OT: Rock and Roll Royalty

[wire chief]

Of course, you may explain your choice.

 

[LasVegasYank]

The Stones are the greatest R&R band of all time, bar none. The Beatles? Jesus no.

 

[chj001]

The only way the Stones are the greatest R&R band of all time is to define R&R so narrowly that the other 4 choices aren't considered R&R. Since they added the Beatles channel to Sirius/XM, I've been listening to it a lot. They're music is so inventive, it never gets old. Listen to nothing but Stones for a month and you'd go crazy. In this race, The Beatles are Secretariat and the race is the Belmont.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

IMHO Chuck Berry came before all those others so even though he may have been beat out later on by assorted singles/groups he was the KING for getting the "snowball rolling down hill!"

 

[JordyG]

If by "King" you mean musical influence it's Chuck hands down. If by "King" you mean financial influence it's the Beatles hands down. If by "King" you mean how R & R was perceived it's a close call between Presley and the Beatles.

If you look outside of R & R and by "King"you mean someone who influenced how popular musics are perceived, and played. How musicians are perceived and how music is played. Who changed the way popular music is sung and interpreted. How to dress, walk, talk and communicate with other musicians, fans, the press, and dignitaries. How to be original, how to master your instrument and still play within a group concept. Hell I could go on and on. It's Louis Armstrong and in a landslide.

 

[connie]

Sorta depends on how much scope you give the term "rock and roll". But even within the constraints of the most limited definitions, the answer is almost certainly "The Beatles". (And I say that with no disrespect to Dylan, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, etc.). Chuck Berry crystallized the basic form. And he was a tireless performer, virtually matchless in terms of longevity. But his range as a songwriter is rather limited. No question; if you had to pick one person, he rivals Elvis as perhaps the primary influence on the major rock and rollers of the early and mid-60s (who in turn influenced others). Other notable rock and roll influences would include Buddy Holly and Jerry Lee Lewis. It becomes a dangerous game attempting to locate R&B, Doo-Wop, swing, country, and even big band within the constellation of forces. I mean, Louis Jordan is arguably an early rock and roller. But hard to say whether he was as influential as others.

If you give the definition of "rock and roll" greater scope . . . then forget about it. It has to be the Beatles. In terms of quantity, quality, range, inventiveness, etc., there is no one and no group that comes even close (60s Dylan is arguably a very distant second). The greatest rock and roll groups often feature at least one great singer. The Beatles had three. Among the handful of the most productive, inventive, talented and enduring post-war rock and roll figures who could sing and play and write songs . . the Beatles had two (Lennon and McCartney). And Harrison was no slouch. (All Things Must Pass, almost all of which was written before the breakup, is jaw-dropping; from "I'd Have You Anytime" to "The Art of Dying", there is not a single false moment.) The Beatles were all exceedingly capable musicians (even if not one of them was a virtuoso). And they were also a fabulous (I mean fabulous) live band--something that came to be a bit forgotten in the decade or so aftermath of their dissolution. (As we know, that was no accident; they'd been performing together about 5 years before setting foot on U.S. soil in February '64.) If we throw in their presence as cultural icons who both articulated the best of their era and blazed the trail to the future, then again . . . no one compares. And they managed to do it all with humor, wit and charisma, without becoming spoiled by their success or descending into self-destruction.

Such matters cannot be known, much less measured. But I would be surprised if cultural/social/historical circumstances ever existed anywhere, anytime, that produced four individuals who came together to sing/write/play/perform together with such an extraordinary output in such a short period of time.

 

[mhshuskies]

T

The Stones are the greatest R&R band of all time, bar none. The Beatles? Jesus no.

The greatest rock band of all time is simply The Band!

 

[Wally East]

Not only everything that connie said above but they kept evolving. They went from "Love Me Do" to "Strawberry Fields" to "Something" and everything that came in between. All in less than a decade.

I can't think of another band that changed what they did so dramatically in such a short time.

