50 years ago this month.....everything in pop music changed

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 26 Jan 2014 11:06 am

Good point, Joachim.

All this is so subjective and more dependant on when you were an impressionable teenager ready to soak up musical culture like blotting paper.

The Beatles? Not my favourites by any means although I've enjoyed a lot of their records. I'll be seventy-one in a couple of weeks and by the time the Beatles first reared their heads I already had my favourites - the die was cast. Most of the avid and committed Beatles fans I've encountered (on this Forum and elsewhere) are, significantly, five or more years younger than me.

It's true that, by 1965 or so, many of whom I consider to be the real pioneers - Chuck Berry, Elvis, Don & Phil, Jerry Lee et al - had been shunted off to the sidelines, yet the 'ground-breaking' British acts of the day would have been clueless (and probably non-existent) without them.

Those guys were MY pioneers but what about someone ten years older than me? What's his perspective?

I do think that mid-fifties rock'n'roll was the real watershed and introduced what was essentiallty guitar-driven music. If I'm right then the Beatles were a significant chapter in that story, but surely not the genesis of pop as we know it?

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 26 Jan 2014 11:34 am

Roger, I agree that the music we grew up with as teenagers becomes our frame of reference, our foundation. My teen years were 1963 through 1969 (age 13 to 19) which happens to span Beatlemania perfectly!

I always smile when a person in his late 30's tells me that "Seattle grunge rock was the basis, the foundation upon which all rock music is built"! That's where it started for him in his teen years. One guy recently told me about "the good old days" of rock and roll... the early 1990s!

Having said that, I do think the Beatles stand apart, as much for their cultural influence as their musical influence. They will probably be talked about and listened to for generations to come. Just my opinion.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 26 Jan 2014 12:20 pm

Clearly we're in agreement in principle, Doug. And doubtless the Beatles affected so much more than just the pop music of their day - 'culturally', if you like.

But I'm mystified why the same credit isn't automatically accorded to Elvis Presley. He, too, altered so much more than just music - true, his personna probably owed much to his screen idols like Brando, Dean and Curtis, but his outlandish dress-sense (the pink slacks, sideburns, and all the rest) were universally copied in the late-'50s. It may have struck some people as vulgar and tasteless (my mum and dad, to name just two!) but the disapproval of the older generation is usually a mark in the favour of any trendsetter!

Sorry - I think the world of music changed for ever in 1956.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 26 Jan 2014 1:50 pm

Barry, St. Hiram DIED from years of drink and drugs ten years before the Beatles hit the charts.

True, Lane, but one individual does not a pandemic make..

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 26 Jan 2014 2:11 pm

Elvis didn't write any music. That's the big difference, Roger. His only talent was as a performer. He wasn't even a very good musician.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 26 Jan 2014 2:25 pm

Not a good musician? That's rather subjective, I'd say. Not much of a guitar-player, perhaps, but I assume you're also dismissing his talent as a singer.

I rather doubt that the Beatles would have agreed with your assessment. Elvis was not my favourite rock'n'roll artist (Don & Phil occupy that spot with me) but I believe that his effect was profound.

(I bet you're not quite seventy-one yet!

)

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 26 Jan 2014 3:01 pm

None other than Scotty Moore say's Elvis was damn good on rythm guitar.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 26 Jan 2014 3:02 pm

I don't consider singing by itself to be musicianship. Much of it is based in the sound quality of God-given physical attributes. Many singers don't even know what key they're singing in. They can't tell a I chord from a V chord.

You can produce wonderful sounds from a beautiful instrument, and still be a lousy musician. I've never seen any evidence that Elvis knew much at all about music. Other people took care of that for him. He was all about the performance.

The Everlys, on the other hand...

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 26 Jan 2014 3:10 pm

I've had another look at your avatar and I KNOW you're not seventy-one!

Come on, b0b - there were also other people contributing to the Beatles' creative process. I just can't quite subscribe to what seems to me to be the deification of those guys here in the US.

Still, it wouldn't do for us all to like the same things, would it?

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 26 Jan 2014 3:23 pm

I don't consider singing by itself to be musicianship.

I don't know, b0b... I used to think that singers who do not play an instrument are not musicians. Like Frank Sinatra. But now I'm not so sure about that. The voice is probably the most expressive musical instrument of all. I wonder if Yoko Ono struggled with this...

As far as Elvis, I think he was more image than musicianship. To be honest, I never really liked his singing or his image. The Beatles were also about image, but just as much about the music... they wrote, sang, and played the instruments. They cut a new mold as a self-contained Band... the band members writing the songs, singing, and playing. Elvis and Sinatra just sang. Other people wrote their songs and played the instruments. IMO they are not in the same league as the Beatles. They were very popular singers at the top of their genre, but they did not change the world like the Beatles did. Just my opinion. YMMV

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 26 Jan 2014 3:26 pm

Roger, I'm under the impression that "Beatlemania" began in Britain, and perhaps the Continent, before it caught on here. We read that there was this feverish phenomenon going on across the ocean and scratched our heads--"What? Who?"

There's a question of context. The contemporary pop music scene in the U.S. at the time was stagnant. Over here the quality music that captivated your British contemporaries was past. While young Brits may have been keeping that stuff alive, nothing like Elvis or the Everlys or Buddy Holly was on pop radio in 1964. The Beatles were the breath of fresh air that was needed.

Anyway, where the Beatles stand apart in the history of popular music, it seems to me, is in the amount of evolution their own music went through.

Elvis's earliest recordings on Sun Records brought together elements in a new way, culturally at least, and music and the culture changed in the wake of that. But I think it's fair to say that Elvis didn't significantly "advance the ball" thereafter, in terms of innovation. And while he was the most visible face of the Rock 'n' Roll revolution in music, he was hardly individually responsible for it. And his contribution didn't include songwriting.

While the Beatles were part of a wave of British bands doing pop music reflecting their influences from American artists at the outset of their career, their extraordinary songwriting ability let them quickly progress to something quite distinct from either their American sources or their "British Invasion" contemporaries.

Already in the beginning they had a huge impact on music and culture. But that impact grew and changed as they evolved. So they changed pop music and general culture more than once; not just by what they were and did when they burst upon the public's consciousness, as Elvis had, but again, and perhaps more so, by what they were and did thereafter. Which other band that emerged at the same time they did went through as much evolution: from I Saw Her Standing There to Strawberry Fields Forever, All You Need Is Love, Eleanor Rigby, A Day In the Life?

Questions to wonder about: Where would pop music have gone from 1964 till the present had there been no Beatles? Had it not been for the Beatles and their enormous influence on other musicians and the culture as a whole, would pop music have, to anything like the same degree, become regarded as a "serious art" form?

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 26 Jan 2014 3:40 pm

Well said, Brint. I'm reminded of my college daze, back around 1971. One day I was thinking about how we all looked, and talked, and the music we listened to, and the clothes we wore, and the hair styles, etc... and I remember thinking... the Beatles started all this! We owe all of this to them. Yes, they did evolve musically and culturally throughout the 60s, and we all changed with them. It's hard to explain to someone who wasn't around then, but for those of us who remember the years just Before the Beatles and the years After the Beatles the change was dramatic. It goes way beyond the music.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 26 Jan 2014 4:36 pm

I'd like to recommend Howard Goodall's analysis of The Beatles' music, for those who are not familiar with the full breadth of their compositions.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2864081657816F30

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 26 Jan 2014 4:47 pm

Well, I get all that - I really do - but for those of us who experienced the first wave of rock and roll in the mid-fifties that huge change was just as profound for us. And, by the way, our clothes and hairstyles were triggered by what we saw in Elvis Presley.

That's why, I suppose, that I don't see the Beatles as any more than a very significant 'chapter' in the story of popular music.

