# Are The Beatles Avant-Garde?



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Barbebleu said:


> No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Well, that was concise.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Lennon and McCartney employed meter changes without really understanding what the meter actually is.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

If the question had been - Were the Beatles avant-garde 56 years ago? Very likely. They introduced a few new concepts to popular music among them putting the lyrics on album covers, inserts, gatefold sleeves, the addition of electronics, etc. etc. Ahead of their time in many respects but to the modern listener, maybe not so much. I love them and have done since I first heard them in 1962 but my reactionary opinion has little weight.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> If the question had been - Were the Beatles avant-garde 56 years ago? Very likely. They introduced a few new concepts to popular music among them putting the lyrics on album covers, inserts, gatefold sleeves, the addition of electronics, etc. etc. Ahead of their time in many respects but to the modern listener, maybe not so much. I love them and have done since I first heard them in 1962 but my reactionary opinion has little weight.


Probably one of the most avant-garde things about the Beatles was the fact that they wrote their own songs. At the time the vast majority of Pop artists sang songs provided by professional songwriters, e.g.the Brill Building (Country artists did write, Hank Williams, e.g., but those audiences were different).

As far as I know, they were also the first to print the lyrics in their albums, as well as providing credits for the production staff.

Regarding their songs, their music sounded very new and fresh at the time. The distance from "I'm Mr. Lonely" to "Love Me Do" sounded enormous.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Beatles plus George Martin did some innovative things. On this side of the pond it was Zappa and the Mothers. And FZ being musically literate and the former owner of a small recording studio, didn't need a George Martin to assist him in the manifestation of his ideas. Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys also did some innovative stuff. But the great playing was provided by the Wrecking Crew, LA's ace studio musicians. Zappa used some these musicians as well because he was writing music far beyond the scope of a rock combo.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

If _avant-garde_ means 'ahead of the game' then the Beatles certainly had their moments. Apart from Brian Wilson at his most ambitious who else in the spring of 1966 *** could have conjured up a track like _Tomorrow Never Knows_? And I wonder if the eerie backward loop of Paul McCartney's guitar solo from _Taxman_ used in _TNK_ was the first example of self-sampling on a pop/rock record? OK, all the dope and acid obviously helped to make the song what it was but it still strikes me as being something of a significant benchmark.

(*** after reading Starthrower's post I realised that I should have also namechecked Frank Zappa)


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

elgars ghost said:


> If _avant-garde_ means 'ahead of the game' then the Beatles certainly had their moments. Apart from Brian Wilson at his most ambitious who else in the spring of 1966 *** could have conjured up a track like _Tomorrow Never Knows_? And I wonder if the eerie backward loop of Paul McCartney's guitar solo from _Taxman_ used in _TNK_ was the first example of self-sampling on a pop/rock record? OK, all the dope and acid obviously helped to make the song what it was but it still strikes me as being something of a significant benchmark.
> 
> (*** after reading Starthrower's post I realised that I should have also namechecked Frank Zappa)


In rock, no one was more innovative/avant than Zappa-not the Beatles; not the Beach Boys. It wasn't even close. The only bands on a similar playing field were Soft Machine and Gentle Giant.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

The Beatles avant garde?

Rarely. Sure they were influential, and progressive, and advanced the scope of musical breadbox, but aside from a few released tracks they were pushing the envelope of pop and rock.

Yeah, there's *Tomorrow Never Knows* from *Revolver*, _*Within You Without You, She's Leaving Home*_, and _*A Day in the Life*_, all from *Sgt. Pepper*, and there's *Revolution 9* from the *White Album*, but aside from those, they mostly stuck to being occasionally Progressive, not Avant Garde.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> If the question had been - *Were *the Beatles avant-garde 56 years ago?


It's picky, but it's part of my answer too.

If we take '56 years' literally, that takes us back to 1965, and the release of _Rubber Soul_. probably the album that marks their departure from the mainstream pop/rock 'n roll that they'd offered since _Please Please Me_.