 

[Bigboote]

One interpretation I heard of American Pie back in the day was that Elvis was viewed as the king and Chuck Berry as the jester.

How one answers this question really depends on how one interprets it, or how one views what the king means. My opinion is that Chuck Berry is the king, as he really laid the foundation for Rock and Roll. Elvis was totally derivative of the early guys such as Chuck, but also brought it to a much wider audience. Bob Dylan was never really a rock-n-roll guy. The Beatles started out as rock-n-roll, but took the music in a totally different direction by the time they split up. I've never considered the Stones Rock-n-roll, (more rock or blues-rock), but if you do, they still were still heavily influenced by Chuck.

 

[bags27]

Bob Dylan and then the Beatles blew up rock 'n roll. Can anyone really stretch the genre to include "Hurricane" or "When I'm 64"?

Stones continued it sometimes, with brilliant but often derivative music.

Early Elvis was terrific but carefully managed; late Elvis was just an embarrassment.

That leaves the man who wrote about himself (after the studio made him change a key word) "oh my, but that little country boy could play." Sure could.

 

[JordyG]

Sorta depends on how much scope you give the term "rock and roll". But even within the constraints of the most limited definitions, the answer is almost certainly "The Beatles". (And I say that with no disrespect to Dylan, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, etc.). Chuck Berry crystallized the basic form. And he was a tireless performer, virtually matchless in terms of longevity. But his range as a songwriter is rather limited. No question; if you had to pick one person, he rivals Elvis as perhaps the primary influence on the major rock and rollers of the early and mid-60s (who in turn influenced others). Other notable rock and roll influences would include Buddy Holly and Jerry Lee Lewis. It becomes a dangerous game attempting to locate R&B, Doo-Wop, swing, country, and even big band within the constellation of forces. I mean, Louis Jordan is arguably an early rock and roller. But hard to say whether he was as influential as others.

If you give the definition of "rock and roll" greater scope . . . then forget about it. It has to be the Beatles. In terms of quantity, quality, range, inventiveness, etc., there is no one and no group that comes even close (60s Dylan is arguably a very distant second). The greatest rock and roll groups often feature at least one great singer. The Beatles had three. Among the handful of the most productive, inventive, talented and enduring post-war rock and roll figures who could sing and play and write songs . . the Beatles had two (Lennon and McCartney). And Harrison was no slouch. (All Things Must Pass, almost all of which was written before the breakup, is jaw-dropping; from "I'd Have You Anytime" to "The Art of Dying", there is not a single false moment.) The Beatles were all exceedingly capable musicians (even if not one of them was a virtuoso). And they were also a fabulous (I mean fabulous) live band--something that came to be a bit forgotten in the decade or so aftermath of their dissolution. (As we know, that was no accident; they'd been performing together about 5 years before setting foot on U.S. soil in February '64.) If we throw in their presence as cultural icons who both articulated the best of their era and blazed the trail to the future, then again . . . no one compares. And they managed to do it all with humor, wit and charisma, without becoming spoiled by their success or descending into self-destruction.

Such matters cannot be known, much less measured. But I would be surprised if cultural/social/historical circumstances ever existed anywhere, anytime, that produced four individuals who came together to sing/write/play/perform together with such an extraordinary output in such a short period of time.

Well I agree somewhat, and I think some of the following opinions are probably singular to me. The truth is whenever any R & R-er plays a lick, Chuck's influence is there. Let's not forget the performance aspect of Chuck. Every guy with a guitar still does Chucks moves. It doesn't matter if it's Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix or James Hetfield. That's influence. That Chuck had a heavy influence on the Beatles to me settles the argument. So did Smokey by the way. When it comes to song structure and chord progressions, yeah, you still somewhat hear the Beatles influence in some R & R. Also in how some bands do their vocals.

