I have studied your album rankings and am a little surprised at how some of the rankings are arrived at. if you simply took the position in the top 3000 that the album appeared at and then deducted that from 3000 you would get the number of points for each album. On this basis how can Steely Dan only be rated as the 42 best artist of all time when, for example, their combined points total is 16013 ( not including an extra 2674 that could be added for The Nightfly ) and, for example, The Smiths be ranked at 28 when their albums total points is only 12983 ? Also, for example Beck is ranked 35 on the albums list when his points total is nowhere near that of Steely Dan ? Even the likes of Stevie Wonder has an albums points total of only 14347 and he is ranked in the 20s. Surely it must go on album points and not singles also, which are merely tracks from an album ? Come on, fair play for the Dan.

Artist rankings are based on the top 6 albums and songs, not all albums and/or songs.

why is it always steely dan... i swear it must be the same guy changing his name for every post...

How does the rankings work around here? Me personally I don't know that much about Steely Dan.

Chelsea, just go to the Q&A section of the site and you'll know how ratings work

Neoptolimos. On that basis Steely Dan still have more points than Stevie Wonder, who is ranked 19th !! Surely all rated albums points should be counted, not the top 6. However, now that I know that i can justifiably argue with my friends that Steely dan are actually more highly ranked than Stevie Wonder and they are not actually ranked 42nd of all time, but actually are in the top 20 !!

Steely Dan: (431 + 396 + 277 + 747 + 271) + (1289 + 438 + 2791 + 940 + 2814 + 3000 (for convenience)): 2122 + 11272: 13394
Stevie Wonder: (1039 + 109 + 42 + 852 + 41 + 2364) + (425 + 38 + 638 + 313 + 747 + 1422): 4447 + 3583: 8030

Stevie Wonder has way less points, and that's assuming Doctor Wu is placed 3000th, it could be closer to 4000th.

That said, I do not know why Steely Dan is below Stevie in the album rankings, as they have less points than him there. Perhaps top 50 albums are worth points.

Whoops, forgot 1 for Steely Dan. The difference is even bigger.

Steely Dan: (431 + 396 + 277 + 747 + 1282 + 271) + (1289 + 438 + 2791 + 940 + 2814 + 3000 (for convenience)): 3404 + 11272: 14676
Stevie Wonder: (1039 + 109 + 42 + 852 + 41 + 2364) + (425 + 38 + 638 + 313 + 747 + 1422): 4447 + 3583: 8030

1. Only the 6 most acclaimed albums and songs count as to make short-lived but highly acclaimed artists like Jimi Hendrix have a chance to be high in the ranking.

2. Both albums and songs are taken into account for the artist ranking. To me this is quite obvious, but anyway, here are some reasons:
a) Some songs were released as singles only.
b) Some people value songs higher than albums.
c) Artists from the pre-albums era, e.g. Hank Williams, wouldn't be in the artist ranking at all if I didn't count songs.

3. The scoring is based on a logarithmic scale. For example, an artist with albums ranked #1 and #100 gets a much higher score than an artist with albums ranked #50 and #51. This reflects the total number of critics list appearances for each artist much better than if you just summed up the AM positions.

I forgot to mention that albums positions are weighted twice as high as songs for the artist ranking, since album lists are about twice as common as song lists.

I knew the method of calculation was more complicated, I was just trying to make my point with those calculations.
Anyway, nice to know a little more about how the site gets its rankings.

The reason The Smiths are higher than Steely Dan is because they are better. Duh!

Mitchell. in your ill informed opinion. Duh !! 'your the one for me fatty !! ' Do me a favour, no thanks !!Give me the Dan anyday.

You and Peter Evans would get along nicely. However, you're not supporting your comments either, so you kinda come off ill-informed as well. Remember, liking music is about opinions, not facts.

Neo. i agree with you, but I did not start it did I ? I believe in never let anyone get away with criticising anyone else. especially when they simply do not know what their talking about !! but i agree it is all a matter of personal taste, you've either got it or you haven't !!

Don't worry Tristan there are some acts who get acclaim and I never understood why. Like a certain two chord drone band, who made dissonant music who came out in 1967 and who was not the first band to experiment in that style.

I thought that the massive smiley at the end might have been an indication that I was being flippant. Speaking of ill-informed that's not a Smiths' song.

To digress from the thread... Chelsea, I'd have to suggest VU was not only about their "original" idea but how they integrated it with more pop-oriented techniques. Like the Beatles, greatness lies in balance more than extremes.

Regardless, I'm interested in other "bands" (and I think that's important) that you say preceded VU in their same style, out of more a personal desire to hear more stuff like that than to challenge your claim.

Collin, I give you credit for knowing it was the Velvet Underground. Their overrated and I don't consider them to be very musical. It's funny you mentioned the Beatles. I was not talking about them. Since you bought them up. I would say if you want to listen to free form dissonant music that sounds good. Give me the one chord drone of Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields Forever. Or the pop-rock dissonace of I Want You.

Not to diss the Velvet Undergroud. Zappa and the Beatles were already doing experimental rock.

I think VU might be a little on the overrated side but I'd still put them higher than Zappa. At least they were sincere, and Zappa wasn't THAT much earlier. Don't forget, Lou Reed's first single was 1959!

I don't think you get the cultural significance of the VU. It's less about their music and more about what they created. I personally think the music is great, but lyrically and culturally they were so much different than any other band that they ended up ushering in punk music. It did more than that, it was the blueprint for almost anything that was acclaimed in the 70's including Bowie.

I was into the Velvet Underground and thought the Beatles were a bit tame. Then when you hear Tomorrow Never Knows if any song should could be considered a blueprint to noise rock, techno, acid house and trance dance it was that song. Songs like Love You To and the proto noise rock It's All To Much and noise rock/proto metal of Helter Skelter. I started to get the point about the Beatles. Revolution # 9 helped was influence to sound/experimental/collage artists. My pet peeve with Velvet Undergroud is not them its the fans who need to put the down the Beatles without knowing the Beatles were already doing some of the same stuff as the Velvet Underground. With that said I still think the Velvet Undergound were a big influence on music.

The Velvet Underground contributed to music but not just because they were noisy. They were noisy and didn't think twice about it. Whenever the Beatles went cacophonous they would frame it in such a way that it was meant to appear like the Beatles were trying to be weird. When VU did it they were completely natural. They thought it was pop. It just seemed so much more authentic.

The only other band from the era that compares to the Velvet Underground in terms of innovation is Pink Floyd- Syd Barrett era. Both of those groups brought the music world to places they never even knew existed and opened up the ears and eyes of anyone who listened.

