Re: Are the Beatles actually musically significant?

"Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "R.A.G. Seely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex) wrote in
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > So, quite frankly, I don't see anyone out there who took the
Beatles
> > > lessons to their heart. Everybody slid back into the brain dead
way of
> > > making music. Something's telling me that things will not improve
much
> > > in the future. The Beatles significance has been lost.
> >
> > I really don't see whether or not subsequent rock/pop groups were
> > influenced by the Beatles as being relevant when it comes to whether
or not
> > their music will endure.  (I did post a related comment on this in
another
> > thread I think.)  The real question is whether or not people will
continue
> > to perform their music, and not just on radio or in concert, but in
bands,
> > in choirs, in school orchestras, in bars, and so on.  (One could
argue that
> > Bach wasn't all that influential either during or after his life,
but it'd
> > be hard to argue that he wasn't musically significant.  He did
influence
> > some rather significant people (as Ian pointed out), but that
influence was
> > probably not as obvious to "outsiders".)
>
> You've missed my point, I think. What I was trying to say is this (and
> I'll bring in some fairly obvious simplifications now, just to
> emphasize the point):
>
> Every now and then, a musican or a group of musicians emerge, and
> change the face of the music. Like, Lous Armstrong did in the late
> twenties, Django Reinhardt did in the thirties, Charlie Parker did in
> the forties, Miles and Coltrane and Monk did in the fifties, and so on
> (I've intentionally left out many great names here, in order to keep
> my post manageable). Basically, once these guys bring their artistry
> out in the open, things change, and can never slide back to the way
> they were before such an event.
>
> The Beatles were one such incident (anomaly?) After Chuck Berry and
> the other pioneering rock'n rollers brought the new music form to the
> masses, things changed, and could never roll (no pun intended) back to
> where they were prior to the '50s. But then the Beatles took this art
> form, ameliorated it, fused it with many other forms of popular music
> (basically, threw in everything except jazz), and came up with
> something utterly fresh, utterly original and new. They showed the
> world how to make truly effective music that goes straight for the
> jugular.
>
> Now, in my opinion, the lesson Beatles brought to the world was the
> most important music lesson in the recent history. It was a major
> breakthrough, comparable to the stuff Beethoven did in his time, etc.
> But, while most people took Beethoven's lessons to heart, and decided
> not to slip back to the pre-Beethoven level, I'm not seeing people
> taking the Beatles lessons to their hearts, and deciding not to slip
> back to the pre-Beatles level.
>
> As to whether the Beatles music will be played on a mass scale
> sometime in the future, I think it's largely irrelevant (and cannot
> possible be predicted). What's relevant is their influence, their
> tradition-bending impact.
>
Based on all the bands over the years that have tried (some failing,
some succeeding) to analyze and use specific elements of Beatles
writing, singing and/or production, I believe this will continue well on
into the future.

For instance: Sowing the Seeds Of Love.  VERY Beatlesque production.
Not on accident either, as it quotes quite a few specific lines from
actual tunes (Sgt Pepper, etc.).

Whether out of tribute or desire to emulate the success, groups have
tried since the Beatles broke to copy what they thought would work for
them.