Elvis, I believe, was the first to create a real firestorm of hysteria since Sinatra in the '40s. He didn't exactly invent rock and roll but it was he who persevered with his notion of mixing genres. A happy accident, maybe? Perhaps, but it's interesting to read what Chet Atkins had to say about Presley's total command and sense-of-direction in the studio even as a 21-year old.

He was far from my favourite, as I've said. I liked his voice very much on his earlier Sun sides but he never rivalled Jackie Wilson or Little Richard as a singer.

As I also said earlier - our age alters these perceptions enormously. When the Beatles first appeared I was twenty years old and already out on the road and gigging for my livelihood. We crossed paths with them very often and I only thought they were singularly unimpressive as players (I know that's not the point, but these were my impressions and my reaction to them).

One of the saddest days of my life was when I realised in 1965 or so that even Don & Phil Everly - my erstwhile heroes - seemed to be trying to ape the Beatles' rather unpolished sound (see 'The Price Of Love')!

By the way, I absolutely concur that Presley stopped developing very early on and sat on his laurels.

Believe me, I'm not being contentious for the sake of it - I'm trying to get across how I felt at the time. I suppose our relative viewpoints aren't likely to change (my nostalgia's better than yours -

) but this has been a well-conducted discussion so far.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 26 Jan 2014 5:18 pm

I've been working on Beatles songs these past few years, and I'm constantly amazed at how different they are. Not just different from the hundreds of country and rock tunes I know, but different from each other. There may have been a Beatles "sound", but there is no such thing as a typical Beatles chord progression. Once they got past their early "rock and roll" phase, every song was a new experience.

Paul's bass parts in particular impress the crap out of me.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 26 Jan 2014 6:34 pm

Bob Hoffnar wrote: Equating Eddie Arnold with the Beatles ? I can understand not liking the Beatles but to have such a willful ignorance of there cultural significance is astonishing.

Bob, I liked the Beatles just fine, I just don't idolize them and give them credit for stuff they didn't do. No doubt, the Beatles were HUGE, especially among white kids. Among black kids...not so much. In the '60s, I went to high school and college in inner-city areas that were predominately black, so the music I heard during those years was just as much Sam Cooke, James Brown, and Otis Redding as it was 'Stones and Beatles. I listened to, and liked, all kinds of music, but I wasn't mesmerized or addicted to any one group, or one kind of music.

Eddy Arnold's role in country music, like the 'Stones and Beatles in rock music, was also huge. Eddy (after he ditched the "Plowboy" monicker) was one of the progenitors of country schmaltz, otherwise known as "Countrypolitan". He was one of the first country singers in Nashville that didn't sing through his nose, or have that southern twang-thing going. His smooth voice was legendary, and he probably had 40 albums during a career that lasted as many years. I saw him in person, and still have the old records, albums, and song books (which I didn't get from the internet

)

As far as influence goes , I hear more Hank Sr. inluence in modern country than I hear Beatles influence in modern rock. What you hear and I hear are different, but do you have to go on a personal attack because I don't think like you or agree with you?

I first heard of Manny when he died last year, and the news story talked about his contributions to music. Yes, I did have to look up the years of his show on the internet because I try to be accurate with dates. A lotta people today think music videos started with MTV, and that Bigsby or Gibson made the first pedal steel. Facts are facts, regardless of where you get them. No, I don't have Ella's "long song" record, but I do have Ray's and Dylan's (which I also didn't get from the internet

)

Bill Hatcher · Post by **Bill Hatcher** » 26 Jan 2014 7:15 pm

paul and ringo on the grammys tonight!

2 hour grammy tribute to the beatles next sun the same time they were on the ed sullivan show.

wonder if they will do an eddie arnold tribute?

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 27 Jan 2014 7:06 pm

here's an interesting quote from john:

from a VG mag article

'lennon once commented that the many fans, players, and songwriters who have obsessively studied the beatles' sound over the years miss the point entirely. it was the band's originality and seemingly endless creativity that insured its legacy.'

