Eleanor Rigby

[Alkaline]

I've just listened to them. Trust me, there's nothing that sounds remotely like a sitar on them.

I know there's no sitar on the album versions.

[Camie]

Songs like "Love Minus Zero/No Limit" or "It's Alright Ma" were much more advanced in terms of structure and lyricism than anything The Beatles were doing at the time.

.

Even to this day there is no one that I think has wrote better lyrics than Dylan has.

[Alkaline]

Even to this day there is no one that I think has wrote better lyrics than Dylan has.

Dylan writes great lyrics. Pity he can't sing for shit and isn't a great guitarist

[Guest DustyDeviada]

I said popularised, not that they created them. They were one of the first mainstream acts to use them. But i guess that depends on your definition of what 'pop' is

I still don't think you can argue that the Beach Boys were one of the first mainstream acts to use harmonies.

How about The Andrews Sisters, Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers, Dion and the Belmonts, Les Paul and Mary Ford, The Everly Brothers, The Chordettes to name but a few. There were loads and loads of hugely successful acts in the 40s and 50s using harmonies - where do you think The Beach Boys learned to do it?

As for things that The Beatles did first, how about use an electric 12-string, record feedback (on I Feel Fine) and record backwards guitar (on I'm Only Sleeping).

[Marsh]

Right, it's lunchtime and i'm bored.

Very long winded, but i've tried to cut out the unneccesary as much as possible. It's a great read for everybody with even a passing interest in recording just to see how many techniques were pioneered or invented by the Beatles or their team of engineers and producer:

Right, let's put this one to bed:

Although microphone usage varied somewhat according to the requirements of each song, the group's recordings at Abbey Road most often employed Neumann U47 or U67 microphones for electric guitars and one or more Neumann U48s for vocals. Early in their recording career the drums usually were recorded with only two microphones: one overhead (an AKG D19 or STC 4038) and one for the bass drum (such as an AKG D20). Later, more microphones were used on the drums.

With the group's encouragement, recording engineer Geoff Emerick experimented with microphone placement and equalization. Many of his techniques were unusual for the time but have since become commonplace, such as "close miking" (physically placing the microphone in very close proximity of a sound source) of acoustic instruments or deliberately overloading the signal to produce distortion. For example, he obtained the biting string sound that characterizes Eleanor Rigby by miking the instruments extremely closely -- Emerick has related that the string players would instinctively back away from the microphones at the start of each take, and he would go back into the studio and move the microphones closer again.

Revolver was The Beatles' seventh album in three years, released on August 5, 1966. The album showcased a number of new stylistic developments which would become more pronounced on later albums.

Lennon was the main writer of "I'm Only Sleeping". George Harrison played the notes for the lead guitar (and for the second guitar in the solo) in reverse order, then reversed the tape and mixed it in. The backwards guitar sound builds the sleepy, ominous, and weeping tone of the song. This, along with backwards vocals used on The Beatles song Rain (recorded at the sessions and released separately, as B-side to the "Paperback Writer" single) was the first recorded instance of backmasking, which Lennon discovered after mistakenly loading a reel-to-reel tape backwards under the influence of marijuana.

Another key production technique used for the first time on this album was Automatic double tracking (ADT), invented by engineer Ken Townsend on 6 April 1966. This technique used two linked tape recorders to automatically create a doubled vocal track, replacing the standard method, which was to double the vocal by singing the same piece twice onto a multitrack tape, a task Lennon particularly disliked. The Beatles were reportedly delighted with the invention and used it extensively on Revolver. ADT quickly became a standard pop production technique and led to related developments including phasing, flanging and chorus.

The Beatles' unfolding innovation in the studio reaches its apex with the album's final track. Lennon's "Tomorrow Never Knows" was one of the first songs in the emerging genre of psychedelia, and included such groundbreaking techniques as reverse guitar, processed vocals and looped tape effects. Musically, it is drone-like, with a strongly syncopated, repetitive drum-beat.

Much of the backing track consists of a series of prepared tape loops, stemming from Lennon and McCartney's interest in and experiments with magnetic tape and musique concrète techniques at that time. According to Beatles session chronicler Mark Lewisohn, Lennon and McCartney prepared a series of loops at home, and these then were added to the pre-recorded backing track. This was reportedly done live in a single take, with multiple tape recorders running simultaneously, and some of the longer loops extended out of the control room and down the corridor.

Lennon's processed lead vocal was another innovation. Always in search of ways to enhance or alter the sound of his voice, he gave a directive to EMI engineer Geoff Emerick that he wanted to sound like he was singing from the top of a high mountain. Emerick solved the problem by splicing a line from the recording console into the studio's Leslie speaker, giving Lennon's vocal its ethereal filtered quality, although he was subsequently reprimanded by the studio management for doing so.

Since the introduction of the core technology of magnetic recording tape in 1949, multitrack recording had progressed rapidly, with 8-track tape recorders already available in the USA and the first 8-tracks coming on-line in commercial studios in London in late 1967, shortly after Sgt. Pepper was released.

All of the Sgt. Pepper tracks were recorded at Abbey Road using mono, stereo and 4-track recorders. Like its predecessors, the recording made extensive use of the technique known as bouncing down, in which a number of tracks were recorded across the four tracks of one recorder, which were then mixed and dubbed down onto one track of the master 4-track machine. This enabled the Abbey Road engineers to give The Beatles a virtual multi-track studio, since 8-, 16- and 24-track recorders did not exist at this time.

The build-up of noise during over-dubbing was a major problem for engineers. The Abbey Road album was one of the first to use the Dolby noise reduction system. The album remains a landmark in the history of sound recording and is remarkable for the clarity, fidelity and quietness of the transfers.

Magnetic tape had also led to innovative use of instruments and production effects, notably the tape-based keyboard sampler, the Mellotron, and effects like flanging (a term invented by Martin, an effect use as early as 1959 on Toni Fisher's "The Big Hurt") and phasing, and a greatly improved system for creating echo and reverberation.

Several then-new production effects feature extensively on the recordings. One of the most important was automatic double tracking (ADT), a system that used tape recorders to create an instant and simultaneous doubling of a sound. Although it had long been recognised that using multitrack tape to record 'doubled' lead vocals gave them a greatly enhanced sound (especially with weaker singers) it had always been necessary to record such vocal tracks twice, a task which was both tedious and exacting.

ADT was invented specially for The Beatles by EMI engineer Ken Townshend in 1965, mainly at the behest of Lennon, who hated tracking sessions and regularly expressed a desire for a technical solution to the problem. ADT quickly became a near-universal recording practice in popular music.

Also important was varispeeding, the technique of recording various tracks on a multi-track tape at slightly different tape speeds. The Beatles use this effect extensively on their vocals in this period. The speeding up of vocals (also known as 'tweaking') also became a widespread technique in pop production. The Beatles also used the effect on portions of their backing tracks (as on "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds") to give them a 'thicker' and more diffuse sound.

In another innovation, the album (in its original LP form that was later released on CD) ends in an unusual way, beginning with a 15-kilohertz high-frequency tone (put on the album at John Lennon's suggestion, said to be "especially intended to annoy your dog"), followed by an endless loop made by the runout groove looping back into itself.

The Beatles also used new modular effects units like the wah-wah pedal and the fuzzbox, which they augmented with their own experimental ideas, such as running voices and instruments through a Leslie speaker. Another important sonic innovation was McCartney's discovery of the direct injection (DI) technique, in which he could record his bass by plugging it directly into an amplifying circuit in the recording console. While the still often-used technique of recording through an amplifier with a microphone sounds more natural, this setup provided a radically different presence in bass guitar sound versus the old method.

"I Want You (She's So Heavy)" also features one of the earliest uses of a Moog synthesiser to create the white-noise or "wind" effect heard near the end of the track.

That's just what I could dig up in 20 minutes.