That is total nonsense. Have you heard the Beatles Love You To, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life, I Am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever, She Leaving Home, Helter Skelter, Norwegian Wood, and Happiness is A Warm Gun. Stockhausen the Beatles open a whole new word to his music. The Beatles open a whole world to Classical Indian Music. Name one song by the Velvet Underground as innovative as Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields Forever. As for Floyd I love them but Syd Barrett was inspired when he heard Tomorrow Never Knows and wanted to do something like that. Can became a Krautrock band because of I am the Walrus. Name one recording technique that the Velvet Undergroun pioneered.

John, have you heard of the British Invasion basically most of the greatest bands like The Kinks, The Who, the Stones, the Yardbirds etc, came right after the heels of the Beatles success. The 1970's was so much more Beatles influenced than Velvet Underground. Power Pop, Progressive Rock, Heavy Metal, Pop Rock and Soft Rock dominated the 70's all those genres the Beatles played a big part. The Velvet Underground had nothing to with those genres.

Songs Written by the Beatles that Predicts and/or Predates the Formation of Various Musical Genres’ I am not saying they invent these genres but they were pioneers or big influences.

Love Me Do, Day Tripper(Power Pop)
This one is fairly easy, but the precise use of harmony, chiming guitars and a soaring, easy to understand chorus about love is basically the blueprint of every power-pop band to ever exist, from the Raspberries and Big Star to Sloan and Superdrag. This song might not be the first to combine all these factors, but it was the first time anybody did it better than anybody else.

I’m a Loser, I'm Only Sleeping (Slack/Indie Rock/Emo)
Before Beck, Radiohead and Sunny Day Real Estate came along and snivelled about their own self loathing, the Beatles showed that you could be self-deprecating way back in the early ’60s.

Tomorrow Never Knows (Techno/Electronica/Kraut Rock)
Combining swirling psychedelia with a repetitive melody and wicked sound effects, “Tomorrow Never Knows” could possibly be the first and only Beatles song that could put you in a trance and make you shake that thang simultaneously. The Chemical Brothers didn’t sample and loop the drum track and bassline from this song for nothing.

A Day in the Life Strawberry Fields Forever (Prog Rock)
Yes, King Crimson, and even later, the Mars Volta, wouldn’t exist without the Beatles taking the dive into complicated compisiton first.

Helter Skelter( Heavy Metal/ Noise Rock
This proto metal song with its screaming vocals and loud distorted guitar without heavy blues is one of the first of it's kind.

I Don't Want To Spoil the Party ( Country Rock )
When asked Gram Parsons if he started country rock he said the Beatles were purposely doing it in in 1964 and he cited this song.

Geez, I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't a great band. I love the Beatles. Probably my favorite band ever. But while their music might have been influential it was hardly innovative. All of their songs perfected styles that already had been done.

Now, the same can be said about the Underground and Pink Floyd. But, like I said before I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the lyrical and cultural content that was never seen before. I'm not arguing that the VU were a better band than the Beatles. I kind of wish I hadn't thrown Syd Barrett into the conversation because it kind of detracts from my point that the VU were way ahead of their time while the Beatles were only perfecting their era's music. Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a totally different story in the fact that there was absolutely nothing that came out in that era that sounded remotely close to that.

Aren't we forgetting that The Beatles also singlehandedly created death metal, skronk, drill 'n' bass, trance, Bulgarian folk music and the Spice Girls.
Seriously, I have always loved The Beatles, but their influence had it's limits. I mean, 'Helter Skelter' was a brazen attempt to get a piece of the post-Hendrix/Cream action-that song pushed the envelope about as much as 'The Frog Chorus'.

Yeah, the Beatles were the perfect pop band, and what is pop ? I think that it is the art of recycling, like Warhol's pop art, but there is nothing pejorative to that. it is making beautiful songs out of styles that preexisted.
The Beatles played mersey and rock'n roll inthe early 60's, psychedelic music in the mid 60's and went back to the roots of rock in the end of the 60's, because it was the fashion of the moment.
Bowie did the same. But there's nothing wrong with that.
It is a strange retro effect that make young people think that the Beatles invented everything just because they are the most acclaimed. They just were geniuses because they knew how to capture everuthing from their era and make very good songs out of it, just at the right moment.
Just like any other great artist
Who invented this or that is nonsense when you look closely at the history of pop music.
What matters are the legacy, the bands works. And for the importance of their work, the Beatles are (in my opinion) the best band of the 60's and of rock history, and certainly the most acclaimed.

To those who persist in denying that the Beatles invented every form of music...

http://and-still-i-persist.com/2007/12/18/what-if-the-beatles-had-done-stairway-to-heaven/

Excellent !
I was fooled for the first 30 seconds

They even got the hair down. That has to be the best version of StH I've ever heard.. I have to admit it, Beatnix, eh.. Beatles, started everything!

Don't forget that the Velvet Underground's debut was actually recorded in April '66, months before Revolver even came out and months before Zappa's Freak Out! debut.

I don't know about overrated, but the Velvets certainly are FAWNED upon uncritically sometimes, I think. People put a lot of stock in the fact that they dressed in black and wore sunglasses.

With that said, I heartily scoff at the poster above who called them a derivative noise band, and when pressed to explain himself listed THE BEATLES and ZAPPA as having done the same thing before. You need to do a LOT better than that.

Yeah, I really hear a lot of Rubber Soul and Hard Days Night in "Venus in Furs" and the "Black Angel Death Song". If anything, we can blame some of Lou Reed's poorer poetics on a Dylan imitation--but that's it, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, the Velvets and the Beatles are my two favorite bands, though not in that order...

P.S. I don't think it's right only to include the top 6 albums for each artist. Maybe the top 6 should be weighted a lot more, but why not give artists some credit for putting out more work? I guess admittedly this is done so that Hendrix can be hoisted up higher??? That's horrible reasoning; artists that have a limited discography should be at a natural disadvantage!

That would screw up critical faves like Hendrix, the Doors and Nirvana in favour of lukewarm groups like Steely Dan.

Counting more than the top six would be saying that artists should be rewarded for shoving out endless self-imitations that still get just enough critical praise to breach the top 3000. (Not naming any names, Neil Young.)

And that artists should be penalized for dying and/or knowing when to quit.

Agreed. You have to judge artists on their best work and let the chips fall where they may or else we're just acclaiming quantity. There are rare cases where an artist continues to put out pretty good music but they are few and far between and yeah those artists might get the short stick but it would hurt the overall list more than help it. Especially when you consider certain publications who can never let go of the past.

No. It should be based somewhat on quantity. The Sex Pistols should not be ranked that highly on the strength of one album

If all the albums of an artist were taken into the rankings, some old american artists like Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young that both release almost one album by year and that both receive acclaim whatever the shit they make would be number one and number two in the AM overall top artists.

Yeah but those albums they put out that get on the list aren't bad albums - they're still above average albums and deserve to be on it...And if Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen were #1 and #2 - there'd be no complaints from me - what an achievement to release a string of acclaimed albums for 30 years as opposed to some flash in the pan act...

Dumbangel, watch what you say, the Boss and Neil Young are my 2 favorite (and living) artists !
(although I agree the new Springsteen is not that good)
Grrrrrr

To prevent bands like the Sex Pistols from reaching a very high spot, it's no less than 6 albums and 6 songs into account. And to prevent for example Hendrix being too low because he didn't have as much output, it's no more than 6. Makes sense to me.

Btw Nicolas, what's not to like about the new Springsteen album? It's in my top 100, I think it's the best album he made since 84.

Well i only heard it a couple of times but I think it's only half good
i'll listen to it another time and I'll tell you
I think both the production and the songwriting are not that good;
I don't know if it is his best since 1984, but his most ambitious

It certainly isn't perfect, but there's so many great songs on the album, and I think the E Street Band is really playing great. It all sounds a little too polished maybe, but I definitely like it.

I don't dislike Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen. I would even say that Neil Young is an artist I like very much.
But I notice (for the most part in the american lists) that every album they release are always acclaimed even if these albums are not that great. I'm not sure that "magic" deserve a top 20 in 2007. That's just my point of vue. I just feel that some american artists (you can add Bob Dylan to this) every time they release a new album it's necesseraly a masterpiece for the critics. I'm not OK with that, I think they're overated.
I think that the artist rankings in AM maybe should take more than the 6 best albums (despite I'm not very fond of Steely Dan, I think they probably deserve more acclaim than the Sex Pistols). The best consensus would be to take in consideration all the albums of an artist but by giving them a logarythmic weight : many weight for the 5 best and less and less for the others.

Henrik,
Im interested in how do you work out 2007 ranking? Is it pure sum of all EOY lists rankings? I suppose not because Radiohead would be number 2 ATM and I think thats right, there should be some bias towards higher placings in EOY lists, for example to be twice number 1 and once out of top 50 should be acclaimed more than three 10th places. But what are the rules in your system? I hope you understand my question.

Not sure how the EOY lists are assessed, but Metacritic scores (88/100 for IR) and reviews from people like Piero Scaruffi (5/10) are also taken into account.

Never really a Radiohead lover, Scaruffi's IR review is expectedly quite negative, but I think he has a point.

I think only EOY lists count. Im keen on Henriks answer.
That guy Piero is hilarious, he hates RH, he cant be taken seriously on RH topic

Depends on your point of view. With Radiohead I think there's 2 groups (as often is the case with music). The one group who find them revolutionary, The Beatles of today, etc. to who you and quite a few other posters on these forums belong. And there's another group, in which I place myself and Scaruffi who think they're the most overhyped and pretentious band since.. probably ever. Honestly I think his assessment of IR is spot-on, from the mention of their EMI promotion benefit to 99% of the critics not seeing IR is actually quite bad.

Your description makes sense if we would talked about kid A for example.
But what is pretentious about IR I REALLY dont know.
Anyway Pieros reasoning is utterly strange as if it was RHs blame that they are so acclaimed. Back to topic I think

How are the EOY lists assessed? Well, I should probably start with saying that the 2007 albums are assessed three times this year.

1. Initial ratings.
If you open the Excel sheet, the scoring is described in the 'Info' sheet.

2. Preliminary ranking based on EOY lists only.
This is where we are right now. The scores are "hidden" in columns H-K. I use the logarithms of the positions in the critics lists. For albums outside a critics lists, the number of albums in the critics list + 30 is imputed. All lists are weighted equally.

3. Inclusion in the AM all-time ranking.
The all-time ranking is based on a "meeting" system, where all albums are compared in pairs. The ranking is based on the number of won meetings. (This is slightly more complicated but I won't go into that.) Here, lists are weighted differently depending on the number of other lists from the same country, time between album release and critics list release, etc. Both EOY lists, the metascore and all-time lists (if any) will be taken into account.

Thanks Henrik for explanation

Henrik,
Will you make a "partial update" where the 2007 albums are ranked among the 3000 albums the way you have the last couple of years? it's always interesting to get a hint whether this year is thought to be a good year or not.

No, I'm doing the spreadsheet instead. And since the last years are compiled mainly from the EOY lists, I'm pretty sure that the distribution will look more or less the same for 2007 as for 2006, with around 15 albums in the top 1000, 35-40 albums in the top 2000 and 55 albums in the top 3000.

Jonmarck. Oh dear oh dear. Steely Dan a lukewarm group compared to The Doors ??!! i guess you must have been drinking too much. Steely Dan are widely regarded as one of if not the best bands of all time. Only one of Jim Morrison and Donald Fagen is rghtfully regarded as a songwriting genius and it aint Jim Morrison my friend ! i dont recall Morrison releasing an album as good as The Nightfly !

Jim Morrison is a genius with a reported IQ of 143

I don't recall anyone caring about the Nightfly. If I mentioned it to anyone under the age of 40 I'd have to explain that it was done by half of Steely Dan. Then I'd have to explain who Steely Dan was. Then I'd have to explain why people ever thought jazz-rock was a good idea.

jon. Becker and fagen are rightfully regarded by critics and musicians as amongst the all time great rock and pop songwriting teams. That is absolute fact. I like the Doors but each person has their own tastes. what is undeniable is the reputation Steely Dan have, whether you like them or not.

The Beatles recorded Tomorrow Never Knows which is heavily influenced by avant music with rock was recorded before the Velvet Underground Venus In Furs by a month. Strawberry Fields Forever with its psychedelic mellotron parts and orchestration,came out before the Velvet Underground debut album. Not all of the Velvet Underground debut album was recorded in April 1966. I am not the BIGGEST Beatles fan but they were ahead of their time and some people need to know the facts. John Cale has went on record on Mojo Magazine saying when the Beatles came out with Norwegian Wood he thought it was a major step in experimental music in rock.

Hardly anything the Beatles did was revolutionary, it had all been done before and been proven to work before. They simply were, as Scaruffi puts it quite accurate, "the champions of the reaction", doing whatever was proven great at the time. They started their melodic songs after The Beach Boys had done so, they moved from their 3-minute melodies to the longer avant-garde after Zappa, VU, etc, they did Sgt. Peppers after Pet Sounds. Their whole career can basically be summarized in "they did xx after xx".