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 27 Jan 2014 9:40 pm

roger..i can imagine that having crossed paths with the beatles before their fame could give you an entirely different viewpoint. that would be quite fascinating in light of how things turned out.

Jack Hanson · Post by **Jack Hanson** » 28 Jan 2014 7:25 am

The Shaggs could never have happened if not for the Beatles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d71b7P3SxyM

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 28 Jan 2014 9:50 am

That's not quite how it happened, Chris - we'd heard of them when we first encountered them, and they'd had a couple of hits already. They had yet to really make a huge impression, though.

We were doing a sound-check at a dance-hall in Hull (The Majestic, I think) and two of them came in and asked what we were doing there. They'd been wrongly booked and had driven from Liverpool only to have to turn round and go home again. I asked who they were and they said "We're the Beatles" (it turned out it was John and Paul).

I remember saying something like: "Hey, well done, you guys!" They'd already had 'Love Me Do' and, that same week, 'Please, Please Me' had jumped into the charts. They knew who we were (Eden Kane's backing band, The Downbeats: EK had some very big hits between '61 and '64) and John said: "Ah!! You're guys with the f*****g great guitars!" (I had my Gibson Super 400 and Ben had an ES-5 Switchmaster when the rest of the world 'only' had Fenders).

John was angry, I recall, but Paul calmed him down by saying: "John, remember we'll get paid anyway now..." (this I assume was reference to their arrangement with Epstein) and they left for home.

It's amusing to note that there's a book ('The Beatles Chronicles') that still says that they played in Hull that night!!! I assure you they didn't.

After that we played on shows with them quite a few times but we didn't know them before their discovery. I think I still have a different perspective because we worked the same circuits under very similar conditions until, of course, they became mega-rich. (Ringo came to see us in the Liverpool Casino and I'll never forget him putting £200 bets down on the roulette table! - in 1964!!!)

Nice guys, mostly - George was a real gem and Paul a bit full of himself (nothing's changed!) - and it was nice to work with Harrison (with Eric Idle) many years later. They never knocked me out as players (I thought we were better) but it's fun now to look back on those days and reflect on how things ultimately turned out for all of us.

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 28 Jan 2014 3:08 pm

thanks roger. it's fun to hear that all from your perspective.
was albert anywhere in the mix yet at that point?

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 28 Jan 2014 4:20 pm

I first met Albert in August, 1964. Our bass player (with Eden Kane) was Bruce 'Bugs' Waddell and he'd been in Jackie Lynton's band with Albert.

In Summer '64 I had a black Jaguar MK 7 - in fact, Lennon got a ride in it one night when we were at the same party somewhere in the West End; three of us (John, me and singer-songwriter Peter Sarstedt) went on from the party to a night club in Chelsea (what gay lives we led, eh?

). John was very taken with my Jaguar and spent the journey bellowing out of the sun-roof (he didn't drive himself, I believe) that he was '...the King of London'!!!. I was actually flagged down by a policeman who was about to throw the book at me when he recognised a Beatle. I think his jaw dropped, and I kept my clean license!

(Peter Sarstedt - Eden Kane's brother - wrote and recorded a song about that night called 'The Mulberry Dawn' several years later; there's a reference to John, and 'Roger's old Jag...')

Anyway, after a particularly arduous month of gigs that August I fell asleep at the wheel and wrote that MK 7 off. Bugs, a car enthusiast himself, came to view the wreckage and brought Albert with him. Albert and I met several times after that, and he eventually persuaded me to part with that '58 Gibson Super 400.

Very soon after this ('65?) Albert joined Chris Farlowe's Thunderbirds and became a much more high-profile player as a result of Chris' big hit, 'Out Of Time'.

So, yes: Albert was very much a part of the scene back then and was easily the most accomplished player of the day.

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 28 Jan 2014 6:11 pm

that's some great stuff!

Joachim Kettner · Post by **Joachim Kettner** » 29 Jan 2014 2:23 am

A little trivia: that's Chas Hodges bass player of Heads, Hands and Feet on bass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnfl3gNRoK8