Their real contributions for me was the concept album, the idea that R & R was for listening instead of dancing, that R & R could be a huge money making venture, the concurrent importance of publishing rights, and the advent of the superstar. Nevertheless, in its most popular forms, R & R is still a dance music. The truth is R & R is still very much a musically and melodically limited medium. Just Karaoke off the vocals and just listen to the chords and it's still for the most part major and minor 3 chord progressions. That, again for the most part, is its appeal.

For me the advent of the superstar, this thing that happened around them, is (and I admit, probably only me) really more significant than anything they did musically or financially. This compelling idea that personality can drive popularity to new heights through the sheer force of charisma. The talent of simply making people like you, that's innate and rarer than pure musical talent.

 

[connie]

Well I agree somewhat, and I think some of the following opinions are probably singular to me. The truth is whenever any R & R-er plays a lick, Chuck's influence is there. Let's not forget the performance aspect of Chuck. Every guy with a guitar still does Chucks moves. It doesn't matter if it's Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix or James Hetfield. That's influence. That Chuck had a heavy influence on the Beatles to me settles the argument. So did Smokey by the way. When it comes to song structure and chord progressions, yeah, you still somewhat hear the Beatles influence in some R & R. Also in how some bands do their vocals.

Their real contributions for me was the concept album, the idea that R & R was for listening instead of dancing, that R & R could be a huge money making venture, the concurrent importance of publishing rights, and the advent of the superstar. Nevertheless, in its most popular forms, R & R is still a dance music. The truth is R & R is still very much a musically and melodically limited medium. Just Karaoke off the vocals and just listen to the chords and it's still for the most part major and minor 3 chord progressions. That, again for the most part, is its appeal.

For me the advent of the superstar, this thing that happened around them, is (and I admit, probably only me) really more significant than anything they did musically or financially. This compelling idea that personality can drive popularity to new heights through the sheer force of charisma. The talent of simply making people like you, that's innate and rarer than pure musical talent.

No time to respond in detail . . . But , , ,

What you say certainly contributes meaningfully to the discussion (not that my stamp is required!). If being an influence is what determines who is "King", and if we keep the scope of what is meant by R&R limited, then sure, I see no reason to push back on handing Chuck Berry the crown.

Not sure how many "moves" Chuck Berry originated that inspired others (3?). Interesting point, though. He may be credited with putting the idea of guitar "performance" on the front burner. I'd have to give it some thought.

The Beatles certainly owe a debt of gratitude to Berry (along with Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers, etc.).

re. concept album . . . I am not sure the Beatles really self-consciously set out to produce such a thing. Certainly, Pepper had its inception as such. But it quickly fizzled after Paul came up with the idea and opening track. Before that, the prior LPs did not really have any particular thematic concept. Rather, they reflected a certain stage in their rapid growth as songwriters and inventiveness in the studio (via the guidance of George Martin). Much had to also do with the marketplace for singles and LPs. But that is a long story.

Financially, the Beatles never made much money in the early years. That said, I simply cannot agree that being "superstars" was more significant than anything they did musically. The Beatles music still has broad appeal (I think I heard recently that the Pepper re-issue was No. 1 on some charts -- remarkable after 50 years, and certainly not simply because the Beatles were stars). There were superstars before the Beatles (Sinatra, for one). But their memory carries on not because of the cult of personality hysteria, but because of the music. "Eleanor Rigby"; "Yesterday"; "In My Life"; "Norwegian Wood"; "Help"; "A Day In The Life"; "Here Comes The Sun"; "Across The Universe"; "Ticket To Ride" . . . one could go on and on and on. It is the music that endures.

 

[Intpseeker]

I picked Chuck, as he influenced many of the other choices. That said, T-bone Walker had a huge influence on Berry, as did Big Momma Thorton.

 

[VAMike23]

I have never been a real fan of Elvis Presley and cannot remember the last time I listened to any of his songs, but to the larger world out there he is and will always be The King. Everyone will always have their own individual preferences. Chuck Berry was at the very least the Godfather of R&R so I can see why people would bring him into the discussion. He would be closer to the King for me, but to me the title "King" itself connotes broad acclimation rather than personal favorites or even merit, necessarily. Elvis is/was the King of Rock 'n' Roll. Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus were both better golfers, but in his sport, Arnie will forever be The King.

