Guest godthedog Report post Posted July 10, 2002 it seems to be the general accepted belief in the music community that the beatles were the best band ever, and i do agree with it. but it seems that this is so accepted that it's become almost dogmatic, i hardly ever hear any arguments from anyone that someone else is the best band ever. i know plenty of people here have favorite bands that aren't the beatles, but i never hear anyone try to say why they're better than the beatles. so, here's your chance: why AREN'T the beatles the greatest group ever? who's better than they were, and why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 10, 2002 The only bands that come to mind who could be anyweres near the level of the Beatles would be Nirvana, Aeorsmith, and Ozzy. I took into account how long the band/artist stuck around and how long after that fact if they were still being listend to Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest razazteca Report post Posted July 10, 2002 the only bands that can even come close to being called the greatest are: The Rolling Stones The Who The Beach Boys Led Zepplin bad spelling Black Sabbath Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cynicalprofit Report post Posted July 10, 2002 The reason its become dogmatic is because what other band has everyone alive heard of? And you also have to remember that the beatles did the nicest thing EVER in music, instead of shilling a product, they said "all you need is love." Not all you need is a coke, or pepsi, all you need is love. And while I love the beatles, they are also teh reason music now a days sucks because EVERYONE listened to them, its influenced every musician whether they know it or not, and while that is great for the beatles, it means everyone is trying to be them all over again and thats not possible. So all we get is wannabe beatles...sure not directly, but pop music exist because of the beatles, rock and roll got brought to life by the beatles, experimenting with sound was brought to the front of the world with the beatles and their time with that maharisnu guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DARRYLXWF Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I personally think that Bands like Queen, Metallica, AC/DC etc are far more skilled in music writing. Where as people like Elvis, The Big O, Buddy Holly etc had naturally better voices. My mom, a huge Beatles fan in the day, looks back on them and just realises how mediocre they are compared to today's music skill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kinetic Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I don't think The Big O is better than The Beatles. I don't know who The Big O is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BottleRocket Report post Posted July 10, 2002 Perhaps, "The Big O" is boxer turned recording artist, Oscar De La Hoya. I know I'd pick him over John Lennon any day of the week. Seriously though, given the era of the two other vocalists mentioned, I assumed "The Big Bopper" was the artist in question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BottleRocket Report post Posted July 10, 2002 Oh, and I don't think "The Big Bopper" (if that is who we're talking about) had a more naturally skilled voice than anyone in the Beatles. And, yes, I'm including Ringo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Man in Blak Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I personally think that Bands like Queen, Metallica, AC/DC etc are far more skilled in music writing. Where as people like Elvis, The Big O, Buddy Holly etc had naturally better voices. My mom, a huge Beatles fan in the day, looks back on them and just realises how mediocre they are compared to today's music skill. I don't know if I should laugh...or cry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kinetic Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I think the prophet DARRYL's mistake there is confusing songwriting ability with instrumental proficiency and studio technology. But the point of this thread isn't to defend the Beatles, so far as I can tell, so I'll abstain from going into further detail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MasterMadness Report post Posted July 10, 2002 The Big O there referring to is surely Roy Orbison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest goodhelmet Report post Posted July 10, 2002 Tom, tell these guys to stop flame-baiting me!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I kinda liken the Beatles to Shakespeare in that the reason people claim that they're the best doesn't have so much to do with what they did as much as when, how and why they did what they did. Honestly, lacking the cultural context, the Beatles music doesn't quite seem as revolutionary as it does when you consider when it was made. "Blue Jay Way" was groundbreaking in its day, but now the only thing that can really be said about it is that it paved the way for other music like it. One thing that could possibly dethrone the Beatles as the greatest band ever would be the fact that their first four albums (Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Ain't She Sweet, and Beatles for Sale) are largely forgettable. Sure they contain some pop hits, but few people ever refer to songs off of those early albums when they reference the Beatles as an influence. True, they go better (some would say they were just allowed to do more as time went on), but a band that deserves the label "greatest ever" probably would have to produce quality, ground breaking work right from the start. So, I suppose, my reasons for claiming that the Beatles are not the greatest ever would be that much of their music seem lightweight when not considered against its social context and the fact that their early work leaves much to be desired. There also is the fact that I find that the vocals tend to be pretty joyless; often it seemed like they were merely going through the motions when they were singing and not bothering to put any real emotion into the words. And there was a lack of longevity, but that probably shouldn't factor in. I'd have to say that Bob Dylan probably should be considered at least as great as the Beatles if not greater. Within the social context, his songs were more meaningful than the Beatles, and without context his songs are just as good. He also debuted very strongly in 1962 and kept producing quality music until Blood On the Tracks in 1975 (you might be able to argue that Desire in '76 continued the streak, but that'd be a shaky argument). An argument could certainly be made for The Who. Bad vocalist, but the rest of the bad was pretty solid and the writing was almost always top notch. They debuted better than the Beatles and were able to evolve their sound in a way that was not dissimilar. That they chose to go the concept album route instead of experiementation with individual songs makes them about equal to the Beatles in my eyes. And their movies were better than the Beatles'. Zeppelin might have a claim to it. Again, they debuted better than the Beatles and every one of their albums shows a progression of their sound that was, at the time, revolutionary. Of course, by the 70s it was almost expected that a band would try to push whatever sonic boundaries that previous band had left (as evidenced by Pink Floyd, Blue Oyster Cult, Moody Blues). Sabbath were a great band for what they were, but they didn't break any ground. Maybe the Doors or the Stones. It's difficult because i have trouble differentiating between "greatest" and "most influential." What's especially interesting is that when thinking of bands who might be better than the Bealtes, our (or at least my) thoughts never stray to bands who have originated since the 80s. The quick answer to that would be that no comparable music has been created since, but I'm not so sure. Perhaps it's just difficult to praise something until it's properly aged. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest redbaron51 Report post Posted July 10, 2002 In terms of playing...Beatles were shit. In terms of lyrics and creativity, they were the best band and is still to do that. Usually you'll look for a band that has changed music for creativity, and puts out strong lyrics. (ie Metallica). I won't talk out my ass right now, but i'll be short. Beatles are in a category of their own Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BottleRocket Report post Posted July 10, 2002 The Big O there referring to is surely Roy Orbison. You're probably right, Orbison did have an album called "The Big O" in the late 60's/early 70's (I think). I just wasn't aware that "The Big O" was a widely known nickname for Orbison. My mistake. Didn't Lennon once say that he was trying to write a Roy Orbison song with "Please Please Me?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Incandenza Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I never got into the Beatles. I don't not like them, I just never cared. (Yeah, there goes my credibility as a music geek.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CoreyLazarus416 Report post Posted July 10, 2002 Same here, inca. I mean, they have their fans and their status, but I just don't really care for them. That said, Elvis owns The Beatles in terms of influence alone. Without Elvis, no Beatles. ELVIS made rock & roll popular, not The Beatles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Edwin MacPhisto Report post Posted July 10, 2002 In terms of influence, it's a funny chain. You can keep tracing it back from the Beatles to Elvis to jazz guitar from the 1930's fairly easily, and then probably keep going all the way back to the Romantics and eventually end up at guys beating on rocks in caves. Ah, the tangled chain! I do agree with the statement that, in terms of influence, musical quality, importance, all that stuff, the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. But I'll see if I can't undercut that a bit. The early Beatles' catalog, i.e. everything leading up to Rubber Soul and Revolver, was decent, but not brilliant. In terms of creation, The Beatles' golden period really runs from 1966 (Rubber Soul all the way through Abbey Road--Let It Be was recorded much earlier than its 1970 release). Before they started to experiment on Rubber Soul and then really start to go off on Revolver, they were a pop group made of four really attractive guys and some catchy tunes. If the Beatles stopped at Help!, then there would be no