The Beatles: Rock n Roll or Pop?

Back in the 60s, there really was no difference between "Top 40" pop and Rock 'N Roll. We didn't have all the different market segments that exist today.

All we had were transistor radios tuned to AM stations. (I don't have a clue what was on FM. I can't even remember if FM even existed in the 60s.) Depending on your city, you might of had one or two or three Rock 'N Roll stations, a "Soul/R&B" station, a few Frank Sinatra old foggy stations, a whole lot of religious stations, and that was it. Then at night, the super stations like WLS out of Chicago or the X in Mexico would cut in. (I heard it. I heard it. I heard it on the X.)

Records were all 45s with an A and B side.

Starting in the late 60s, an underground movement started with people playing more and more LPs at private parties (while, uh, gaining new experiences along the way). This led to FM stations springing up and the rest was history.

But, the Beatles were the monster. From the Ed Sullivan show in 1964 to Sergeant Pepper in 67 or 68(?) to the White Album, the Beatles were the cutting edge. There would have never been the Rolling Stones without the Beatles.

Dale

 

Yes, I realize that they weren't as hard rock as the Stones, Cream, etc. but they were rock and roll nonetheless. And yes, they were capable of creating perfectly crafted pop songs as well. In spite of Wayne's assertion about Paperback Writer, I would argue that this is one of the Beatles stronger rock songs - gotta love that heavy bass line. Lady Madonna too fits the classic rock style. I don't think it's one of their greatest songs though, but I would never call it a pop song.

Of course, their songs penned by Paul (Here, There, and Everywhere, for example) are much more popish - and I will concede that this may be fluff (beautifully written fluff though) than songs penned by John (Day Tripper, among others), but I think their influence as rockers did more to bring acceptance of this musical genre to the masses (read: white, middle class America) than the Stones ever would.

Without the Beatles coming first and creating this acceptance with their clean cut looks and public manners (Brian Epstein's marketing genious at work), the Stones and Cream, and all those other hard rock groups would never have been as successful as they were.

 

Wayne... Granted some of The Beatles' songs are surely seen as pop IN THIS DAY AND AGE... However, back then, it's a totally different story... Still, however you want to look at it, they had more than enough rock n roll songs to account for Rock N Roll Gods status...

 

Can't say.

I'm an Elvis man!

DL

 

Wayne, we may be on the same page here. I certainly agree with you about those artists you mentioned about and 'paving the way' for blues-based rock. My point however, is that because of the Beatles and the way their "product" was presented (the lads themselves as well as their music), those other artists would never have been as successful as they were (and still are in some cases (see Eric Claption, who is still creating blues-based music as good or better as he's ever done in the past).

 

The Beatles had Rock n Roll roots...John and Paul met when one offered to show the other chords to "Twenty Flight Rock" by Eddie Cochran...if you listen to the Hamburg songs and the early BBC tapes its all rock...it was not until they fell under the influence of Brian Epstein that they became the packaged Pop act that we remember.

 

I agree with NNO. Why change a band's genre after the fact?

 

Ditto. Besides, Rock 'n Roll has become a pretty term over the years.

 

Wayne, you snot nosed little kid, listen to your elders who was there, dammit!

 

I have read interviews with Steve Tyler (Aerosmith) and Ozzy in which they say that the reason they got into music is because they wanted to be like the Beatles.
I think the Beatles were, and still are, hugely influential. After the Beatles people realised that you get become hugely wealthy as a musician and they probably inspired more kids to pick up a guitar than any other band.
However I suppose if they were releasing their songs today they would be described as Indie-rock, or just pop.

 

Rock and Roll.

Period.

From 62-66, the singles they released, among others:

Love Me Do
Please Please Me
From Me to You
She Loves You
I Want to Hold Your Hand
All My Loving
Can't Buy Me Love
Hard Day's Night
And I Love Her
Eight Days a Week
I Feel Fine
Ticket to Ride
Yesterday
Help!
You've Got to Hide Your Love Away
We Can Work It Out
Day Tripper
Drive My Car
Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)
Nowhere Man
Michelle
In My Life
Girl
Paperback Writer
Eleanor Rigby
Yellow Submarine

Now that was rock and roll for the era.

 

And of course both the Stones and Lennon, McCartney admit that they started by copying Lonnie Donegan....the man who started playing American blues and black working songs to the clubs of the North...mostly Leadbelly and that genre....and called it Skiffle

 

I think Rock and Roll. While some of the earlier music seems "fluffy" now, at the time it was radical and driving parents crazy.

 

Exactly............................My 80 year old Mom considers the Beatles a Rock and Roll band, enuff said..................

 

Despite living only 30 miles or so from "The Cavern" I never really rated them. A bit before I started listening to music. I don't dislike them but can honestly say I haven't bought a single record of theirs ever.
Influential pop music of the day.

 

I’m going with Rock n Roll bro .

 

From about 1967, the term was increasingly used in opposition to the term rock music, a division that gave generic significance to both terms. Whereas rock aspired to authenticity and an expansion of the possibilities of popular music, pop was more commercial, ephemeral and accessible.
Pop music - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music

 

I think McCartney is more pop and Lennon was more rock. This is what caused the split in the band.

 

By modern standards, they'd be so far into the hard rock genre, pop stations wouldn't even play their music.

 

+1 Like all the truly greats, they took what came before and synthesized it into some truly new variant of R&R, which sounded like nothing that came before it. When you first heard it, you said "WTF is this? I gotta hear more!" Beatles, Elvis, Chuck Berry - that's the rock pantheon in my opinion.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget George and Ringo, they weren't half bad either!

T

 

George was rock. The Beatles as a whole were pop/art rock. BTW, while pop music is a negative term, IMHO, art rock is not a pejorative term. Without the Beatles playing with recoding techniques, we wouldn’t have the advances we see today. Take a four track board and then record through it with a four track. Simulated 16 track. And this was all done on tape! They didn’t have Pro Tools.

 

I think you accidentally made Wayne’s case.



There’s a great book out called “Good Booty” about the history of American music, and why it’s so unique to America. I recommend it to everyone.

Matt