Sure, their songs are fun to listen to, and I'll be the first to admit that they made some fun music and some pretty decent albums, but all that "they were so revolutionary" and "they most innovative and they're the most influential band ever" crap has to end. Seriously.

Then explain this POST ABOVE

Songs Written by the Beatles that Predicts and/or Predates the Formation of Various Musical Genres’ I am not saying they invent these genres but they were pioneers or big influences.

Love Me Do, Day Tripper(Power Pop)
This one is fairly easy, but the precise use of harmony, chiming guitars and a soaring, easy to understand chorus about love is basically the blueprint of every power-pop band to ever exist, from the Raspberries and Big Star to Sloan and Superdrag. This song might not be the first to combine all these factors, but it was the first time anybody did it better than anybody else.

I’m a Loser, I'm Only Sleeping (Slack/Indie Rock/Emo)
Before Beck, Radiohead and Sunny Day Real Estate came along and snivelled about their own self loathing, the Beatles showed that you could be self-deprecating way back in the early ’60s.

Tomorrow Never Knows (Techno/Electronica/Kraut Rock)
Combining swirling psychedelia with a repetitive melody and wicked sound effects, “Tomorrow Never Knows” could possibly be the first and only Beatles song that could put you in a trance and make you shake that thang simultaneously. The Chemical Brothers didn’t sample and loop the drum track and bassline from this song for nothing.

A Day in the Life Strawberry Fields Forever (Prog Rock)
Yes, King Crimson, and even later, the Mars Volta, wouldn’t exist without the Beatles taking the dive into complicated compisiton first.

Helter Skelter( Heavy Metal/ Noise Rock
This proto metal song with its screaming vocals and loud distorted guitar without heavy blues is one of the first of it's kind.

I Don't Want To Spoil the Party ( Country Rock )
When asked Gram Parsons if he started country rock he said the Beatles were purposely doing it in in 1964 and he cited this song.

Piero Scaruffi is a clown.

1)He claims Love You To as vaguely Oriental when its classical Indian with rock the first example of it in rock music.
2) He claims the Beatles misrepresented the British Invasion when in truth the Beatles opened the doors to everyone from MerseyBeat to acts like the Rolling Stones and the Kinks
3) Pet Sounds was first influenced by Rubber Soul get your facts straight
4) The Beatles were already doing psychedelic rock on Revolver first not Sgt Pepper.
5) Pierro claims the Beatles lucked into folk rock but forgets to mention the Beatles roots are skiffle which is folk based
6) Pierro forgets to mention because of the Beatles use of folk with rock and the 12 string guitar the Byrds went electric.
7) He called Hey Jude a psychedelic blues jam which is a joke.
8) He forgets to mention the Beatles were already doing folk rock and country rock in 1964 before the Byrds.
9) The Beach Boys and the Beatles were totally different bands the Beatles were more a power-pop band where the Beach Boys were a surf rock band in 1962-63. Twist and Shout was the hardest song a British band did at that point
10) Pierro Scaruffi forgets the Beatles changed long form with Sgt Peppers
11)Foreget to mention Revolution extreme distortion sound has influenced many alternative rock groups like Nirvana and the Stone Temple Pilots
12) He claims that Buddy Holly invented the modern concept of the rock band, when in fact the Beatles did not have an obvious front man like most of the British counterparts.
13 The Yardbirds were not the first band to record a prominent song with a sitar the Beatles did though in Norwegian Wood.
14) He claims A Hard Days Night has feedback which it doesn't
15) He does not credit the Beatles I Feel Fine for paving the way for acts for using intentional feedback as recording effect
16) He does not credit the Beatles for avant uses of mellotron and the use psychedelic string or orchestration.
17) I agree with Pierro Scaruffi Nowhere Man could be called timid psychedelia but that song was recorded before Eight Miles High. So is he claiming the Beatles invented psychedelic pop.
18) I agree the Beatles did not do long songs until really Strawberry Field Forever which is recorded in 1966 so they really not that late.
19) The Beatles were using dissonace,drone,avant and classical Indian Influenc on Revolver recorded before the Velvet Underground.
20 Ticket To Ride predates the Kinks See My Friends by two months with the use faux Indian drone. Another blunder by Scaruffi.

I teach music and I find Pierro Scarruffi remarks downright amusing and factless

Love Me Do, Day Tripper(Power Pop)
This one is fairly easy, but the precise use of harmony, chiming guitars and a soaring, easy to understand chorus about love is basically the blueprint of every power-pop band to ever exist, from the Raspberries and Big Star to Sloan and Superdrag. This song might not be the first to combine all these factors, but it was the first time anybody did it better than anybody else.

The definition of a Beatles song, 3 minutes of melody revolving around the refrain (2 minutes in this case, oh well). Nothing new here, fun song but you said it yourself: "the first time anybody did it better than anybody else", whether or not they were better than anybody else is a whole different argument but they certainly weren't the first to do it.

I’m a Loser, I'm Only Sleeping (Slack/Indie Rock/Emo)
Before Beck, Radiohead and Sunny Day Real Estate came along and snivelled about their own self loathing, the Beatles showed that you could be self-deprecating way back in the early ’60s.

Why are you comparing this song to groups in the 90s? Of course they did it before groups in the 90s because they were born earlier. This one is influenced by the real most influential artist of the 60s, Bob Dylan. And I don't see how self loathing is anything but boring.

Tomorrow Never Knows (Techno/Electronica/Kraut Rock)
Combining swirling psychedelia with a repetitive melody and wicked sound effects, “Tomorrow Never Knows” could possibly be the first and only Beatles song that could put you in a trance and make you shake that thang simultaneously. The Chemical Brothers didn’t sample and loop the drum track and bassline from this song for nothing.

The first song where The Beatles tread somewhat off the beaten path. Still, however, they're hung up on their 3 minute melodies when Dylan had already released Blonde on Blonde.

A Day in the Life Strawberry Fields Forever (Prog Rock)
Yes, King Crimson, and even later, the Mars Volta, wouldn’t exist without the Beatles taking the dive into complicated compisiton first.

Again a genre that was already explored before, and the only reason the Beatles influenced King Crimson is because the critics and hippies alike were drooling all over the Beatles and thus forgetting all the other bands out there. Great songs, no doubt, but imagine what bands with more intrinsic value could have done with the 700 hours they spent in the studio perfecting the songs.

Helter Skelter( Heavy Metal/ Noise Rock )
This proto metal song with its screaming vocals and loud distorted guitar without heavy blues is one of the first of it's kind.

Influenced by another band with greater musical skills than The Beatles, The Who, McCartney figured he could do something louder than "I Can See For Miles". Well, congratulations on making a song that sounds like crap. (Personal opinion, sorry, couldn't help it)

I Don't Want To Spoil the Party ( Country Rock )
When asked Gram Parsons if he started country rock he said the Beatles were purposely doing it in in 1964 and he cited this song.

