Comments

I don't know, John. I suspect that Hendrix and Joplin would have emerged anyway, but I won't argue that the Beatles, my eternal favorites, deserve special notice.

Thanks for bringing the Rolling Stone cover to our attention, by the way.

Posted by cathy at May 16, 2006 10:09 AM

No one chaned the face of rock like Hendrix, not even the Beetles. He would have emerged with or without them.

Posted by ramon at May 16, 2006 11:25 AM

"Rolling Stone" John as in Rolling Stones - Beatles 2nd class venue no accident - Wenner weiner loves the Stones ...

Posted by Sean at May 16, 2006 11:32 AM

A pleasant surprise to find two comments similar to the one I was going to make. The Lads were one of a number of groups percolating in the London underground and elsewhere during the early to mid sixties. I agree that one or some would still have emerged as powerfully as they did without the Beatles leading the way. Perhaps it's Brian Epstein's picture that should be featured on the cover. I believe he was the man that turned the band into a brand.

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at May 16, 2006 11:34 AM

Ah, but what did Rolling Stone have inside the magazine about the Fab Four? We rarely see said publication in the provinces of the Beatles homeland, but as one who grew up in the 1960s and who later became a reasonably respected provincial music writer over here, I would argue that The Beatles were rather over rated.

I haven't a single Beatles album in my collection as the band no longer existed when I got into music properly in the early 1970s. Take a look at my iPod library and you'll find several major names on there, but nothing by The Beatles. A couple of Wings tracks are on there though. There are however a few tracks by a band that took The Beatles to heart - Oasis...

Interestingly enough, I don't know any other 48 year olds of my acquaintance who have a Beatles album either...

A sign of the times? Or a reflection of how tastes have changed over the years?

Posted by Keith Rickaby at May 16, 2006 3:17 PM

Keith, pop out to iTunes and try to download a Beatles track. Oops! You'll have to settle for someone who covered the Beatles. Considering the genius of the Beatles over the years (music and business genius), they have really messed up here!

Posted by Bryan at May 16, 2006 4:01 PM

Hendrix clearly revolutionized electric guitar playing - with influences from Eric Clapton and Peter Townshend - for which modern rockers should be forever grateful. But think back (if you're old enough) to the state of pop music in 1963 just before the Beatles hit. In the US, at least, we had such groundbreaking acts as Steve Lawrence, Jan & Dean, Bobby Vinton, and the Singing Nun ruling the charts. Who's to say it would have changed without the Beatles explosion in January of 1964? I would argue that if the Beatles hadn't turned pop music on its head there would have been no market for the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Who, etc, no reason for Dylan to go electric (and therefore no folk rock, Byrds, Crosby, Stills, Nash, etc), and no San Francisco psychedelia (Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin, etc.). Every ONE of those acts owes its commercial success to the Beatles and most of them have publically admitted it. Even the harder blues-rock acts of the 60s (including Cream, Zeppelin, and, yes, Hendrix) would not have had the audience they had without the rock & roll (and pop cultural) transformation the 4 Moptops initiated. Doesn't matter whether you liked them. The Beatles were a tornado that changed EVERYTHING . They didn't level the playing field, they uprooted it.

Posted by John O'Leary at May 16, 2006 11:58 PM

Keith - I'm 48 and I've got several Beatles albums in my collection (original vinyl LP's as well as CD's) and plenty of their songs on my iPod. How can you not have at least the "1" collection?!?!

Looking through my late mother's record collection recently, I found loads of classical records, some jazz and big band stuff my Dad used to like and several Beatles records. No other pop records - just the Beatles. Thinking back, I can vaguely remember collecting Beatles memorabilia as a kid and this, to me, epitomises things: they straddled the generations, they had credibility with practically everyone, prime ministers and other stars wanted to be seen with them - they symbolised the excitement and creativity of the 60's.

Maybe the problem is that rock gets a bit sniffy about acts that appeal to all ages or that are clean cut or which don't fall into a kind of "pained and tortured artist making difficult music" category. To my mind The Beatles made great songs that have lasted years and entertained billions of people. They ought to be centre of the front row.

PS Maybe Fast magasine or HBR should do a similar thing with management guru's. Who should stand centre front in that...?

Posted by Mark JF at May 17, 2006 2:44 AM

Why assume the placement of the people within the cover picture is based on the magazine editors' views of the importance of the artists? Maybe they just felt it was more artistic this way. Maybe they were trying for a "Where's Waldo" effect -- you take more time looking at the magazine if you have to hunt for certain people, thus may be more likely to purchase it. There are a lot of possibilities that have nothing to do with the relative "importance" of any performer.

