Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll

>>04-02-09: Eee3
All the guys you named including the Beatles and especially the Beatles will tell you that they worshipped the ground Little Richard, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Sam Cooke... walked on.<<

Nobody's denying that as most artists have mentors. However, there is more to rock and roll than Tutti Frutti, Sweet Little Sixteen, and It's a Man's World.

In that regard the Beatles took rock music to levels far beyond their predecessors and actually beat the masters at their own game. Often the originals are NOT the best; such is the case here.

You should take your own advice and research the genre before spouting all that drivel.

Nuff said.

Eee3 "Also, just to let you know Chuck Berry at the age of 80+ when he performs in London still sells the place out and Tina Turner as well. In fact anywhere they perform in Europe
they sell the place out!!"

If the four Beatles were still with us and put together a reunion tour, would there be any empty seats?

No matter how you feel about them, The Beatles have become the yardstick that others are measured by. IMHO, they were and still are head and shoulders above everyone that preceded and succeeded them. Their influence transcended far beyond the music alone. Keep in mind, the Beatles stopped touring after about 3 years, which probably would have been suicide for most artists.

"The Beatles have become the yardstick that others are measured by. IMHO, "

No doubt.

Over the years, as I listen to all kinds of new, old and different music, and then re-visit those Beatles songs that still resonate all these years after the fact, I realize just how true this statement is.

In Western Societies at least, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Ellington, Beatles.....these are the cream of the crop as determined by quantity and quality of output plus popular longevity compared to their peers.

The Beatles vs Chuck Berry?

It's a variation on my comment to Brauser on classical music vs rock music. These are apples and oranges. Or, in this case, maybe apples and pears.

As noted by Ee3, The Beatles themselves often contended that the highest point of Rock n Roll came from Chuck Berry. Berry's achievement was minimalist, primativist art. When The Beatles added their craftsmanship, mastery of melody and harmony, and expanded the structure and vocabulary (remember the sitar?) of Berry's music, they created something different; more varied, more nuanced, and much more universally admired. OTOH, it's also fair to observe that, for the purist, they merely diluted the original.

Some prefer The Stones precisely because they never strayed as far from the "pure" RnR ethos as did The Beatles. When they expanded their vocabulary, they tended to look more towards Country and Funk - other tributaries in the minimalist musical stream. I always figured that this was the basis of The Stones vs. The Beatles debate through the last 40 years or so. At heart, it's the same argument.

It's also worth mentioning that Berry, Little Richard, et al. had their own antecedants. Louis Jordan and Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown were working the blues side before Berry and there was a rockin' Gospel movement prior to Little Richard. So maybe some of the credit should stretch back further in time.

You might also want to consider Brian Wilson's (acknowledged) contribution to the evolution of rock music. He, too, brought the same innovative approach to structure, harmony and vocabulary (remember the theremin?) that The Beatles provided. Even though his body of work can't IMHO touch that of The Beatles, he should get credit for much of the musical innovation that forms the basis for a lot of Beatle worship.

In short, the evolution of rock music had a number of touchstone artists. Berry, Little Richard, Brian Wilson and The Beatles (and surely some others) all qualify. I just think people tend to rank them according to their own priorities, rather than on the priorities of the respective musicians who created the music. The Beatles had a firm grasp of that principle when they lavished praise on Berry, et al.

Marty