I admire the Beatles' legacy and creative power, but to put the "King of R&R" moniker on them or Bob Dylan seems downright crazy. Each in their own way took music much further than garden variety R&R.

Even the Stones, who are far more of a classic R&R band than the Beatles ever were, don't merit Kingship--the band members would all roundly reject any such notion. They worship the early R&R masters and pioneers, particularly those who were instrumental in providing the blues influence that is one of R&R's hallmarks.

 

[Orangutan]

Early Elvis was terrific but carefully managed; late Elvis was just an embarrassment.

I was watching some Elvis videos recently. Even in his later, fatter form Elvis still had a tremendous voice, soulful and powerful. The videos are amazing to watch because he's sweating profusely and looks absolutely terrible but the voice is still there.

I'm sure there are also videos out there where he sounded as terrible as he looks, but the point is - he had a remarkable gift. And he could sing any genre.

 

[bags27]

I do not particularly like his music, but really, when it comes to rock 'n roll, the person who has lifelong stayed closest to the form, puts on incredible shows, and is far better known (though not as influential as Chuck, who introduced new harmonic cords and explicit sex) and therefore might really be the king of that genre (whatever it is) is: The Boss.

 

[bags27]

I was watching some Elvis videos recently. Even in his later, fatter form Elvis still had a tremendous voice, soulful and powerful. The videos are amazing to watch because he's sweating profusely and looks absolutely terrible but the voice is still there.
I'm sure there are also videos out there where he sounded as terrible as he looks, but the point is - he had a remarkable gift. And he could sing any genre.

Absolutely no argument: an unbelievable talent who really could sing anything brilliantly. But he was not a rocker in his later life. He was a highly managed and carefully controlled Los Vegas performer. Was Sinatra a rocker because he later on sang some popular music?

 

[Old Jim]

Am I the only one old enough to remember Buddy Holly?

 

[connie]

I have never been a real fan of Elvis Presley and cannot remember the last time I listened to any of his songs, but to the larger world out there he is and will always be The King. Everyone will always have their own individual preferences. Chuck Berry was at the very least the Godfather of R&R so I can see why people would bring him into the discussion. He would be closer to the King for me, but to me the title "King" itself connotes broad acclimation rather than personal favorites or even merit, necessarily. Elvis is/was the King of Rock 'n' Roll. Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus were both better golfers, but in his sport, Arnie will forever be The King.

I admire the Beatles' legacy and creative power, but to put the "King of R&R" moniker on them or Bob Dylan seems downright crazy. Each in their own way took music much further than garden variety R&R.

Even the Stones, who are far more of a classic R&R band than the Beatles ever were, don't merit Kingship--the band members would all roundly reject any such notion. They worship the early R&R masters and pioneers, particularly those who were instrumental in providing the blues influence that is one of R&R's hallmarks.

Again, much of this discussion is predicated on how we define "rock and roll" and "king" (and yours is certainly meritorious). I agree that Dylan was not really a rock and roller. Not so the Beatles. From, what?, late 1959 through 1964, their repetoire was at least in part straight rock and roll (hence the covers of Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins (who was George's favorite), etc.) They certain pushed the boundaries and went well outside, before and after. If we remain committed to a very strict, formalistic definition of rock and roll (uptemp 12 bars blues) then yes, much of the Beatles legacy does not qualify.And yes, if that disqualifies them for the title of "King", then I suppose we can all live with that. If so, then for same reason Chuck Berry gets the crown, but in part because he never really grew as a songwriter. I have not checked, but I think his major work was all penned within abut a 5 year period, from '55 to '60. Most of that remained well within the basic formula.