And, geez, it's just pop music anyway. Don't take it so seriously.

Posted by Mike at May 17, 2006 6:14 AM

How can I not have the 1 album in my collection? Simple - because The Beatles didn't impress me that much. There are only a few bands who have caught my attention over the years and most haven't been that successful in the States. Cult status yes, but they haven't broken through big time.

Out of the bands whose CDs do feature in my collection or on my iPod, only U2 have really made it big in the USA. I'd rather listen to The Mission, New Model Army, REM or old Motown tracks than The Beatles. Out of the current crop of acts doing the rounds over here, only the latest CDs by Hard Fi, Kate Bush and Robbie Williams have made their way into my collection over the last six months.

As someone once sang- that's just the way it is...

Cheers

Keith

Posted by Keith Rickaby at May 17, 2006 6:51 AM

I thought that Elvis was the King of Rock 'n Roll?

While perhaps game-changing innovataion should get more attention, it often doesn't. This is still the case today. Many savvy young developers today work selflessly to shift the focus and function of technology in our lives, but the ones who get the credit are often those who exploit that same technology commercially. And even then, it's some figure-head CEO rather than the actual roll-up-your sleeve contributors that see the headlines. C'est la vie!

By the way, it's good to be back in the good 'ole US of A after 10 years! Wow!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at May 17, 2006 6:53 AM

I never like to sit in the front row when I go see a movie because I'm too close to the screen and only see disproportionate details rather than the entire picture. The Beatles, whether or not they launched the pop resurge, were not forerunners stylistically, but rather the Certifiers of Pop Style and Culture. When they tapped into a style or sound someone else invented, they gave it endorsement and made it Pop Mainstream (for instance, "Helter Skelter" was the Beatles take on Led Zeppelin sound and style) The Beatles were sitting comfortably in the second or third row borrowing popcorn from Clapton, Hendrix and other frontrowers. And besides, when I first ever saw Bill Haley and the Comets at the original Steel Pier in Atlantic City, they were only the opening act for the headliner, which was The Diving Horse!

Posted by Mark Pines at May 17, 2006 8:19 AM

Beatles as mainly radically adept at media splash - semi zip for radical content and legs -

Tom O - agree Elvis as King in USA - Brits tend to romanticize "British invasion" of pop - whereas reality is more Elvis and black blues and black R & B as forefront in '50's - 60's w the "invasion" as radical "new media" also though.

Politics too w Jann Wenner loving the Rolling Stones - so the 1000th Rolling Stone cover seems to discount the FAB 4 - welcome back to B'ham - and record warm [95+] east of the Cascades!

Posted by Sean at May 17, 2006 8:57 AM

I haven't bought a Rolling Stone since college when I correctly decided it didn't speak to anyone other than baby boomers. For passionate modern music devotees, the magazine is a complete waste. When CDs came out, the magazine virtually abandoned covering new music acts and focused itself on helping the industry convince boomers to convert all their vinyl records. It tried to change course when Nirvana woke whole the industry up, but mostly failed. They were a day late and a dollar short and had already lost the younger audience.
From what I see, there's still nothing progressive about that magazine - it can't spot a trend until after it's already over. Unfortunately, Rolling Stone is little more than a nostalgia piece for the over-50 set and will die whenever they do.
I know Tom believes in marketing to boomers, but Rolling Stone may have done so at the expense of securing a multi-generational long-term future.

Posted by Cal at May 17, 2006 11:00 AM

Interesting perspective, Cal, but 28 has been cited as the median age of Rolling Stone readers. And according to Bostonia magazine, it's even younger than that: "Young is Rolling Stone's main target audience these days. Although the magazine's demographics, with a median reader age of twenty-five, have not changed over its nearly thirty-six years, the competition for the market has grown dramatically in the last ten." http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2003/winter/gregory/index.html

And, yes, Wenner favors the Rolling Stones - with Dylan an apparent #2. Calling his magazine Rolling Stone was a bow to both.

Posted by John O'Leary at May 17, 2006 12:33 PM

Remember - No ELVIS - No Beatles!!!!

Posted by Brent at May 17, 2006 2:41 PM

I think you missed the bigger point: the cover itself is a homage to the Beatles... it would have been redundant to include them. If there had been a zipper, of course, then you would have to leave out the Stones!

Posted by seth godin at May 17, 2006 5:19 PM

If the beatles never showed up, then someone else
would have come along - the animals, the yardbirds, even the dead - there was something in the air in those days - it was going to happen no matter what - what more important - rock music or the invention of the electric guitar? -
- and, by the way, ever notice how any post about 60's rock always gets lots of responses?

Posted by frank at May 17, 2006 11:25 PM

Ahhhh memories.... I am gonna make a huge admission to all you guys who think we English are boring and plain ... I had a Beatles hat when I was 12 in 1964 :-)

There simply is NO COMPETITION in the ‘all time greats’ list and certainly not in terms of change and influence – the Beatles have no equals before or after in my opinion.

Interestingly enough I remember being a barman at a huge wedding party in the 1970's and the band performing were the 'Swinging Blue Jeans' – a contempary Liverpool band of the early 60’s and the write up for that band was that they were a better ‘live’ band than the Beatles - some testimony aye ....

My personal favourite band of the 60’s was in fact the Kinks – they also have no equals for originality and are probably the most underestimated band ever.

Isn't it nice to just allow our minds to wander peacefully back to our youth...?

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 18, 2006 6:51 AM

It might have been your youth Trevor - it was my infancy! But you're spot on about The Kinks - have you heard Ray Davies' recent solo effort: it's very good indeed. Also, people overlook The Pretty Things: they were quite a band.

Posted by Mark JF at May 18, 2006 7:30 AM

Youth is eternal though Trevor - 25 and holding >:} ...

Posted by Sean at May 18, 2006 8:31 AM

Sorry Mark - I tend to assume everyone is is old/young as me. Age is relative - My 77 year old Mom calls me her 'young lad' - my 25 year old duaghter thinks I am an 'old wrinkly' :-) I say they are both right and both wrong.

Ray Davies is an awesome talent and I must look up his new solo effort.

Sean - I am loking forward to being 25 :-)

By the way guys Annie and I have tickets to see The Eagles in Birmingham in June on their farewell tour ... gold dust my friends gold dust.

The Eagles are my favourite band by a mile to come out of America. I am looking forward to it immensley. A dream I have had since the 1970's to see The Eagles 'live.'

Don Henleys's 'Last Resort' is my favourite track of all time!

Nostalgia nostaglgia, nostaglia ....

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 18, 2006 8:42 AM

The Eagles? Farewell Tour? They must've run out of farewell tours here in the States. I think I attended numbers one and three and somehow missed the one in the middle. Each was a masterful performance; I'm sure you and Annie will both enjoy, Sean.

Good to see the nostalgic debate and the offshoots inspired by this seemingly "harmless" initial post. It's brought me back several times.

Ed
58 yesterday and still rocking!

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at May 18, 2006 1:24 PM

I saw them in c.1996 in Manchester, England on their "Hell Freezes Over" tour. I guess this must be the, "Hell's Frozen Over, Thawed Out Twice And Frozen Over Again" tour!

Posted by MarkJF at May 18, 2006 3:40 PM

Hey - serious note to the Webmaster. What's going on with your time format. 03:40 is the international 24 hour clock timing that means 3:40am. How can you have 0-anything designated as pm? They're mutually exclusive.

Posted by MarkJF at May 18, 2006 3:42 PM

John

Somehow I find some solace in knowing that Taylor Hicks is not on the cover...There is room in rock and roll for all the innovators, but I have to admit, the Beatles deserve the penthouse suite...rock on John ... mtn

Posted by Mike at May 18, 2006 3:43 PM

Brent: you're right - no Elvis (or Chuck Berry for that matter) means no Beatles. Elvis kicked the door open for everyone after him in 1956. But the Beatles eclipsed him in popularity beginning 8 years later, and took rock & roll to an entirely new place, while Elvis was making shlock movies. Mark, the Beatles in their later years did "certify" others' inventions, but between 1963 and 1967 they were the disruptors—with a radically new look, sound, and songwriting style. From "I Want to Hold Your Hold" to "Sgt Pepper's" everyone else was scrambling to catch up. Seth, the Rolling Stone cover was, of course, a nod to Sgt Pepper but I think Wenner could have found a clever way to include the Fab Four besides burying them behind Janis Joplin et al. (But on second thought, putting Chuck Berry in the very front, crouched in his duck walk pose, was an appropriate way to acknowlege the inventor of rock & roll guitar playing.) And, yes, Ed, let's give Brian Epstein his due - he cleaned up the lads and marketed the bejesus out of them. But much of the Beatles' innovative look and sound, wrought in their Hamburg days, pre-dated his influence.

Posted by John O'Leary at May 19, 2006 12:00 AM

The Eagles can do as many farewell tours as they like as far as I am concerned. Don Henley in a Zimmer Frame signing 'Last Resort' when he is 95 sounds good to me.

As regards The Beatles - yes Brian Epstein was the catalyst taking them from 'ordinary' to 'superstardom' but John Lennon certainly was a genius and would have impacted anyway in my opinion. I do not see Paul McCartney as the same ‘genius’ type. As for George and Ringo, I suspect they were only as good as thousands of other drummers and guitarists at the time. Lennon was the genius and the driver for me. His impact and legacy will be greater than the other three combined.

viagra for sale from canada Posted by Trevor Gay at May 19, 2006 5:18 AM

I suppose that means Alan Parsons didn't make the cover.

Posted by JD at May 19, 2006 5:29 AM

Three days later and still going strong!

Agreed that John was the (musical) genius and would have emerged as something special with or without the Beatles. Paul--probably the commercial genius both then and now. Agreed that George and Ringo were easily interchangeable parts and any number of other guitarists or drummers could have filled the roles and played the parts though each eventually emerged with their own direction and their own persona.

Alan Parson? Nah, don't think so.

Ed

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at May 19, 2006 6:24 AM

.... black R&B and African spiritual music as prelude to Elvis though ...

Posted by Sean at May 19, 2006 8:30 AM

Speaking of R&B, the one downside to the Beatles explosion (and the British R&R invasion that followed) was it knocked a lot of good soul/R&B off the charts. Some feel R&B never completely recovered from that. But such is the nature of disruptive innovation - there are winners and losers. Motown adapted pretty well, tho', and had a good run in spite of the "white R&B" competition.

Posted by John O'Leary at May 19, 2006 12:40 PM

Many musical artists in the 60s profited from the success of the Beatles and the Brit bands that followed, because of the increased attention paid to pop music from 1964 on - increased radio listenership, more fan mags, more TV exposure. Of course there were exceptions, but there's some truth to "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Posted by Geoffrey at May 20, 2006 10:34 AM

Props to Mr. Godin for noticing the gigantic white elephant (or should I say walrus) on the cover. How many other album covers would be considered that glaringly obvious...yet most in this thread seemed to have missed it entirely. Funny.

Posted by Tango5 at May 21, 2006 10:46 PM

its interesting how the Beatles still get in the news on a regular basis, 35 years later...now with sir paul's marital issues... I don't think anyone missed that the rolling stone cover concept was a tribute to the sgt pepper cover, as it was mentioned a couple of times, but a few of us geezer rockers would like to see the Beatles get more explicit prominence as the number one pop culture act in history... not sure we'd still be listening to Leslie Gore if they never came on the scene, but who knows.

Posted by PaleoRocker at May 22, 2006 8:53 AM

The Beatles were great. But they simply jumped on an already rocking ride. Rock and Roll was alive and well before they came on board. Here's a short history:

1945

Les Paul invents "echo delay", "multi-tracking" and many other studio techniques

1946

Muddy Waters cuts the first records of Chicago's electric blues

1947

Billboard writer Jerry Wexler invents the term "rhythm and blues" for electric blues

Roy Brown writes and cuts "Good Rockin' Tonight" in Texas

1948

Detroit R&B saxophonist Wild Bill Moore releases "We're Gonna Rock We're Gonna Roll"

John Lee Hooker records Boogie "Chillen'" for Modern Records, a a single, which topped the R&B charts in 1949.

1949

Fats Domino cuts "The Fat Man," a new kind of boogie

Scatman Crothers cuts "I Want To Rock And Roll" (1949), with Wild Bill Moore on saxophone

1951

The first rock and roll record, Ike Turner's Rocket 88, is released

1952

Bill Haley Saddlemen become the Comets

Bob Horn's Bandstand TV program airs from Philadelphia every weekday afternoon

The Cleveland disc jockey Alan Freed (aka Moondog) organizes the first rock and roll concert, the Moondog Coronation Ball

Les Paul invents the Gibson guitar, the first solid-body electric guitar

Sam Phillips founds Sun Records and declares "If I could find a white man who sings with the Negro feel, I'll make a million dollars"

Charles Brown's "Hard Times" is the first hit by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller to enter the charts

Little Richard's first records released

1953

Bill Haley's "Crazy Man Crazy" is the first rock and roll song to enter the Billboard charts

Leo Fender invents the Stratocaster guitar

Sam Phillips records the first Elvis Presley record in his Sun studio of Memphis using two recorders to produce an effect of "slapback" audio delay

Elvis Presley makes his first (private) recordings

1954

best online viagra store Bill Haley's "Rock Around the Clock" is the first rock song used in a movie soundtrack

Ray Charles forms his band order real viagra

Big Joe Turner recorded the original version of the 1950s hit, Shake, Rattle and Roll.