Rock my ass, this is just another pop song.

Notice that I'm not commenting on their music at all. Most of their songs are masterfully crafted by George Martin (the greatest Beatle), and undeniably good. But innovative? Nah. The Beach Boys, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Zappa, they all did most of the "innovative" stuff before the Beatles even though of them. Abbey Road is a perfect example; Zombies, Kinks, The Who, they had all done this stuff before but The Beatles perfected it with production values that surpassed anyone. But, again, it's not revolutionary.

And I'm not saying Scaruffi has all his facts straight. He seems to twist facts from time to time to better suit his history of rock. But he certainly has a point on quite a few things.

Rock my ass, this is just another pop song.

That was supposed to be "Country rock my ass" of course.

Then explain this POST ABOVE

Songs Written by the Beatles that Predicts and/or Predates the Formation of Various Musical Genres’ I am not saying they invent these genres but they were pioneers or big influences.

Love Me Do, Day Tripper(Power Pop)
This one is fairly easy, but the precise use of harmony, chiming guitars and a soaring, easy to understand chorus about love is basically the blueprint of every power-pop band to ever exist, from the Raspberries and Big Star to Sloan and Superdrag. This song might not be the first to combine all these factors, but it was the first time anybody did it better than anybody else.

Did you read the comment, it was the blueprint of power-pop. Day Tripper is certainly power-pop not the type the Beach Boys ever recorded

I’m a Loser, I'm Only Sleeping (Slack/Indie Rock/Emo)
Before Beck, Radiohead and Sunny Day Real Estate came along and snivelled about their own self loathing, the Beatles showed that you could be self-deprecating way back in the early ’60s.

First of all Dylan was still a folk artist when this song was recorded and Dylan went electric partly becuase of the Beatles. Have you not read his quote about the Beatles changing the direction of rock music.

Tomorrow Never Knows (Techno/Electronica/Kraut Rock)
Combining swirling psychedelia with a repetitive melody and wicked sound effects, “Tomorrow Never Knows” could possibly be the first and only Beatles song that could put you in a trance and make you shake that thang simultaneously. The Chemical Brothers didn’t sample and loop the drum track and bassline from this song for nothing.

You are hung up on time again, when this song was ahead of its time and predates techno by 25 years.

A Day in the Life Strawberry Fields Forever (Prog Rock)
Yes, King Crimson, and even later, the Mars Volta, wouldn’t exist without the Beatles taking the dive into complicated compisiton first.

The Beatles were already getting progressive on Rubber Soul and Revolver with songs like Tomorrow Never Knows and Love You To is considered proto-progressive rock. Bill Brufford and Robert Fripp consider the Beatles the band that kickstarted progressive rock. Songs like Tomorrow Never Knows Thela was influenced by the Beatles that King Crimson did. Not to mention Adrian Belew is a Beatles freak.

Helter Skelter( Heavy Metal/ Noise Rock
This proto metal song with its screaming vocals and loud distorted guitar without heavy blues is one of the first of it's kind.

The song might have been influenced by the Who, though many people including Ozzy Osbourne consider this song the first heavy metal song. The distortion sound on this record was a influence on many ALTERNATIVE ROCK BANDS OF 90'S.

I Don't Want To Spoil the Party ( Country Rock )
When asked Gram Parsons if he started country rock he said the Beatles were purposely doing it in in 1964 and he cited this song.

Sorry to tell you this song is country influenced your judgement is being clouded that Scaruffi has brainwashed you. I'v Just Seen A Face. What Goes On and even Doctor Robert is country influenced with psychedelic rock

Folk Rock - I would add this to this list because its obvious the Beatles influenced the Byrds to go electric.

They "kickstarted" or "influenced" or whatever wording you want to use because they were a commercial success and everyone immediately saw what they produced, not because they were the first. There's a difference between being influential because you're innovative and revolutionary (which they were not, most of the time) and being influential because the stuff you produce is a perfected version of the innovative and revolutionary work of other artists.

And honestly, listen to "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party". How the hell is that country rock?

Neopoltamus, Roesanne Cash covered I Don't Want to Spoil the Party and it went number one on the country charts. Steve Earle, Brian Seitzer, Dwight Yoakham and Wilco all said the Beatles were doing country rock in 1964. Even Carl Perkins when he first heard All My Loving noticed rockabilly in that song. When Strawberry Fields Forever came out Brian Wilson said the Beatles got their first and abandoned Smile. Sgt Pepper sounds nothing like Pet Sounds.

Sgt Peppers with all the songs connected to each other and many songs crossfaded into each other was nothing like what Dylan, the Beach Boys and the Velvet Underground were doing at the time. Abbey Road is a innovative approach in how to make an album. How many albums had double medleys of songs that were not related to each other in a narrative theme. The Who Tommy is a theme album. Really don't you get the difference. Abbey Road was a big influence on Yes and Genesis have you heard of Suppers Ready. The Beatles were doing this sort already on Sgt Pepper.

If I would have to list all the guitar sounds like guitar drones, backward guitar, accoustic guitar feedback on I Feel Fine and others it would add more to than the Velvet Underground. Power Pop, Folk Rock, Progressive Rock and are some of the things they did before it was popular.

Also while the Beatles dabbled in avant rock they recorded it on record before the Velvet Underground and were influential doing it while no one know who the Velvet Underground was. Pierro Scaruffi does not make any valid points except the Beatles were late on recording long songs. Wow crucify the Beatles for that.

Rock and roll (50s)
Beatles/British Invasion (1963-1966)
Psychedelia and hard rock part (1966-1968) Th
Art rock/Prog/hard rock part (1968-1975)
Punk/New Wave (1975-1982)
Rap and Indie/alternative (1982-present)

"jon. Becker and fagen are rightfully regarded by critics and musicians as amongst the all time great rock and pop songwriting teams. That is absolute fact. I like the Doors but each person has their own tastes. what is undeniable is the reputation Steely Dan have, whether you like them or not."

Think you better check your "absolute facts". This site would be a good resource for doing so.

And I hate the Doors. In fact I like Steely Dan much better. But I'm not stupid enough to claim that they are more universally loved.

17) I agree with Pierro Scaruffi Nowhere Man could be called timid psychedelia but that song was recorded before Eight Miles High. So is he claiming the Beatles invented psychedelic pop.

I guess Scaruffi saying the Beatles invented psychedelic pop.

Love You To as vaguely Oriental, this cat is not objective.

Hard Days Night does not have feedback does Scaruffi know what intentional feedback is?

