, who knows?
Bloody good job they came
Bloody good job they came along then. I still shudder at the the memory of hearing Chris Farlowe murder 'Summertime'.
The aforementioned documentary
Even went so far as to suggest there would have been no Joni Mitchell without The Beatles, because they were the first popular act to write a song as one long story without a repeating chorus.
Now I'm not claiming to be any kind of musicologist nit that sounds like the biggest load of hogwash ever. The Beatles were heavily influenced by blues, rather than folk weren't they?
Even if we move away from music into the wider notion of history, many events that take place are admittedly identified with one person, eg Hitler, but it could just as easily have been someone else.
Obviously every individual makes their mark in their own special way, but evolutionhas a funny way of wrking itself out, doesn't it.
Beatles influenced by the blues?
I cant think of a single early Beatles song that was directly blues influenced. They were most certainly not a blues band.
The Beatles were pop influenced, just listen to the covers on their early albums.
The point about the Beatles is that they were a unique mixture of attributes that none of the other claimants possess. Is anybody seriously suggesting that Bert Jansch could have conquered America? Could Alexis Korner have attracted the teenyboppers etc. Could Johnny Kidd have written Cant Buy Me Love?
I realise it goes against modern schools of history but the Beatles really were "great men" who did, unwittingly, change things by their own efforts. I do not think we would have ended where we have without them.
I still challenge anyone to come up with someone who realistically could have done all that the Beatles did.
With respect Doc...
...I think you're falling into the trap that I was specifically warning against: of saying not 'who might have occupied - or crucially influenced others, more media-friendly, to have occupied in their stead - the PLACE in 60s history/society/culture that came to be occupied by the Beatles; but, rather, saying 'who else could have written Can't Buy Me Love/Strawberry Fields/Hey Jude etc.
The answer to the latter question is, of course, 'nobody except the Beatles' - because they were who they were with the exact background, experiences, abilities, etc, needed to create that music.
The answer to the former question - the most interesting and least easily answerable question - is: who knows... but it's at least POSSIBLE that someone else might have taken off in a Beatle-sized way pre-your actual Beatles themselves, with the popular touch/ambition which the likes of Korner, Jansch, Davy Graham, Johnny Kidd, various British jazz people, et al, plainly lacked - and yet someone who might have been influenced by these people (for, though its hard to remember or understand now, these were the people who were genuinely doing things that were fresh and new and unusual at the time). There is absolutely NO reason they couldn't have influenced someone, before the Beatles took off, who had the lucky charm of public mass approval. No reason at all.
But the cards shuffled they way they did and thus it was that, by 1964, even Link Wray - whose 'Rumble' record alone, several years earlier, would be a slow-burning thing of massive influence to subsequent generations via The Who onwards - was making now-ridiculous sounding records in imitation of the Liverpool sound.
I won't say for a moment that the Beatles themselves didn't have incredible abilities - both musically and as people able to survive and indeed prosper in the debilitating burn-out filled world of 60s pop. Never forget that back then, NOBODY was expected to prosper more than 3 years - not even the Beatles themselves (if you recall those well-seen early 60s clips where they're talking about how long they can last!) - hence the burn-out on the road/limited studio and songwriting time from what only now seem to be short-sighted management decisions that affected almost everyone else: the Yardbirds, Them, Cream, even Jimi Hendrix. In short: the Beatles were able to beat the system by attaining a level of power where they, the transient artist, could at last call the shots.
But we can still only wonder how many other, clearly visionary or exceptionally talented artists of that era might have developed had they reached a point where they could have called the shots career-wise and creatively. Duffy Power's journey from Larry Parnes-era makeweight to hellhound-chased fusion pioneer by 1966 is one example of the great 'what if'; and, fort my money, even within the Liverpool groups of the Merseybeat era, the Big Three clearly had a power and presence - even on their fragmentary, imperfect recordings from that era - that outstripped all their rivals. But they didn't have the luck and, nor, I suspect, would they have had the song-writing class or potential for longevity/development that the Beatles proved to have. Just an opinion...
I see your point but.....
I accept that the industry would no doubt have come up with some sort of artist just to keep the commercial wheels moving.
The point about the Beatles, and very few others, is the point that you make about the expected life cycle of a pop star. The Beatles broke the mold. The only person who might have achieved a similar breakthrough was Buddy Holly but we have no idea what would have happened had he survived. (Pause for counter factual thought)
In the early sixties we were constantly being assaulted by various attempts to come up with the next Beatles and as we know it never happened. If there had been an artist or band with similar abilities they would have had to fight for anonymity to avoid our knowing about them.
Scary as it may seem now the Dave Clark 5 were touted as the new Beatles. In the states it was bands like Paul Revere. Most had their merits but they werent the Beatles.
The sixties were an amazing time for innovation, each month seemed to generate a raft of classic music. The fact that bands like the Yardbirds, The Who and Hendrix had top ten hits is testament to the wide variety of music that got made and played.
I really believe that if there had been a talent of similar proportions around at the time we would know about it.
The only other similar talent is, as I write this, filtering through from my front room where my 18 year old is discovering Dylan.(Dont Think Twice since you ask)
Dylan was another who came at us from the left field and certainly didnt follow any standardised career path. Like the Beatles the industry tried out numerous new Dylans with the same negative result.
I generally accept the Marxist approach to history but occasionally I think we have to recognise there are "great men" and both The Beatles and Dylan belong in that category.
