Elvis, The Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

[metalmariachi]

Elvis was probably one of the best cover artists of all times.
Great showman, Red Neck chic.
A figure head for rebellious youth.

And he created an industry, the Elvis impersonator, represented by every race and gender, not to mention a mainstay in almost every casino, lounge, and wedding chapel in north America.

The Beatles popped up at a time when American radio (am folks) was dominated by surf, Motown and Phil Spector.
They were different a less polished and back to the roots sound, while still being pretty (Ringo doesn't count).

What they really brought to music later was pioneering work in multi tracking.

Phil Spector and Motown crammed an orchestra into a small space and recorded, the Beatles sat down with 4 guys and added tracks. Revolutionary.
Funny George and John later recorded with Phil.

The Stones, came over at the same time as the Beatles.
rough, bad boys, playing roots rock and blues. They were the Anti-Beatles.
A beacon to disenfranchised youth, lost some where. Too young for 'Rebel With Out a Cause' or 'the Beat Generation' Needing an angry voice.

Shortly there after many discovered Bob Dylan and the rest is history.

Later ramblings shall consider such topics as which is more tacky, the trashy glitter, and pointless bling of American nuevo riche, or the drab antique ridden bleakness of old money where even the people look like they need to be dusted off and polished.

MM

[sev]

.
Other shifts in convention that The Beatles brought about:

When they came out, there were songwriters, and performers...and they usually were not the same people. Early on, the Beatles wrote many of their own songs, and eventually performed all original songs which they wrote. They showed that it could be done, and eventually bands writing their own songs (or being allowed to perform their own songs) became the norm, more or less.

Also, prior to 'Sgt Pepper', the music business was a singles based industry...artists put out singles...usually any albums were just singles with some filler thrown around it. After 'Sgt Pepper' (which no singles were originally released from) the shift became artists conceiving and releasing proper albums, rather than just singles, or collections of singles.....which eventually became the norm.

While they maybe weren't THE first to self write, or conceive a proper album...the success that they brought to both of these models forced the shift.

[bigchiefbc]

Also, prior to 'Sgt Pepper' the music business was a singles based industry...bands put out singles...any albums were just singles with some filler thrown around it. After 'Sgt Pepper' (which no singles were originally released from) the shift became artists conceiving and releasing proper albums, rather than just singles. Huge.

Not only that, but at the time when you released something as a single, you DIDN'T put it on your full length albums. All your best songs were singles, and then the dregs left over made up the LPs. It is because of this mindset that Sgt Peppers, as revered as it is, was actually robbed of being an even better album. Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were the first two songs written for the album that would become Sgt. Peppers. But EMI wanted a new single, so the Beatles gave them those two and started over on making the album. Could you imagine how great Sgt. Pepper would have been with those two on the album? When I read that story, I felt robbed.

[Ghost Hip]

i do love me some penny lane.