I love also how on his bio on the Beatles how he calls Sgt Pepper late on the scence when Revolver already had true psychedelic rock, avant and classical Indian music. This was recorded before Pink Floyd, The Doors, The Byrds Younger Than Yesterday,and The Velvet Underground.

Does he know that the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday took the Beatles innovations of backward guitars and avant sounding Indian guitar parts.

Scaruffi is very hard on Radiohead and David Bowie also. He loves Faust but he was influenced by the Beatles. Holger Czukay after hearing I am The Walrus decided to form a rock band

"Beatles inspired the Byrds. They were the driving force that got me to incorporate folk and rock." --Roger McGuinn

Steve Earle-:The one that really blew my mind, I think, was Rubber Soul, and I end up using Revolver as a map for sounds more, and my favorite is Beatles For Sale. That's the hillbilly Beatles record

I never really loved the Beatles. Though I have to give credit for Tomorrow Never Knows. Noise Rock, Techno, Acid House and pyschedelic rock owe a lot to this song. I think the Velvet Underground must have like this song and It's All Too Much another song in the Noise Rock vein. Strawberry Fields is a good example of dissonant music that sounds good

Revolution # 9 might have inspired a lot of techniques in rap music and it was influence on experiemental,sound collage artists. I am not big fan of their artful pop but I have to give them credit. They were more groundbreaking musicially than The Stones or Dylan.

Finally, a decent discussion. That's what I set out to achieve. Let's have a look..

Neopoltamus, Roesanne Cash covered I Don't Want to Spoil the Party

You could at least try to spell my name right, and that's an argument worth nothing. Dolly Parton sang Stairway To Heaven and I don't hear you say the LZ version is country.


Steve Earle, Brian Seitzer, Dwight Yoakham and Wilco all said the Beatles were doing country rock in 1964. Even Carl Perkins when he first heard All My Loving noticed rockabilly in that song. When Strawberry Fields Forever came out Brian Wilson said the Beatles got their first and abandoned Smile. Sgt Pepper sounds nothing like Pet Sounds.

Apparently they all miss the point, The Beatles commercialized stuff, they didn't create it. Not in 64 anyway. I'll of course give them credit for "Strawberry Fields Forever" and the few other songs that were in fact innovative. Also, Pet Sounds was a MAJOR influence on Sgt. Peppers.

Also while the Beatles dabbled in avant rock they recorded it on record before the Velvet Underground and were influential doing it while no one know who the Velvet Underground was.

Again, you're confusing commercial success and innovation. The real innovators in experimental rock were Zappa, Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground. The Beatles recorded it around the same time, but they heard it from others first. Others who did not have a whole team of producers and promoters behind them.

"Beatles inspired the Byrds. They were the driving force that got me to incorporate folk and rock." --Roger McGuinn

They got him to incorporate folk and rock, they did not do it themselves. Not first anyway.

I never really loved the Beatles. Though I have to give credit for Tomorrow Never Knows. Noise Rock, Techno, Acid House and pyschedelic rock owe a lot to this song. I think the Velvet Underground must have like this song and It's All Too Much another song in the Noise Rock vein. Strawberry Fields is a good example of dissonant music that sounds good

Revolution # 9 might have inspired a lot of techniques in rap music and it was influence on experiemental,sound collage artists. I am not big fan of their artful pop but I have to give them credit. They were more groundbreaking musicially than The Stones or Dylan.

Of course you have to give The Beatles credits, what they did, they did very very well. And yes, they are probably the most influential band of all time. The thing I have a problem with however, is the continious statements that The Beatles invented genres. They did not, and they were not more groundbreaking than Dylan and in rock no more than the Stones either. They were not influential because of their innovation but because of the innovation of others they commercialized. Again, something they did superbly.

I don't know anyone can say the Beatles were inventive. They simply made certain genres more accesible mainly because of the fact that they were already popular. Also, because of the fact that they were musical genius that could make most any style their own. But they didn't invent jack.

Thank you John. I was beginning to think I was the only one here who wasn't brainwashed, as King Crimson so accurately put it, by the Beatle mania. I really wonder what the Beatles would be been like without George Martin.. a sort of improved Gerry and the Pacemakers?

As far as all the Scaruffi-bashing goes, I think the man is one of the few critics who really sees through things. It's unfortunate that he tries to make the Beatles come off as a sort of second-rate artists while they were pretty good. Other than that though, his assessment of Radiohead is pretty good I think, and he's never too far off on David Bowie either. I mean.. I like his music, but 4th of all time?

Interesting to hear that the Beatles influenced Holger Czukay to create Faust. I wonder why he never did it...

Is it necessary “The Beatles invented everything” against “The Beatles invented anything”? What about “The Beatles invented something” instead?

It's a matter of fact : The Beatles have created "something"

Is it necessary “The Beatles invented everything” against “The Beatles invented anything”? What about “The Beatles invented something” instead?

They invented pyschedelic techno or trance dance with Tomorrow Never Knows.

They pratically invented power pop with songs like Please Please Me or Any Time At All.

Energetic Folk Rock on A Hard Days Night which the Byrds based their sound on. Listen to the Beefeaters which became the Byrds its sounds like the Beatles.

Groups like ELO based their sound on Strawberry Fields Forever and I Am The Walrus.

Progressive Rock really started 1969 with King Crimson but the Beatles A Day in the Life 1967 is a progressive rock song so again they were ahead of their time.

Lets be honest the Beatles were the first really to mix Indian music with rock on Revolver

Norwegian Wood is raga folk which is another subgenre the Beatles invented.

To be honest all music borrows something from the past to invent something new. The Velvet Underground borrowed things already invented like drone and feedback. I don't think the Velvet Underground would have a chance if they were doing what the Beatles were doing.

The Stones were inspired by the Beatles to write their own songs,copied the Beatles with the use of sitar and stumbled on Santanic Majesties Request. The Stones copied the Beatles every move for two or three years. The Stones might have been inspired to write Satisfaction. After hearing riff orientated songs like I Feel Fine with its distorted feedback intro copied by the Kinks on I Need You there goes another innovation by the Beatles and Ticket To Ride.

Merry Christmas

They invented pyschedelic techno or trance dance with Tomorrow Never Knows.

You're the one practically inventing genres now to vaguely fit Beatles songs, that's just bollocks. Psychedelic techno? Get real.

They pratically invented power pop with songs like Please Please Me or Any Time At All.

Those songs are not power pop, they're just rock, and not innovative at that. Just decent rock everyone else made at that time, and before that as well.

Energetic Folk Rock on A Hard Days Night which the Byrds based their sound on. Listen to the Beefeaters which became the Byrds its sounds like the Beatles.

I proved folk rock wasn't invented by the Beatles so you're gonna add an adverb and try again? All these songs are the typical 2-3 minute Beatle songs with no innovation.

Groups like ELO based their sound on Strawberry Fields Forever and I Am The Walrus.

I've already given you this one, SFF was innovative, but they did not invent a genre here.

Progressive Rock really started 1969 with King Crimson but the Beatles A Day in the Life 1967 is a progressive rock song so again they were ahead of their time.

When The Beatles made "A Day In The Life" progressive rock was already well on its way with The Byrds, Yardbirds and 1-2-3. If you would have mentioned "Rain" you'd be closer, but "Eight Miles High" was created before that, so once again they were not first.

Lets be honest the Beatles were the first really to mix Indian music with rock on Revolver

Indian rock was done as early as the 1950s.

Norwegian Wood is raga folk which is another subgenre the Beatles invented.

Jeff Beck did this before the Beatles, they merely popularized it.

To be honest all music borrows something from the past to invent something new. The Velvet Underground borrowed things already invented like drone and feedback. I don't think the Velvet Underground would have a chance if they were doing what the Beatles were doing.

The Stones were inspired by the Beatles to write their own songs,copied the Beatles with the use of sitar and stumbled on Santanic Majesties Request. The Stones copied the Beatles every move for two or three years. The Stones might have been inspired to write Satisfaction. After hearing riff orientated songs like I Feel Fine with its distorted feedback intro copied by the Kinks on I Need You there goes another innovation by the Beatles and Ticket To Ride.

I never said they weren't influential, in fact I stated they were probably the most influential band ever. This was because of their popularization of innovation, not because of their own innovation.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you too.

Look, no one ever "invents" anything. It's all taken from something or another, whether it be nature, a previous artist or just plain, old human emotion. Sure, the Beatles didn't invent those styles, but just the fact that they were doing them at the time they were with the influence they had is remarkable enough. Popular music owes them a great debt.

Now go spend Christmas with your families!

I just came back from that for some quality discussions.

Hey Taylor/King Crimson/Skypilot
If you are so convinced of your "historical facts" why do you use 3 different pseudos ? Do you think it will make your propaganda more convincing?
Looks like you know some of rock history; Why don't you use your knowledge for something else than these childish posts about the Beatles being the God almighty of music ?
I love them they're my favorite band but I don't need to prove myself -and worse, the whole world, and this forum where people are not specifically pop/rock rookies- they have invented everything
As Jonmarck and I have posted before, who invented what is nonsense
Fed up with the same posts looks like kids wanting to know who's the greatest, who has the biggest, who pisses the farthest. Who cares ?

I am sorry but Eight Miles High is not progressive rock. If that counts that I would add Norwegian Wood with the use of sitar and use of mixed meter. There is no example of Raga Folk by the Yardbirds. If you are talking about Heart Full of Soul that is guitar in it imitating a sitar. Norwegian Wood is raga folk. There is no example of Love You To or Norwegian Wood in rock music.

'Love You To' is an experiment in traditional Indian music and uses authentic Indian instrumentation (another deviation away from traditional po/rock). The droning sound of this song sounds and dreamy and it is quite possible for the listener to feel elated purely by listening to this music. That song is more progressive that what the Yardbirds or Byrds where doing at the time.

Power Pop started in the early 70's and the Beatles and the Who are considered its pioneers. If you don't think Paperback Writer or Birthday is Power Pop you are in denial. I want to hear a song as hard as Twist and Shout in early 1963 go ahead.

Folk Rock was popularized by Byrds and the Beatles were the reason the Byrds went in the direction with folk rock because the Beatles were doing it already

If you don't think that Tomorrow Never Know was not new or the blueprint for many of the songs that are out now. Then go back to WORSHIPING Pierro Scaruffi

The Byrds are not even considered proto progressive rock. Eight Miles might have been the first true psychedelic songs. There were others that had traces before it like See My Friends. The Beatles on Rubber Soul had traces on songs like Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and The Word. Many people think that Rubber Soul was one of the first great rock albums. Is one of most innovatitve rock albums at the time of its release.
1.with its use of sitar, ,
2.trippy harmonium fills on te Word
3.faux harpsichord on In My Life,
4.drones based songs
5.European Sounding acoustic guitars on Michelle and Girl,
6.two basses one distorted acting as a lead guitar the other normal on Think For Yourself
7. The lyrics of universal love on THE Word
8. Songs not in 4/4 Norwegian Wood


None of these things were common in rock music. My problem with the Beatles bashers that can't admit to nothing. Being a pioneer is being one of the first to do something. When it came to rock music no one has proven me incorrect. Just subjective opinions on what a Beatles basher thinks of power pop or progressive rock is. Yes you could think Eight Miles High is proto progressive rock but not include some of the stuff on Rubber Soul. To me it's all biased opinions I mean maybe if you actually played the music or hear what was going around at the time then you would have a different opinion.

hey you forgot to change usernames

"I want to hear a song as hard as Twist and Shout in early 1963 go ahead."

Johnny Kidd & The Pirates - Shakin' All Over

My problem with the Beatles bashers that can't admit to nothing.

Seems like the other way around to me, which is why I give up. You win, the Beatles invented every genre.

Don't stop at musical genres. They also had an extraordinary impact on cuisine. Jamie Oliver has been known to indulge in the occasional "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and he's definitely down with "Here Comes the Sun". In fact many experts consider the last one to be an enormous influence on his egg dishes, particularly "sunny side up". And let's not forget the obvious correlation between "Twist and Shout" and his pasta dishes.

I never said the Beatles invented folk rock. The truth is The Byrds namely McGuinn heard the Beatles mixing folk with rock and the Byrds popularized folk rock. McGuinn has admitted this many times. Its no one here who can admit to this.

Scaruffi said Sgt Peppers were a bunch of 3 minute pop ditties when in fact two songs go over 5 minutes and really a third SGT Pepper/ With A Little Help From My Friend played as one goes over four minutes. People seem to forget that Revolver was released before albums by Floyd and the Doors when psychedelic rock was barely new. Yes, the Beatles played a big part in experimental rock and progressive rock. You know I am done with this topic. It seems no one can't admit to anything here than lets go bash the most covered songwriters and influential band of the last 40 years. Neoptolemus, Midaso and Nicolas I agree on some of the things you said but it's a one way street lets give the Beatles no credit even when other musicians say otherwise. Here are the songs that incorporates things LIKE cacophony and dissonance on Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields that Scaruffi claims the Beatles never did or THE Velvet Underground did first.