> John Cale recalled that _Rubber Soul_ was an inspiration as he and Lou Reed developed their band the Velvet Underground.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_Soul#Critical_reception

Does that praise (given its source) make it avant-garde? It might, depending on what else was happening at the same time that's worthy of comparison.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

They made works inspired by avant-garde artists and brought them to a mainstream audience but generally I don't consider them avant-garde. I'd say you'd have to primarily be known for avant-garde works to be called that, and it's pretty clear that their experiments there, though well-regarded, aren't what they're famous for (in comparison to e.g. Captain Beefheart, the Stooges, or VU for example)


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> The Beatles avant garde?
> 
> Rarely. Sure they were influential, and progressive, and advanced the scope of musical breadbox, but aside from a few released tracks they were pushing the envelope of pop and rock.
> 
> Yeah, there's *Tomorrow Never Knows* from *Revolver*, _*Within You Without You, She's Leaving Home*_, and _*A Day in the Life*_, all from *Sgt. Pepper*, and there's *Revolution 9* from the *White Album*, but aside from those, they mostly stuck to being occasionally Progressive, not Avant Garde.





fbjim said:


> They made works inspired by avant-garde artists and brought them to a mainstream audience but generally I don't consider them avant-garde. I'd say you'd have to primarily be known for avant-garde works to be called that, and it's pretty clear that their experiments there, though well-regarded, aren't what they're famous for (in comparison to e.g. Captain Beefheart, the Stooges, or VU for example)


Yep, you're right.

I'd like to add to my previous comment: While the individual pieces from the Beatles that could arguably be thought of as Avant Garde are few, they DID sprinkle Avant Garde elements throughout their catalog.

There's backwards guitars (played either at random, or in some instances to play a particular melody note for note with the tape running backwards so it would play a melody they desired when played the right direction, but with a backward guitar sound.

There's random and deliberate sound effects, unusual instruments, voices used as instruments, and instruments used as voices, synthesized sounds, effects combined with instruments or voices, recording normal things in new and unusual ways. I could easily pick up avant garde elements back as early as 1965.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> They made works inspired by avant-garde artists and brought them to a mainstream audience but generally I don't consider them avant-garde. I'd say you'd have to primarily be known for avant-garde works to be called that, and it's pretty clear that their experiments there, though well-regarded, aren't what they're famous for (in comparison to e.g. Captain Beefheart, the Stooges, or VU for example)


But neither Capt Beefheart nor Velvet Underground released an album until 1967. More a case of apres-garde.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Forster said:


> But neither Capt Beefheart nor Velvet Underground release an album until 1967. More a case of apres-garde.


The Beatles certainly didn't release a double album of other worldly sounds like Trout Mask Replica before or after 1967.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

If ‘I Am The Walrus’ isn’t avant garde, then I’m a Dutchman ……..


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

starthrower said:


> The Beatles certainly didn't release a double album of other worldly sounds like Trout Mask Replica before or after 1967.


Let's get the basics laid out first, alrighty?

*Trout Mask Replica* is the third studio album by *Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band*, released as a double album on June 16, *1969*. By this time the Beatles were recording their LAST album, ABBEY ROAD, released September 1969. Their last RELEASED album, LET IT BE, had been 9/10ths recorded early 1969, although it wasn't released until May 1970, seven months after they'd secretly broken up.

Besides, the Beatles were filling their own niche. But I'll daresay that without tracks from the Beatles like Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey, Helter Skelter, Revolution 9, Tomorrow Never Knows, I Am the Walrus, and Strawberry Fields; or the first albums from The Mothers, Capt. Beefheart would never have seen the light of day.

Would the Captain have had the cajones to try to pull off that sort of music in 1969 if it hadn't been for the groundwork laid by Frank Zappa and the Beatles back in 1966, 1967, and 1968? I'm thinking "no."

Next off, there most certainly _WERE_ other less popular artists around that were considerably MORE avant-garde than the Beatles.

*BUT . . . *Only one mainstream artist/band REALLY could be said to be avant-garde, and that's *THE MOTHERS OF INVENTION/FRANK ZAPPA*, who released THEIR first album in 1967. But Frank was certainly being avant-garde prior to that, although without the virtue of a disc of songs to show for it.

