OT perhaps: Beatles compared to Shakespeare
The Historian
"Even in 1964, though, no one could have predicted that by the end of
that decade the Beatles would bear the same relationship to popular
music that Shakespeare bore to the English drama of his time: clearly
within it, yet curiously beyond it. Just as there is no explicable way
to get from Nicholas Udall’s Ralph Roister Doister to Shakespeare’s A
Midsummer Night’s Dream, so too there is no way to get from Leiber and
Stoller’s “Jailhouse Rock” or Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti” to John
Lennon’s “Revolution” or Paul McCartney’s “Helter Skelter.” Given the
landscape of musical influences available to the Beatles, what’s the
logical precedent for “Eleanor Rigby” or “I Am the Walrus” or “Golden
Slumbers” or “Nowhere Man” or “Penny Lane” or “Across the Universe” or
the entire Sgt. Pepper album? The question that jumps to mind with
each of these recordings is: Where the hell did that come from?"
I think the author is more familiar with American pop music than
Elizabethan lit, but still, it's an interesting comparison. I'd
suggest Marlowe as a transitional figure Goldblatt omits.
Lynne
On Oct 16, 3:53 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226852/yeah-yeah-yes/mark-gold...
> "Even in 1964, though, no one could have predicted that by the end of
> that decade the Beatles would bear the same relationship to popular
> music that Shakespeare bore to the English drama of his time: clearly
> within it, yet curiously beyond it. Just as there is no explicable way
> to get from Nicholas Udall’s Ralph Roister Doister to Shakespeare’s A
> Midsummer Night’s Dream, so too there is no way to get from Leiber and
> Stoller’s “Jailhouse Rock” or Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti” to John
> Lennon’s “Revolution” or Paul McCartney’s “Helter Skelter.” Given the
> landscape of musical influences available to the Beatles, what’s the
> logical precedent for “Eleanor Rigby” or “I Am the Walrus” or “Golden
> Slumbers” or “Nowhere Man” or “Penny Lane” or “Across the Universe” or
> the entire Sgt. Pepper album? The question that jumps to mind with
> each of these recordings is: Where the hell did that come from?"
lullaby. My mother sang it to me when I was little.
Bob Grumman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are the Beatles really considered the Shakespeare of of the pop music
of their times? Which included Elvis, Little Richard and for Pete's
Sake the sainted Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, as even I know, and
I know pop music about as well as most pop fans know Elizabethan
literature. And the decisive songs mentioned don't seem any more
decisive than "Autumn Leaves" or the first pop hit I was familiar with
because my brother played it a lot, "I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf
Clover." And what about "Rock Around the Clock?" Sort of the "Rite
of Spring" of pop music of the times. Nothing the Beatles did caused
the uproar that thing did.
I now remember a documentary making up that the Beach Boys
arrangements were revolutionary. I'm sure they were slightly
innovative, as maybe the Beatles' stuff was, but they didn't stand out
like Shakespeare. What the idea of the Beatles as pop's Shakespeare
suggests most to me is the way people seem to need to isolate heroes
to reign supreme orders of magnitude above their greatest peers.
Oh, well, its fun to make crazy parallels.
--Bob
John W Kennedy
> Are the Beatles really considered the Shakespeare of of the pop music
> of their times? Which included Elvis, Little Richard and for Pete's
> Sake the sainted Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, as even I know, and
> I know pop music about as well as most pop fans know Elizabethan
> literature. And the decisive songs mentioned don't seem any more
> decisive than "Autumn Leaves" or the first pop hit I was familiar with
> because my brother played it a lot, "I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf
> Clover." And what about "Rock Around the Clock?" Sort of the "Rite
> of Spring" of pop music of the times. Nothing the Beatles did caused
> the uproar that thing did.
"Rock Around the Clock" caused a great deal of Parental Horror, but it was not anywhere as influential as any of a dozen Beatles songs, and no one ever had anywhere near the presence in the Top 40, especially in the 1963-1964 era when Lennon and McCartney were also writing half the hits recorded by other acts.
The Beatles dominated their era as few have -- Gilbert & Sullivan, Verdi, Beethoven.... In their own time, in fact, they were far bigger than Shakespeare was in his. It's hard to be sure about how things will be 400 years down the line, of course.
--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
Bob Grumman
pop music. "Rock Around the Clock," I think it could be argued, and
was by me, was a sort Of "The rite of Spring" of its time. What
bewildered old folks of the time called screaming became an element of
pop music--an important one. I doubt Gilbert and Sullivan were all
that dominant, but I don't know Lehar and other operetta composers'
dates.
Verdi? I thought Wagner was making a bit of a splash when Verdi was
in his prime--and Wagner had the kind of cultural effect I'm talking
about that I don't think the Beatles had.
Tom Reedy
I disagree, but it's irrelevant. I was arguing about their effect on
On Oct 17, 6:30 pm, John W Kennedy <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > Are the Beatles really considered the Shakespeare of of the pop music
> > of their times? Which included Elvis, Little Richard and for Pete's
> > Sake the sainted Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, as even I know, and
> > I know pop music about as well as most pop fans know Elizabethan
> > literature. And the decisive songs mentioned don't seem any more
> > decisive than "Autumn Leaves" or the first pop hit I was familiar with
> > because my brother played it a lot, "I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf
> > Clover." And what about "Rock Around the Clock?" Sort of the "Rite
> > of Spring" of pop music of the times. Nothing the Beatles did caused
> > the uproar that thing did.
>
> "Rock Around the Clock" caused a great deal of Parental Horror, but it was not anywhere as influential as any of a dozen Beatles songs, and no one ever had anywhere near the presence in the Top 40, especially in the 1963-1964 era when Lennon and McCartney were also writing half the hits recorded by other acts.
>
> The Beatles dominated their era as few have -- Gilbert & Sullivan, Verdi, Beethoven.... In their own time, in fact, they were far bigger than Shakespeare was in his. It's hard to be sure about how things will be 400 years down the line, of course.
pop music. "Rock Around the Clock," I think it could be argued, and
was by me, was a sort Of "The rite of Spring" of its time. What
bewildered old folks of the time called screaming became an element of
pop music--an important one.
TR
John W Kennedy
On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 17, 6:30 pm, John W Kennedy <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>>> Are the Beatles really considered the Shakespeare of of the pop music
>>> of their times? Which included Elvis, Little Richard and for Pete's
>>> Sake the sainted Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, as even I know, and
>>> I know pop music about as well as most pop fans know Elizabethan
>>> literature. And the decisive songs mentioned don't seem any more
>>> decisive than "Autumn Leaves" or the first pop hit I was familiar with
>>> because my brother played it a lot, "I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf
>>> Clover." And what about "Rock Around the Clock?" Sort of the "Rite
>>> of Spring" of pop music of the times. Nothing the Beatles did caused
>>> the uproar that thing did.
>>
>> "Rock Around the Clock" caused a great deal of Parental Horror, but it was not anywhere as influential as any of a dozen Beatles songs, and no one ever had anywhere near the presence in the Top 40, especially in the 1963-1964 era when Lennon and McCartney were also writing half the hits recorded by other acts.
>>
>> The Beatles dominated their era as few have -- Gilbert & Sullivan, Verdi, Beethoven.... In their own time, in fact, they were far bigger than Shakespeare was in his. It's hard to be sure about how things will be 400 years down the line, of course.
>
> I disagree, but it's irrelevant. I was arguing about their effect on
> pop music. "Rock Around the Clock," I think it could be argued, and
> was by me, was a sort Of "The rite of Spring" of its time. What
> bewildered old folks of the time called screaming became an element of
> pop music--an important one.
"Rock Around the Clock" became iconic only a year after it came out, and only because it happened to be used in the soundtrack of "The Blackboard Jungle". It wasn't even the first rock-and-roll hit by Bill Haley. And there were plenty of indistinguishable-from-rock-and-roll records recorded by black artists going back to the 40s, and arguably to the 20s.
> I doubt Gilbert and Sullivan were all
> that dominant, but I don't know Lehar and other operetta composers'
> dates.
Lehar is 20th century, as are Kálmán, Straus, Fall, and Stolz. The most successful rival to Gilbert and Sullivan in their own place and time was "Dorothy" by Alfred Cellier, who is otherwise best known as the original conductor of many of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas (except for the premières, which were usually conducted by Sullivan, himself).
> Verdi? I thought Wagner was making a bit of a splash when Verdi was
> in his prime--and Wagner had the kind of cultural effect I'm talking
> about that I don't think the Beatles had.
As far as opera is concerned, 19th-century Italy, France, and Germany are three different worlds. And Wagner was the darling of the intellectuals, but Verdi was a national icon. During the Risorgimento his very name became a rallying cry for Vittorio Emmanuele, Re D'Italia.
Wagner did, however, after his death, become the great musical watershed. Every composer of the last 120 years or so has been "post-Wagnerian", either by continuing the movement he started (e.g., Mahler), or by repudiating it (e.g., Schönberg).
--
John W Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"
Bob Grumman
> >> On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >>> Are the Beatles really considered the Shakespeare of of the pop music
> >>> of their times? Which included Elvis, Little Richard and for Pete's
> >>> Sake the sainted Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, as even I know, and
> >>> I know pop music about as well as most pop fans know Elizabethan
> >>> literature. And the decisive songs mentioned don't seem any more
> >>> decisive than "Autumn Leaves" or the first pop hit I was familiar with
> >>> because my brother played it a lot, "I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf
> >>> Clover." And what about "Rock Around the Clock?" Sort of the "Rite
> >>> of Spring" of pop music of the times. Nothing the Beatles did caused
> >>> the uproar that thing did.
Broadway for a while. I consider their stuff pop music.
> >> "Rock Around the Clock" caused a great deal of Parental Horror, but it was not anywhere as influential as any of a dozen Beatles songs, and no one ever had anywhere near the presence in the Top 40, especially in the 1963-1964 era when Lennon and McCartney were also writing half the hits recorded by other acts.
>
> >> The Beatles dominated their era as few have -- Gilbert & Sullivan, Verdi, Beethoven.... In their own time, in fact, they were far bigger than Shakespeare was in his. It's hard to be sure about how things will be 400 years down the line, of course.
>
> > I disagree, but it's irrelevant. I was arguing about their effect on
> > pop music. "Rock Around the Clock," I think it could be argued, and
> > was by me, was a sort Of "The rite of Spring" of its time. What
> > bewildered old folks of the time called screaming became an element of
> > pop music--an important one.
>
> "Rock Around the Clock" became iconic only a year after it came out, and only because it happened to be used in the soundtrack of "The Blackboard Jungle". It wasn't even the first rock-and-roll hit by Bill Haley. And there were plenty of indistinguishable-from-rock-and-roll records recorded by black artists going back to the 40s, and arguably to the 20s.
Clock," including ones sung by Elvis that did something importantly
new, whoever was responsible for it (I would guess, not knowing what
it might have been, just assuming it existed) that were as pivotal to
the development of pop music as what the Beatles did,
> > I doubt Gilbert and Sullivan were all
> > that dominant, but I don't know Lehar and other operetta composers'
> > dates.
>
> Lehar is 20th century, as are Kálmán, Straus, Fall, and Stolz. The most successful rival to Gilbert and Sullivan in their own place and time was "Dorothy" by Alfred Cellier, who is otherwise best known as the original conductor of many of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas (except for the premières, which were usually conducted by Sullivan, himself).
were picking out Shakespeare-important artists--i.e., ones who came to
seem dominant, as you agree Wagner did.
--Bob
Tom Reedy
There was nothing radically new about rock and roll until the Beatles, except for the fact that black musicians such as Little Richard and Chuck Berry were allowed to play white venues and appear on television. Rock and roll changed very incrementally and was solidly rooted on the music that came before it. I've heard old Louis Jordan songs from the 40s whose guitar tracks are indistinguishable from Chuck Berry's. I have recordings of old blues songs from the 20s that were covered (without acknowledgment) by Cream and Led Zeppelin in the 60s, not to mention (arguably) lesser bands such as Canned Heat. You can take almost any rock and roll song and trace it back to a previous song and continue tracing until you reach ragtime and the old Delta blues, because rock and roll is commercial music and as such it is created in response to the musical and social environment, because it has to please an audience. Elvis Presley, a very talented gospel singer, literally did impressions of black jump singers, and a lot of early listeners thought he was black. Even the Beatles were very derivative up until about Rubber Soul, and then all hell broke loose. Just as in Renaissance England when the emerging literacy coupled with the decline of the feudal system set the stage for the 1590-1610 dramatic literature sea change, so the elements all came together in the 60s for a radical flowering of music that had never been seen before nor is likely to be seen again, at least in our life times. But no band was as important to that musical revolution as the Beatles.
Just my 2p.
TR
> > I doubt Gilbert and Sullivan were all
> > that dominant, but I don't know Lehar and other operetta composers'
> > dates.
>
> Lehar is 20th century, as are Kálmán, Straus, Fall, and Stolz. The most successful rival to Gilbert and Sullivan in their own place and time was "Dorothy" by Alfred Cellier, who is otherwise best known as the original conductor of many of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas (except for the premières, which were usually conducted by Sullivan, himself).
Bob Grumman
> There was nothing radically new about rock and roll until the Beatles, except for the fact that black musicians such as Little Richard and Chuck Berry were allowed to play white venues and appear on television. Rock and roll changed very incrementally and was solidly rooted on the music that came before it. I've heard old Louis Jordan songs from the 40s whose guitar tracks are indistinguishable from Chuck Berry's. I have recordings of old blues songs from the 20s that were covered (without acknowledgment) by Cream and Led Zeppelin in the 60s, not to mention (arguably) lesser bands such as Canned Heat. You can take almost any rock and roll song and trace it back to a previous song and continue tracing until you reach ragtime and the old Delta blues, because rock and roll is commercial music and as such it is created in response to the musical and social environment, because it has to please an audience. Elvis Presley, a very talented gospel singer, literally did impressions of black jump singers, and a lot of early listeners thought he was black. Even the Beatles were very derivative up until about Rubber Soul, and then all hell broke loose. Just as in Renaissance England when the emerging literacy coupled with the decline of the feudal system set the stage for the 1590-1610 dramatic literature sea change, so the elements all came together in the 60s for a radical flowering of music that had never been seen before nor is likely to be seen again, at least in our life times. But no band was as important to that musical revolution as the Beatles.
>
> Just my 2p.
>
> TR
pop music like the documentary on the Beach Boys. I would enjoy
seeing one that got into just what it was that the Beatles did with
music that was more radical than what many others did. I was there
and didn't notice it--but I tended to hear pop music rather than
listen to it. I always liked the Beatles, and thought their movies
terrific, especially The Yellow Submarine, so I wouldn't mind if they
proved high up in the pop music echelons.
Odd. I've seen "echelons" or heard it often, but I think that's the
first time I ever used it. Particularly inasmuch as I'm always trying
to put entities into classifications.
--Bob
Tom Reedy
I'm not a big fan of PBS, but they've done some interesting stuff on
> There was nothing radically new about rock and roll until the Beatles, except for the fact that black musicians such as Little Richard and Chuck Berry were allowed to play white venues and appear on television. Rock and roll changed very incrementally and was solidly rooted on the music that came before it. I've heard old Louis Jordan songs from the 40s whose guitar tracks are indistinguishable from Chuck Berry's. I have recordings of old blues songs from the 20s that were covered (without acknowledgment) by Cream and Led Zeppelin in the 60s, not to mention (arguably) lesser bands such as Canned Heat. You can take almost any rock and roll song and trace it back to a previous song and continue tracing until you reach ragtime and the old Delta blues, because rock and roll is commercial music and as such it is created in response to the musical and social environment, because it has to please an audience. Elvis Presley, a very talented gospel singer, literally did impressions of black jump singers, and a lot of early listeners thought he was black. Even the Beatles were very derivative up until about Rubber Soul, and then all hell broke loose. Just as in Renaissance England when the emerging literacy coupled with the decline of the feudal system set the stage for the 1590-1610 dramatic literature sea change, so the elements all came together in the 60s for a radical flowering of music that had never been seen before nor is likely to be seen again, at least in our life times. But no band was as important to that musical revolution as the Beatles.