Indeed...
... I think you're right: I suspect the Beatles (and 'world changing' individuals/movements in general) reflect the forward momentums already simmering in society as much as direct them. Evolution would get to more or less the same place anyway, it's only the colour of the wallpaper in between than might be different that it might otherwise have been.
And as for the no-chorus story in song leading to Joni Mitchell (!?!), I'm no expert but isn't French chanson and German cabaret song since the year dot exactly that?
HJHM's
It seems they have raised the quality bar again on this blog. Some great responses on this thread. Keep them coming.
What ifs and vanity.
I have to be careful when posting anything regarding the Beatles. Just over a year ago I posted the blog 'were the Beatles really that good' and largely got shot down in flames for 'apparently' suggesting they were not. I wasn't suggesting that at all but I guess my argument wasn't lucid enough at the time. For the record born in 1956 I grew up with the Beatles being the pre-eminent music on the radio, in the classroom, everywhere really. It moved me as it has moved countless millions since. However I do believe it is our vanity that makes us believe that no-one else comes close or will ever come close to being as influential. We simply don't know but because we live in this age I think we believe it to be the only golden age. It is of course anything but. Music has had a natural evolution but some of the current things are only a progression of medieval musical fashions and further back still. Richard Thompson clearly expounded on this thought in his 1000 years of popular music. Everything has changed yet nothing has changed. The problem I have is that the hero worship at the altar of the Beatles is hard to stomach. Yes they were groundbreaking but I really think it is time to move on. Paul McCartney obviously thought so too at the end of the sixties. They had their time, it was great. However to suggest that were it not for their music nothing great would have come afterwards which seems to be the gist of the argument is quite frankly wrong. The same argument could be equally applied to the likes of Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis in their respective fields. What if Miles Davis had never been around, where would jazz music be now etc etc? The answer as Colin states is we will never know.
Doc, Steve, ultimately I have to bow to you opinions...
...because I was only born in 1968. It has been my loss, and to my very great regret, to have had to grow up through the late 70s and 80s and not the times before. I thought punk was pathetic old shite and I still do, and I hated almost every second of the 80s. Even THEN I could see, looking at girls in my year at school with those godawful three-quarter length pastel trousers and guys with those Bunnymen buttoned-up shirts and no-hair-over-the-ears-at-any-cost that 'in time, you will wish all photos of you at this time in your life were destroyed'.
Sadly, I've been cursed with a whole life of inabilirty to live in the moment, because you can see the moment for what it is and tomorrow for how it will view it.
But you guys were there in the 60s and if you believe the Beatles truly were one-offs of that or any other age, I'll be happy to say yeah, fair enough then, maybe they were. We'll never know what might have been because - by definition - it never was. And maybe there never would have been anything else. God moves in mysterious ways.
Colin I dont believe the Beatles were a one off
Far from it. I think they were great songwriters, great performers and even better self-publicists. Something that irritates me today with Paul McCartney's professed love of John Lennon when the perceived wisdom is they couldn't stand the sight of each other in the years between the Beatles disbanding and John dying. They were also blessed to be around in the one decade where anything was allowed. There was more creativity in the sixties there ever was in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Strangely I think the noughties was a very experimental decade too but the arts got over shadowed by 9/11 as did most everything else in the World.I believe there is a litmus test that answers the question more accurately than the views espoused on this site by people roughly of the same generation and who believe their generation was 'the best" for musical development. The test is this:- firstly ask your parents who was the most influential musically on their life. Secondly,ask your children the same question. I suspect neither of the answers will be The Beatles.
I really am not sure the Beatles deserve any more credit than being great songwriters and a great band - maybe even the best of their generation but anything more than this is to my mind a distortion.
But...
If you ask the artists (and writers and designers and photographers) who were in their orbit, and those who followed, The Beatles influenced the culture. They were more than 'just' great writers and musicians. they helped to make / shift the culture they were a part of, and then what followed. Just as Buddy Holly & 'Heartbreak Hotel' helped to make The Beatles & shift the culture in the 50s. They were significant for that reason. Every generation throws up an artist who brings about a sea change: for the 60s generation it was unquestionably The Beatles & they influenced more than just pop music. The fact that we are still talking about them is proof of that, I'd say.
No argument
with your assertion that they brought up a sea change in the 60's.I also contend however that if you asked the writers, designers and photographers of different eras they would come up with their own answers. This is as I originally contended partly to do with our own vanity. By your own admission Buddy Holly influenced the Beatles - isn't this all just evolution?
Sure.
We view the Beatles in a particular way, because of where we are standing. There was nothing special about them in the sense that others had led the way prior to them, and afterwards in different eras. I suppose they made a bigger splash and that the ripples are still, er, rippling. Coinciding with the explosion of mass communication, TV, intercontinental air travel & amplifiers couldn't have hurt - I think we are agreeing here...?
I am in agreement
with you yes. They made the biggest splash undoubtedly in the time since music first grabbed me - in fact they were the first band to grab me although not the first band whose music I bought with my own money - that accolade went to the Yardbirds and Spencer Davis group. Actually I will be interesting to see the view of the Beatles when we are all in our dotage. My son who is 20 is distinctly unimpressed by them and cites Led Zeppelin, Muse and the White Stripes as his major influences. Someone 10 years his senior will more likely cite Nirvana I guess.
Just worry for my daughter whose biggest influences are Rhianna, Lady GaGa and Mika.