So to go back to Alkaline's original point that the Beatles never influenced any of the bands mentioned in his list: I think all of those gropus mentioned utilise most of the techniques mentioned above.

No Beatles = no modern music as we know it.

Goodnight.

[Alkaline]

I will add that by not influenced by i generally mean in terms of the music itself not production/recording techniques and or instrument use. Thus i'm still right.

[Mr Owl PhD]

Am I the only one reminded of this article in reading this thread?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29494

[kirkt]

I'd like to try put up a good argument to Phil but I think Marsh has just summed up why the Beatles are the best band ever.

Comparing the songwriting of Aerogramme, Sigur Ros and Neurosis to The Beatles is like comparing the monkees to mogwai, its ridiculous. Good bands but could any of your bands write the greatest pop songs that defined an era? i doubt it. also Sigur Ros clearly take influence from beatles tracks such as blue jay way and revolution #9.

if you can name a band that write better pop or rock music than the beatles or a superior 60s band full stop then go ahead. i doubt you can.

[Alkaline]

if you can name a band that write better pop or rock music than the beatles or a superior 60s band full stop then go ahead. i doubt you can.

I can, because my opinion differs from yours. I don't like the Beatles, so none of their songs are better than any acts that i like, in my opinion. Just because i don't like them doesn't mean i'm wrong. Personal preferences are the key here and i'd appreciate a less 'nazi-esque' approach to telling me what i can and can't like.

[Guest DustyDeviada]

I can, because my opinion differs from yours. I don't like the Beatles, so none of their songs are better than any acts that i like, in my opinion. Just because i don't like them doesn't mean i'm wrong. Personal preferences are the key here and i'd appreciate a less 'nazi-esque' approach to telling me what i can and can't like.

Of course you can have a different opinion. It's just that in this case, you're wrong.

[Guest Phantomsmasher]

Through this thread we have now found the ultimate faction of musical purists... Beatles fans o_O

[Alkaline]

Personal preferences aren't really what's being discussed here, though. It's more about the influence and effect The Beatles had on music and culture today, and the fact remains that without their existence none of the bands you have cited would have existed, let alone achieved any modicum of success.

Thats fucking bullshit Dave. I seriously doubt that the sole reason several of the guitarists and lyricists in my favourite bands picked up their instruments and found their 'voices' solely thanks to the Beatles. Get your head out your arse for two seconds and you'll realise that what you just wrote is probably the biggest pile of bullshit i've ever read on this site.

[ultra-violent]

But seriously' date=' i think the Beatles are overrated. I just don't like them. I've got or had access to all the albums since i was about 6/7 years old. Both my parents are fans, my mum having seen them when she was a screaming teenager. I just don't get what all the fuss is about, its not through lack of trying either. For me personally there have been a lot more bands that have been influential in terms of my songwriting. [/quote']

i know what you mean. im not a big fan of them either. its really hard to imagine the sort of impact they had at that time. music was so different back then. no metal, no funk, etc. tastes have changed so much since the 60s. its so hard for some of our generation to see why they changed music. sometimes we just have to accept that they did...just because they were so popular and our views are slightly tinted by the exciting new stuff that we've heard in more modern times.

[The Milner]

Thats fucking bullshit Dave. I seriously doubt that the sole reason several of the guitarists and lyricists in my favourite bands picked up their instruments and found their 'voices' solely thanks to the Beatles. Get your head out your arse for two seconds and you'll realise that what you just wrote is probably the biggest pile of bullshit i've ever read on this site.

well that wasnt needed really was it.

[Frosty Jack]

I get the feeling that this thread may have just single-handedly paid for Google's purchase of Youtube...

And as for -

Personally, songwriting-wise i am influenced by Aereogramme, Jeniferever, Sigur Ros, Mae, Mum (the band, nae my ma), Explosions In The Sky, Grails, Red Sparowes, Isis, Neurosis etc

Good luck finding Beatles influences in there

That really is a dreadful post...

[Alkaline]

well that wasnt needed really was it.

Neither was that, the day i get chastised by you of all people and actually feel bad about what i've done, i think hell might freeze over. I stand by my post 100%

[Alkaline]

I get the feeling that this thread may have just single-handedly paid for Google's purchase of Youtube...

And as for -

That really is a dreadful post...

Why, because you don't agree with me? None of those bands and their constituent members are directly influenced by the Beatles and their music. That doesn't reflect on the Beatles achievements, i couldn't care less what they've achieved personally, but they're not applicable in every case in music like some of you Beatles fans seem intent on saying they are.

[Frosty Jack]

Why, because you don't agree with me? None of those bands and their constituent members are directly influenced by the Beatles and their music. That doesn't reflect on the Beatles achievements, i couldn't care less what they've achieved personally, but they're not applicable in every case in music like some of you Beatles fans seem intent on saying they are.

For a start, I'm not a Beatles fan. Secondly, you're missing the point. No-one is saying that your list of bands are 'directly' influenced. But somewhere down the line the Beatles will have had an effect. Pick one of your bands, take one of their influences, and then look at who influenced the influence, and so on. It's fine to hate the Beatles, but you can't really claim that your music would be just the same if they had never existed. It's always been the same. Just as the genius of Beethoven ushered the change from Classicism to Romanticism, the Beatles were another of those revolutionaries that did something no-one else had thought of, and took those that followed in a new direction.

[Alkaline]

For a start, I'm not a Beatles fan. Secondly, you're missing the point. No-one is saying that your list of bands are 'directly' influenced. But somewhere down the line the Beatles will have had an effect. Pick one of your bands, take one of their influences, and then look at who influenced the influence, and so on. It's fine to hate the Beatles, but you can't really claim that your music would be just the same if they had never existed. It's always been the same. Just as the genius of Beethoven ushered the change from Classicism to Romanticism, the Beatles were another of those revolutionaries that did something no-one else had thought of, and took those that followed in a new direction.

I'm not saying that it would, in fact i didn't in any of the posts i've made. I've always implied the term 'direct influence'. Its feasible that any of those bands would've developed into what they have without some influence that can be traced back to the Beatles, and it'd be niave to say otherwise.

At the end of the day i'm not denying that they had an impact on music as a whole, i just don't see the mass appeal and i don't agree with the idolatry that they recieve.

And you could argue back that there would have been no Beatles if there hadn't been Beethoven and all other forms of music that came before them. That is the point that makes them no deserving of mass acclaim than any other act.

[The Milner]

Neither was that, the day i get chastised by you of all people and actually feel bad about what i've done, i think hell might freeze over. I stand by my post 100%

easy tiger.

[Old Gold]

That is the point that makes them no deserving of mass acclaim than any other act.

Of course they do!

They beat the tits off Phil Collins at least

[Alkaline]

They beat the tits off Phil Collins at least

Haha, no.

[David]

I will add that by not influenced by i generally mean in terms of the music itself not production/recording techniques and or instrument use. Thus i'm still right.

Maybe not you personally, or the bands you consider as your direct influences, but the bands they took their influence from and so on take ideas and sounds from the Beatles, and a lot of the sounds they poineered or created have since gone on to be commonplace ideas that you might not link directly to the Beatles, but originated there (and changed slightly and adapted as music has progressed since then)

Maybe you don't take a direct link from the Beatles, but music as a whole has.

David

[Guest bluesxman]

Were The Beatles nae a skiffle band until Lennon heard Elvis and decided Rock and Roll was the way to go? So the Beatles aren't the starting point at all, The King is. But then he stole everything off black musicians (allegedly) so let's keep tracing back shall we....8-)

[Alkaline]

Were The Beatles nae a skiffle band until Lennon heard Elvis and decided Rock and Roll was the way to go? So the Beatles aren't the starting point at all, The King is. But then he stole everything off black musicians (allegedly) so let's keep tracing back shall we....8-)

That was my point my good man, thanks for putting it in better words than me