musical explorations of Dylan and the Beatles

[ElectroVibe]

It's been almost 30 years since I have thought about this, but as a young self-teaching student of guitar, I came to a realization at one point. I spent a lot of time trying to teach myself new songs. If it was something more complex like a jazz standard or a soft rock/easy listening hit, I might sometimes have to visit a sheet music store or find an old books of easy listening hits.

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that Bob Dylan and the Beatles were so musically adventurous during the 1960's that they had played every kind of unique chord progression that could be played, and nothing which has come after that time has come close to the music of the 1960's. Even if I discovered it first in a later song, I would rediscover it again in one of their songs.

Has anyone else thought this about their music in particular, or about 1960's music in general?

 

[BassChuck]

Not only Dylan, and the Beatles but many, many more musicians and groups were adventurous in the '60's.
IMHO it's because the music industry was more adventurous. Many labels were willing to take a chance and take a loss on some artists. With publicly owned companies and shareholders, etc. the attention to the bottom line takes the lead over the artistic qualities. (same is true in the field of Jazz, and theater)
One thing the Beatles had going for them was they came in under the radar and had a reasonable following in Britain and Germany before they had to get into heavy dealings with recording companies. So they were, and have remained in the drivers seat. And, the same could be said for almost all of rock and roll pre 1967.
We can only hope that a free and open internet will allow artists to be as creative as they see fit. But today is truly a different world than it was in 1962.

 

[ElectroVibe]

Not only Dylan, and the Beatles but many, many more musicians and groups were adventurous in the '60's.
IMHO it's because the music industry was more adventurous. Many labels were willing to take a chance and take a loss on some artists. With publicly owned companies and shareholders, etc. the attention to the bottom line takes the lead over the artistic qualities. (same is true in the field of Jazz, and theater)
One thing the Beatles had going for them was they came in under the radar and had a reasonable following in Britain and Germany before they had to get into heavy dealings with recording companies. So they were, and have remained in the drivers seat. And, the same could be said for almost all of rock and roll pre 1967.
We can only hope that a free and open internet will allow artists to be as creative as they see fit. But today is truly a different world than it was in 1962.

Good thoughts! But I don't see how internet policies could have an effect on world creativity. I think musical creativity is more of a sociological phenomenon.

 

[BassChuck]

Good thoughts! But I don't see how internet policies could have an effect on world creativity. I think musical creativity is more of a sociological phenomenon.

Most of us create music for other people to hear. Whether for communication, or entertainment, we want (need) other people to hear our work. The exception, of course, is when we create just for ourselves.
If we are allowed (able) to let other people know of our work, and if we can get it to them without a financial burden to them or ourselves, we can hear other work, and distribute our work. When there are fees, censorship, or other impediments to the process, it slows or stops. If we have to pay for internet service, or there are other stipulations, it ceases to be the flow of information we need.
When I was in high school the only way to record music was on reel to reel tapes or vinyl records. It was a big deal to record anything. A few years later when cassette tape technology was readily available we could easily record, copy, distribute all kinds of things. Now, it's even easier with iPhones, Audacity and all kinds of other tech.
If people who have no interest in technology other than a way to make money, will seek to control the flow of information and creativity is hampered.

 

[White Beard]

Funny you say that because there's only really one record store these days, and they take half of the gross. Ergo, they promote only the biggest records with the broadest appeal. And the requirements to get on iTunes are absolutely ridiculous. You have to have twenty albums of content, so it's almost impossible for a single band or artist to get on iTunes without some form of assistance from someone that needs to make money off of you (e.g.: record label). So it ends up being only the biggest and broadest appeal again. You also have to master at a sampling rate 96k and a bit depth of 24 bits, and then they compress it down to an mp3 that has about the same quality as a 44.1K/16 bit CD. Mostly because Apple wants you to buy some Apple computers to make your hi-def (if 96k/24 bit is even considered hi-def anymore) recordings for mp3 distribution.

When everybody thought that digital distribution was going to create a vast sea of niche markets that everyone would have to penny-pinch and tighten up profit margins, Clive Davis correctly predicted that the hits have to get even bigger. That's why we have the mega-stars (Beyoncé, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, etc.), and then everybody else. And there are only a handful of people that write those mega hits, and they have a very specific formula that they use to make a hit. Biggest and broadest appeal.

Check out The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory by John Seabrook for more.

 

[byacey]

Creativity and artistry has been traded in for profit; talent is no longer required. It's all about big money promotion, social programming and public brainwashing that drives the music industry today. Here's a video that exposes it for what it is:

 

[DoctorZee]

Reminds me of this video from Rick Beato. If I recall correctly, he puts most of the blame on the devaluation of music in general. Songwriters and producers are really only making money on #1 hits; nothing else really brings in a living wage anymore. If the songwriter needs to make a sale to feed his family, you better believe he's gonna lean on the I-IV-iv-V chords that he knows is going to work, rather than spend time tinkering with something more experimental.

 

[mambo4]

I think the idea that all the interesting stuff was done by such artists as Dylan & the Beatles in the 60s
is a rose colored tunnel-visioned viewpoint.

The 60s had the same ratio of vapid empty pop then as now
Quality is what survives, the vapid ephemeral schlock disperses to history.
Innovative musical ideas were happening decades before (Debussy, Varese, Coltrane, George Russel )
And have happened in the decades since. (Prog & fusion, Kraftwerk & electronica, Jacob Collier, Snarky Puppy, the entirety of hip-hop)

You won't be exposed to innovators as a passive listener
of whatever modern media places in front of you.
If you can't find the innovative stuff outside of the 60s, just look harder.

 

[DoctorZee]

Quality is what survives, the vapid ephemeral schlock disperses to history.
Innovative musical ideas were happening decades before (Debussy, Varese, Coltrane, George Russel )
And have happened in the decades since. (Prog & fusion, Kraftwerk & electronica, Jacob Collier, Snarky Puppy, the entirety of hip-hop)

If you're implying that, 50 years from now, Snarky Puppy and Jacob Collier will be remembered while Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran are forgotten... you are a more optimistic person than I am.

 

[MonetBass]

...And the requirements to get on iTunes are absolutely ridiculous. You have to have twenty albums of content, so it's almost impossible for a single band or artist to get on iTunes without some form of assistance from someone that needs to make money off of you (e.g.: record label)...

Not true, actually. I went through CD Baby to sell my album, and they put it on iTunes and Amazon digital music for me. It was pretty easy to do and wasn't that expensive.

But I get your point. Nobody would know my album was out there unless I specifically told them. And I'm not going to make a bunch of money selling it, either. But that's OK. If someone is wanting to become rich and famous in the music industry, they still have to go through a record company for the most part, mainly for advertising, distribution, and touring. But then to the OP point, the music tends to be not very creative or interesting. Lowest common denominator and all that.

 

[White Beard]

I would put CD Baby into the record label category. They have a minimal investment (you pay for all of the recording, mixing, mastering, and production), you pay them $50 an album and $10 a single, and they take $4 off the top of anything that sells. Moreover, you needed them to get you onto iTunes. You just didn't submit it to Apple yourself, you needed an intermediary to facilitate that move. That's a record label. If CD Baby wasn't a profitable company, they wouldn't have sold for $22 million a few years back.

 

[biguglyman]

You won't be exposed to innovators as a passive listener
of whatever modern media places in front of you.

^THIS^
Since "discovering" Porcupine Tree as well as several other bands I'd never heard of, I've made it a point to try and seek out new and different music. The industry in general doesn't make it easy. My son helps with his younger perspective and different circle of friends and musicians. That's why I'm now familiar with bands like Snarky Puppy, Muse, and King Gizzard And The Lizard Wizard. The latter are a great band out of Australia that even had special guitars (and basses) made for their album "Flying Microtonal Banana". The guitars have extra frets to play notes between notes and they bring it off well IMHO. While bands like these may not enjoy the long lasting fame of other innovators, I'm happy to have found them in my lifetime.

 

[ElectroVibe]

I think the idea that all the interesting stuff was done by such artists as Dylan & the Beatles in the 60s
is a rose colored tunnel-visioned viewpoint.

The 60s had the same ratio of vapid empty pop then as now
Quality is what survives, the vapid ephemeral schlock disperses to history.
Innovative musical ideas were happening decades before (Debussy, Varese, Coltrane, George Russel )
And have happened in the decades since. (Prog & fusion, Kraftwerk & electronica, Jacob Collier, Snarky Puppy, the entirety of hip-hop)

You won't be exposed to innovators as a passive listener
of whatever modern media places in front of you.
If you can't find the innovative stuff outside of the 60s, just look harder.

Everyone has their own definition of "innovative". Tom Petty said it best once, to paraphrase him. He said that he could be innovative (or some similar term) a thousand times a year if he really wanted to. But if no one else liked it how could anyone say that it was good. You have to give credit to anyone whose work gains mass appeal, as that is often what rises to the surface.