View Full Version : What was more influential - Punk or the Beatles
Shinboners
3 Jul 2002, 09:57
The Beatles fans can argue their side, but I'll start the argument for punk.
Whether you say that punk started with the New York Dolls, the Stooges, or the Sex Pistols, the thing is that when punk broke in England, people who saw the Sex Pistols went out, got instruments, and started bands. The key influence of punk was that it showed that anyone could go out, form a band, do some gigs, and release records. I'd argue that even with things like DanceNet are borrowing from the punk spirit that showed that people could start and run their own record labels.
From bands as diverse as the Smiths, New Order, the Cure, Nirvana, Sonic Youth, and all those pop-punk bands, and sounds as ranging from the New Romantic era of the early 80s to grunge, the key influence was punk - either a reaction against it (with New Romantic) or as an inspiration for it (with grunge).
Okay, take this and run.....
Rusty Brookes
3 Jul 2002, 10:20
My English teacher would be so proud-I'm going to argue a point I don't actually believe!
The Beatles are obviously more influential. Why? Because the Beatles laid out a lot of ground work for punk.
Firstly, the Beatles early albums were mono, on vinyl, with very simple chord structures. Proto-punk bands from the 60s such as the Sonics, the Standells, all covered Beatles songs.
Secondly, the Ramones, the first band of the 70s to be stuck with the punk tag (Lenny Kaye had coined the term to describe the 60s bands featured on the Nuggets compilation) were huge Beatles fans. So much so that their name came from Paul McCartney's pseudonym he used when checking into hotels (Paul Ramone).
Thirdly, by becoming a studio band concerned with quadruple tracking the same chord on a piano, the Beatles established the idea of 'serious' musicians in rock. The pompous nature of the time and the music gave the more cynical, disenfranchised youth of the US, Britain and Australia something to rebel against. Sort of a 'without you, there is no me' situation.
Rusty Brookes
3 Jul 2002, 10:22
Just thought of another one.
Glen Matlock from the Sex Pistols was a huge Beatles fan, as well.
Originally posted by Shinboners
the key influence was punk - either a reaction against it (with New Romantic) or as an inspiration for it (with grunge).
Firstly, I consider there to be "two" Beatles, as many do and for the sake of the argument I will assume we are talking about The Beatles from Revolver onwards (ie. more experimental, self-indulgent, non-punk). You could really throw a lot of your experimental and "stadium rockers" into the mix such as the Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd etc..
I consider the two styles to not be mutually exclusive, but work together to provide a balanced attitude. The fact that punk came after The Beatles, probably leads you to believe that it is the key controlling factor.
Looking at the aforementioned list of stadium/experimental rockers, it is easy to see why the 70's punk movement came in with such a bang, as they were the leaders of countless other inferior stadium wannabes!! We are getting too many of them as we speak (eg. all Tripple M acts).
In the late 80's you had your forerunning U2 dragging through countless other inferior U2 wannabes and of course you had your hair bands *shudder*. So what happened? You got your grunge with its **** it all to hell attitude and we got a more modern style of punk.
But then, three chords (four for grunge ;) ) can only stimulate the mind for so long and then people stray back to the more experimental or melodic ways of pop/rock song writing.
Punk keeps the bastards honest. Stadium/Experimental rock keeps the bastards interested.
I find my favourite bands to be the ones that find a medium between the two styles. For example, my favourite band of this era is Radiohead. Excluding their last couple of albums, you would find it difficult to say for certain which side of the ledger they fall on. Sure, they are no Sex Pistols, but they sure as hell arent Sgt Peppers. They're favourite band The Smiths are equally hard to categorise IMO.
One tag Radiohead got which I thought was quite apt and humerous, was after the release of OK Computer, they were given the title "Punk Floyd" by a particular journalist. The combination of over-indulgent rock and the raw ballsy attitude of punk.
So in conclusion to my thesis ;) I feel the that the Beatles influence and the Punk influence are equally weighted, but that there are distinct cycles where one becomes more prevalent over the other.
machiavelli
8 Jul 2002, 14:48
Gee I wonder where the idea for this came from eh Shineboner?
You wouldnt be reading other boards now would you?
Shinboners
8 Jul 2002, 16:18
Originally posted by machiavelli
Gee I wonder where the idea for this came from eh Shineboner?
You wouldnt be reading other boards now would you?
Its an argument that's been done to death in various fanzines, documentaries, debates, pubs, arguments at 3.30am when the wine has just about run out as well as on e-mail lists and music boards on the internet - it's hardly original, but there are plenty of people on these boards who have interesting things to say about music and I just wanted to know what they thought.
I would like to know how someone could consider a band no matter how popular they were was more influental on current music than a whole style of music.
The beatles I think were not even the most influential band out of their era. There were other bands that did things that changed music before the Beatles.
The Beach Boys were the first mainstream band to use a 6 time beat. The Easybeats, Eric Burden and many more. The Beatles mostly played glorified pop tunes that really would of had no actually influence on aspiring musicians, it was all commercial.
Originally posted by Slax
The beatles I think were not even the most influential band out of their era. There were other bands that did things that changed music before the Beatles.
The Beach Boys were the first mainstream band to use a 6 time beat. The Easybeats, Eric Burden and many more. The Beatles mostly played glorified pop tunes that really would of had no actually influence on aspiring musicians, it was all commercial.
Hahahahahahahaha...ahahahahahaahhahhaa.....aaaaaaaaahahahaha hahhaahhhaahahhahahahahah......oooohhh man, that was a goodun.
Shinboners
9 Jul 2002, 08:56
Originally posted by Slax
The Beatles mostly played glorified pop tunes that really would of had no actually influence on aspiring musicians, it was all commercial.
Are you just trying to wind up Jod here? ;)
machiavelli
9 Jul 2002, 11:04
The best thing Beach Boys music has been used for is for that ad on TV where they sell household goods and white goods to the sound of Overblown Vibrations.
Oh, and the occasional Tom Cruise crapfest.
One thing punk did was bring aggressive music to the masses. Most of the stuff recognised as 70s metal these days was just blues based rock with lots of guitar, but not as outwardly aggressive as punk was.
The first really fast and aggressive metal band IMHO was Judas Priest with their Sad Wings Of Destiny riff-o-rama in 1976, and even then they based themselves more around structure and melody than power and aggression, at least until British Steel in 1980. Others followed suit later.
Does this mean that elements of punk merged with classic 70s metal, to start sub-genres such as thrash? Did classic metal bands use elements of punk's aggression without necessarily using it as a basis for their songs?
I can't really say, and I don't have the time to delve any deeper into my thoughts, but I reiterate that punk brought aggression to the masses during the 70s, where most people were singing about love and all that crap.
Originally posted by machiavelli
The best thing Beach Boys music has been used for is for that ad on TV where they sell household goods and white goods to the sound of Overblown Vibrations.
Oh, and the occasional Tom Cruise crapfest.
Oh so you're familiar with the Beach Boys entire catalogue and can make an imformed judgement on their music?????
No?
Wow, now that's a surprise. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by jod23
Hahahahahahahaha...ahahahahahaahhahhaa.....aaaaaaaaahahahaha hahhaahhhaahahhahahahahah......oooohhh man, that was a goodun.
Two threads and still no decent argument for the Beatles. Jod you disappoint me. :D
Danny Chook Fan Club
9 Jul 2002, 15:24
Originally posted by lioness22
Oh so you're familiar with the Beach Boys entire catalogue and can make an imformed judgement on their music?????
No?
Wow, now that's a surprise. :rolleyes: machiavelli, a quick pointer for you in future music discussions.
BigFooty's constitution clearly stipulates that no-one is permitted to have an opinion on the Beach Boys unless it is the same as the resident expert's. Any divergence from that opinion shall be construed as ignorance, and you will be inundated with these: :rolleyes: .
As for the question at hand, punk was a musical genre that grew out of the general dissatisfaction with the commercialised, bland pap that passed for popular music at the time.
Very similar to what happened in 1962-4.
Dismissing the Beatles as "commercial" is a bit rich. The second half of the band's catalogue is as experimental as any band has been (relative to the time frame in which they operated).
Punk was influential, no doubt, and will remain an important reference point going forward, but I think it's more likely that the Beatles' music will have a more lasting influence on budding musicians as we move forward in time.
Originally posted by machiavelli
The best thing Beach Boys music has been used for is for that ad on TV where they sell household goods and white goods to the sound of Overblown Vibrations.
Oh, and the occasional Tom Cruise crapfest.
Post of the year
Shinboners
9 Jul 2002, 15:37
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Punk was influential, no doubt, and will remain an important reference point going forward, but I think it's more likely that the Beatles' music will have a more lasting influence on budding musicians as we move forward in time.
