So very true. But frankly I’m surprised Madonna made the list. Don’t get me wrong, I love Madonna to death, she’s possibly my favorite musical artist of all time, but I don’t see her as influential. I think she’s been an amazing enabler, but there isn’t much to take from Madonna, musically. I’ve rather considered her the culmination of talent rather than a leader of it. But if anyone thinks otherwise, by all means, instruct me.
To paraphrase Sam Stone, this may be the best commentary on the Beatles I’ve read in a while. 
And I’m their Number One fan!
I think their reputed influence has been somewhat overblown at times and that, since their unfortunate demise, a number of performers have come along who matched if not surpassed their talent. At a certain time, it was kind of…‘in’… to be able to quote The Beatles as musical influences. I’m just not sure, listening to the music that came out of the purported ‘influencees’ how genuine that comment was at the time it was made.
Having said that, there is no doubt that The Beatles did have a major influence on the culture of their time.
I too have reviewed Rolling Stones list and for the most part agree, except for the glaring error at position number 41.
Not to turn my original question around, BUT let me spend a few sentences venting on the most overrated group and individual in the history of rock/pop. This distinction belongs to Jim Morrison and the Doors. Morrison was nothing more than a drug addled vocalist in a band of average, at best, talent. Rolling Stone critics, in particular, spent most of the 70’s and 80’s drooling over the Doors (having them in their Top 5 or Top 10 lists). At least they are dropping down the list. Done for now. Thanks
Are you saying that the Beatles didn’t have a willingness to expand the boundaries of their music?? I’d say that the Beatles expanded their boundaries more than any other band. They went’ from singing, “She loves you” to stuff like Helter Skelter. And they did it before anyone else.
The Beatles did heavy metal. They did pop. They did concept albums. They broke the rule that hit songs has to be 3 minute ditties. They worked classical orchestrations into their music, paving the way for Prog Rock. They started the trend toward ‘world music’ by incorporating sitars and other foeign influences into their songs. They were a huge influence on everyone in the 60’s. Every time a Beatles album would come out, everyone in the music industry would rush out and listen to it over, and over, and over, trying to figure out what they were doing. Every new album was completely different than the last.
And I don’t at all think their influence was because they were popular. I think they were popular because what they were doing at the time was astounding and simply blew everyone away. The influence came out of their talent and the boundaries they were breaking, and so did their success.
I can’t think of any other band before or since that had the raw talent of the Beatles or changed music as much as they did. No one. Forty years after they first appeared, other musicians are still playing catch-up.
I’m not saying that they didn’t expand the boundaries of their music but there were others who had ventured forth into new areas that the Beatles later incorporated into their music. Music styles were changing very rapidly in the middle and late 60’s
Where or when did the Beatles do Heavy Metal? BTW, they started out doing pop. They were not the first to break the 3 minute barrier - that distinction, if I’m not mistaken, actually is credited to Phil Spector and specifically the Righteous Brother’s release of *(Youre My) Soul & Inspiration * which actually clocked in at 3:45 and Spector had the labels printed with 3:00 as the running time and it still made it to Number #1. You could argue that the Moody Blues, as far as Brit bands, were the first to incorporate orchestral music in their 1967 album Days of Future Passed. I’m not entirely in agreement that every was completely different particularly if you look at their last album released (Let It Be) which was basically a throwback to their pop days of the mid 60’s. And most of the white album was pure unadulterated crap that has not stood the test of time
Again, I don’t argue that they didn’t change music. But much of what you said could easily be reversed by saying that because they were popular everybody listened to them and in the process copied them. Raw talent - there are hundreds if not thousands of musicians out there with talent that you and I will never hear because of the lack of recording contracts, exposure, etc. It’s not your talent it’s who you know (and the Beatles had Brian Epstein).
They did them when everybody else was doing them. They didn’t invent the idea.
They, and they alone, broke that rule?
They were part of the trend towards world music. They didn’t go it alone.
I just noticed that there has been no mention of Frank Zappa nor Captain Beefheart… what were we thinking?
So, Waterman, you dismiss Elvis as being a product of those before him, but praise Ray Charles for melding C&W, R&B and Gospel into one? What did Elvis do if not meld C&W, R&B and Gospel into one?
The pre-movie star Elvis influenced not only the music but also the culture of the times, changing it into a Rock ‘n’ Roll culture. Would Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly (to name just a few) have reached stardom and had songs on top 40 lists if Elvis hadn’t overturned the apple cart and kicked the door open? There’s no way to know for sure, but I don’t think so.
We don’t know what the last 50 years in music might have been without Elvis, but it’s fairly certain that it would have been very different.
You make a logical and justifiable point. Elvis brought the swagger and “rock-n-roll” attitude to the whole show.