who is better than the beatles

[Guest saturnmark4life]

yeah, whilst they aren't my favourite i recognise the impact they had.

[Guest dilk bathoon]

well, theres so much great music out there that it really is hard to classify one band as "the greatest ever", but i can't really argue that the beatles are just that. just listen to abbey road with a nice pair of headphones and the volume cranked. theres my arguement.

[Guest mesepher]

Considering Nirvana as a legendary band is laughable... I mean, I am a huge Nirvana fan (for about 10 years now) but we all have to face the truth that Cobain was a druggy who gave up on life and blew his brains out. Nirvana was the biggest MAINSTREAM band around in the early 90s, but not the best.... and the only reason the name sticks around is because its marketable. If Kobain lived and Ed Vedder died would PJ be the biggest grunge band?

 

now.

 

Maybe I'm a bit biased... but I consider Floyd's "Piper" to be the far superior album when compared to "Sgt. Pepper" Both were recorded at the same time... they say you can even hear a bit of "Pepper" in the background of one of the Floyd tracks due to the thin walls at Abbey Road.

 

My friend and I always joke around how the Beatles main fanbase was fourteen year old girls...

 

and yes... Elvis is to blame for all of this.

[Guest red_file]

If Kobain lived and Ed Vedder died would PJ be the biggest grunge band?

That seems a bit like asking if Paul got shot instead of John, would he be the revered one? Sadly, the answer is probably yes.

[Guest thefrenchargel]

the beatles were pussies and their music is overrated. Gimme Dying Fetus any day.

[Guest Downhome]

I just want to say that I am not a fan of The Beatles in terms of liking to hear them sing, their style, etc... As a matter of fact, I just can't f'n stand to hear them perform or anything, it annoys me greatly. I would rather listen to Roy Orbison any day of the week any time than listen to The Beatles. Roy is a true singer, a true vocalist at it's most pureist form. Many could learn a lot, just by listening to a few tracks of him. However...

 

...I DO love covers of their songs, I love to hear OTHER people sing their material. I love their lyrics, music, etc... I simply am not a fan of The Beatles as a band themselves.

[Guest red_file]

My only problem with good old Roy is that I can't stand that warble to his voice. He'll be singing along fine and then he'll do that thing and it just grates on me. It's one of those things where I can understand where other people could enjoy it, but it's just painful for me.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Nirvana...HA.

 

That would be all but I feel like ranting...

 

The Beatles inspired music for...still counting...

 

Nirvana and the whole grunge movement lasted a few friggin years.

 

The BEST thing that ever happened to that band was Cobains death.

 

Had he lived the musical landscape would have passed them by the way it did every other band from that era.

 

Instead they will now always be remembered as geniuses...despite the fact that their music had little to no staying power.

 

I hate them.

[Guest red_file]

Had he lived the musical landscape would have passed them by the way it did every other band from that era.

 

Instead they will now always be remembered as geniuses...despite the fact that their music had little to no staying power.

 

Do you ever get the feeling that the same could very easily be said about either the Doors or Hendrix? I mean, imagine the parody that would've been Hendrix in the 80s or Morrison in the 90s. The horror.

 

The thing about Nirvana that I could never understand was why Cobain was the one who was always praised as the genius. He never seemed anything better than a competent guitar player to me and his skill as a song writer is questionable at best. To me, the saving grace of that band was always the percussions. And even then -- well, let's not bother.

[Guest thefrenchargel]

the lesson to be learned here: mainstream music sucks ass. money ruins art.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I think the same thing could easily be said about the Doors and Hendrix.

 

Hendrix can fall back on being a great guitar player.

 

I like the doors...but honestly don't think they were any better or bigger than say...Guns N Roses was.

 

Just that Axl didn't die.

 

Taking that scenerio...let's say Axl died right after the November Rain video came out.

 

They were already the biggest band in the world since Appetite...now they would have 4 albums, countless hits...and the rest of their career was just all down hill after November Rain.

