Replies

re: “Elvis. Elvis had an earlier and a greater impact.”

There is no denying that Elvis was a tremendous influence on rock n’ roll - I would say he possibly influenced rock n roll to a greater degree than anyone prior to the 1960’s. He definitely influenced John, Paul, and George musically, and also the way they dressed before they became the Beatles as a band. They loved Elvis and emulated him a great deal.

I didn’t say that the Beatles were the only ones who had a great influence on pop music, or, even that they were the “best” rock band - just one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) influences on rock music as an art form, in innovation of recording/effects techniques, and on the music/record business as an industry.

I think Elvis, then the Beatles, were the two biggest movers of the development of rock and teen/young adult culture from 1956 to 1970. Both have had lasting world-wide fame and musical endurance.

I think you are selling the Beatles short on their impact. I lived through that time period, got involved in music as a musician and as a teacher. Their impact on expanding what rock music could be is undeniable. Their impact, through their producer George Martin, on recording techniques, use of guitar effects, early electronic keyboard effects, phasing, and several other recording/effects innovations are also undeniable. They were not necessarily the first ones to utilize such techniques, but the quality of their compositions and the way in which the techniques were used broke new ground time after time.

Look, lots of individual artists and bands all made their contributions, but very few had the huge influence on music and culture that Elvis and the Beatles had. Elvis defined rock music for the 1950’s and early 60’s, the Beatles defined rock music for the 60’s and early 70’s. Others took up where they left off, others went different directions, but none have created the world-wide excitement, musical ingenuity, cultural impact, and money to the recording industry as Elvis and the Beatles, at least not to the same degree.

I’m not just making a statement “to the point that people believe it”. I was there. I heard and saw their influence. Remember, just before the Beatles made it big, there was one British record producer that Brian Epstein played Beatle’s recordings for, trying to get him to sign them, and this guy told Epstein that guitar/rock groups were “on the way out”. As of Dec. 2013, the Beatles have sold over 2.3 billion records world-wide (http://www.statisticbrain.com/the-beatles-total-album-sales/). I think just record sales alone speaks for their influence.

To a fan club member, his hero is the top of the mountain and the end of the line, whereas in reality the hero is a continuation of some tradition. That is true of Rembrandt, Mozart, and even Cervantes, known sometimes as the father of Western fiction narrative. Students of the arts know it, while the fans don't. Neither Elvis nor the Beatles landed from the moon, and whoever influenced them, and there were many musician who had, also influenced others who'd have thrived without Elvis or the Beatles. The influencers were in turn influenced by those who preceded them. It's good to know who the influencers were. Fan club members don't know and don't care. That Paul is cute, and George is amazing is enough for them. Record sales numbers themselves tell about influencing listeners, and not musicians. Were the Who influenced by the Beatles? I doubt it! The Mamas and the Papas? No way! The Buggs? Certainly! History of popular music will be written by critics and musicologists, and not by fans!

Finally, don't invest in the publishing rights to popular songs, the Beatles, the Brill Building or Johnny Cash. The value of such catalogs diminishes every year as fans die out. No, the Beatles are not forever, neither was grandfather's Rudy Vallee, but Beethoven is!