1955

Chuck Berry cuts his first rock and roll records, the first ones to have the guitar as the main instrument, and invents the descending pentatonic double-stops (the essence of rock guitar)

pharmacy uk viagra

Bo Diddley invents the "hambone" rhythm

Ray Charles creates "soul" music with "I Got A Woman," a secular adaptation of an old gospel

The Blackboard Jungle is released featuring Bill Haley and His Comets "(We're Gonna) Rock Around the Clock"

RCA signs Elvis Presley

Alan Freed's Rock 'n' Roll Ball" draws huge, half-white audience

1956

Heartbreak Hotel starts Presley-mania

The rock 'n' roll music of white rockers is called "rockabilly" (rock + hillbilly)

Screamin Jay Hawkins' "I Put A Spell On You" introduces voodoo into rock'n'roll

The popularity of rock and roll causes the record industry to boom and allows independent labels to flourish

Buddy Holly had his first official recording session in 1956. It was held in Nashville at producer Owen Bradley’s, Barn Studio.

American Bandstand first aired on nationwide TV

1957

Chuck Berry releases "School Day" and "Rock and Roll Music"

Buddy Holly recorded, That’ll Be the Day, at a Norman Petty's New Mexico studio.

Buddy Holly and Sam Cooke made their first appearances on the same The Ed Sullivan Show

1958

real pfizer viagra online

Golden age of instrumental rock

Eddie Cochran overdubs all instruments and vocals on "Summertime Blues" and "C'mon Everybody "

Lowman Pauling invents guitar distortion and feedback on the Five Royales' "The Slummer"

Little Richard quit rock and roll in 1958 to attend Bible college.

Jerry Lee Lewis had 34 of his 37 concert dates in the U.K. cancelled in 1958 when it was discovered that his new bride with him was also his 13 year old cousin.

Buddy Holly makes his final studio recordings " It Doesn’t Matter Any More," "Moondreams," " Raining In My Heart" and "True Love Ways"

The Dick Clark Show TV Show began

1959

Buddy Holly dies at 22 in a plane crash

1960

Elvis appears on the Ed Sullivan Show following his release from the Army.

Sam Cooke signed with RCA Records in 1960, bringing his hits on Keen Records with him

1961

Roy Orbison has his first number #1 hit, "Running Scared"

Phil Spector and partner Lester Sill released the "Oh Yeah Maybe Baby" on their new label Philles

1962

James Brown record his famous Live At the Apollo album

1963

Little Stevie Wonder recorded his first #1 hit, "Fingertips – Pt. 2,"

1965

Alan Freed, the man who gave rock ‘n’ roll its name, died in 1965 at the early age of 43

free viagra online without prescription From http://www.history-of-rock.com/rock_and_roll_timeline.htm

Posted by Tom O'Leary at May 23, 2006 3:20 PM

I would say That the Beatles surely revolutionized "Rock Music". When all is said and done in the history of "Rock Music" the Beatles will still be # ONE and U2 will be # TWO.

Posted by Aland Kearl at May 24, 2006 11:32 AM

One thing that is amazing about the Beatles is that they recorded their music on only 4 tracks and it still sounded so awesome.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at May 24, 2006 11:12 PM

This thread keeps on keepin' on. Nice chronicle, Tom. Brings back great memories. It's true that R&R had a glorious if brief history, pre-Beatles. But in my opinion the "edge" that was there between 1956 and 1959 (with Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and others at their peak) was gone by 1960, and R&R became a caricature of itself in the early 60s. In 1963 the top 40 was pusillanimous stuff, with only a few exceptions. But by early 1964 the Beatles had re-imagined and reinvented R&R. Within a year the pop charts were brought to life with rock & rollers that followed in their footsteps (parallel to the Elvis phenomenom earlier). The Beatles brought back the edge - and later bands sharpened the edge. Add to that the astoundingly creative songwriting of Lennon-McCartney who - along with Dylan - shifted the pop song paradigm. By 1965: new ball game.

Posted by John O'Leary at May 25, 2006 8:53 PM