# Is it fair to say...



## ChopinBlock (Aug 10, 2010)

what Beethoven was to 'classical' music is what The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

No.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I don't know. Yes, maybe in terms of how important and popular they are in their respective genres, but I find it a strange comparison.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

No it is not fair to compare Beethoven to the Beatles


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

ChopinBlock said:


> what Beethoven was to 'classical' music is what The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll?


Beethoven ended classicism, whereas the Beatles began rock and roll (at least in terms of the four-man band).

Johann Christian Bach and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach were to 'classical' as The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll.


----------



## Wicked_one (Aug 18, 2010)

Can we say, then, that Beethoven was a rock/pop/whatever star of his times?

Everybody knew him, his abilities with the piano and such...

I think Paganini was the first rock star... Liszt as well


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Beethoven ended classicism, whereas the Beatles began rock and roll (at least in terms of the four-man band).
> 
> Johann Christian Bach and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach were to 'classical' as The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll.


Incorrect. Rock and roll was the style of music that guys like Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly etc were making in the fifties and early 60's. A mix of blues, country, rockabilly and that bit extra. The Beatles started in this vein but incorporated skiffle as well. Their later stuff is the beginning of the rock/pop era. Actually, their catalogue hints at a lot of things like psychedelia, prog and hard rock.

So just as Beethoven started in the classical style and ushered in the Romantic era by the time of his death, the Beatles began with one foot in rock and roll and disbanded with limbs all over the place, helping create the diversity of the 70's.

Not that I agree with the OP, mind. If Beethoven equals the Beatles, then Mozart would be Lonnie Donegan and Bach would be Bill Haley. Before the late 40's there was no rock and roll, so who would Palestrina and Monteverdi be, never mind Hildegard von Bingen.

However, I'm sure even Ludwig Van was a better drummer than Ringo.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I agree the Beatles started to diversify rock and roll until it transitioned into rock. "Rock n' Roll" brings up images of greasers and pompadour hair styles, while "Rock" is the more eclectic all encompassing term for the styles that evolved from it. Certainly The Beatles played a big part in starting that transition, though other bands were heading in that direction too.

Sort of like the Beethoven was a transitional figure for the Romantic period. The big difference to me is The Beatles did play both Rock and Roll and Rock. Beethoven always remained classical because he is all about form.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

While being rather ignorant about BOTH the histories of classic rock and classical music, I think there's something there between Beethoven and the Beatles.

Both came from an era of "form" and ushered a new age of "self-expression". Both had ideas about universal love and brotherhood. Both were conscious of their greatness ("There's only one Beethoven"/"We're bigger than Jesus").

There are differencies, too - if the keywords for the Beatles are "simplicity" and "mutability", for Beethoven they might be "power" and "emotion". Quite a different approach. But perhaps they do share a "clarity of vision".


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

ChopinBlock said:


> what Beethoven was to 'classical' music is what The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll?


Only in the sense that for both they're grossly over-rated, over-estimated & over-exposed ...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

It is not fair to say such thing because it will provoke a lot of stupid and pointless discussions and will end with division for classical snobs who think that such comparison of pop music band and composer is silly and cool geezers who will tell them that they are baboons and that all music is good and Beatles have cool tunes and were influenced by classical and stuff.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ChopinBlock said:


> what Beethoven was to 'classical' music is what The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll?


No. Beethoven never _wanted to hold your hand_.


----------



## djmomo17 (Aug 12, 2010)

What a coincidence.

I submit John Lennon as a modern day Beethoven to a certain extent, but for reasons listed here, I think there is no true equivalent today to Beethoven.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

ChopinBlock said:


> what Beethoven was to 'classical' music is what The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll?


Kinda. In the sense that they're each the (or one of the) most revered and well-known figures within their respective genres. I'm not sure if there's any point in trying to drag the comparison much longer than that. Maybe some would argue that the Beatles' impact on the history of popular music/culture was as big as Beethoven's impact on the history of "art music". (Or just music in general, I guess) I really doubt it, but then I'm no expert on the history of popular music. And I'm too young to have "been there".

While we're "classifying" the Beatles, I believe at least their early period is so-called _Beat_, a sub-genre of rock that mixed a whole bunch of American styles and was responsible for most of the "British invasion". (Merseybeat, British Beat)

But trying to find "today's Beethoven" is like trying to find "today's Michelangelo". The world has simply changed too much for "giants" like these to stand out in the same way, hasn't it?


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Who are "the beatles"?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Rasa said:


> Who are "the beatles"?


What? Didn't you hear of him:










?

He is very famous.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Aramis said:


> What? Didn't you hear of him:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tiny red X is very famous?:tiphat:


----------



## trillian (Aug 16, 2010)

JMJ said:


> Only in the sense that for both they're grossly over-rated, over-estimated & over-exposed ...


agree :/

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.


----------



## trillian (Aug 16, 2010)

Argus said:


> Tiny red X is very famous?:tiphat:


try open it in another window.

but they are 'the beatles', while theres only one in the picture.


----------



## Keikobad (Jul 9, 2010)

This infuriates me. Why why WHY is it necessary to make these foolish comparisons? Do any of us sleep easier at night having arrived at an answer? I think not.

Furthermore, a question like this seems the result of a great deal of idle time spent on the internet. The author should log off and go outside for a walk.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.


----------



## Random (Mar 13, 2010)

Keikobad said:


> This infuriates me. Why why WHY is it necessary to make these foolish comparisons? Do any of us sleep easier at night having arrived at an answer? I think not.
> 
> Furthermore, a question like this seems the result of a great deal of idle time spent on the internet. The author should log off and go outside for a walk.
> 
> Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.


:lol: Funny and True.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

On the contrary, I think that these sorts of topics, while being certainly silly, can (at best of times) spark some nice discussion and even enhance our perceptions. One should not take them seriously, but sometimes profound insight can rise from silly and humble beginnings.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

And if this is kind of thing is something that infuriates you, I'd recommend staying away from internet forums, if only for your own health's sake. There's an overwhelming chance you're going to come across something that "doesn't help you sleep any better".


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't know about the Beatles, but one time in a music class I compared Beethoven to Charlie Parker. But it really is an apples-to-oranges thing.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

The Beatles are more regarded as the "fathers" of Pop rather than rock.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones would probably be better contenders for the Beethoven of rock; the band that all the other rock band wants to be called a successor to. The Beatles, like Jean Christophe Paré said, are probably more the Beethoven of pop music than rock. You might even be able to call The Beatles the Mozart of rock, you know, not that Mozart isn't a great composer but he came before Beethoven.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

Except that Led Zeppelin wouldn't work because of Stairway to Heavens being the only song remembered by 99% of people. (Song that isn't their best either.)

And Mick Jagger can't sing. Did Beethoven sing?


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Except that Led Zeppelin wouldn't work because of Stairway to Heavens being the only song remembered by 99% of people. (Song that isn't their best either.)


99% of people know nothing about Beethoven's music save Symphony 5, 9 and Für Elise.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

scytheavatar said:


> 99% of people know nothing about Beethoven's music save Symphony 5, 9 and Für Elise.


Good point. Very good point.

Led Zeppelin are then the Beethoven of rock.


----------



## Keikobad (Jul 9, 2010)

I simply don't see the value of making the comparison to begin with. Put another way, why MUST there be comparisons at all, why must we always be trying to merge two very different musical worlds?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

ChopinBlock said:


> what Beethoven was to 'classical' music is what The Beatles were to rock 'n' roll?


Depends whether you mean 'classical' (small 'c') as a generic term for 'western art music' or the 'Classical' (capital 'C') era (approx 1750-1820-ish).

Beethoven was one of less than a handful of composers whose lives straddled two musical 'eras' (although they didn't know that then, of course) - Dufay, Monteverdi and Stravinsky (and Schoenberg) being others.

In a way you COULD draw the comparison. The Beatles started life in the post-Buddy Holly era of rock 'n' roll and helped pave the way at the end of the 1960s towards what become 'progressive' rock (_Sgt Pepper_ often being cited (rightly or wrongly) as the first true concept (and prog) album. This was in the same way that Beethoven grew-up at the end of the Classical era (remember Beethoven was 38 when Haydn died!) and paved the way for the new Romanticism.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*a suggestion for this group*

Disappear......

Martin


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> Depends whether you mean 'classical' (small 'c') as a generic term for 'western art music' or the 'Classical' (capital 'C') era (approx 1750-1820-ish).
> 
> Beethoven was one of less than a handful of composers whose lives straddled two musical 'eras' (although they didn't know that then, of course) - Dufay, Monteverdi and Stravinsky (and Schoenberg) being others.
> 
> In a way you COULD draw the comparison. The Beatles started life in the post-Buddy Holly era of rock 'n' roll and helped pave the way at the end of the 1960s towards what become 'progressive' rock (_Sgt Pepper_ often being cited (rightly or wrongly) as the first true concept (and prog) album. This was in the same way that Beethoven grew-up at the end of the Classical era (remember Beethoven was 38 when Haydn died!) and paved the way for the new Romanticism.


I did cover something like this before on a similar thread, just in a fun way not serious of course. Nobody seemed much interested though.

http://www.talkclassical.com/79646-post22.html


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

To me, the similarities seem obvious.

They both took a fairly strict, conservative form of music and pushed the boundaries beyond what was even thought possible only a few years prior. Before the Beatles, rock artists never changed key in the middle of a song, or used jazz chords and progressions like the Beatles did. This "opened up" rock and roll and made the possibilities seem limitless, spawning an entire generation of musicians in their wake, and ushering in the most creative period in the history of rock music.



Keikobad said:


> I simply don't see the value of making the comparison to begin with. Put another way, why MUST there be comparisons at all, why must we always be trying to merge two very different musical worlds?


I don't see the harm in it. If you don't like the idea, then you don't have to subscribe to it.

But as someone once said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

That is somewhat looking at the Beatles retrospectively as well. Rock n'Roll, seems a poor term for the variety of popular music, has been dominant in music from then until now, but nobody would have been sure of that long influence at the time. And nobody would have known at the time of Beethoven that he would be such an important figure for the Romantics. This was just how things happened to develop, in theory things could have developed differently. And anyway not everything is popular music is down to The Beatles, I don't think they really foresaw disco. And Beethoven arguably didn't influence the great romantic opera or song that much either. The main area he influenced was probably the symphony.


----------

