Wikipedia would disagree with you.
And while Wikipedia is hardly the ultimate authority on anything, this is consistent with the way at least some of us have been using the term “pop” in this thread.
I never really thought of them as pop, but I also never thought of them as rock. Then again, I have a hard time listening to sixties music because of how things were always mixed back then, so I barely remember the Beatles.
Do you mean mixing of genres and styles? If so, that’s one of the things I find particularly appealing about sixties music. Or are you referring to sound mixing (part of the recording process)?
Not to mention that their first recordings were covers of Chuck Berry songs. If your friend says that Chuck Berry isn’t rock & Roll, he’s an idiot.
This is what I came to say. I recall a rumor that this song was written in response to this very accusation back in the day. No idea if that’s true, but if Motley Crue covers it…its rock and roll.
Bingo
The Beatles technically covered a ton of different styles, from 50s rock and roll to country, music hall, folk, pop, psychedelia, proto-metal…they didn’t fit a strict category. But yes, they were known as a rock band.
I was talking recently with a former colleague who’s about 70 (I’m 53). We both enjoy classical music, but he doesn’t care much for most post-1960 music.
He made a comment along the lines of “rock stars, like your Beatles”.
I thought for a moment and told him that I didn’t really think of the Beatles as rock stars.
They’re more like composers whose music happened to include rock.
They were the best performers of their music (unlike, say, Burt Bacharach, who acknowledges that the Carpenters’ version of “Close to You” is the best), but live performances figure less in their influence than with most rock bands.
Part of this was the emphasis on the studio over the stage. Although they were very accomplished live performers by the time they returned from Hamburg, it became clear by 1966 or so that their best work came from recordings, tightly arranged (in McCartney’s works) and wildly experimental (Lennon’s).
Although there were products of this environment that would fit in with (and compare favorably to) rock bands like the Who and Led Zeppelin, working exclusively in the studio seems to predispose musicians to experimenting beyond whatever their inital genre was, and the Beatles sure did do that. More so than most great bands whose focus is on live shows, like the Grateful Dead.
McCartney said one of the most insightful things I’ve ever heard said about the Beatles: “To me, the Beatles were never anything more, or less, than a really good band”
For this discussion, I would paraphrase that, “The Beatles were a really good rock band, who went on to do more”.
I think your friend is adorable. How old?
Good lord, yes The Beatles are rock. The Beatles define rock fercisissake. If your friend isn’t starting there, jeez, I mean, really? Why should you have this conversation?
Except that it really isn’t disagreeing with me. The “core elements” it describes have nothing to do with the style of music, just the length and structure of the song. In fact,while claiming it’s a distinct genre it points out in that it is eclectic and can be any style.
WTF? :dubious:
“Helter Skelter” is not “soft rock”. “Revolution” is not “soft rock”. “Happiness is a Warm Gun” is not “soft rock”. “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road” is not “soft rock”.
Listen to the original version of “Twist and Shout”, and then listen to the Beatles’ version. The latter is MUCH heavier, has much more, I don’t know, “oomph” to it?
Also, did you know that the very first use of audio feedback in a rock song was in “I Feel Fine”?
there have been some interesting threads here about what groups had what hit songs in what years. very interesting to contrast the groups at the exact time, some were rocking and some were not.
Sorry - how much of their work have you actually listened to??
So far I have yet to read a post in this thread arguing against them being rock that is worth responding to. We get it, rock music continued to evolve post Beatles. But that doesn’t change what rock encompasses as a style of music - with the Beatles at the epicenter.
Either make a reasonable argument or invest more time learning about the category.
ETA: by the way, I was listening to Nothing Else Matters by Metallica the other day. Soft rock, definitely. :roll eyes:
The arguments that they were rock n roll rather than rock are not worth responding to? I don’t buy that argument in its entirety, but in their early days they were rock n roll rather than rock. But by Rubber Soul they were definitely rock.
My point is that the very reason that the Beatles are The Beatles, as in “generally acknowledged as / among the best,” is because of their creative arc, which included pushing out the boundaries of “rock 'n roll” - they introduced or made major contributions to power pop, psychedelia, singer / songwriter, avant-pop - and, clearly, were part of the “evolution” to Rock.
Again, folks may still want to say “I don’t like them” - cool, YMMV. But to start an argument without grounding it in reality…again why have the discussion?
Would you have a discussion with someone who stated that Chuck Berry wasn’t central to the emergence of rock 'n roll? Or Black Sabbath with heavy metal? Why start?
I seldom disagree with WordMan is a music thread, but I admit he isn’t properly paying attention to the argument over when rock & roll ends and rock begins.
That said, I still don’t think you have a case. The entirety of The Beatles’ recording career was rock. Look at their first album, Please, Please Me. It covered a bunch of songs that could be called rock & roll - “Anna,” “Chains,” “Boys,” “Twist and Shout” - and a couple that would be called pop - “Baby, It’s You,” “A Taste of Honey.” What’s fascinating about those tracks is that the sound is essentially identical to the sound of the original tracks - “I Saw her Standing There,” “Misery,” “Ask Me Why,” “Please, Please Me,” “Love Me Do,” “P.S. I Love You,” “Do You Want to Know a Secret,” “There’s a Place” - all of which are Beatlesque in the way we would come to define the word. (This is even more true for their first official U.S. album, Meet the Beatles, which featured eleven songs by them plus “Till There Was You,” a Broadway showpiece that was miles from rock & roll.)
By 1963, the argument about the changeover from rock & roll to rock was largely over. Starting around 1960 The Ventures and other surf instrumentalists put out a modern sound, matched in the U.K. by groups like The Shadows and the Tornadoes. The Beach Boys and the Four Seasons started charting in 1962 and Jan & Dean had a number one hit in 1963. The so-called Brill Building writers had a string of number ones pre-Beatles. I would put the girl groups - both Motown and the Brill company of singers - into rock, so as far I can tell, the last true rock & roll song to be number one was “So Much in Love,” a beautiful do-wop ballad by The Tymes in August 1963, the week after “Surf City.” Stevie Wonder succeeded them with "Fingertips (Pt. II) the next week and the 12-year-old wonder was part of the coming future, not a relic from the past. “Louie, Louie,” definitely not rock & roll, was in its ninth week in the Top 10 when “I Want to Hold Your Hand” vaulted over it to number one.
The Billboard Hot 100 chart for that week, February 1, 1964, has bunches of now forgotten hits on it, many of them trying to capitalize on the dance-of-the-week craze. Does anyone remember who did “Can Your Monkey Do the Dog,” “Harlem Shuffle,” 'Shimmy Shimmy," or “Hooka Tooka”?
Rufus Thomas, Bob & Earl, Orlons, Chubby Checker
Debuting that week were The Four Seasons’ “Dawn,” and “California Sun” The Rivieras. The California sound of surf and cars also appeared in “Hey Little Cobra,” the Rip Chords; “Drag City,” Jan & Dean, and, cashing in with the title, “Surfin Bird” by the one and only Trashmen.
The rest of the chart is filled with the usual incredible mixture of the era. 60s moldie oldie standards like “You Don’t Own Me,” Leslie Gore, “Popsicles & Icibles,” Murmaids, “I Only Want to Be with You,” Dusty Springfield, “See the Funny Little Clown,” Bobby Goldsboro, “Forget Him,” Bobby Rydell, and “Out of Limits,” The Marketts.
Motown had Martha & the Vandellas’ follow-up to “Heat Wave,” “Quicksand,” “Can I Get a Witness,” Marvin Gaye, “As Long as I Know He’s Mine,” The Marvelettes, and the Supremes’ “When the Lovelight Starts Shining Through His Eyes.”
Adult pop was in its heyday: “Wives and Lovers,” Jack Jones, “The Shelter of Your Arms,” Sammy Davis Jr., “Charade,” Henry Mancini and His Orchestra, “A Fool Never Learns,” Andy Williams, “Stay With Me,” Frank Sinatra, and “Java” by Al Hirt.
James Brown is on the list; so is Otis Redding and Sam Cooke. So is Pete Seegar, and Hank Williams Jr., and the Singing Nun.
(WARNING: Unless you want something that will kill your free time for hours and days, do not get a copy of Billboard Hot 100 Charts - The Sixties, by Joel Whitburn. Don’t do it. Don’t open it to a random page. Don’t read “Bubbling Under the Top 100.” Just don’t. My Sunday is gone.)
Something on that list that I haven’t mentioned might be rock & roll by somebody’s definition, but by mine the world had already shifted. The early 60s were a transition period, with new sounds busting out everywhere, all of them waiting for the new Elvis to merge them all into a package. Nobody dreamt that the package were be four mop-tops from Liverpool, but that’s the way music works. They absorbed every strand of the old and crated new art from them. My major point is that they defined the changeover but defined a loose agglomeration that was already in existence, with the old many years in the past. The Beatles therefore were first among equals, not just first, and especially not first because they changed after they started.
'Xap, if you want to walk “Rock” back to '63 or '64 that’s reasonable, but I think the transition also needs a bit of the Brit blues it, so I tend to think '65 - '66 - but even with that, one can arguably go back to your timeframe.
First let me say the Beatles are nowhere near my fav band. But I think what your friend (and wiki apparently) know about rock (and music in general) wouldn’t fill a thimble. Let me guess he’s about what, 20? Honestly those claims are hilarious they’re so ridiculous.
Why Don’t We Do It In The Road begs to differ. Damn perfect twelve bar hard electric blues.
I don’t think there is one right answer. They aren’t a band like Boston where most of their songs sound the same.
The Beatles did pop, they really did pop. They did rock, “Helter Skelter”, “Twist and Shout.” They did experimental/psychedelic stuff like “Within You Without You/Tomorrow Never Knows.” They did a bit of soul, “I’ve Got a Feeling.” They did a sort of classical music like “She’s Leaving Home.”
The early hits were mostly pop, but once the Beatles got popular they rocked and experimented, and their audience came with them.