You may be confused about how pop music works. The Beatles "covered' the songs of artists they admired. The term "cover" refers to the act of one artist recording or performing the songs of other artists. If you check the writing credits of each of the Beatles' covers you'll note that the original songwriter is always given album credit as is the identity of the copyright holder. A rip off would be an artist recording or performing the songs of other artists without giving that artist credit and not getting permission. Simple, no?Nope. But I will let you continue to ignore history, and how there is no Beatles (or what would come in the 60s) without those they so liberally imitated / ripped such as Little Richard and Paul's beloved Buddy Holly, to name only a few.
Always interesting to me when I get into an online debate, and the poster with whom I’m debating starts copy and pasting long swaths of material in order to make their point.Funny you should mention the Beach Boys, since we all know how the Beatles were so flummoxed by the creative tour de force that was Pet Sounds, like a person seeing a U.F.O. land on their rooftop, that they--in typical fashion--tried to clone it.
McCartney on the influence of Pet Sounds:
"..it was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. First of all, it was Brian's writing. I love the album so much. I've just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life---I figure no one is educated musically 'til they've heard that album. I was into the writing and the songs."
"Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds."
"If records had a director within a band, I sort of directed Pepper. And my influence was basically the Pet Sounds album."
And speaking of that, what is the point you’re attempting to make with this long quote?
Are you trying to say that the Beatles believed the Beach Boys were the better band? If so,

Brian Wilson was a great writer and much admired by many of his peers. However, it is also true that he felt like he was in competition with Lennon/McCartney, which ironically, led him away from ripping off Chuck Berry tunes and trying to actually come up with something truly different. It's not unlikely that a large motivation for Pet Sounds was the Beatles.
Yes, I'm Down, was Paul's attempt to write a Little Richard song, per Paul himself. All I Gotta Do, was John's attempt to write a Smokey Robinson tune. Hide Your Love Away, John also stated, was his attempt to write a Dylan song.This is not even touching how before that, they (like Donovan) tried to clone Bob Dylan's sound. Or the sounds of other artists at nearly every stage of the band's existence. . Another of near-endless examples: McCartney admitted how "Helter Skelter" came to life thanks to reading an article (in Melody Maker) about one of The Who's songs lauded as being the "most raucous rock n roll, the dirtiest thing they've ever done" as Paul remembered it, so he set off to try his hand at cloning that:
There's a difference between innovation and imitation.
Again, what's your point?
They "invented" progressive rock. They were the first major mainstream rock band to experiment with new sounds, studio techniques, etc, which expanded the boundaries of what was defined as rock music.You should have stopped there, as its clear you think the Beatles pretty much invented creative, innovative markers in music.
Please do continue. I'm enjoying this.Its such a patently false idea (and utterly disrespectful offensive to the creators and true innovators of rock/pop) that it instantly invalidated anything you have or ever will post on the subject, but I will continue to pick apart the rest.
No one said the Beatles invented creativity and innovation in rock and roll. That is a straw man argument you've created because it is much easier for you to argue than 'the Monkees are a better band, or just as good'. The Beatles were creative and innovators.
As I've had to tell others in this forum, Boomers can't help it if their generation's birth happens to coincide with the birth of rock, thereby making Boomers' rock idols purely coincidentally, the architects of rock music. And might I reiterate, you think the frigging Monkees are some kind of great band. That alone blows a rather sizable hole in the credibility of your “taste”.They did it to themselves with their tendency to create false idols, particularly in music.
I never said black artists "needed" white artists to popularize black music. What I said was that one of the benefits of having artists like the Beatles record their muisic was, in addition to the royalties, opening up those musicians to a new audience. The Bealtes ALWAYS talked freely about the artists who influenced them and the covers of those artist's songs. Also, they never released cover versions of songs that were currently on the charts or in recent release.Enough with the Beatles fanboy hysteria. Your statement is not only false, but offensive in the extreme, and its similar to what many black artists in early rock said of Pat Boone and the erroneous claims that black music "needed" white artists to popularize their music, when it was already reshaping culture in North America and beyond.
The problem back then wasn't necessarily white artists covering black music, it was white DJ's refusing to play the originals of the tunes being covered. Your knee jerk and very superficial parroting of an often quoted assessment of the issue misses the real problem by a wide margin.
Had white DJ's, who in some cases, were being paid by record companies, played Hank Ballard's original version of "The Twist" we might never have heard Chubby Checkers'. But on the other hand, maybe we would have heard Chubby's version which would have meant even more royalties for Hank on top of the royalties made by his original.
You see, professional songwriters are in the business of selling songs. I wouldn't think it matters to whom they are sold, Pat Boone, Chubby Checker, who cares? Now, singer songwriters, are trying to also sell their versions of their songs. So back in the day, what black artists needed was not so much, white artists not recording their songs, but for white DJ's to also play the original records.
Yes, I fanboy for the Beatles. But you stan the Monkees. You know they are like a bastard stepchild in the Beatles’ legacy? They were conceived as a knock off of not the actual Beatles, but a knock off of the Beatles as portrayed in A Hard Days Night.
I don’t have to ask Quincy Jones about segregation of the charts in the 60’s, I remember. I listened to my little transistor radio incessantly, to pop and r&b stations. In those days those stations playlists always reflected their respective charts. I’m well aware that black stations played mostly black artists and white stations, mostly white artists.No, that's a chart which was never reflective of true American tastes. Ask a Quincy Jones (for one) about the near segregation of charts in the 60s, which did not always recognize the sales / success of black artists to the level they actually reached.
However, I’de be willing to bet that if you polled all Americans back in the mid 60’s about who their favorite individual artist or band in pop music was, the Beatles would have easily had the highest percentage.
And you might not be aware, but the Beatles had a quite sizable number of fans in black communities across America. It was by no means a majority, but sizable nonetheless.
My evidence is the fact that the Stones managed to continue as a record setting touring band for over 50 years. If it were actually true that they started to suck in 1968 and never recovered, I doubt they’d have been able to successfully continue on the road for as long as they did.Waiting for the evidence that the Rolling Stones of 1968 had these high standards as stage performers, and if that were the case, surely they would have worked to improve before taking to the NME Poll Winners' stage in the spring of that year, or Hyde Park and the U.S. tour of '69, where in each case, they were a mess.
Last edited: