Yes, it was.

And (like you say a few posts down from that) I definitely don't want to elevate anyone to deity level. But far as I'm concerned it was about the best pop music ever! The early stuff is some of my favorite.

Erm - along with some of the later stuff...

Cheers - C

Personally am a great George fan. Read His "I, Me, Mine," autobio for a glimpse of the man in detail.

So what if he could not pick as many notes as fast as Segovia or as loud as The Ramones? George was himself.

Also, as has been said, the Beatles were world-shakers. One of the big, "Music has never been the same, since" influences.

Let's just enjoy the legacy without picking nits to make ourselves feel important / relieved / knowledgeable / justified / assauage our annoyances / tick others off /sound like whiny b*tt plugs / get back at the one who ticked us off....

To me, just about all of early r&r could be called pop with our current view. Was Buddy Holly pop or r&r? They called Fabian R&R. In the early sixties there was a lull in R&R filled by folk music. The Beach Boys were around, but all that was pretty corn pone to me. The Beatles arrived and jump started R&R in the USA. And they put out some excellent tunes, whatever you want to call it. The British Invasion (pop, blues) really established modern R&R. Along with soul music. I always say it's all about the music. R&R is not meant to be cd quality to me. Virtuosos are not cool. Joe Strummer is cool. George put out the best music after the breakup. McCartney and Lennon without each other's influence were not as good. Also, I've never seen George not be spiritual and humble. My two cents. As the computer guys say: YMMV IMHO BMFA

Re The Beatles and modern composers:Leonard Bernstein hailed the Beatles as "modern day Mozarts" and symphony orchestras such as Arthur Fiedler's Boston Pops and The Royal Philharmonic under the leadership of David Arnold recorded several albums of Beatles' material,accolades enough I believe to ensure someone's credibility as being top notch musicians and composers.

_________________
'65 Strat,65 Mustang,65 Jaguar,4 more Strats,3 vintage Vox guitars,5 Vox amps,'69 Bassman with a '68 2-15 Bassman cab,36 guitars total-15asst'd amps total,2 vintage '60s Hammond organs & a myriad of effects-with a few rare vintage ones.

Granted, they were just a POP band in the early years...but they went beyond that, starting with Rubber Soul and Revolver (which one was first? I don't remember); they started becoming great songwriters that moved past the "moon/June/swoon" lyrics.

A good question might be, "What pop band of today will transcend the "pop" label and move beyond it? Will their record company let them do that?"

As far as musicianship, yes, there were better musicians during that era; there were also bands that had better individual musicians than the Beatles from that era. Charlie Watts could (and still can) play circles around Ringo. Clapton could outplay all three guitarists in the Beatles (which is why they got him to play on the White Album, on "While My Guitar..." and "Yer Blues")...

But when you say "better", that's where the sticky wicket gets started. I like ZZ Top better than I do the Beatles, but which one is the better band? Billy, Dusty & Frank will say the Beatles (and I will have to agree). I also like the Stones more than the Beatles, but which one is better? uhhh...

Yes, there was direction from behind the scenes, but those people directing them didn't come up with the awesome music & lyrics of "Norwegian Wood", "Tax Man", "She Said She Said", and "Eleanor Rigby".

...and you're right, you shouldn't bring up the Alamo (just kidding...no I'm not...maybe).

_________________
Good Vibes To Y'all!



Screamin' Armadillos
Texas Roadhouse Music
Guitar/Slide Guitar/Harp/Vocals