A musical view, but unfortunately it leaves out the most important thing: money.
The Ramones were DIY - do-able. Exactly like Chuck Berry and Elvis and newly-amplified and affordable guitars, amps and PA’s in a new post-WW2 boom era = rock n’ roll.
Their jackets and jeans and tough-look attitude were simply moving the Upset-the-Parents Phaser setting from Stun to Kill.
They were cool, but too scary to make money. They inspired all the kids in the UK and an important core few in the US, but they were too raw in attitude for the true mainstream. True with many “true” punk bands that had accessible music.
New Wave was a “label” championed by the record labels as a way to incorporate Punk elements but with better, more approachable attitude. Yes, it introduced pop chords and arrangements and melodies, but that was as much about pop-ification as it was about the increasing sophistication of the musicians. Joe Strummer was a sophisticated guy with broad musical tastes who used Punk to open the door - he had bet on Pub Rock with the 101’ers before quitting them overnight when he saw that Punk was going to break big. But he had broadly catholic tastes and was always looking to branch out. We all know Sting acted Punk to break the Police as a New Wave band before returning to his beloved soft jazz. Joe Jackson is a personal favorite who brought punk bite to pop sophistication in a particularly effective New Wave way. Blondie was 100% punk but was consciously shifted over to New Wave and produced by Chapman and Chin, glam-rock pop pros, to ensure their sound went down easy.
The Ramones are much more like the Velvets than the Beatles. Hugely, hugely influential, but nowhere close to the cultural phenomenon while they were active. And the fact that they never developed - wholly their choice and part of their legend - means they’ll always be in a much, much smaller box vs. the Beatles.
That’s not a bad thing at all. My love for The Ramones is well documented on this board - I strongly recommend the Ramones documentary End of the Century for a good telling of their story.
In terms of long-view history (as much as we can comment now) - hey, they both made the discussion, yay! But the Ramones will be cited as a key sub-genre starter that grew into broader influence in a watered-down sorta way. The Beatles will be the featured artists of the 20th century, alongside a few others.
As I’ve said many times before, it depends on what context you’re making the comparison. Many bands can be rightfully compared with the Beatles depending on the context. In terms of important bands of the 20th century that shaped its music, I don’t think one can argue against including not only bands like The Beatles and the Stones, but also bands like Black Sabbath, Kraftwerk, Velvet Underground, etc. It wasn’t only mainstream musicians that were shaping and influencing the sound of modern music (and, if you want to go back, Robert Johnson would be a huge influence, too.)
No, in the case of an intersection of massively popular, influential, and critically acclaimed, there really isn’t any band I could think of that really compares to the Beatles on all fronts, and I’m not entirely sure there ever will be in my lifetime, given the fractured nature of the popular music scene these days. But there’s other meaningful metrics in which bands can equal or even surpass The Beatles, and I just find that question more interesting.
Another criteria you might consider, albeit one which by definition excludes everyone else, is, “voice of a generation”. The Beatles definitely were the voice of their generation, as was Elvis for a slightly older fanbase, Sinatra before him, and Bing Crosby even earlier.
I’m not a fan of Elvis, Sinatra, or Crosby’s musical styles, but, listen to them, and you have to admit that they were frikkin’ awesome performers, each in their own way.
Going with this list:
[li]Songwriting[/li][li]Charismatic Performers[/li][li]Wide Range of Influences[/li][li]Growth & Innovation[/li][li]Popularity/Cultural Impact[/li]
Let me add one : Bob Marley and the Wailers. Don’t underestimate their innovation just because all their top hits are so familiar to you: listen to their contemporaries and then go through Marley’s tracks and see how almost every single one broke the traditional reggae song mold (and how innovatively structured they are even for a generic pop song).
I also think the Grateful Dead were written off too easily. Few Top40 hits, sure , but you really can’t say they had no cultural impact (how many other bands would work as a reference in “saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac”?). And musically, not only jam-bands/psychedelia, but the entire alt-country scene owes a lot to their influence. And --whether they’re your cup of tea or not – you can’t deny they’ve got all of the other four elements in spades (admittedly growth and innovation pretty much petered out after the first 15 years or so; but it’s not like McCartney was very innovative after his first 15 years, either).
I also think the Clash and Bruce Springsteen/E Street are pretty close on all five, probably U2, Michael Jackson, Dylan of course, Stones,
Then there are groups that hit all five but none of them quite close enough to the Beatles. For instance, Talking Heads (I think R.E.M. and Paul Simon fit here, too)
I can see Marley getting a mention in the same way that The Ramones would be, sure. Pivotal band in defining a genre and cultural influence that has a long shadow.
The Grateful Dead: they will be discussed as an example of a tribe/following that played out in the 20th century, and the acid test concerts of the Haight-Ashbury will be cited. Their music will get limited discussion, and the enduring influence of jam-bandyness may get a footnote. Maybe.
(my bolding)
This is the key. How many in the general public can tell you the name or hum a Grateful Dead song?
“I wanna be sedated” is a generic punk song and not clearly identifiable as a Ramones song for the non-fan.
The Beach Boys, for instance, easily recognizable even 4 decades later.
Ditto ABBA, even the non-fan knows 20 songs.
How many non-fans can hear a song and say “Velvet Underground”, “Black Sabbath”, “XTC”, “The Zombies”, “The MC5”, "The Stooges "…aside from a specific breakout hit (e.g Paranoid).
Great bands and all but with a tiny non-fan influence.
Also, bands/singer love name-dropping some influences but it’s usually hard to see where they can be found.
I don’t think any bands are in the same ballpark as the Beatles for the reasons given above but also sociologically. They had their career at the perfect time to make maximum impact in a ‘perfect storm’ the characteristics of which will never be repeated. No one can compete because those conditions will never exist again.
That said, I liked them as a teenager, but find them boring as hell now.
I am however delighted to see XTC even being discussed in this thread! The new book about Partridge’s writing techniques is really worth getting for fans; - and for people who had to youtube them or had heard only one song if you like reading how a songwriter’s mind works.
I love xtc and am listerning to The Mayor of Simpleton as I write. Awesome.
FYI, I just listened to Marc Maron’s WTF podcast from last year where he interviewed Todd Rundgren. Towards the end, Skylarking is brought up. Man, Rundgren and Partridge do not get along apparently. This must be a well-known thing to XTC- and/or Todd-Heads, because Rundgren did not hold back and called Andy some very harsh names. He claims being the envisioner of Skylarking and that Andy was “a pussy” by buckling to label pressure initially and relegating Dear God to the B side and off the album in its correct sequence.
Ok, that was either the whiskey or I overstating the case. That part’s retracted.
I dunno. If it was ten years ago, I’d agree with you. But the local community station now not only has its 20 year or so old Grateful Dead only show, but another, longer show that is just “Dedicated to the Jam”. It plays a variety of jam bands (and sometimes just live tapes* of bands that happened to jam). It might be just that there’s more of everything now, but the jam band thing has weirdly been flourishing. I’m not really a fan, but I keep seeing it.
<Phi Ken Sebben>*Ha! Ha!..anachronisms</Phil Ken Sebben>…ETA…oh wait, I actually do need to buy audio tape!
Remember: the importance of live performance as secondary to a recording is only a few decades old. First, there was only live; then records were made to support a live performer. Then - arguably coincident with rock n’ roll since recording tech also evolved then, but then cemented with Phil Spector, Brian Wilson and the Beatles - the recording became the thing. The Beatles getting off the road couldn’t be a more powerful illustration.
But now with streaming stripping out revenues to most artists, it’s all gone back to tours and merch. I was just listening to Todd Rundgren say this very thing.
I guess my point is that jam bands and Live albums and Unplugged and big shows from Woodstock to Bonnaroo will all be cited as things that kept live performance happening during this interim period where Recordings mattered more. But now that performance is back in front, that type of music is just another subgenre of live performance.
Yes, that created a recent twitterstorm between them - neither covering themselves in glory. Andy has acknowledged TR’s massive input into Skylarking many times over the years but won’t shift on what a prick he thought TR was in the recording process. It’s perhaps another thread discussion but I don’t think Andy Partridge and I would get on. I mean a thread about not liking someone you admire - not about me and Andy…I’m sure it’s true of many of my/our heroes that their pursuit of art means they are intrinsically selfish in many ways. And the exception that proves the rule -Glenn Tilbrook FTR is a sweetheart.
Sorry for the hijack.
BEATLES CAN’T BE BEAT!
This is true, but it is not what these radio shows are about. They almost exclusively play bands who are “jam bands” in the Dead style. Usually mellow to mid-tempo, they have long, improvised sections. I’ve seen more of these types of bands in the last 10 years, and I notice the variety show playing new groups fairly often as I spin by. Again, I’m not really a fan; but the Dead seemed to spawn a genre, really slowly. I don’t know if it will last and/or keep growing, but it’s there.
I was listening to rock music on AM radio pre-Beatles, and no band listed here changed things as much as they did - with one exception. Pre-Beatles it was mostly bands doing songs written by others (with the exception of some like Chuck Berry) with nothing very interesting. I contend that rock would have died if the Beatles didn’t re-energize it. Someone mentioned Beethoven which is a great analog, since Beethoven blew open the symphony in the same way that the Beatles blew open rock.
Dylan is my only other choice. Blowin’ in the Wind might be considered a really good protest/folk song like Woody Guthrie wrote, but Hard Rain is a step above that, and the songs on Bringing it All Back Home are a step above that - and he kept going up.
I don’t have a good enough ear to appreciate Miles but I think he might be an answer also.
This in no way puts down the Beach Boys, the Stones, etc. But it is not the same.
You left out the crucial step - John Mayall, with his massive collection of blues records. Compare Clapton’s covers of Robert Johnson songs with those of the Stones and Led Zep for example. Yeah the Stones were a blues band pre-Clapton, but Clapton was authentic.
Even so, he is not the kind of revolutionary figure the Beatles and Dylan are.
I’m sleepy, so I’m not going to proffer a solid argument right now. But I didn’t see anyone consider the bands Deep Purple or Toto. They may have dropped off the pop radar, but adapted with changing tastes, had genius members, good spinoff groups/material, and were generally prolific.
While I am far younger than you, I was pretty much going to say the same thing despite the lack of personal experience. The Beatles pretty much completely transformed rock/pop music single-handedly. From the Decca audition that they failed they were told “guitar groups are on the way out”. Looking at their set list for the audition and recalling what I heard on the Beatles Anthology, I can see how they might think the Beatles were nothing special, and if one thought their style of music was on the wane it wouldn’t have seemed so weird to not pick them up. It’s not until “She Loves You” and “Please Please Me” that they actually had mega-hits on their hands and that the song-writing combination showed just how strong it was, and those songs allowed that basic pattern of band to become as popular as it has today. So if the Beatles had stopped after Help!, say, they would be considered probably on par with the Ramones or Nirvana in terms of changing the direction of music. But their best work was yet to come! That they were able to completely revolutionize music and then continue to innovate far beyond that original form is way beyond what anyone else has ever done. Various bands may have have done bits and pieces of what the Beatles did, but I don’t think anyone comes even close in terms of total impact, popularity, and critical approval. They are much more apt to be compared to the greats in other genres than to be compared to other pop/rock groups.