Incidentally, for those who are interested there is a terrific weekly radio show broadcast out of Madison, Wisconsin on public radio WORT, every Saturday night, 6-8 (CST) called "I like it like that" ("featuring classic rock and roll of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and anything else that fits"--"Hits, b-sides, alternate takes, unreleased cuts, tracks out of print, rockabilly, surf music"), hosted by one "Rockin' John McDonald". He must be in his 70s and has been doing this show for about 40 years. His knowledge is encyclopedic, but he is the most affable and least pretentious radio DJ I think I've ever heard (with a voice a bit like Sterling Holloway). Every show must feature at least one song by Chuck and Link Wray. Rockin' John's archive is massive. Best of all, he plays great music and obviously loves sharing it with the world. Tune it and check it out: I like It Like That Archives - WORT 89.9 FM

 

[connie]

Was Sinatra a rocker because he later on sang some popular music?

No more so than Pat Boone. But his lps with Nelson Riddle arguably qualify as among the earliest "concept" albums.

 

[connie]

I do not particularly like his music, but really, when it comes to rock 'n roll, the person who has lifelong stayed closest to the form, puts on incredible shows, and is far better known (though not as influential as Chuck, who introduced new harmonic cords and explicit sex) and therefore might really be the king of that genre (whatever it is) is: The Boss.

In general, I don't listen to much Springsteen anymore. But when I do, it is usually the extraordinary "Nebraska":

 

[Orangutan]

Absolutely no argument: an unbelievable talent who really could sing anything brilliantly. But he was not a rocker in his later life. He was a highly managed and carefully controlled Los Vegas performer. Was Sinatra a rocker because he later on sang some popular music?

That a good point. I have no real opinion on the matter other than when someone says "the King" in reference to music, I assume they mean Elvis. Unless they say "King of Pop," which is of course Michael Jackson.

Whether he truly merits that title is another question entirely, which I will leave to the experts.

 

[JordyG]

No time to respond in detail . . . But , , ,

What you say certainly contributes meaningfully to the discussion (not that my stamp is required!). If being an influence is what determines who is "King", and if we keep the scope of what is meant by R&R limited, then sure, I see no reason to push back on handing Chuck Berry the crown.

Not sure how many "moves" Chuck Berry originated that inspired others (3?). Interesting point, though. He may be credited with putting the idea of guitar "performance" on the front burner. I'd have to give it some thought.

The Beatles certainly owe a debt of gratitude to Berry (along with Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers, etc.).

re. concept album . . . I am not sure the Beatles really self-consciously set out to produce such a thing. Certainly, Pepper had its inception as such. But it quickly fizzled after Paul came up with the idea and opening track. Before that, the prior LPs did not really have any particular thematic concept. Rather, they reflected a certain stage in their rapid growth as songwriters and inventiveness in the studio (via the guidance of George Martin). Much had to also do with the marketplace for singles and LPs. But that is a long story.

Financially, the Beatles never made much money in the early years. That said, I simply cannot agree that being "superstars" was more significant than anything they did musically. The Beatles music still has broad appeal (I think I heard recently that the Pepper re-issue was No. 1 on some charts -- remarkable after 50 years, and certainly not simply because the Beatles were stars). There were superstars before the Beatles (Sinatra, for one). But their memory carries on not because of the cult of personality hysteria, but because of the music. "Eleanor Rigby"; "Yesterday"; "In My Life"; "Norwegian Wood"; "Help"; "A Day In The Life"; "Here Comes The Sun"; "Across The Universe"; "Ticket To Ride" . . . one could go on and on and on. It is the music that endures.

Actually there were many big stars before the Beatles. But I don't think you're giving them enough credit. The Beatles created the worldwide superstar. The star that could sell out baseball and football stadiums in multiple countries. That was a first.

With Chuck as I said, those moves with the guitar, the way he held it and yes, bringing it out front for the solo, that's him. Plus the type of solo's he used. All Chuck.

Their intent is irrelevant. Whether intentionally or not, again give them credit, they created the concept album.

It wasn't the Beatles that initially made the money. Albums aren't vehicles for bands to make money. It was the record labels and promoters who at first made the really big money. But their success also encouraged labels to invest big in band after band creating money in a lot of areas. After the Beatles however bands began to demand publishing rights written into their contracts. That was the sea change in music. This is a long term thing. By the way, Sam Cooke was the first pop artist to get publishing rights to all of his songs. With publishing rights every time their record was played they got paid. Lionel Ritchie once told NeYo all you really need are 3 hit records, and with the publishing rights you can live comfortably. Lennon/McCartney had a sight more than 3. Which is why Michael Jackson paid such a heavy amount for their catalogue, and wouldn't sell it back to Paul for "fair market value". By the way, Paul owns the PR's to "Stardust".

This idea of personality has no bearing on whether the Beatles records are good or bad. That's irrelevant. I'm sure you'd say Madonna rarely made a good song if ever. But the idea of the rock personality that supersedes their music, the sheer ability to make people like you on a mass scale. The ability to fill 100k stadiums around the world. Again, give them credit. That's the Beatles too. As much as people love their music, as good and/or long lasting as their songs are, frankly to me its all these other things that make them kings (although I think shared kings) of Rock and Roll music.

Now. Were they the Kings Of Pop? Is there really a difference or no?

Onto another topic which is not a part of this is the influence of others in other musics. The most popular musics today are HipHop and country music. The most important figure in HipHop is James Brown. The most important figures in R & B are Sam Cooke and James Brown. But the most important figure in the biggest selling musical genre in the world, modern country music, is Elvis. Hands down. No contest. Others are important to modern country music too such as the Eagles, Lionel Ritchie, The Grateful Dead, New Riders of the Purple Sage and others. But Elvis stands head and shoulders above all others. To me his importance in R & R is overshadowed by these others, but country music is bigger than these others, and Elvis to me is the granddaddy of modern country music.

But it's true that giants stand on top of giants. Every time someone interprets a lyric they're singing Louis Armstrong. Before him no one interpreted a lyric. Every time a singer sings today the inflections and runs they use pay homage to Sam Cooke who brought gospel music to the popular music. Almost every time a rock group sings their harmonies they sing in homage to the Beatles (and not the Beach Boys). Every time a young woman screams and faints in the audience they pay homage to Liszt (yeah, he was the first to have a panty thrown at him). The example are endless and will always be so.

 

[connie]

Actually there were many big stars before the Beatles. But I don't think you're giving them enough credit. The Beatles created the worldwide superstar. The star that could sell out baseball and football stadiums in multiple countries. That was a first.

With Chuck as I said, those moves with the guitar, the way he held it and yes, bringing it out front for the solo, that's him. Plus the type of solo's he used. All Chuck.

Their intent is irrelevant. Whether intentionally or not, again give them credit, they created the concept album.

It wasn't the Beatles that initially made the money. Albums aren't vehicles for bands to make money. It was the record labels and promoters who at first made the really big money. But their success also encouraged labels to invest big in band after band creating money in a lot of areas. After the Beatles however bands began to demand publishing rights written into their contracts. That was the sea change in music. This is a long term thing. By the way, Sam Cooke was the first pop artist to get publishing rights to all of his songs. With publishing rights every time their record was played they got paid. Lionel Ritchie once told NeYo all you really need are 3 hit records, and with the publishing rights you can live comfortably. Lennon/McCartney had a sight more than 3. Which is why Michael Jackson paid such a heavy amount for their catalogue, and wouldn't sell it back to Paul for "fair market value". By the way, Paul owns the PR's to "Stardust".

This idea of personality has no bearing on whether the Beatles records are good or bad. That's irrelevant. I'm sure you'd say Madonna rarely made a good song if ever. But the idea of the rock personality that supersedes their music, the sheer ability to make people like you on a mass scale. The ability to fill 100k stadiums around the world. Again, give them credit. That's the Beatles too. As much as people love their music, as good and/or long lasting as their songs are, frankly to me its all these other things that make them kings (although I think shared kings) of Rock and Roll music.

Now. Were they the Kings Of Pop? Is there really a difference or no?

Onto another topic which is not a part of this is the influence of others in other musics. The most popular musics today are HipHop and country music. The most important figure in HipHop is James Brown. The most important figures in R & B are Sam Cooke and James Brown. But the most important figure in the biggest selling musical genre in the world, modern country music, is Elvis. Hands down. No contest. Others are important to modern country music too such as the Eagles, Lionel Ritchie, The Grateful Dead, New Riders of the Purple Sage and others. But Elvis stands head and shoulders above all others. To me his importance in R & R is overshadowed by these others, but country music is bigger than these others, and Elvis to me is the granddaddy of modern country music.

But it's true that giants stand on top of giants. Every time someone interprets a lyric they're singing Louis Armstrong. Before him no one interpreted a lyric. Every time a singer sings today the inflections and runs they use pay homage to Sam Cooke who brought gospel music to the popular music. Almost every time a rock group sings their harmonies they sing in homage to the Beatles (and not the Beach Boys). Every time a young woman screams and faints in the audience they pay homage to Liszt (yeah, he was the first to have a panty thrown at him). The example are endless and will always be so.

I'll concede you the liberty to indulge in overstatement here. Why not?!? But mediations abound. One could just as easily suggest that every time a rock group sings their harmonies, they sing in homage to the Everly Brothers, the Drifters or even the Four Freshmen.

The Beatles did not so much "create" the concept album as they are credited with putting the concept of the concept album into the mass cultural vocabulary. Woody's Dust Bowl Ballads and Sinatra's 50s LPs are every bit as much a concept LP as Pepper (which I do question)--actually, moreso.

I think Madonna made plenty of good music (though I was never a big fan of the exhibitionism). "Express Yourself" is a fine example.

Finally, I don't have any specific evidence to contest whether modern country music is the biggest selling genre in the world. But the proposition is bold enough to be provocative. Frankly, I'd be surprised. "The world" is a big place.

 

[JordyG]

I'll concede you the liberty to indulge in overstatement here. Why not?!? But mediations abound. One could just as easily suggest that every time a rock group sings their harmonies, they sing in homage to the Everly Brothers, the Drifters or even the Four Freshmen.

The Beatles did not so much "create" the concept album as they are credited with putting the concept of the concept album into the mass cultural vocabulary. Woody's Dust Bowl Ballads and Sinatra's 50s LPs are every bit as much a concept LP as Pepper (which I do question)--actually, moreso.

I think Madonna made plenty of good music (though I was never a big fan of the exhibitionism). "Express Yourself" is a fine example.

Finally, I don't have any specific evidence to contest whether modern country music is the biggest selling genre in the world. But the proposition is bold enough to be provocative. Frankly, I'd be surprised. "The world" is a big place.

There is a very big difference between an album have recurrent themes or motifs and a concept album. Sinatra's "In the Wee Small Hours Of The Morning" had the recurrence of songs pitched around that theme. Woody putting out albums about Americana is a recurrent theme. Producing an album about fictional characters singing songs about their fictional lives all of it tied together within the concept of a fictional band is the definition of a concept album. This was their genius and they deserve credit for conceiving it.

I personally like Madonna. Glad you do too. Her ability to keep her pulse on what the public wanted to hear and alter herself accordingly was her genius. The ability however to make people like you on a mass scale is innate. Either you have it or you don't.

For me it was the type of harmonies, the pitch of their harmonies, and how and where they used them that made it peculiar to the Beatles. Very different from doo-wop harmonies, The Beach Boy harmonies, The Four Freshman harmonies (which were closer to barbershop stuff) or any others. It's these specific colorations that have been copied over the years and which I still hear in Rock music.