The Beatles - Classic Pop?

mitosis

The Beatles. Many people's favourite band. But are they Classic Rock? In my opinion what they did was Pop music, with an occasional foray into rock lite.

What do others think - should they properly be classified as Vintage Pop and not Classic Rock?

--Kaiser--

You sound like you've only heard songs like 'I Wanna Hold your Hand' or 'She Loves You'. Listen to The White Album and tell me it was made by a 'pop' group (whatever that means).

Besides, I dislike classification of art into genres, it can be done to an infinite degree and it get's very pointless very quickly

9959

mitosis wrote: »

The Beatles. Many people's favourite band. But are they Classic Rock? In my opinion what they did was Pop music, with an occasional foray into rock lite.

What do others think - should they properly be classified as Vintage Pop and not Classic Rock?

Try these: 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road', 'Rain', 'Helter Skelter', I Want You (She's So Heavy), 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', 'She Said She Said', 'Yer Blues', 'Hey Bulldog', to name but a few. 'rock lite' they ain't.

MHalberstram

Revolver onwards they are like a totally different band. Drugs played their part but not the whole story obviously (weren't they into speed when they played clubs in Germany in the beginning?)

I think, much like the stones, as they went on they matured and their music got edgier and more experimental. I think with success they could call the shots a bit more in comparison to their early days.

Like the Beatles but I am firmly in the Stones camp.

666irishguy

It's hard to define bands from that era considering it was all sort of proto-Rock, but retrospectively to my ears the Beatles are definitely more of a Pop group. They started out as a Rockabilly old school Rock N' Roll band and gradually moved toward a more highly refined almost high art Pop band. Their Classic Rock credentials are thin at best and based mostly on a few songs from The White Album and almost universally on Sgt. Pepper's. The White album though, is in my opinion just straight out experimentation with Pop and is pretty excruciatingly pretentious in places. It does have Rock-ish songs like 'USSR', 'Happiness' and 'Helter Skelter' and one or two more, but it would be a stretch to call it a Rock Album based on 4 or 5 songs out of 30. Sgt. Pepper's is where they usually draw most of their Rock credibility from, but it is still very Pop sounding when compared to what we think of Classic Rock. The last point I'd make is that the first bands that the majority would consider staples of Classic Rock only emerge in the second half of the 60's and almost universally had a totally different sound which doesn't really have a direct line from the Beatles' cleaner sound. Hendrix and Zeppelin are probably the first really really big recognisable contemporaries of the Beatles that spring to mind, that have the recognisable Classic Rock style and they are very different in sound and style from the Beatles, it's hard to believe that Sgt. Pepper's and Led Zeppelin I, were only released about a year or two apart. I have a lot of respect for the Beatles and enjoy their stuff, if anything they are unfortunate that the words Pop and band have come to mean the s**te that Pop signify's today. They played and wrote all their songs, so they are deserving of being called one of the great bands of all time, just not a great Classic Rock band.

mathepac

MHalberstram wrote: »

... Like the Beatles but I am firmly in the Stones camp.

You must be grateful then that John & Paul gave the Stones the song that made the breakthrough into the UK Top 20 for them, and that the Stones were grateful to have appeared on the live "All You Need Is Love" broadcast.

Very helpful lads them Beatles, dishing out songs left right and centre, some of which made singers and bands famous, for example, Billy J Kramer & The Dakotas, Cilla Black, Peter & Gordon, PJ Proby, Mary Hopkin, etc.

As for the Classic Rock thing like others I dislike pigeon-holing art, particularly when the pigeon-holes are being defined now rather than 50 years ago when the band was starting out.

The Beatles in particular defy pigeon-holing IMHO. They started out with what's called Skiffle / Rock-a-Billy, were recognised as a Beat group and a Rock and Roll band. The band that played on top of the original Apple building on the corner of Saville Row played Rock, and if their touring career hadn't ended in Candlestick park in 1966, who knows where they'd have gone.

They were innovators and to me they defy petty classifications. For example could anyone other than George Harrison have got the talent represented by the Travelling Willburys together? Could anyone other than George Harrison have almost single-handedly created the benefit concert with the concert for Bangladesh, still generating charity cash all these years later? Who else has had a song recorded by more than 150 singers as different as Elvis and Frank Sinatra? George was regarded as a less-talented Beatle than John and Paul and yet Clapton stated he was one of the best slide-guitarists around before his death as well as being a big-time film producer.

Collectively, the most talented group of kids ever to get together IMHO, individually they shone as well in a whole number of fields. If you want to classify them maybe geniuses is as close we'll get.

9959

The above post by 'Mathepac' should be a 'sticky'. Well done that man!

mathepac

Thanks but it's not that good. I'm a Beatles fan by the way (surprise, surprise) but I'm also a Rolling Stones fan.

Cienciano

MHalberstram wrote: »

Like the Beatles but I am firmly in the Stones camp.

I hate statements like that. It's like blur or oasis. Why the hell can't people just enjoy both? "Ohh, but you have to like one more than the other". No you don't!

Rigsby

Cienciano wrote: »

I hate statements like that. It's like blur or oasis. Why the hell can't people just enjoy both? "Ohh, but you have to like one more than the other". No you don't!

+1.

I have previously mentioned on this new forum, that I hope it does not develop into the "X v Y", "the best album of all time" or "X band are better than Y band", type of boring cliche threads like it's sister "Music" forum.

Music by it's nature is varied. There is plenty of scope to like more than one band or genre.

Life is too short for pigeonholing music. Does anyone really care what the Beatle's music should be called ?..... except maybe, "enjoyable".

9959

Cienciano wrote: »

I hate statements like that. It's like blur or oasis. Why the hell can't people just enjoy both? "Ohh, but you have to like one more than the other". No you don't!

Agreed. It's just that the influence of The Beatles on all things rock and pop is inestimable. Personally I like all types of good music from Burt Bacharach to Nirvana, from Smokey Robinson to Mendelssohn, but no other band has ever had such a prolonged and profound effect on songwriting and modern recording. Whoever your favourite band or singer is, will most likely cite The Beatles as their greatest influence. Ask Springsteen, Costello, Pink Floyd, Noel Gallagher, Weller, Sexsmith and The Rolling stones too, even Lionel f***ing Richie.
Comparing Blur with Oasis, Take That with Westlife, Motown with Stax are all good parlour games, but the Beatles are above all that, paring their fingernails on the summit of the great rock pantheon in the sky, or something, I think I better go and have a lie down.

BQQ

mathepac wrote: »

.

Very helpful lads them Beatles, dishing out songs left right and centre, some of which made singers and bands famous, for example, Billy J Kramer & The Dakotas, Cilla Black, Peter & Gordon, PJ Proby, Mary Hopkin, etc.

Your definition of famous must be different from mine.
Only one of those names is famous and it's not for singing that she's famous.

9959

If you've never heard 'Anyone Who Had A Heart', 'Step Inside Love' or 'Alfie', then that's your loss!

mathepac

Other famous bands & singers you might not have heard of (which doesn't mean they are / were not famous) that got Beatles songs and recorded them were: Tommy Quickly, Fourmost, The Strangers, The Applejacks and BadFinger. The Plastic Ono Band also recorded and released at least two "Beatles songs", but they had a Beatle / ex-Beatle as a member so I don't count them.

Badfinger were given an entire album by Paul after they signed with Apple Corps. As far as I can trace 22 songs recorded initially by 13 artists as singles were jointly penned by Lennon & McCartney, not counting tunes written and released under noms des plumes for copyright and contractual reasons.

As already stated the Beatles influence is still strong. My nephew and his pals are fanatical fans and a covers band has been mooted. Like myself and others here their musical tastes are catholic, the only qualifications being that the music is well-crafted & performed and enjoyable.

BTW the Beatles concert with the RTE concert orchestra in the NCH last Saturday was a phenomenal night and a huge success; they had really fresh arrangements.

MHalberstram

Why the hell are you people jumping down my throat for saying I prefer the stones. Am I not allowed to prefer one band over another? I actually like the beatles, have all their albums and appreciate their work. It's not like I said they were **** and that the stones piss all over them. Christ almighty, I just prefer the stones, nothing more. No need to overanalyse and jump down my throat.

9959

I like The Stones too. Let's be friends. All you need is love!

Washington Irving

MHalberstram wrote: »

Why the hell are you people jumping down my throat for saying I prefer the stones. Am I not allowed to prefer one band over another? I actually like the beatles, have all their albums and appreciate their work. It's not like I said they were **** and that the stones piss all over them. Christ almighty, I just prefer the stones, nothing more. No need to overanalyse and jump down my throat.

Yeah, but thread is nothing to do with the Rolling Stones. Saying you prefer them is only going to drag the thread off topic. You didn't have to mention the Stones at all

I, personally, feel that the Beatles had far too much variation for them to be defined into any one genre, but yes, some of their early stuff could be defined as 'Classic Pop', but as a whole they certainly were not a 'Classic Pop' band

MHalberstram

SaulGoode9 wrote: »

MHalberstram wrote: »

Why the hell are you people jumping down my throat for saying I prefer the stones. Am I not allowed to prefer one band over another? I actually like the beatles, have all their albums and appreciate their work. It's not like I said they were **** and that the stones piss all over them. Christ almighty, I just prefer the stones, nothing more. No need to overanalyse and jump down my throat.

Yeah, but thread is nothing to do with the Rolling Stones. Saying you prefer them is only going to drag the thread off topic. You didn't have to mention the Stones at all

I, personally, feel that the Beatles had far too much variation for them to be defined into any one genre, but yes, some of their early stuff could be defined as 'Classic Pop', but as a whole they certainly were not a 'Classic Pop' band

I so it is my fault now for making a comparison to explain something. Right, I'll mark this forum as one not to bother with again if that is how people are going to be.

9959

MHalberstram wrote: »

I so it is my fault now for making a comparison to explain something. Right, I'll mark this forum as one not to bother with again if that is how people are going to be.

Don't leave the forum, your posts were fine. You have to expect a degree of badinage with these things. Sometimes lovers of The Beatles (myself included) can be a tad oversensitive when the band who they believe to be incomparable gets measured against another.
If your Dad was Albert Einstein and you said to someone: 'My dad's Albert Einstein, a genius', and he replied :'my dad's a genius too, he got three honours in his leaving' you would probably feel frustrated. By the way there's a thread on this forum extolling the virtues of Queen, a great band (Sun City nothwithstanding).One of the highlights of Freddie Mercury's career was rubbing shoulders with his hero Paul McCartney backstage at Wembley for Live-Aid in 1985. The influence of The Beatles was/is all-pervasive - there I go again. Anyway, stay with the forum, you seem to be a genuine music lover and I believe we should stand together against the barbaric horde of philistines and X-Factor devotees, or something, I think I'll have another lie-down now. Without doubt, The Rolling Stones were/are a great band.

Rigsby

MHalberstram wrote: »

I so it is my fault now for making a comparison to explain something. Right, I'll mark this forum as one not to bother with again if that is how people are going to be.

I agree with 9959''s post above. There is bound to be a bit of rough and tumble on an Internet forum. Dont let it put you off visiting the "Classic Rock" forum.

BQQ

mathepac wrote: »

Other famous bands & singers you might not have heard of (which doesn't mean they are / were not famous) that got Beatles songs and recorded them were: Tommy Quickly, Fourmost, The Strangers, The Applejacks and BadFinger. The Plastic Ono Band also recorded and released at least two "Beatles songs", but they had a Beatle / ex-Beatle as a member so I don't count them.

Badfinger were given an entire album by Paul after they signed with Apple Corps. As far as I can trace 22 songs recorded initially by 13 artists as singles were jointly penned by Lennon & McCartney, not counting tunes written and released under noms des plumes for copyright and contractual reasons.

As already stated the Beatles influence is still strong. My nephew and his pals are fanatical fans and a covers band has been mooted. Like myself and others here their musical tastes are catholic, the only qualifications being that the music is well-crafted & performed and enjoyable.

BTW the Beatles concert with the RTE concert orchestra in the NCH last Saturday was a phenomenal night and a huge success; they had really fresh arrangements.

Unless that was a typo and you meant 'the Stranglers', then yes, I haven't heard of them. To me a "famous" band/singer is one that the majority of people know. I don't think the ones you mentioned meet that description.

Anyway, I won't continue to drag the thread off-topic.
For me, The Beatles can't fit into a single musical category, but if trying to do so, I'd go with pop-rock

mitosis

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You sound like you've only heard songs like 'I Wanna Hold your Hand' or 'She Loves You'. Listen to The White Album and tell me it was made by a 'pop' group (whatever that means).

Besides, I dislike classification of art into genres, it can be done to an infinite degree and it get's very pointless very quickly

But was The Beatles really a Beatles album, given that most of it was solo projects? It is more an album by members of the Beatles, no?

Looking at their single releases they were pretty much all catchy pop tunes. And isn't this, after all, the measure for all but the most ardent of fans?

9959

mitosis wrote: »

But was The Beatles really a Beatles album, given that most of it was solo projects? It is more an album by members of the Beatles, no?

Looking at their single releases they were pretty much all catchy pop tunes. And isn't this, after all, the measure for all but the most ardent of fans?

By that yardstick 'Rumours' by Fleetwood Mac was more of an album by members of Fleetwood Mac, no?

If you were to judge a band like The Beatles by their single releases alone, then yes, 'catchy pop tunes' is what you got, that was sort of, the idea at the time!
If we were to measure Led Zeppelin by their singles, we wouldn't have much to go on, perhaps they couldn't write 'catchy pop tunes'.
Generally the 'measure' of the merit of any decent band is the content of its albums.

mathepac

9959 wrote: »

By that yardstick 'Rumours' by Fleetwood Mac was more of an album by members of Fleetwood Mac, no?

If you were to judge a band like The Beatles by their single releases alone, then yes, 'catchy pop tunes' is what you got, that was sort of, the idea at the time!
...

I agree up to a point about the Beatles, but I think you have to give The Beatles / Epstein / George Martin / Parlaphone credit for their marketing expertise.

The rule was to release a catchy pop-tune or two that attracted the singles buyers and got the Beatles loads of radio plays, into the pop charts, TOTP, JukeBox Jury or whatever TV show was current and also created demand for concert tickets.

The income from these activities funded album production, and to try to turn singles-buyers into album buyers and vice versa, they included the last single or two as "extras" or "freebies" on the next album. They never shafted their fans by releasing singles from albums (exclude compilations, best ofs, the no 1s, etc). The only time this changed was when "Something" was released as a single after the album, but then how could you not release that song as a single?

9959

I believe Frank Sinatra described 'Something' as one of the best love songs ever written. Maybe 'BQQ' has heard of Sinatra!

BQQ

yes, I have, because he actually is famous

purplepanda

So what classification do the Byrds, Love, Velvet Underground, Small Faces & many others fit into?

What about Guitar bands in the period between Rock & Roll & early Rock music?

And if the Beatles are pop what about Fleetwood Mac, post Peter Green, The Eagles & other AOR bands from the '70's?

9959

purplepanda wrote: »

So what classification do the Byrds, Love, Velvet Underground, Small Faces & many others fit into?

What about Guitar bands in the period between Rock & Roll & early Rock music?

And if the Beatles are pop what about Fleetwood Mac, post Peter Green, The Eagles & other AOR bands from the '70's?

The vast majority of truly great bands, including some of those mentioned in your post, defy classification/categorisation, maybe that's one of the reasons for their 'greatness'.
Though I would describe Fleetwood Mac post Peter Green as: Sad but very rich!

Noel Dempseys Den

I don't understand the need to categorise music into narrowly defined genres. You never give me your money and Strawberry Fields Forever "classic rock" or "vintage pop"? Really?