There was, but you said Which is very wrong.

I was just quoting John Lennon ;)

The Beatles started out as a skiffle group. So yeah there is a strong folk influence. Compared to everybody in Rock Music their chord progressions were quirky. No one was using folk chord changes with a power-pop sound like the Beatles in 1963-1964. They are the reason the Byrds went electric. Sorry give credit where it belongs.

Here are some actual quotes.
Roger McGuinn

At about the same time, McGuinn discovered the electric 12-string, also the result of his admiration of the Beatles.

“We saw `A Hard Day’s Night’ and took note of the instruments. And (the Rickenbacker) was one of them. (George Harrison played it on the song `If I Fell.’) I loved the sound of it. I had been playing an acoustic Gibson 12-string that had a pickup on it, but it was too fat-sounding. It didn’t have that jingle-jangle sound. So we went shopping for one in L.A. It wasn’t the exact model George had played, but it was a Rickenbacker 12-string.”

“It was something that kind of evolved from working with Bobby Darin and then hearing the Beatles and the folk music chord changes they were using,” McGuinn says. “I was really inspired by the Beatles, so I started taking old folk songs and putting a Beatle beat on them - rocking them up.”

Bob Dylan on the Beatles

In an interview taken in 1971, Dylan recalls being impressed by their music. "We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio on, and eight of the Top 10 songs were Beatles songs...'I Wanna Hold Your Hand,' all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid...I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go."

The Rolling Stones on the Beatles

Keith liked the Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences. He also liked their harmonies, which were always a slight problem to the Rolling Stones. Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy. What we never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals. It didn't work, because Keith was a better singer and had to keep going, oooh, ooh ooh (laughs). Brian liked all those oohs, which Keith had to put up with. Keith was always capable of much stronger vocals than ooh ooh ooh.

- Mick Jagger

Since the Byrds recorded anything, they were an electric band. Their first album was Mr Tambourine Man, 1965. An electric album. It is purely irrelevant that the Beatles were an influence for them. They were never (in their recording days) a non-electric band to begin with. The point then is completely moot. As for Dylan, he went electric in 1965, well into the Beatlemania period. The quote you brought gives no indication at all that the Beatles were his main thinking behind going electric. It merely shows that he was impressed with them.

Like I said, I agreed that the Beatles were doing things that the extremely poor competition of early 60s rock'n'roll were not doing. There was no argument there at all.

Naivety and inconceivability are not conducive traits to a welcoming atmosphere.

Again since this came from McGuinn mouth you have no defense. The Byrds were not an electric band until the Beatles influenced them to go electric. Everything from the Beatles folk chord changes, their beat and their use of electric 12 string sound influenced the Byrds to go electric. Again give credit where credit is due

The Byrds

I still didn't know what an electric 12-string was, but when the Beatles released 'A Hard Day's Night,' I had to find out how they were getting that sound. So we made a reconnaissance run to a movie theater that was showing A Hard Day's Night and took notes. Ringo had Ludwig drums and John had that little Rickenbacker 325. George played a Gretsch most of the time, but he also had a Rickenbacker 360, which looked like a 6-string until he turned sideways and you could see six extra tuning pegs emerging from behind the headstock, like a classical guitar. Once I realized what it was, I traded in my Gibson acoustic 12 and bought a Rickenbacker 360/12.

Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead

The Beatles were why we turned from a jug band into a rock 'n' roll band," said Bob Weir. "What we saw them doing was impossibly attractive. ...

Bob Dylan has stated the Beatles were the band that was pointing the direction where music going.

Dude, the point is not complicated. The Byrds, in their recording days, were never NOT an electric band. Do you get that? They never recorded and released anything that wasn't electric. Their first album and their first single were all totally electric. Whatever they were before they started releasing music is totally irrelevant to the general public. So you can say that the Beatles were the reason they decided to be an electric band in the first instance. You cannot say that they went electric, however, because there was nothing that wasn't electric in their discrography. When we talk about a band changing from one thing into another, we are generally talking about a great shift evidenced in their discography (e.g. Prince's 180 degree shift from light disco artist into new wave with Dirty Mind). We don't care what somebody was before they even started recording.

We weren't discussing the Grateful Dead.

Yes. And for a large part, they were. This however does not indicate that it was the Beatles that convinced Dylan to go electric. Like I said, he went electric in 1965, LONG after the onset of Beatlemania.

That's ****ing ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to have a different taste in music then you?

Well, dur .. We're talking about influence here. It's your point which is lacking.

They themselves say that without The Beatles, they would sound different. I mean, is that not a beatles influence on another famous band? Looking at this, you would think that if there were no beatles, the Byrds recordings would sound different. Does it matter if it's the first or the second or the third recording? It's still Beatles influence on other musicians ..

.. Darwin. :rolleyes: