How the Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll

an alternative history of American popular music

Book by:
Elijah Wald

Reviewed by:
On 21 August 2009
Last modified:30 December 2015


American popular music - an alternative history

How the Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll is a serious and well-informed piece of cultural criticism. I am no committed student of rock and roll, though my life to date, from about ten years onwards spans that of rock and roll and much else in the world of pop music. I’ve always enjoyed it without really knowing why, and for me popular music was never the inevitable concomitant of dancing. As a history of American music this is a solid, well researched and interesting book.

Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll Elijah Wald has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his subject plus a shrewd understanding of the business side of the pop music industry; and this is one field of music-popular entertainment – where money is more central than any other. He fills out his narrative from Ragtime and early Jazz to the Twist and Rock- folk with a dazzling array of talent, social history and, unsurprisingly race relations.

But to get to the Beatles thread, Wald sees the Liverpool foursome as a typical late fifties group, travelling around local dance-halls playing covers of other records to young kids who wanted to dance. I was one of them as it happens – in 1963 they played at the Shrewsbury Music Hall and I was there as someone trying to dance (I never learnt).

But the Beatles were not so typical as Wald himself supposes. Far from it. They were unusual in that they did not survive on a diet of material supplied by song writers, beavering away for record companies. They dared to write their own songs and this meant they could direct their own careers more closely than others less talented. They could also introduce trends which others followed.

So, after an early focus on rock and roll – covers of Chuck Berry and some rockers of their own like She was Just Seventeen – they produced a sentimental but haunting song, Yesterday, to link up with that earlier tradition of ballads. This song was of course a worldwide hit and soon there were nearly 200 covers of it by different artists. The ability of the Beatles to influence others was clearly immense as their popularity went global in the late sixties.

Wald argues they distracted white kids from getting into black soul, causing them instead to regress to sentimental ballads, paving the way for Simon and Garfunkel, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Elton John and the like. Then they became more pretentious and got into meditation, clothing their music with arty mystification and letting loose the likes of The Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, and yes, Led Zeppelin. Then a whole galaxy of sub sects were spawned which are still developing and mutating.

I’m sure there is something in this. Even McCartney says of Yesterday “we didn’t release Yesterday as a single in England at all because we were a little embarrassed by it; we were a rock and roll band”. Rock music is very imitative – witness how many US performers produced ‘Beatlified’ songs to jump on the new British bandwagon. Wald also points out that after 1966 the Beatles did not perform live but were closeted in their studios making more advanced, experimental pop music – as George Harrison joked: “our avant garde a clue music”.

With Sgt Pepper, moreover, they refused to issue any singles. Wald describes these albums as ‘musical novels’ or ‘art’; all this of a different order to the two to three minute thrashes of fifties rock and roll which had drawn them into the business. Soon rock and roll’ became a word to describe a historical period in popular music; a more generic ‘rock’ was what followed the post Beatles period.

Wald makes another interesting point regarding the white and black wings of the business. While both black and white artist were aiming at the same audience up to the mid to late sixties, he claims the Beatles marked a bifurcation into the more sophisticated white-appealing ‘rock folk’ and the more rhythmically complex black-appealing ‘soul’.

I hope I’ve summarised his argument sufficiently. Does it stack up? I think it does – but I have two doubts about it. First I don’t think you can attribute everything since the late sixties to the Beatles. I would reckon Bob Dylan had an equal influence on charting the new directions, along with the likes of Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen and Eric Clapton.

Second I’m not sure there was ever such a separation between black and white audiences. I recall a universal acclaim for both Beatles music and Tamla for example. But I recommend this book for anyone wishing to gain a grasp of why rock and roll lost its rebellious snarl and its sneer, its thundering, testosterone celebration of youthful sexuality and became more serene, thoughtfully wistful and poetic.

© Bill Jones 2009

Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll Buy the book at Amazon UK
Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll Buy the book at Amazon US

Elijah Wald, How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp.336, ISBN: 0195341546

Arts, music, and architecture links

Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll Books on art, architecture, and music

Red button Escaping the Delta

Red button Faith in Time: The Life of Jimmy Scott

Buy from Amazon US     Buy from Amazon UK

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

If you found this article interesting you might want to Tell-A-Friend.

Tell A Friend
  1. (required)
  2. (valid email required)
  3. (required)
  4. (valid email required)

cforms contact form by delicious:days

2 Responses to “How the Beatles Destroyed Rock N Roll”

  1. Silhouette Soul says:

    As an African American who did grew up in the Beatles period, I can honestly tell you that there was a bit of separation between the white audience and black audience and the Beatles did help made that distinction. Where I grew up (Chicago), I remember people were calling it “white music”, like it has nothing to do with them, especially Sgt. Pepper. Black audience do respect the Beatles and know very well how much they revolutionized the industry but I bet if you were to ask one of them back then would they rather listen to the Beatles or to the Supremes, they’ll take the Supremes hands down. Hell, I knew more brothas who were into the Rolling Stones than they were into the Beatles!

    Motown was the dominating force before 1964 and to a certain extent it still was throughout the sixties, but the Beatles help made the distinction very clear. Their first album and up to Rubber Soul had some R&B influence, but starting with Revolver, that pretty much disappeared. Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Joni Mitchell, and the rest of ‘folk-rock’ white audience did have an influence, but not as great as the Beatles, for Bob Dylan never had as much airplay as the Beatles did.

    However I think that the separation is beginning to disappear like it did during the early-60s, now that Rap is now the de-facto popular music of this generation, for better or worse…

  2. mantex says:

    Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I take the point you are making – but there is plenty of documentary evidence that black artists (particularly the older bluesmen) were delighted and even grateful for the exposure they got following being taken up by white rock groups such as the Beatles and the Rolloing Stones. I was quite amazed to see somebody such as Muddy Waters saying how he felt almost ashamed that black kids were not listening to his music, but white klids were. There was a documentary film on thjis very topic some years ago on the BBC.

Leave a Reply


Powered by eShop v.6