 

How big would they be remembered had they not had to come back down off the top of the mountain?

[Guest snuffbox]

Nirvana wrote great pop songs in the same ilk as the Beatles...only from a different perspective and a heavier sound. Kurts death gave him god-status which is fairly commonplace throughout time.....James Dean is godlike on the basis of image and a film or two. Nirvana had a number of great records and no doubt more had Cobain not been a drug addled depressive. In terms of music and influence Ill say that Nirvana is at least on par with the Beatles....in the future they may be viewed as even greater.

 

AC/DC is easily the most consistent band in history and never really put out a bad album. Despite their ages and habits they still put on arguably the best performance of any band today onstage. But never straying from those three chords kinda elimintates them from the 'better then the Beatles' realm. AC/DC is probably the best hard rock outfit ever....and among the better bands of all time...and one of my favorite bands...but not 'greater' then then the Beatles

 

Guns N Roses have one of the best records ever made period to their credit....and it was their debut record! As far as rock music goes only Back in Black and a couple others can be compared to Appetite for Destruction. GNR Lies features some incredible acoustic tunes. The Illusion cds were very ambitious and include some undeniably goos songs. November Rain is among the very best songs ever recorded. GNR had an enigmatic frontman and a notorious legacy....as well as some of the best rock songs ever written. Easily among the very best rockers ever and one of the better bands of all time....but not quite at the Beatles level. If Chinese Democracy eventually does get released to some success maybe GNR can move up a few notches.

 

Alice in Chains and Smashing Pumpkins come to mind as two bands who had more then enough talent to reach the Beatle level....but never will....AIC cant....and doesnt look like the Pumpkins are getting back together anytime soon

 

As far as individual artists go I think Bob Dylan and Neil Young are both with or above the Beatles....both musically and influentially.

 

Pearl Jam and Pink Floyd can both make a claim as well....Pearl Jam at the very least still have more good songs left in the tank...whether they use them or not is anyones guess.

 

And as far as the Beatles go...im not really a big fan personally...I like some of the later 'experimental' stuff but their earlier poppy songs sound a bit too contrived...like they were trying to write hits as a job and not alot of emotion there. I actually prefer the music of the Beatles individually....especially John Lennon's and George Harrison's.

[Guest godthedog]

the beatles were pussies and their music is overrated. Gimme Dying Fetus any day.

oh my god...what a great argument. beautiful in its simplicity. this made me realize the lie i'd been living and throw away all those crappy beatles albums. the true art lies in the obscure shit that no one's ever heard of! if you've heard of them, throw their albums away, cause it means they've already sold their musical souls for the money! and all money is EVIL!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Big McLargeHuge]

Nirvana...HA.

 

That would be all but I feel like ranting...

 

The Beatles inspired music for...still counting...

 

Nirvana and the whole grunge movement lasted a few friggin years.

 

The BEST thing that ever happened to that band was Cobains death.

 

Had he lived the musical landscape would have passed them by the way it did every other band from that era.

 

Instead they will now always be remembered as geniuses...despite the fact that their music had little to no staying power.

 

I hate them.

Spoken like a true GnR fan.

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

AC/DC is easily the most consistent band in history and never really put out a bad album. Despite their ages and habits they still put on arguably the best performance of any band today onstage. But never straying from those three chords kinda elimintates them from the 'better then the Beatles' realm. AC/DC is probably the best hard rock outfit ever....and among the better bands of all time...and one of my favorite bands...but not 'greater' then then the Beatles

Amen to that, Aussies rule

 

This has been your friendly neighbourhood Taker-man

[Guest thefrenchargel]

the beatles were pussies and their music is overrated. Gimme Dying Fetus any day.

