At what point did the Beatles stop being pop music?

Since I wasn't around to see for myself when it happened, I would like
to know at what point the Beatles stopped being pop? Like all pop it's

ACankersore...

A glass of ice hot pop? No.

Bill Bassett...

Jeez, Jeff, your contributions today are pretty worthless. Why bother?

all about the flavor of the month. I do know that there was the Beatles

DayTripper1966...

Pop music simply means popular music. The Beatles were always popular.

invasion where every giddy school girl wanted every little piece of
them. My best guess is that Rubber Soul really weeded out the pop music
scene and the true fans stayed with them. Then Revolver came along and
I'm pretty sure that weeded out even more pop people out. The thing
about it is that whoever stopped being a Beatles fan after RS, was
picked up with different people who weren't into the pre-RS Beatles
music. I'm also pretty sure that once Revolver was released that it
sealed the deal in concrete with newly acquired fans.

IBen Getiner...

I think you're confused on your terminology. It's all pop, actually..
It's like Musicologist Wilfrid Mellers once said... "Sgt. Pepper's was
the most distinctive event in pop's brief history.. It marked the
turning point...... where the Beatles stopped being ritual dance music
and became music to be listen to"..
That's a little more like it, ehh.....?

IBen Getiner

Runnnerr...

It's ALL pop.

Dale Houstman...

The Beatles NEVER stopped being pop music. You seem to think the term
"popular music" is somewhat derogatory and represents a trivial aspect
of music, but nothing is further from the truth. Frank Sinatra was a pop
artist, so were such luminaries as Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Cole
Porter, and thousands of others. The ability to connect profoundly with
a lot of people and still produce superior art is a rare enough item,
and the Beatles were masters of pop music.

I think what you're implying here is a false dichotomy between "pop" and
"serious" which means that any discussion which revolves around that
question can only hope to be pointless.

waltbrad...

Most classical music was "pop" in it's time also. Certainly "The
Marriage of Figaro" was a big hit with the poor masses in France.

It became "classical" only after time; much like rock music became
"classic rock".

So, where do we draw the line?

Dale Houstman...

Simple: we don't. Someone asked Louis Armstrong once if what he did was
folk music: he said "Well, I'm folk ain't I?" All these genre divisions

Lookingglass...

THAT is such a great retort.

Dale Houstman...

Well, Louis was a great man. Somked reefer up until the day he died, was
generous to his friends and strangers, and never moved out of his old
neighborhood, alhough he could obviously afford to, and it wasn't what
was considered a "good" area. He had roots...

Runnnerr...

Well, he did move a few times- from New Orleans to Chicago, from
Chicago to New York. He lived in Europe for a few years and maybe some
places in between before settling into Queens where his house is now a
museum.

Dale Houstman...

Yes. I should have said he KEPT his family home. As a musician, it is
obvious he would be mobile.

- while perfectly useful for general discussion and for critics - tend
to make people believe musical types spring from disparate gardens and
only commingle reluctantly, but music informs music with reckless
abandon, and you can't keep the rabbits out of the lettuce patch. So
we've got bluesmen influenced by country musicians, country musicians
singing their country blues, rockabilly speeding up the front porch
tunes of daddy anmd mommy, Irving Berlin and Gershwin dipping into
"black" music, jazz rubbing up against classical, polka-punks secretly
listening to Mel Torme, Lieber and Stowe channeling "hot negro sounds,"
the Beatles doing music hall songs, and blues, and folk, and reggae, and
"space music," and on and on and on. "Pop" isn't even as usueful a

frank megaweege...

...

Which Beatles songs are considered reggae?

Runnnerr...

Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da is sort of psuedo reggae. John and Paul each had a
couple of solo songs (maybe more) with that beat.

BlackMonk...

Calling "Ob-la-di, Ob-La-Da" Reggae is an anachronism. There wasn't
something called Reggae until well after. The Beatles were slightly
influenced by Ska, which was a predecessor of Reggae.

Dale Houstman...

Nit-picking a bit really.

BlackMonk...

Not really. Ska is a different form of music. Reggae developed out of it,
but that doesn't mean everything influenced by Ska is Reggae.

Dale Houstman...

Well, that would be Obladi Oblada. It isn't really, but it's caribbean
flavor has been noted from day one.

division as most: a popular song can be almost any of the ones mentioned
above if enough people listen.

Lookingglass...

..."you don't get time to hang a sign on me..."

Dale Houstman...

"Out To Lunch. Back In Five Minutes"

dave (...tuned to a natural E...)

Chris Jepson...

This seems to be something of a semantic argument. I think the OP's
point was that the Beatles' style changed, and I think that's true...
it's just that the OP used the term "pop" to refer to the earlier style,
which was probably a poor choice of word. We might say that the

Dale Houstman...

Probably, but - in a discussion - semantics means an awful lot.

Beatles' early music was more "commercial" or "teen-oriented" or
something like that ... which would still be an overgeneralization, but
there's no question that a major change took place around 1965-66.

DayTripper1966...

It was still hugely "commercial" (appealing to a huge amount of people
after 1965, but not as teen oriented.

Dale Houstman...

A lot is made of this. It's still pop music.

Chris Jepson

Runnnerr...

Despite artistic pretensions that many (or most or even all) in the
entertainment industry have, what they're essentially doing is putting
out a product in the good old capitalist tradition. They want to reach
as many people as possible with their product through CD sales, concert
tickets, etc. They want it to be POPular. Why put it out for public
consumption at all if not? They could sit at home and just make music
for themselves. The fact that some things become popular makes them
pop. They're all trying to be that.

I've often wondered why the term "pop" has such negative connotations
both within and without industry.

Runnnerr...

I understand your point, but disagree with it to some degree. Making
music, making art, while they may have inherent rewards are
nonetheless, jobs. How many times have we heard Pete Townshend say that
The Who tour for the money (not recently, but he has in the past).
There's nothing wrong with it. Many other bands do as well, even if
they won't say it. This where their skills are. I wouldn't expect a
musician to go out to be a brick-layer tomorrow in order to put food on
his table, I'd expect him to make music and attempt to sell it, as a
commodity, as a product which others may want to buy. A large part of
capitialism is acting in one's own self-interest (as opposed to actiing
selfishly). I enjoy making music, people enjoy listening to my music
and watching me perform it, I'm going to sell it my way of making a
living. Why do "artists" charge large amounts of money to see them
perform? Because it's what the market will bear. There's nothing wrong
with any of this, but art, is a commodity to be exchanged and sold.

AC...

And it always has been. Whether it's the state-funded art of Ancient
Egypt or Rome, or the aristocratic-funded art of the Renaissance, at the
end of the day art is the ultimate consumer product. On a rare occasion
you will have an artist who is wealthy enough (either through some other
venture or because he or she chose more consumable art earlier on) to
pursue art for art's sake, but for the most part artists have always had
to put up with the capitalist nature of the game.

Dale Houstman...

I think we are miscomprehending something here: most artists are never
heard of at all. These guys (like me!) do it because it's rewarding in
and of itself. Even the "big guys" start out this way, and - if they're
not total hacks - retain their enthusiasm for "art for art's sake." It
is nice - of course- if the money comes, but - almost inevitably - it
doesn't, yet art continues to be made. Van Gogh must have liked it,
because he only sold one painting in his lifetime. And "putting up with"
is a big difference from "laboring for the sake of." And - frankly -
most art isn't all that expensive to pursue, and so patronage is not
usually necessary. If you want to be a monumental public sculptor, or
put on an opera, you will certainly need support, but poetry (my main
pursuit), many visual arts, and songwriting necessitate very small output.

Lookingglass...

I agree with you Dale... I've been 'making Art' all my life and no one
recognizes me... 'I' don't even recognize me at this stage of my life. ;^)

...rather than make babies, I make 'art'....... though I certainly do my
best to "make LOVE, not war"... I believe, like you, that Artists make Art
because of a passion to do so... not to make money. If an Artist is lucky
enough to be 'discovered', that's wonderful. There are many, many Artists
doing what they love to do for no money... god bless 'em.

dave (...that's what I want...)

DayTripper1966...

Because of the elitist view that if something is popular, than it
cannot be high quality.

Runnnerr...

So what you're saying is that Yoko has consistently made bad "music" so
that it wouldn't be popular and would therefore be considered high
quality music.

DayTripper1966...

No, the converse is not necessarily true.

Yes, I see your point. I've often wondered about the classic "Toilet
Piece". Now I understand why so many consider it to be so great.