A question for those old enough to remember when "Eleanor Rigby" came out

[Michedelic]

Did the strings cause it to be perceived as a throwback to pre-rock instrumentation?

What I mean is, rock replaced/rebelled against/rejected earlier music traditions, and basically stopped using string and horn sections (though the occasional sax would still be used I suppose). Did "whoa, strings" make it seem like the Beatles are suddenly doing the music your parents or grandparents used to listen to, or was it not like that at all?

In 1966, it wasn't called "rock"; there was no clear consensus, but 'music that young people listen to' could be referred to at that time as "pop", "Top 40", "Rock and Roll", even "Teen Beat"(in the UK, the Beatles were labeled a "beat group", and not necessarily "R&R"). This stuff was not analyzed then, it was just entertainment. They had been branching out and maturing as writers and artists since around the time of the Help movie and album, and, as pointed out, had already issued "Yesterday"(although it did hang on Paul's acoustic guitar, but the similar sounding strings overwhelm it). But in the pop world, there had been so many hits, heavily orchestrated, that were loosely defined as "R&R", although most were ballads, and the rhythm section wasn't smothered or missing.

A huge chunk of Phil Spector's work, the "Wall Of Sound", featured examples like the epic "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" by the Righteous Brothers, then earlier from Atlantic Records in NY, there were records from the likes of The Drifters and Ben E. King…"There Goes My Baby", "Up On The Roof", and of course, "Stand By Me". Plenty of that kind of stuff in Britain as well, Dusty Springfield, Petula Clark, Walker Brothers(who were actually from the US, and not brothers). Maybe not as stark and existential as "ER", but string adornments were not uncommon.

Then there is the entire thing about the Rolling Stones; always slagged as copying the moves the Beatles made(although that's not entirely true). In 1964, they wrote "As Tears Go By", thought it was a throwaway, and gave it to Marianne Faithfull, whose version was folk-rock, with a baroque classical vibe. They later did it, with a string quartet and lone 12-string acoustic, recorded in October, '65; the Beatles' "Yesterday" had been released in August, so you could say that the Stones were chasing after that sound, although the song was older. Bottom line, by the time "ER" was out, that overall thing wasn't that unheard of. "ER" was released in August, but a month earlier, a band from New York, the Left Banke, released their first single, "Walk Away Renee", heavily drenched with baroque strings, as was the follow-up, "Pretty Ballerina". Plenty of strings dressing up Motown hits by then as well.

 

[ElectroVibe]

Eleanor Rigby was different. It wasn't just orchestration added to a recorded song.

 

[Michedelic]

I guess there might be disagreement as to what qualifies as experimental. The Beatles weren't doing free jazz or tone rows or pure electronica, or whatever, but they did put out music that was a substantial departure from anything heard before.

So, how would you classify "Revolution #9"? Then there is the little matter of "Tomorrow Never Knows", the first song in the realm of rock(or whatever you want to call it)comprised of loops. Granted, they were taking their lead from Delia Derbyshire, plus avant-garde types in the US, like La Monte Young and Terry Riley, were already playing around with the concept, but it's the first time that sort of thing appeared on an album theoretically aimed at popular music fans. The actual mixing of the tune was a singular performance in itself. The alternative take, totally different, is as out there as the Revolver version. Then there is "Carnival Of Light", which we can only speculate about(any YT versions are bogus).

 

[TyBo]

And "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" also used tape loops, of a calliope recording no less, that they'd made, cut into pieces, and reconnected randomly, to play as the song progressed. Trippy man. The Beatles were constantly pushing at musical boundaries, to bring their songs to life in a way they wanted to hear. We all wanted to hear their latest creations, too!

 

[ElectroVibe]

George Martin was inspired by the strings in the soundtrack to Psycho written by Bernard Herrmann.

 

[wiscoaster]

....<snip>....Think about that song with the exact same recording, notes, instrumentation, but Frank Sinatra singing it. Is it rock?

The only reason you say rock is because you know who recorded it. It's pop, not rock. Not all pop is rock.

Well, OK, I can see where you're coming from, and those are probably valid points, but the distinction you want to make sharp is still in reality just really fuzzy, open to subjectivity, and moves over time.

What was Elvis on his first recording? How about the Yardbirds? How about Otis Redding? Who was emulating whom and what were they emulating? "Rock" isn't a distinctive genre - it's a development of what came before, and continued developing and mutating thanks to pop radio. Frankly, I think it's the beat that mostly defines rock, and I think you can trace that back to the swing music of the 1930's - 1950's. Gene Krupka was one hell of a drummer, started out with Benny Goodman, ended up with Buddy Rich (and many others), and I think you can identify rock 'n roll in his drumming.

 

[roccobass]

If this hasn't been posted here yet, then here I go.
Listening to them opened me up to other genres and sounds. Sure, maybe some if it existed prior to the Beatles, but I feel they came up with a lot of their own. Plus the production. It's what they did with the material floored me. Just my morning ramble on.

 

[ElectroVibe]

I'm sure even some of the lesser known and supposedly more experimental bands, had probably been inspired by the Beatles already.

 

[Jason Sypher]

This inspired me to learn the lines for this mornings warm-up. Interesting to bow the parts, I thought I knew them by heart but there were plenty of surprises! You never know when someone is going to turn to you in the studio and say "play what you want but think Eleanor Rigby!"…

 

[Outbush]

I'm a little bit young and it was only Classical at home but to me the Beatles were at the forefront of every "rock"/popular music trend of their era and often well ahead of the curve. However, what they would have been hearing (as opposed to "listening to" in a sense) would have included some amazingly innovative music, other bands of their genre, jazz, classical and there were some truly amazing developments in music written to accompany films - movie music - and obviously much, much more. That all this permeated their music also speaks volumes for the era in a way that is hard to grasp from a documentary. It was the "Beat" era, the "Beat Generation" and they were the Beatles. It was fitting.