Had an interesting back-and-forth with a friend of mine about The Beatles. I'll turn 60 this year so they were just about broken up before I knew who they were. Plus, the era from which they sprung didn't have all the sub-genres we have now where every group is subdivided into some category three levels down from 'rock'. So, all that has to go into the original question: were The Beatles a 'rock' band or a 'pop' band?
I'd argue, from about Revolver onward, they were a 'pop' band. Even McCartney stated that their music sprung from a lot more influences than some of their contemporaries (Stones, Who, Animals, Kinks, et al). You can definitely hear more Tin Pan Alley and Broadway (chord voicings, harmonies, chord progressions, etc.) in their Revolver+ music than you do in others from the same era. Certainly, many of their British Invasion cohorts had plenty of 'pop' songs early in their career, too, but most went more towards 'rock' than 'pop'. For my taste, The Beatles produced too many novelty songs, nonsense songs and songs that incorporated weird sounds and effects just because they liked to experiment. The Stone's Her Satanic Majesties album was a complete ripoff of Sgt Peppers and a complete fiasco of non-songs and weird sounds. From Jumpin Jack Flash (1968) onward, though, they didn't produce a lot of pure pop songs although influences like country, soul, gospel, etc. creeped into many songs alongside the blues influences which were very obvious. The Who were pretty much the same. The Kinks sort of followed The Beatles, imo, road in that they started as a 'rock' band but evolved into more of a 'pop' band for a while before going more rock later.
Of course, categorizing them now is difficult as there wasn't much/any difference to the audience in the early 60s regarding rock vs. pop - it was basically all lumped together. And The Beatles certainly had some later songs that were definitely rock. Overall, though, their work once they stopped touring was more what I would classify (with a great deal of looking backwards vision) as pop.
Thoughts?
I'd argue, from about Revolver onward, they were a 'pop' band. Even McCartney stated that their music sprung from a lot more influences than some of their contemporaries (Stones, Who, Animals, Kinks, et al). You can definitely hear more Tin Pan Alley and Broadway (chord voicings, harmonies, chord progressions, etc.) in their Revolver+ music than you do in others from the same era. Certainly, many of their British Invasion cohorts had plenty of 'pop' songs early in their career, too, but most went more towards 'rock' than 'pop'. For my taste, The Beatles produced too many novelty songs, nonsense songs and songs that incorporated weird sounds and effects just because they liked to experiment. The Stone's Her Satanic Majesties album was a complete ripoff of Sgt Peppers and a complete fiasco of non-songs and weird sounds. From Jumpin Jack Flash (1968) onward, though, they didn't produce a lot of pure pop songs although influences like country, soul, gospel, etc. creeped into many songs alongside the blues influences which were very obvious. The Who were pretty much the same. The Kinks sort of followed The Beatles, imo, road in that they started as a 'rock' band but evolved into more of a 'pop' band for a while before going more rock later.
Of course, categorizing them now is difficult as there wasn't much/any difference to the audience in the early 60s regarding rock vs. pop - it was basically all lumped together. And The Beatles certainly had some later songs that were definitely rock. Overall, though, their work once they stopped touring was more what I would classify (with a great deal of looking backwards vision) as pop.
Thoughts?