AVANT-GARDE

Experimental or Novel
Contains elements that are non-traditional to popular music, but may have shown up in other forms of music earlier. Traditional popular music indicates the use of Western guitar / bass / drums / piano / keyboards / horns / orchestral instrumentation.
Rain. Tomorrow Never Knows. I’m Only Sleeping. She Said She Said. Love You To. Norwegian Wood. Yellow Submarine. Within You Without You. I Am The Walrus. Flying. Blue Jay Way. Only A Northern Song. It’s All Too Much. Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Getting Better. Lovely Rita. Strawberry Fields Forever. Jesse’s Dream. All You Need Is Love. The Inner Light. Revolution 9. What’s the New Mary Jane? Wonderwall Music (Soundtrack – Harrison). Unfinished Music No. 1 – Two Virgins (Lennon-Ono). Unfinished Music No. 2 – Life With The Lions (Lennon-Ono). The Wedding Album (Lennon-Ono). Electronic Sound (Harrison). I Want You (She’s So Heavy).

Social or Cultural Reform
Contains ideas, beliefs, or reflects elements that instigate change in society, or one particular culture on the whole.
Within You Without You. Tomorrow Never Knows. Taxman. Piggies. Revolution / Revolution 1 / Revolution 9. The Inner Light. I Me Mine. Savoy Truffle. Only A Northern Song. Think For Yourself. While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

Atonal or dissonant qualities
Contains elements that conflict with the accepted rules of Western harmonic theory, instrumentation, and consonance.
I Want To Tell You. Love You To. Tomorrow Never Knows. Only A Northern Song. Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Carnival of Light (Rave). Getting Better. Lovely Rita. Within You Without You. It’s All Too Much. Baby You’re A Rich Man. Strawberry Fields Forever. A Day In The Life. I Am The Walrus. Blue Jay Way. The Inner Light. Revolution 9. Long, Long, Long. Helter Skelter. What’s the New Mary Jane? Wonderwall Music (Soundtrack – Harrison). Unfinished Music No. 1 – Two Virgins (Lennon-Ono). Unfinished Music No. 2 – Life With The Lions (Lennon-Ono). The Wedding Album (Lennon-Ono). Electronic Sound (Harrison)

That goes without saying jonmarck. Also, I heard The Beatles inspired Tesla and Marconi to invent the radio and to do this they invented a time machine so they could inspire artists even before they invented themselves!

Isn't it funny how some people rail against artists like the Velvet Underground and Captain Beefheart for being 'avant-garde' and yet simultaneously champion the Beatles for their percieved influence on that area of music.
Some might conclude that those people are full of shit and, by crikey, they'd be right.

Really Ed Ames if you think the Beatles had no influence on avant rock then well. I will be nice and not curse. Here are some other exampeles of the Beatles songs that apparently had no influence please don't make me There is book called Avant Rock: Experimental Music from the Beatles to Bjork. I am suprised at some of the nasty comments on the Beatles on this forum. It so obvious that the Beatles had a major impact on art- rock. Again I challenged some people to find examples of certain Beatles songs in rock music. I give up and I have made my final comments.

The song "Tomorrow Never Knows" from their album Revolver (1966) featured a variety of feedback tape loops of guitars, sped-up guitars and wine glass hums. All were played simultaneously and mixed in and out to create the overall sound. The vocal was put through a spinning Leslie organ speaker to achieve John Lennon's effect of being "the Dalai Lama singong from the highest mountaintop." The bass drum was muffled with the microphone placed very close to it for a highly boomy sound.

In "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" (from Sergeant Pepper) recordings of calliopes were randomly cut, shuffled, and spliced randomly back together.

"Revolution 9" (The Beatles, 196 was a mix of dozens of tape loops all running simultaneously over the entirety of Abbey Road Studio's facilities, selected and mixed by John Lennon and his partner Yoko Ono. It featured an odd narration in the form of a tape loop taken from a technical test tape: an anonymous announcer marking the ninth demonstration or test tone.

Even Ticket To Ride has dissonance and drone and that song created a new soundscape for it's time with it's droning bassline, massive chiming guitars and broken drum pattern. The Beatles are in my opinion are one of the most innovative rock groups in their time period.

I have no problem describing the Beatles as highly innovative, even if just from a pop band format. It's when people start using the word "invented" that I draw the line.

Did I say they had no influence on 'avant-rock'?
My point was that some people dismiss intrinsically experimental artists like Beefheart and the VU out of hand, yet praise every Beatles foray into the avant garde as if it was an expression of unprecedented, trail-blazing genius.
So let me get this straight. The VU albums can be summarized as "two-chord drone" and Beefheart was "the total non-meaning of music"(?), but 'Revolution 9' and the early Lennon/Ono albums are cited as great avant garde musical statements?

"Revolution 9" is proof that something can be clever and painstakingly put together, but utterly empty.

I'm no expert on experimental rock--in fact, I usually give it a wide berth. But it's clear to me that there are only two valid points to be made about the Beatles (mostly John, by the way), as avant-gardists.

1. The Beatles were immensely talented musicians who (with George Martin's help) could do almost anything they set out to do.
2. As avant-gardists, they were dabblers. To put them on a par with Beefheart and Zappa and VU in that genre is like putting Blur on a par with Wilco and Lucinda Williams as alt-country artists because they recorded "Country Sad Ballad Man."

What the Beatles did was to lend some of their hard-earned mainstream legitimacy to very experimental, daring stuff; they made it OK to be weird (Bowie did the same thing when he produced Lou Reed, or when he recorded Low). Whether you want to take that:

-as an example of their musical range, OR
-as an entry into the really difficult music made by avant-gardists who did it full time,

well, you're right either way, but to pretend that one of these approaches is more legitimate than the other is kinda silly.

Going back to the Steely Dan discussion, for a minute, and keeping in mind jonmarck's explanation that he likes to know the stories behind the creation of the music to really appreciate it (see discussion from AM Survivor Week 4). I have come to the conclusion that you Steely Dan haters out there don't know the true story of how they crafted that SMOOTH sound.







By the way, it is well worth taking the time to watch all ten episodes of Yacht Rock (http://www.yachtrock.com/), the hidden stories behind the smoothest music of the Seventies and Eighties.

Mmm, as I said in a previous post, Donald Fagen and I share a common friend. She’s in NYC now and recently she talked to Fagen about this site and he promised to take a look. Maybe he’s going to have a real surprise seeing the controversy generated about his band. Frankly, I don’t understand neither the fanaticism generated either for or against. I can’t think of a band so opposite to fanaticism, a band whose many flavours relies basically in good playing (but without sterile and exhibitionist virtuoso playing), in clever lyrics and inventive song-writing. I suppose that there’s nothing wrong with that…

Amen. And welcome Donald!