I shall now attempt to rock out to “Drive My Car.” If I am successful, this will prove that the Beatles are a rock band.
Yes, the Beatles are a rock band.
They’re also pop. The terms need not be mutually exclusive.
In the 60’s, when the Beatles were active, “pop” meant Perry Como. The Beatles were a rock and roll band.
Well OK, but there is also a difference between the ways these terms are used in Britain and America. In Britain, rock’n’roll is generally only used to refer to music from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, before The Beatles, essentially: people like Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, etc, and their British imitators such as Johnny Kyd and the Pirates, Tommy Steele, and early Cliff Richard. In Britain, anything in similar vein (and sufficiently edgy) dating from the mid '60s onward is rock, not rock’n’roll. In America, rock’n’roll seems to be used to refer to both pre and post Beatles music. I think most Americans use rock and rock’n’roll as synonyms.
Not only did The Beatles transcend the categories of rock and pop, such that, in large part the distinction between the two (which did not exist in their early days) is due to their influence, but, in British terms at least, (together with the Stones) they also mark the dividing line between rock’n’roll and rock simpliciter.
Go listen to Helter Skelter and then say they weren’t a rock n’ roll band.
Seriously, though, they crossed many genres. They cannot be categorized.
He was not dismissing the band. He thinks the Beatles were a good band, just not a rock band. I think they were a rock band in addition to being good.
There’s no difference. I’d define rock vs. rock and roll the same way you would. Nobody says “rock and roll” unless they are either creating a song title or drawing out the phrase for emphasis. Buddy Holly-era stuff is rock and roll, since then it’s just been rock. TBG’s examples do fall into the rubric you gave, he’s just saying he’d fit The Beatles into the rock and roll group (perhaps thinking more of their early stuff).
I’d disagree. I think rock and roll continued into the '60s. I’d say it became “rock” when the music got more self-important and full of itself (late '60s). For example, I’d consider The Who’s My Generation rock and roll and Who’s Next rock. I’d also consider later music, such as most punk, rock and roll (as opposed to the rock of, say, Styx or Led Zeppelin, to name 2 groups still in existence when punk hit).
Just how small of a box do we have to shove bands into nowadays? Or genres?
There was a day when The Beatles were the end-all, be-all of Rock and Roll. Their sound evolved from earlier recordings but the pushed envelopes in a bunch of directions while still having a pop sensibility. Then they broke up and time marched on.
Some of their music can seem quaint and dated to the later generations, but it’s still great rock and roll and some of young’un’s need to chill the fuck out.
And get off my lawn!
Listen to She’s So Heavy and the Beatles are a plodding heavy metal band. And it really is heavy.
Frankly the whole argument is bullshit. If you want to categorize Beatles as “pop” then you have to do the same for the Rolling Stones
And even The Who(albeit with more drums.)
Not to mention Jefferson Airplane were folk singers.
That’s true, but “blues” is also a broad term, and this just applies to what they released. If you listen to the final days of the Beatles’ studio tapes, you’ll here a lot of “blues,” though it may not be Dixon.
I get the impression that as they were falling apart as a group, some of them (I don’t know who) just wanted to play more basic, rock ‘n’ roll and blues-influenced music, and they kind of resented the pressure of being expected to be “edgy” all the time.
I would never include the Association with the others as pop. They were rock just like every other California group of the time.
It’s an interesting viewpoint and I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong necessarily. But I do think most people define rock and roll vs. rock the same way - the early, rockabilly-influenced stuff is rock and roll, and once you start seeing all-electric bands and the country side of things is left behind, you’re more firmly in rock territory.
And of course Ticket to Ride is sometimes called the first heavy metal song, primarily because of Ringo’s drumming.
Your friend is an ignoramous.
Well, you’re more making a distinction between rock and hard rock there, I would say. I’d classify early Beatles as “rock and roll,” but not by the time they were doing stuff like “Helter Skelter” and “She’s So Heavy.”
Anyhow, in today’s terminology, I would agree that the “power pop” subgenre of rock would be a good place to put them, but they spanned a few genres, so it’s imperfect.
To say “X isn’t rock, it’s pop” makes about as much sense as saying “X isn’t a comedy, it’s theater.” A pop song can be rock, country, jazz, or anything else. Pop is not a style, it’s whatever music is currently popular.
In the 60s, you could be rock and pop at the same time. Nowadays, not so much.
“Are you Mods or Rockers?” “Neither, we’re Mockers.”
The evidence against them as rock musicians is pretty slight. Pete Townsend, in a Rolling Stone interview, slagged McCartney: “What the fuck does he know about Rock n Roll?” Also, after about 1965, it was really hard to find a new Beatles song you could dance to. And when Rolling Stone did a big flow chart showing who every band influenced and had been influenced by, the Beatles’ line petered out with, I think, Badfinger. (Oasis had not yet been formed.)
OTOH, come on. If the Beatles weren’t a rock band, who was?