This is the thing about the Beatles and their influence. It's probably due to the musicians that I know and the music that they do, but they were inspired to create music because of bands like the Sex Pistols and the Velvet Underground. As one of my friends noted, "Go and see any of the Beatles films and you've just seen a film. Go and see "The Filth and the Fury" and you get inspired to do things". The same probably applies to the records as well, although I suspect that "Never Mind The Bollocks - Here's The Sex Pistols" doesn't inspire as it once did.
My point is that a band like the Sex Pistols is a more likely catalyst to change a person from someone who just listens to music to becoming someone who wants to create it. Plenty of the people who took up music in the 80s could trace their initial spark back to Sex Pistols.
Having said that, many of the very same people I know went back to listen to the Beatles to learn from their records the craft of writing a good pop song. "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" are the two main reference points that my musician friends use when talking about the Beatles. However, to these people, these Beatles albums are no more or no less important than, say, anything than say, "Hatful of Hollow" and "The Queen Is Dead" which the Smiths (another fine pop band) released during the 1980s.
Danny Chook Fan Club
9 Jul 2002, 17:45
Perhaps the level of importance and breadth of influence should be identified.
No doubt there are certain genres of music that some influential artists have more influence than the Beatles, but I would doubt that any person or group has influenced such a range of artists.
Shinners, your post in the other threads seems to suggest that the Beatles had little or no influence on country or blues music. You obviously haven't heard as many dire country-styled covers of Beatles songs as I have. :D And from a blues point of view, my belief is that blues was one of Lennon's great strengths (one he underplayed, to his detriment). Most of the early, powerful influences on the band (Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Elvis even) had blues roots and although the band didn't record a lot of blues in the early days, that was more likely a boy-band commercial decision rather than the boys' choice, considering their stage act had numerous blues tunes.
On the rock/pop influences, the breadth of influence is such that the people you speak of - who I would imagine to be 'serious musicians' making adult music - cite the Beatles as a factor in their musical development, as do cartoon bands like Oasis (don't kill me, Oasis fans, I love the boys!), singer-songwriters, boy-bands, a full spectrum of different musical styles within the large grouping of pop/rock.
Our Beach Boys friend likes to distinguish that band at the Beatles by saying the Beach Boys created a "sound", while the Beatles didn't. In the mid-60s, the Merseybeat sound was one of the major forces in world music, driving the "British invasion" and giving music back to artists, instead of puppets singing someone else's songs. Driving and originating an entire "sound" is quite influential, I would have thought.
The Beatles helped turn a man from folk to rock (Dylan), founded Psychedelia (Pink Floyd, Cream), were influenced by and in return influenced Motown (Stevie Wonder), hammered out some early "hard" rock (see side 3 of the White Album) that were the beginnings of hard rock/heavy metal and were stated influences on most of the giants of the 70s.
My point is that they might not have been the biggest influence on all of these people, but the fact that they were an influence on such a variety of styles of music is indicative to me of their - as I termed it - breadth of influence.
Someone pointed out that it's a little unfair to compare a single band with an entire movement, but again, that would seem to me to be a pointer to the massive influence that the Beatles had - in reality, there's no single "punk" outfit that would be thought to have the "importance" of the Beatles, but by combining the extraordinary talents of the likes of the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, the Police, New York Dolls, and even those snot-nosed bastards under McLaren, you can come up with a decent argument to stack up against the Liverpudlians.
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
The Beatles founded Psychedelia (Pink Floyd, Cream)
While The Beatles arguably justified the genre in a commercial value, I've read interviews with members of the band saying that seeing early shows of Pink Floyd, musically influenced them in regards to the psychedelic genre.
Likewise, The Byrds were arguably an earlier pioneer of the psychedelic movement as well.
Originally posted by Stocka
While The Beatles arguably justified the genre in a commercial value, I've read interviews with members of the band saying that seeing early shows of Pink Floyd, musically influenced them in regards to the psychedelic genre.
The Beatles started experimenting with this on the 1965 Rubber Soul (Norwegian Wood) and 1966 Revolver (I'm Only Sleeping, She Said She Said).
Pink Floyd's debut album was not released until 1967 and their first "commercial" album not until the early 1970's.
machiavelli
9 Jul 2002, 20:51
Originally posted by Stocka
While The Beatles arguably justified the genre in a commercial value, I've read interviews with members of the band saying that seeing early shows of Pink Floyd, musically influenced them in regards to the psychedelic genre.
Likewise, The Byrds were arguably an earlier pioneer of the psychedelic movement as well.
The Byrds?
McGuinn has said they tried to model themselves on The Beatles. They went to see Hard Day's Night for the music and couldnt believe the sound Harrison was getting from his electric guitar unitl they worked out it was 12 string. Went out and got the exact same one.
He admits he was a besotted Harrison worshipper.
End of story. The Beatles developed thier sound, each album a step advanced from the previous.
No ther band showed that sort of development in such a short space of time.
For fcuk's sake Tomorrow Never Knows was 3 years after She Loves You!
Shinboners
9 Jul 2002, 21:07
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
No doubt there are certain genres of music that some influential artists have more influence than the Beatles, but I would doubt that any person or group has influenced such a range of artists.
I'm happy to concede that on the strict terms of musical output. If we were to extend the argument to beyond just the music, then I would argue that the Sex Pistols are probably the only band that could mount a viable contest against the Beatles.
Shinners, your post in the other threads seems to suggest that the Beatles had little or no influence on country or blues music. You obviously haven't heard as many dire country-styled covers of Beatles songs as I have. :D And from a blues point of view, my belief is that blues was one of Lennon's great strengths (one he underplayed, to his detriment). Most of the early, powerful influences on the band (Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Elvis even) had blues roots and although the band didn't record a lot of blues in the early days, that was more likely a boy-band commercial decision rather than the boys' choice, considering their stage act had numerous blues tunes.
While saying a quiet prayer of thanks that I don't have your experience of blues/country covers of Beatles songs ;) , the thing is that due to the commercial considerations, the Beatles never had the chance to influence the blues as much as they could have. So my point still stands - they had pretty much no influence on blues music. However, I do accept that if given the chance, there is no reason why they couldn't have had the same affect on that style of music as they did with rock and pop.
On the rock/pop influences, the breadth of influence is such that the people you speak of - who I would imagine to be 'serious musicians' making adult music - cite the Beatles as a factor in their musical development, as do cartoon bands like Oasis (don't kill me, Oasis fans, I love the boys!), singer-songwriters, boy-bands, a full spectrum of different musical styles within the large grouping of pop/rock.
Serious musicians? Adult music? You're making my musical friends sound like some old boring fart like Mark Knopfler. ;)
In my usual style, I'll just pick on one minor point. I'd argue that the U.S. soul scene (Northern Soul, Detroit, Motown) was a far bigger influence on today's boy-bands than the Beatles - I'd go as far as saying that the Beatles had only a minor, if not marginal, influence. Bands like the Temptations, O'Jays, and the Jacksons were the templates that have somehow resulted in Human Nature and Backstreet Boys - and that goes for the music as well as the look.
Our Beach Boys friend likes to distinguish that band at the Beatles by saying the Beach Boys created a "sound", while the Beatles didn't. In the mid-60s, the Merseybeat sound was one of the major forces in world music, driving the "British invasion" and giving music back to artists, instead of puppets singing someone else's songs. Driving and originating an entire "sound" is quite influential, I would have thought.
A reasonable point.
The Beatles helped turn a man from folk to rock (Dylan), founded Psychedelia (Pink Floyd, Cream), were influenced by and in return influenced Motown (Stevie Wonder), hammered out some early "hard" rock (see side 3 of the White Album) that were the beginnings of hard rock/heavy metal and were stated influences on most of the giants of the 70s.
I don't have any comment to make on that, but I'll take your word on it. Dylan, Pink Floyd, and Cream mean little to me. I have a different take on Motown though, but I look at Motown as a part of a larger soul scene that started pre-Beatles. That's another argument for another day - or a different thread.
My point is that they might not have been the biggest influence on all of these people, but the fact that they were an influence on such a variety of styles of music is indicative to me of their - as I termed it - breadth of influence.
See my first reply on this post.
Someone pointed out that it's a little unfair to compare a single band with an entire movement, but again, that would seem to me to be a pointer to the massive influence that the Beatles had - in reality, there's no single "punk" outfit that would be thought to have the "importance" of the Beatles, but by combining the extraordinary talents of the likes of the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, the Police, New York Dolls, and even those snot-nosed bastards under McLaren, you can come up with a decent argument to stack up against the Liverpudlians.
I could have just as easily put Sex Pistols vs Beatles, but I wanted a greater cultural argument rather than the pointless cheerleading for their faultless bands that goes on between Jod23 and Lioness22. And I got it. :)
Thanks for your thoughts and your time.
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Our Beach Boys friend likes to distinguish that band at the Beatles by saying the Beach Boys created a "sound", while the Beatles didn't. In the mid-60s, the Merseybeat sound was one of the major forces in world music, driving the "British invasion" and giving music back to artists, instead of puppets singing someone else's songs. Driving and originating an entire "sound" is quite influential, I would have thought.