>
> Just my 2p.
>
> TR
pop music like the documentary on the Beach Boys.
Beach Boys-->Four Freshmen-->Glenn Miller and Artie Shaw-->vaudeville music-->barbershop quartets-->black gospel music-->Western African music+Christian hymns
I would enjoy
seeing one that got into just what it was that the Beatles did with
music that was more radical than what many others did.
They were at the right time at the right place with the right talent and the right technology and the right drugs (which is really the right time, I suppose).
I was there
and didn't notice it--but I tended to hear pop music rather than
listen to it. I always liked the Beatles, and thought their movies
terrific, especially The Yellow Submarine, so I wouldn't mind if they
proved high up in the pop music echelons.
I didn't think so highly of them until 10 years ago or so. I wonder how much of it is nostalgia and how much true appreciation.
TR
The Historian
On Oct 18, 11:17 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
full circle to Sting's album of John Dowland.
Tom Reedy
Well also Scottish ballads and Gaelic lays, but I didn't want to jump the pond. We could take it all the way back to Babylon, but you'd be hard-pressed to see the commonality between it and modern popular music, while it's pretty evident in the above list.
TR
hj
Elizabethan drama in that it is so much larger, with so many different
participants. The Elizabethan theater "establishment" was exquisitely
tiny in comparison. And the 60's had large number of creative
musicians. All that said, the Beatles stood out.
They began as a standard three-guitars-and-drums pop group, heavily
influenced by Buddy Hollie's "Crickets" and by Elvis Presley, and
their major early hits were teen love songs. Within a couple of years
years of being "discovered" they began to introduce very un-pop-like
elements into their music--psychedelic themes, Eastern philosophy and
religion, Lewis Carroll-influenced nonsense (I say that with the
greatest respect, even awe, not as criticism), Indian instrumentation
and musical style, classical orchestras, exploring what could be done
with the then new, electronic sound-editing techniques, and so on. But
they weren't cold auteurs. They included very serious, thoughtful,
emotionally rich songs ("Within You/Without You") almost side-by-side
with light, comedic pieces such as "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid." They
melded the incompatible in ways that worked: "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"
is a deliciously ironic, bouncy song about a serial killer.
Like Shakespeare they composed wonderful art -- and the groundlings
ate it up. "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" was absolutely un-
pop-ish and should have been (likewise) an absolutely uncommercial
LP, but it became possibly the most important album in rock history.
Even today, "The Beatles" are regularly ranked toward the top of lists
of important "pop" groups, recognized by 20-somethings who know little-
else about 60's music.
Dylan? The Rolling Stones? The Who? Jonson. Marlowe. Middleton. Maybe
Kyd.
Enough.
hj
On Oct 20, 5:04 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John W Kennedy
> They began as a standard three-guitars-and-drums pop group, heavily
> influenced by Buddy Hollie's "Crickets" and by Elvis Presley, and
> their major early hits were teen love songs.
And even then they were both more musically sophisticated and more down to earth than the deracinated glurge coming from the Dick Clark establishment. If Buddy Holly had lived, he might have forestalled them, but as things worked out....
--
John W Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That. ...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Bob Grumman
important, Bing Crosby or FrankSinatra.
--Bob
John W Kennedy
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 21, 10:00 pm, John W Kennedy <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:08 PM, hj wrote:
>>
>>> They began as a standard three-guitars-and-drums pop group, heavily
>>> influenced by Buddy Hollie's "Crickets" and by Elvis Presley, and
>>> their major early hits were teen love songs.
>>
>> And even then they were both more musically sophisticated and more down to earth than the deracinated glurge coming from the Dick Clark establishment. If Buddy Holly had lived, he might have forestalled them, but as things worked out....
> I dunno. To me it's like an argument about who was musically more
> important, Bing Crosby or FrankSinatra.
Bing Crosby was infinitely more important. He was the first popular singer to develop a refined microphone technique, and was largely responsible for the baritone voice replacing the tenor as the standard romantic fach. He was also a major driving force in the development of musical technology, such as when he put $50,000 (about $1,000,000 today) into the development of tape recording.
--
John W Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton