Are we assuming that “owning their sound” is a good thing? I would argue that one of the Beatles’ greatest strengths was the fact that they didn’t own any one sound: Their diversity of sounds was amazing.
Not necessarily. I agree that NOT owning a sound was a strength of the Beatles. But I can certainly imagine cases where it would be. There writers that produce books to a fairly predictable formula, TV shows that follow nearly the same plot week after week, … There were “John Wayne movies” and “Arnold movies” that were fairly predictable because they were structured around the strengths of an actor.
Perhaps predictability is a good thing for an industry, but not necessarily for any of the individuals involved in it.
See, I definitely think the Beatles had an identifiable sound–their vocal harmonies, Ringo’s charming and characteristic drums, the melodic basslines, etc.–all sound distinctive to me. It’s true, the character and types of music changed wildly from early, rock & roll Beatles to psychedelia Beatles, but, at the heart of it, the Beatles still sounded like the Beatles. I really don’t see how the Kinks are any more distinctive–they’ve similarly carved out quite a range of sounds. First time I heard a song like “Come Dancing” I was shocked to hear that was the same band that made “You Really Got Me” or “Village Green” or even “Lola.” Their sound is at least as wide ranging as the Beatles’
In the park?
I’ll add Electric Light Orchestra to the list.
The Beatles seemed to “own” whatever sound they put their minds to.
I would say the Beatles owned their jangly mop-top sound. But then they moved beyond it, and sort of latched on to other sounds.
CCR definitely; Fogerty was sued in 1985 because his solo album, “Centerfield,” sounded too much like a CCR record. John prevailed and was awarded lawyer’s costs.
I agree, the original sound of ELO was a rock band with strings.
Along that same line I’d add the original sound of Chicago.
Those first 5, 6 albums by Chicago was a rock band with a horn section sound that no one else had, or for that matter, hasn’t since. They’ve since lost that original sound, but they did have it once.
ABBA. The arrangements, the voice play, and the kinda-wall-of-sound sound.
Supertamp. (Wurlitzer) Piano intro for 20-30 bars and then the whole band.
Mägo de Oz. Hard Rock with Celtic flavour.
Yes, in their prime.
Which they owned.
Except for Chuck Berry music which I don’t think they did.
Al lot of the punk or punk influenced bands. Ramones, Sex Pistols, Fugazi, Green Day, etc
Mamas and Papas, definitely.
Black Sabbath completely owned their sound. Many have tried but none can match the original 4 guys. Ozzy had very distinctive vocals with heavy lyrics. Geezer was a very fluid bass player that supported Bill Ward’s plodding but groove driven drums. Tony Iommi created an entirely different format with his detuned guitar and the doubling of lead guitar breaks. Sabbath would often shift gears in songs which led to 2, 3 or more hooks within a song. All of this led to Heavy Metal, Doom Rock, Stoner Rock…whatever. They were true originals.