The Beatles helped turn a man from folk to rock (Dylan), founded Psychedelia (Pink Floyd, Cream), were influenced by and in return influenced Motown (Stevie Wonder), hammered out some early "hard" rock (see side 3 of the White Album) that were the beginnings of hard rock/heavy metal and were stated influences on most of the giants of the 70s.
My point is that they might not have been the biggest influence on all of these people, but the fact that they were an influence on such a variety of styles of music is indicative to me of their - as I termed it - breadth of influence.
My original point probably came out a little wrong. The Beatles DID make the Merseybeat sound prominent worldwide, but as far as 'creating' it, there were more bands around with the same style. But yeah, point taken. :)
I can't really comment on the punk side of things however so, shutting up. :)
Originally posted by lioness22
Two threads and still no decent argument for the Beatles. Jod you disappoint me. :D
Thats because there is no argument. I'm right :D
The Beatles are by far the most influential band the world has ever known.
Originally posted by hotpie
Pink Floyd's debut album was not released until 1967 and their first "commercial" album not until the early 1970's.
Whether or not The Beatles released psychedelic albums earlier than Pink Floyd was not the point I was making. Pink Floyd played as an underground band for quite a number of years before their first LP, and The Beatles are on record as having regarded their efforts as somewhat of an influence.
Likewise, The Beatles may be recognised as having released the definitive psychedelic pop album of the 60's, ("founding", or justifying the genre in a mass-marketted commercial sense), yet, there were arguably other musicians who influenced them behind the scenes.
Originally posted by machiavelli
The Byrds?
McGuinn has said they tried to model themselves on The Beatles. They went to see Hard Day's Night for the music and couldnt believe the sound Harrison was getting from his electric guitar unitl they worked out it was 12 string. Went out and got the exact same one.
He admits he was a besotted Harrison worshipper.
'Eight Miles High' was/is recognised by many as a landmark release in being part of helping to establish the psychedelic genre. McGuinn may have been influenced by Harrison's work at a point in time, but you could argue that McGuinn took it a step further by developing aspects of that work, which helped progress the particular genre in which a number of musicians/bands were collaboratively developing over a period of time.
IMO, imitating someone's guitar sound, doesn't necessarily extend to imitating an entire "style" or genre. For instance, the fact that Harrison used many Indian and eastern guitar sounds, doesn't necessarily mean he was producing Indian or eastern music.
Likewise, saying that a band tried to "model" themselves on another band, doesn't necessarily mean that this was in a musical or artistic sense. Even so, a band modelling themselves on another in a musical or artistic sense, doesn't necessarily degrade the band to a second tier status in terms of their musical achievements. (After all, you could argue that R.E.M. have modelled themselves on The Byrds and the Beach Boys, yet, for me, it doesn't downgrade their own artistic efforts that they have incorporated into their music for 20 years or more).
Originally posted by machiavelli
End of story. The Beatles developed thier sound, each album a step advanced from the previous.
No ther band showed that sort of development in such a short space of time.
Considering the level of development in many styles of music at the time, and likewise with The Beatles at the forefront of commercial music in the 60's, it's no surprise that they developed and encompassed many of these various aspects in a commercial sense. The Beatles were certainly the leaders in accomplishing a transitional sound of many of the various genres that were being established (they were able to incorporate aspects of many different genres into particular songs, or albums, with almost seemless congruency). However, there were certainly other bands and musicians by which The Beatles were influenced by, in order to achieve this.
Likewise, whether or not someone released an album or song, prior to, or earlier than another band isn't necessarily a guide as to who pioneered a particular genre. IMO, a genre is developed by a collaborative effort of bands experimenting with particular sounds over a period of time, with each release progressing from the other .
Arguably The Beatles produced the most definitive release of 60's psychedelia, and therefore, the most justifiable in terms of artistic measurement, however, I would argue against the notion that they single-handedly developed and pioneered the genre themselves.
You could put up a similar scenario in regards to the "grunge" scene of the 90's, whereby you could argue that Nirvana were perhaps the definitive grunge band of the period. Yet, at the same time, this band in particular were influenced by a variety of other bands, and likewise, the band's releases helped infleucne many other valid and original productions which helped produce the genre, with a number of releases proving to be influential in a collaborative sense.
Originally posted by machiavelli
For fcuk's sake Tomorrow Never Knows was 3 years after She Loves You!
No need to get angry, mate. :p