*STILL . . . *none of that takes anything away from the accomplishments of the *Beatles*. And moreover, they weren't really trying all that hard to be avant-garde, they were merely trying to be progressive (although the term wasn't really being used in relation to pop or rock music yet). Truly, with the exception of _*Revolution 9*_, practically all of their songs certainly fell within the Pop or Rock genres.

*Just one more thing*, though. I find *Trout Mask Replica* to be practically unlistenable. Is it really "avant-garde", or is it clever bullsh!t?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know what "clever bullsh#t" is? I don't think in terms of clever when I hear Beefheart's music. He was an unschooled and intuitive artist. His main interest was sculpture and painting. But he liked music too and just happened to be a wildly creative person. Now Zappa was clever. He knew a lot about music and the studio and he utilized his intelligence and creativity to produce great records. I don't think either was influenced by the Beatles. They grew up together as teenagers and were in to the blues and other black R&B music. I'm just saying I've never heard anything else that sounds like Trout Mask Replica. But the avant garde sounds and techniques employed by Zappa, and the Beatles can be traced back to the innovative composers who came before. And I admire the work of both regardless. Every great artist is a good listener who learns and borrows from the masters and then makes a contribution of their own.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Not avant-garde, but certainly experimental.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

starthrower said:


> I don't think either was influenced by the Beatles.


Zappa was plainly influenced by the Beatles - just look at the cover of We're Only In It...!



starthrower said:


> The Beatles certainly didn't release a double album of other worldly sounds like Trout Mask Replica before or after 1967.





Simon Moon said:


> Not avant-garde, but certainly experimental.


These two points raise the issue of our shared (or not shared) use of the term avant-garde. If one part relates to being in advance of everyone else, how far in advance? The well recorded "competition" between the Beatles and the Beach Boys suggests not that far, a few months. If Trout Mask Replica wasn't released until 1969, that's plenty of time for the Beatles' music to have influenced others.

At that time, pretty much as now, and in Beethoven's time, composers weren't writing in a vacuum. Even in the 1800s, the availability of others' material meant that honouring, respecting, copying, borrowing, parodying, avoiding what others were doing was not only possible, it was clearly evident. Musicians being magpies, even subconsciously.

Then there's the idea that there has to be something experimental. We can all point to composers who experimented, without being totally off-the-wall. Those who plough their own furrow and are rarely seen in a mainstream context (did Zappa or Beefheart ever have a top 10 hit single in the US?) are just one kind of avant-garde.

Doesn't avant-garde also require followers? That is, the avant-garde and the followers must be working in the same general field. If they're not, no-one could claim that the one is in advance of the other.

Lastly, I tend to think that avant-garde has something of the impertinent about it, the thumbing-the-nose at convention.

The Beatles were not off-the-wall, ploughing their own furrow. Nor were they thumbing their noses at convention (though they were rude about the establishment, but that's not the same thing). Whilst they were experimental, it was within limits - they still wanted to produce music that would sell to the mainstream, even if both John and Paul were being influenced by the off-the-wall.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

"Avant-garde" literally means "advance guard" or more colloquially, "cutting edge." It would seem pretty obvious (at least to me) that The Beatles fit that description during their period of existence. But there is definitely an understanding that "avant-garde" implies radical, or unorthodox, in which case they aren't.

IMO, it makes no difference since they were a great band and had a huge impact no matter what definition of "avant-garde" you choose.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

That Zappa album cover is a parody. FZ was famous for that kind of thing. He was a social critic. Musically speaking, I don't hear much influence at all.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> "Avant-garde" literally means "advance guard" or more colloquially, "cutting edge." It would seem pretty obvious (at least to me) that The Beatles fit that description during their period of existence. But there is definitely an understanding that "avant-garde" implies radical, or unorthodox, in which case they aren't.
> 
> IMO, it makes no difference since they were a great band and had a huge impact no matter what definition of "avant-garde" you choose.


It does make a huge difference in the sound of the music and record production. But that entire era during the late 60s and early 70s was ripe for creative artists to be on the cutting edge due to the rapid development of technology that didn't exist prior to that time. The combination of a newly emerging pop/rock genre of self contained bands writing their own material combined with the production techniques made for a very interesting time in popular music. And maybe it has something to do with the fact that I grew up during those years but many of the records produced during that era sound better to my ears 50 years later that the slick pop and hair metal of the 80s digital age. So much of the music that was wildly popular in the 80s has been forgotten. But those records from 10-15 years earlier are still being listened to and discovered by multiple generations.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> That Zappa album cover is a parody. FZ was famous for that kind of thing. He was a social critic. Musically speaking, I don't hear much influence at all.


While I appreciate, and even like some of, what Zappa did - I don't see him as all that important. He was a singularity without many followers. Much of his output I find difficult to enjoy, whereas The Beatles were an unqualified success at writing very catchy songs which also were very creatively done and featured some innovative things.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Zappa has and had a fairly large following. Obviously he wasn't reaching hundreds of millions like the Beatles. He was also a master of melody of which I am very familiar because I own every album he ever produced. But he had a lot of other stuff going on in his music as well. It wasn't mass appeal, top 40 stuff. And over the long haul Zappa gives me a lot more musical meat to chew on than the Beatles. Their stuff is great but I can only listen to it once in a great while. But that's just my taste. I prefer more diversity. I'm not a big pop band listener.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Zappa has and had a fairly large following. Obviously he wasn't reaching hundreds of millions like the Beatles. He was also a master of melody of which I am very familiar because I own every album he ever produced. But he had a lot of other stuff going on in his music as well. It wasn't mass appeal, top 40 stuff. And over the long haul Zappa gives me a lot more musical meat to chew on than the Beatles. Their stuff is great but I can only listen to it once in a great while. But that's just my taste. I prefer more diversity. I'm not a big pop band listener.


He was extremely talented and his compositions were wide ranging; he certainly transcended Rock or Pop categorization. But for songwriting, which is my main interest, I found his stuff far too specialized and parodic for my taste. I do admire his work ethic and artistic integrity, as well as his advocacy for individual liberties.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

starthrower said:


> That Zappa album cover is a parody. FZ was famous for that kind of thing. He was a social critic. Musically speaking, I don't hear much influence at all.


Yes, it was a parody. As you might have gathered from the entirety of my post, I was setting out views that included the idea that "influence" is actually harder to isolate when the the whole pop/rock business at the time was blossoming and artists were busy leading, following, reacting to what other artists were doing.

Zappa's music is full of parody, right from his first album, which takes some fairly conventional song styles and messes with them. Does that constitute "influence"? I think so.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm sure all of these artists were listening to each others' records to hear what they were doing musically and in terms of record production. But I've always found it amazing how all of these bands and artists had their own sound and identities. Especially in a smaller place like Britain where so many of these musicians converged and played with each other in the early days before the lasting group combos were formed, many of which are now world famous. Of course the Beatles were hugely influential cranking out album after album of great songs with interesting production techniques.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Zappa has and had a fairly large following. Obviously he wasn't reaching hundreds of millions like the Beatles. He was also a master of melody of which I am very familiar because I own every album he ever produced. But he had a lot of other stuff going on in his music as well. It wasn't mass appeal, top 40 stuff. And over the long haul Zappa gives me a lot more musical meat to chew on than the Beatles. Their stuff is great but I can only listen to it once in a great while. But that's just my taste. I prefer more diversity. I'm not a big pop band listener.


Have you sampled Brian Auger's work? I think you'd enjoy it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Have you sampled Brian Auger's work? I think you'd enjoy it.


I have a couple albums. Second Wind, and the double live CD from the mid 70s.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

starthrower said:


> It does make a huge difference in the sound of the music and record production. But that entire era during the late 60s and early 70s was ripe for creative artists to be on the cutting edge due to the rapid development of technology that didn't exist prior to that time. The combination of a newly emerging pop/rock genre of self contained bands writing their own material combined with the production techniques made for a very interesting time in popular music. And maybe it has something to do with the fact that I grew up during those years but many of the records produced during that era sound better to my ears 50 years later that the slick pop and hair metal of the 80s digital age. So much of the music that was wildly popular in the 80s has been forgotten. But those records from 10-15 years earlier are still being listened to and discovered by multiple generations.


you know, this is weird because an argument I had seen earlier about the Beatles influence had the completely different argument- mainly what sounds more like the music popular now- Sgt. Peppers, or Kraftwerk's "Trans Europe Express"?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fbjim said:


> you know, this is weird because an argument I had seen earlier about the Beatles influence had the completely different argument- mainly what sounds more like the music popular now- Sgt. Peppers, or Kraftwerk's "Trans Europe Express"?


Kraftwerk's "Trans Europe Express"

1977

There's room for more than just one band in the Greatest Influencers of All Time basket. *Kraftwerk* DID have a minor influence on music, but face it, they were a one-trick pony.

Were they "_*Avant garde*_"? Well, I guess, maybe, but they found their niche and pretty much stayed there. The band had very little in the way of a musical evolution as they went on. That would anti-avant garde.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

say what you want about Kraftwerk but calling them a "minor" influence on music is, and I really dislike pulling this word out, objectively wrong.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

pianozach said:


> Kraftwerk's "Trans Europe Express"
> 
> 1977
> 
> ...


This complete dis-understanding of Kraftwerk is all too common and makes me want to weep …..


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fbjim said:


> say what you want about Kraftwerk but calling them a "minor" influence on music is, and I really dislike pulling this word out, objectively wrong.


Minor influence.

They are *imitation Philip Glass* distilled for a pop music audience. *Kraftwerk* is nothing more than a reflection of the *influence of Glass* on Popular Music.

I mean, they're OK for an occasional listen. They don't suck.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Kraftwerk sound absolutely nothing like Philip Glass. Steve Reich tape music, maybe. They, and Yellow Magic Orchestra were foundational to the generation of electro, probably the most important proto-hip-hop genre which begat an enormous percentage of popular music today. 


If you don't like the music, that's fine but this is close to arguing that James Brown or Chuck Berry were "minor influences" on music.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

The sad thing about Kraftwerk is that they influenced so many of those insipid synth-poop bands which dominated the singles charts during the 80s. Ditto Van Halen, who inadvertently spawned millions of sound-alike Hair Metal fretw*nkers.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

pianozach said:


> Minor influence.
> 
> They are *imitation Philip Glass* distilled for a pop music audience. *Kraftwerk* is nothing more than a reflection of the *influence of Glass* on Popular Music.
> 
> I mean, they're OK for an occasional listen. They don't suck.


Stick to what you know.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

elgars ghost said:


> The sad thing about Kraftwerk is that they influenced so many of those insipid synth-poop bands which dominated the singles charts during the 80s. Ditto Van Halen, who inadvertently spawned millions of sound-alike Hair Metal fretw*nkers.


hey, some of that was good. I'd listen to New Order or Depeche Mode any day of the week.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

fbjim said:


> hey, some of that was good. I'd listen to New Order or Depeche Mode any day of the week.


Me too. Brilliant music, and what an amazing influence Kraftwerk were (are).


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

well, the real line these days is pointing out that Yellow Magic Orchestra did much of the same stuff but had the misfortune of being Japanese rather than European. but that's the deal with "influence" - so much of it doesn't involve pure genius but artists being in the right place at the right time to bring a certain synthesis of ideas into the mainstream.


also I think I would *generally* be OK calling Krautrock "avant-garde" or at the very least "avant-pop". It was certainly on the fringe of what average popular musicians were producing in the 1970s.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


It really is this simple. :tiphat:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

fbjim said:


> hey, some of that was good. I'd listen to New Order or Depeche Mode any day of the week.


It wasn't those I had specifically in mind. I'm not a fan of either but I wouldn't deny that both bands had depth, as did Soft Cell (whom I did like). I was thinking of Blancmange, _Dare_-era Human League, Bronski Beat etc. I was probably wrong about Kraftwerk influencing them all - disco no doubt played a part as much as anything. I humbly retract (but I still meant what I said about Van Halen, though...).


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Human League and Bronski Beat were stellar!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

HenryPenfold said:


> Human League and Bronski Beat were stellar!!!!!!!!!!


Hey, whatever butters your parsnips, Henry. I suppose my liking for Soft Cell seems irrational when sat next to the antipathy I have for those others I mentioned. Maybe Soft Cell amounted to a guilty pleasure or something. And I liked Tubeway Army/Gary Numan bet. 78-82 (but they/he were more Bowie and early Ultravox than Kraftwerk, probably).


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

I don't think the Beatles qualify for other descriptions than progressive experimental pop.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

premont said:


> I don't think the Beatles qualify for other descriptions than progressive experimental pop.


I'd amend that to *"Progressive Experimental Pop/Rock"*, but, yeah, that's still an apt description.

As I mentioned previously, the Beatles had some Avant Garde moments, but even though those momemts may have been deliberately Avant Garde, overall, The Beatles were can't be classified as such.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

premont said:


> I don't think the Beatles qualify for other descriptions than progressive experimental pop.


And then only after they quit touring. Had the teenage girls in their audiences listened politely, rather than screaming at the top of their lungs........history might've turned out much differently.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

progmatist said:


> And then only after they quit touring. Had the teenage girls in their audiences listened politely, rather than screaming at the top of their lungs........history might've turned out much differently.


Yes, of course. There isn't much experimental in _Love me do_.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Are The Beatles Avant-Garde? 

Maybe, if they would have called the song Eleanor Roosevelt instead of Eleanor Rigby.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Are The Beatles Avant-Garde?


Does it really matter.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

premont said:


> Yes, of course. There isn't much experimental in _Love me do_.


But by the time they stopped touring, they'd already released _Rubber Soul _and _Revolver_.


----------



## partisan (Oct 18, 2021)

The Beatles are avant-garde. Think of songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields Forever," "I Am the Walrus," and "Glass Onion;" the endless run-out groove at the end of "A Day in the Life;" or "Revolution 9" appearing on a studio album proper (what other band of their popularity has done such a thing?). Even the video clip for "Strawberry Fields Forever" takes queues from Rene Clair's _Entr'acte_. In her essay "The Avant-Garde Cinema," the French filmmaker Germaine Dulac writes that 'the avant-garde and the commercial cinema, that is, the art and the industry of film, form an inseparable whole.' I think such a claim can translate to the avant-garde and commercial music, in which case The Beatles are exemplary.

Tangentially, you have stuff like this:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

partisan said:


> The Beatles are avant-garde. Think of songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields Forever," "I Am the Walrus," and "Glass Onion;" the endless run-out groove at the end of "A Day in the Life;" or "Revolution 9" appearing on a studio album proper (what other band of their popularity has done such a thing?). Even the video clip for "Strawberry Fields Forever" takes queues from Rene Clair's _Entr'acte_. In her essay "The Avant-Garde Cinema," the French filmmaker Germaine Dulac writes that 'the avant-garde and the commercial cinema, that is, the art and the industry of film, form an inseparable whole.' I think such a claim can translate to the avant-garde and commercial music, in which case The Beatles are exemplary.
> 
> Tangentially, you have stuff like this:


You make a fairly good case.

But I still think that your list, with the exception of Revolution 9, are technically pop/rock songs with some avant-garde elements.

The solo albums are PERHAPS a different story. Certainly *Lennon*'s pre-1971 three experimental albums, and one live album, were pretty "out there", but I count them more as narcissistic twaddle than I do as being avant-garde.

*Harrison*, on the other hand, did release not only an electronic album while the group was together, but a soundtrack that was decidedly in the World Music category: So, _quite_ avant-garde.

But none of those were *technically* *Beatles* albums.

Yeah, but still by Beatles.

I'd still say that they were dabblers in the avant-garde, not really avant-garde artists. But it's a fine line, and in the end it's good enough to know about their contributions of this sort.


----------



## partisan (Oct 18, 2021)

pianozach said:


> You make a fairly good case.
> 
> But I still think that your list, with the exception of Revolution 9, are technically pop/rock songs with some avant-garde elements.
> 
> ...


I think that the point you make of The Beatles songs I chose being 'pop/rock songs with avant-garde elements' is the argument I was essentially affirming from the Dulac essay. I don't believe that pop/commercial is mutually exclusive to the avant-garde. Even lyrical (mostly from Lennon) they share a link with surrealism & dada. Sure, The Beatles were not always avant-garde but the mix of 'the art and the industry,' as Dulac puts it, is obvious.

And yes, the George Harrison albums you mention are great examples!


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

The Beatles were versatile.


----------

