Rock and Roll was already big before Elvis arrived on the scene he just made it bigger. As for the British Invasion it took eight years after Elvis made it big before the British Invasion started by that time Elvis was doing movies and was basically a shell of himself.

As for the Beatles cultural impact and this is a music website. I thought we were discussing music.

The Beatles - Impact, Influence and Empowerment


It all started on February 1964. In the words of David Copperfield, "I am born."

Beginning with their Ed Sullivan Show appearance, the Beatles brought to a new generation, much more than just a great, new sound and long hair for boys. The Beatles changed our lives. Out of a group of ten baby boomers, at least seven of them would say the same thing. The other three would be in the throes of a mid-life crisis, and deny being "old enough" to remember the impact of the Beatles.

The "Fab Four" is now two, and it's difficult to get used to that.

The copyright of the article The Beatles - Impact, Influence and Empowerment

John, Paul, George, and Ringo were working-class guys with no formal music education. Yet they were changing the world.

They offered the first real ray of sunshine since the assassination of President Kennedy, and were a much needed distraction to the morose melancholy of the "cold war." Despite the screaming, fainting fans and frenzy for the Fab Four, they were not like the musical heartthrobs who came before them.

The Beatles did not have the suave, aloof sophistication of Frank Sinatra. The "Chairman of the Board" was just that, and seemed to exude an attitude of, "Don't try this at home, kids. I AM Sinatra. You're not."

On the other hand, Elvis Presley's subliminal message (even in his early years), seemed to be: "I'm desperately lonely up here on this Pop throne, just a "hunka, hunka burnin' OUT." But, the Beatles had an exciting, creative energy and momentum about them.

Of course, Sinatra and Elvis did not write their own songs, either. I am sure that was a big part of what was intriguing about the Beatles. Like others before them, the Beatles were vilified and accused of corrupting the youth of America. But that sort of condemnation and associated record banning and burning is practically standard procedure for anything new that is feared or misunderstood by "the establishment."

On the contrary, the Beatles' influence kept millions of bored American adolescents "off the streets." Realizing the guitar was easily self-taught and much cheaper than a piano, garage bands sprang up all over the United States. Suddenly, kids were spending Friday and Saturday nights rehearsing with their "combo", instead of roaming the neighborhood, ringing doorbells, rolling houses, and egging cars.

Sure, many of the guys just picked up guitar and got in bands to "get girls." But for many, making music with friends was exactly the creative outlet we needed. We taught ourselves a few guitar chords and put music to our words. And it no longer mattered that we didn't have the vocal power of Judy Garland or Connie Francis. Thanks to the Beatles, we learned to harmonize.

I'm with the Clasher here......there's no such genre or sub-genre as "rock." Rock and roll changed as much from 1951 to 1956 as it did from 1963 to 1968. That didn't mean that it needed a new name. "Rock" is just short for "rock and roll."

Late 60s and 70s rock and roll sounds a lot different in most cases than 50s rock and roll, and calling it "rock" is nothing but an abbreviation of the name of the genre.

Well I didn't write the article did I. It was from that person perspective.

Well of course I know the Beatles broke through in England in 1963. Bruce you don't know me either I lived in England for about six years and was married to an English girl so I know what English people think about Americans.

A lot of guys need to chill out and calm down with the insults. From a music point of view I have read some crazy opinions here and I don't resort or try to insult people to make a point.

That's ok but this thing about cultural impact or influence I just know talking to my parents they told me the Beatles changed a lot of things good and bad. A lot of people got into different kinds of music because of the the Beatles. Yet the Beatles influenced a lot of people to take drugs and grow their hair longer and things like that. In a way the Beatles affected the culture more than Elvis because even he viewed the Beatles as to influential on teens.

Corrections stated that without Elvis there would be no British Invasion? Well it took eight years after Elvis made it before the British Invasion took place in America. Their own record company didn't think they even would make it here in the first place.

By 1964 Elvis was really not critically doing anything great in music in 1964. So again Corrections what are you talking about? Look people here think I am bashing Elvis but I am being honest with my feelings. Look I respect the Beatles approach more than I do with Elvis. I like the fact the wrote and played their songs, experimental and explored other music other than the populuar music norms of the time. Were they only ones of course not but that doesn't detract why I like the Beatles more than Elvis.

Bruce are those songs in 12/8 time signature because many slow dance songs are in that time signature. The ones I am talking about are the ones Frank Zappa and the Beatles were using as when the time signature changes often. I am talking about songs like "Good Morning" and "Happiness Is A Warm Gun".

These songs are in 12/8 also

"Blueberry Hill"
"You've Really Got a Hold on Me"

I googled "Third Stone From The Sun."

I'm not a Hendrix fan. He ruined rock and roll if you ask me, turning it into guitar tricks. The guy sang like a dead cow. Other than a couple of his singles I can't stand his music.

If I ever heard that song I'm not aware of it.

Did you mean to say that Buddy Holly has substantially less influence than Sabbath? I'll agree that Elton John and Queen do. Pink Floyd and the Everlys have less influence, but I don't know if I'd say substantially. I'd say not in the same ballpark but on the same planet, if that helps. But Sabbath is getting a lot of credit for influence. If you imagine an artist who's identical with Sabbath in the criteria except with no influence, such an artist wouldn't be in the top 100, and probably not in the top 200.



Here's a quote from Sampson on what musical impact is:

Now as far as the overall Artist criteria, Musical Impact has nothing to do with critics. It was chosen simply to show the overall response within the industry to an artist's work. It's not necessarily relegated to only their initial output either, though many do get their biggest shot from that, especially if they don't evolve much over time. But I felt that it was necessary to take into account how an artist impacts their field, beyond just how many records they sell or how many subsequent artists copy their approach.

For example, take something like the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" album. It was successful (Top Ten), but less so than their previous LP's, so its Commercial Impact was good, but not to the extent of stuff that was not nearly considered as highly. It was hugely influential, and yet there's still something that's not reflected in those other criteria that allowed it to be considered among the greatest things ever done.

That "something" is its overall musical impact. In 1966 that was the album that had everyone in music talking. Cream, who didn't play in nearly the same style and thus couldn't very easily be influenced directly by it, called it the album of all-time and Clapton said "it encompasses everything that's ever knocked me out and rolled it into one". Every artist at that time had a copy of it and were just floored by it, changing how people literally THOUGHT of rock music at the time. In other words, it was what the music world itself reacted to most strongly.

What I attempted to do with the four different criteria was take into account each distinct way music has an impact. Commercial success has to do with how an audience reacts and what they're willing to spend their money on, that's the business side of music, their job in other words - to sell records, to wrack up hits. Influence reflects the longterm changes that music has on others, taking into account the innovations that become commonplace. Cultural Impact goes beyond music into how that artist effects popular culture as a whole.

That leaves Musical Impact, which is an attempt to distill the overall reaction to the work by those most closely associated with the field of music - their peers. Sometimes Musical Impact is seen in shortlived fads (different from influence, in that it is more of a quick response to something, rather than a deep seated alteration brought about by it), other times it is the buzz surrounding something fresh and innovative, while other times it is the merely the consensus musical opinion of the steadiness of an artist's contribitions (think Stones, circa 1968-1972, hardly groundbreaking stuff in terms of approach most of the time, and derivitive stylistically of their own influences, but clearly they were at the forefront of the musical community at that time).



Joel Whitburn's singles guide has the Everly Brothers as the #42 singles artist of all time and Sabbath as the #137 albums artist. Granted, Sabbath is more popular in the UK than the US, but that's not enough to close the gap. The Everlys actually do considerably better in popularity than Buddy Holly.

To boil Hendrix down to guitar tricks is to give the impression that you've A. never listened to the music or B. understood nothing that you heard.

[What does being the number 42 singles artist (when rock has been an album art for longer than a singles art) really say though? Sure someone can be the number 42 singles artist but I'd say by at the latest the mid 70s rock had flipped to the album being the most important form. That means at the very most 25 years where the single was more important and 35 where the album was an I'd argue it splits more in the other direction. Also basing it entirely on charting is somewhat a wrong way to look at. We know in the US Sabbath is a top 100 alltime sales artist.

As far as influence I'd say yes they do have more influence than Holly.

OK you do realize that jazz music had been using odd time signature for long before either of these artists right?

Sabbath's influence is very isolated. It is huge on one relatively small sub-genre (heavy metal) and pretty much nonexistent on any other parts of rock and roll.

Holly had at least some influence on mainstream rock, country rock, british invasion, pop rock, new wave, punk, country, and even hard rock (Blind Faith).

I would say that Buddy Holly influence on the British Invasion was bigger than everyone else except Chuck Berry.

I agree with you on the debate but why don't you think country rock is a legitimate genre?

I guess it was pretty short-lived but some great music came out of it.

I don't know, Bo Diddley may have something to say about that.