clear-cut "greatest band of all time," and without Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's, there probably wouldn't have been such an evolution of music. You'd still have the Stones, the Who, Zeppelin, but probably in lesser form. I mean, Brian Wilson made Pet Sounds *because* he heard Sgt. Pepper's. I doubt Bowie could have made Ziggy Stardust without the Beatles' making psychadelia a popular notion. The only person I can think of who might have been able to "revolutionize" music in the way the Beatles did if they hadn't made Revolver and Rubber Soul would be either some other third party who somehow reached the same conclusion, or Bob Dylan, probably the foremost of musicians who had a strong developing direction of his own before the big Beatles releases. Even then, Dylan never got past folk rock and singer-songwriter icon, albeit a damn fine one. I think that's the best I can do in terms of arguing against the Beatles. I could go in to a discussion of how the latter half of their career was full of art-rock pretension, but that can be said for almost any good band at some point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kinetic Report post Posted July 10, 2002 I mean, Brian Wilson made Pet Sounds *because* he heard Sgt. Pepper's. It's the other way around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Coffin Surfer Report post Posted July 10, 2002 It really is a matter of opinion on rather you like there music or you don't. The Beatles probably have one of the most impressive resumes of any band. However, someone like me thinks that thinks Stooges "Fun House" is better than all the Beatle's albums put together. If the Beatles is your fav. band, you could make a good argument for them being the greatest. As far their influence and them getting all the credit for the revolution goes: People forget that Pink Floyd released "Piper at the Gates..." around the same time as "Sgt. Pepper", Dylan had already released the ground breaking "Highway 61 Revisited", and that back in 64 the MC 5 was playing early Heavy Metal and Thrash, and the Monks were banned from the U.S.A. for speaking out against Vietnam in their music, while the Beatles wore smiles and sang "I Wanna Hold Your Hand.". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted July 10, 2002 In terms of influence, it's a funny chain. You can keep tracing it back from the Beatles to Elvis to jazz guitar from the 1930's fairly easily, and then probably keep going all the way back to the Romantics and eventually end up at guys beating on rocks in caves. Ah, the tangled chain! I do agree with the statement that, in terms of influence, musical quality, importance, all that stuff, the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. But I'll see if I can't undercut that a bit. The early Beatles' catalog, i.e. everything leading up to Rubber Soul and Revolver, was decent, but not brilliant. In terms of creation, The Beatles' golden period really runs from 1966 (Rubber Soul all the way through Abbey Road--Let It Be was recorded much earlier than its 1970 release). Before they started to experiment on Rubber Soul and then really start to go off on Revolver, they were a pop group made of four really attractive guys and some catchy tunes. If the Beatles stopped at Help!, then there would be no clear-cut "greatest band of all time," and without Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's, there probably wouldn't have been such an evolution of music. You'd still have the Stones, the Who, Zeppelin, but probably in lesser form. I mean, Brian Wilson made Pet Sounds *because* he heard Sgt. Pepper's. I doubt Bowie could have made Ziggy Stardust without the Beatles' making psychadelia a popular notion. The only person I can think of who might have been able to "revolutionize" music in the way the Beatles did if they hadn't made Revolver and Rubber Soul would be either some other third party who somehow reached the same conclusion, or Bob Dylan, probably the foremost of musicians who had a strong developing direction of his own before the big Beatles releases. Even then, Dylan never got past folk rock and singer-songwriter icon, albeit a damn fine one. I think that's the best I can do in terms of arguing against the Beatles. I could go in to a discussion of how the latter half of their career was full of art-rock pretension, but that can be said for almost any good band at some point. good post, but a couple of facts mixed up... i'm pretty sure that rubber soul came out in '65, not '66. and rubber soul was the album that made brian wilson want to make pet sounds, & that album in turn inspired paul mccartney for sgt pepper. ain't it funny which album of the 3 is now considered the most influential. i've got 2 friends that dispute my claim of the beatles being the best ever. their main points of attack are that a)they weren't very good as pure musicians (or, as michael puts it, 'they sucked at their instruments'), and b)they sucked live. these friends' favorite bands are the who and zeppelin, respectively. a i'll agree with, but i honestly couldn't give a shit about how well someone can play his instrument, as long as it's not noticeably shitty. the greatest band ever doesn't need to consist of the greatest vocalist ever, the greatest guitarist ever, the greatest bassist ever, & the greatest drummer ever. as long a band can write good songs & do things i've never heard before, i'll love them forever. b i'll also agree with. in comparison to other rock bands, a beatles concert would blow, & not because of the thousands of screaming girls. they got in the middle of a field (where you could barely see them), played a 20-minute set & walked off. and towards the end, their sound got REALLY shitty. b does create a major problem because, as much as the beatles made everyone else put more emphasis on albums, rock music is in its purest form when it's played live. michael's (one of the friends) argument is that 'the live music is the most important thing, and i just can't give the title "best band ever" to a band that sucked so much live,' which is i guess why his favorite band is the who. the live thing does undercut their credibility, but i think the beatles were so far ahead of everybody else in albums (and songs to a lesser extent) that it doesn't matter in the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Addy Report post Posted July 10, 2002 The Bloodhound Gang!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Edwin MacPhisto Report post Posted July 10, 2002 Damn, I always hate when I screw a fact or two up. Chalk it up to too much milk on the cereal today. That's surprising to me, the bit about Rubber Soul. I could certainly buy Revolver or Sgt. Pepper's suitably rocking someone's gourd, but I generally view Rubber Soul as the transitional piece between early and later era Beatles. There's a lot of play with harmonies on "Nowhere Man" and the like, but it doesn't stand out to me as the Beatles' most revolutionary work. I suppose it's the transition point, though, and that's what happens at transition points... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DARRYLXWF Report post Posted July 11, 2002 The Big O there referring to is surely Roy Orbison. That's what I meant. A great singer. Anyway, I guess what I meant was that just like the human race, music has evolved to greater things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted July 11, 2002 Chase could've been so huge if they didn't die in that plane crash. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted July 11, 2002 I'd argue that Harrison was a guitar hero, just not one of the more popular during his time. The only two who I think truly compare are Hendrix and Dylan. I guess you'd have to have heard everything of Hendrix to know what I'm talking about, and Dylan was simply amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kinetic Report post Posted July 11, 2002 I like Dylan better than The Beatles. But Bob Dylan wasn't/isn't a band, so it's a whole different dynamic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted July 11, 2002 I like Dylan better than The Beatles. But Bob Dylan wasn't/isn't a band, so it's a whole different dynamic. But that's really only true for his first four albums. By Bringing It All Back Home in '65, he had a band backing him for half of it. True, he handled the lyrics and whoever was backing him handled the music, but it was a band -- of a sort. I do see your point and it brings up the question of whether or not solo artists and bands should be considered in the same way. Or if bands like CCR should be considered in a different way because they were essentially solo acts pretending to be otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest M Nyland Report post Posted July 11, 2002 Who is better than the Beatles?? Whoever you want to be! Seriously...if you percieve Eminem to be better than the Beatles...soon you will look at the Beatles as crap. I know alot of people that really hate the Beatles, but will shit and listen to crappy trash-rap at a volume of 11 and criticize ME because I can sit and listen to Elvis Costello or Simon & Garfunkel... I don't know if that question can really be answered. Perception = Reality. I think that the greatest band of all time is Pink Floyd. Dark Side of the Moon was the Sgt. Peppers of the 70s. Pink Floyd did many innovative things with the technology they had, just as the Beatles did. "Strawberry Fields" was crazy back in the day...same goes to Pink Floyd's "Money" or "Time" I would rather sit and listen to Floyd than listen to the Beatles. I am not a pot head...heck...I don't do drugs, drink, or smoke...but I enjoy the music because it is GOOD...not because it challenges me to understand 500 words a minute or wondering what is behind all that feedback and distortion. I know Floyd used distortion and such but I am also such a mark for long instrumentals...that is why "Layla" by Derek & The Dominoes is one of my favorite songs of all time and why I have a slight love of prog. rock. ...but to me...I percieve Pink Floyd to be better than the Beatles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Respect The 'Taker Report post Posted July 11, 2002 If your gonna go on who's better, you cannot look past Chuck Berry. Why? Because he influenced The Rolling Stones AND The Beatles to make music, without him there would be no Beatles. Rock on Chuch, we LOVE you This has been the Taker Mark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