oh my god...what a great argument. beautiful in its simplicity. this made me realize the lie i'd been living and throw away all those crappy beatles albums. the true art lies in the obscure shit that no one's ever heard of! if you've heard of them, throw their albums away, cause it means they've already sold their musical souls for the money! and all money is EVIL!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps I should elaborate a bit..I recognize the whole Beatles=Influence thing, so don't start with that, All I've got to say was that for that era of music, The Doors, Pink Floyd, The Who, The Rolling Stones, et al were all better pure musicians; they just didn't happen to have the fortune of coming to America first. Floyd and the Doors were more experimental, the Who were catchier, and the Stones had the longevity. Trust me, if the Who had showed up on Ed Sullivan before the beatles, we'd all be singing the praises of Roger Daltrey and Keith Moon, as their music was WAY catchier than the early beatles stuff. The beatles, although talented, IMO are overrated and were in the right place at the right time...

 

As far as the whole Obscure vs. Mainstream contest goes, Mainstream music is a whole lot smaller than the underground stuff, besides, all those big famous bands you love so much were underground at some point, so doesn't it stand to reason that there's a SHITLOAD of great unnoticed talent in the world? And i'm not saying you should throw away your beatles albums, fuck, I never said that they were crappy, just that they were pussies, there's a difference. as far as money goes, show me one problem in this world that isn't directly or indirectly related to one of two things, Money or God.

[Guest TheyCallMeMark]

Who is better than the Beatles? Give me a break, who ISN'T? Honestly the Beatles were little more than a boy band along the lines of Backstreet Boys and NSync. The only difference was they wrote their own music. Big deal. None of them were talented. I don't know their names in context to what they played but to say they're better than anyone musically is laughable. Jazz bands and blues bands at that time made them look like first graders. The music was bland and basic, and I don't think anyone can really dispute that.

 

Lyrically they weren't that great either in my mind. I think there have been several people better at writing vocals and vocal melodies since the Beatles. The Beatles lyrics were not deep and didn't really have any emotional meaning. Jimmi Hendrix, Kurt Kobain, Billy Corgan, Jerry Cantrell, Layne Staley, Eddie Vedder, Bob Dylan, Anthony Keidies, Scott Weiland, Robert Plant, Chris Cornell and Marylin Manson have all written songs that put the Beatle's finest to shame. And that's just off the top of my head of people's names I know! And it's not like I particularly enjoy all those artists (I hate Pumpkins, Zepplin and Manson) so it's not like I'm just picking favourites.

 

And as far as influence goes, it's really tough to make and argument on that count because there are so many different perspective on it. In a sense, the Beatles were the most influential. In another sense Jimi Hendrix is. Jaco Pastorius. Beethoven. Metallica. Korn. Nirvana. Black Sabbath. I could make an argument for any of those people and have it be legitimate. Influence also has little to do with how good a band is. The Backstreet Boys have definatll influenced music today and nobody goes around calling them musical genius'.

[Guest Flyboy]

November Rain is among the very best songs ever recorded.

Amen, my friend.

 

Amen!

[Guest redbaron51]

actually the only talented person that came out of the beatles was George Harrison.

 

But with out the Beatles there would be no Who, Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. and pratically all the bands in between. Without the beatles, music would be completly different.

 

If you look at Beatles lyrics, during the later years, Beatles had some terrific stuff, but the earliers they were nothing but a rebelious pop band

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

The music was bland and basic, and I don't think anyone can really dispute that.

Uh...actually, I think pretty much anyone COULD dispute that.

 

The early years--I'm talking Meet the Beatles, Please Please Me, really early, when your biggest songs are "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," "Love Me Do," and so on...yeah. That stuff is pretty darn simple, especially in contrast with today's music. But to say that anything after Revolver is "bland and basic" is the oversight of someone who I don't think has actually listened to the albums. Take a listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Penny Lane," "You Never Give Me Your Money," or "A Day In The Life."

 

If you're referring to music in terms of technical ability, then no, the Beatles weren't the best. No one will ever try to make the case that Ringo Starr could outdrum Keith Moon. But really, honestly, fuck technical ability. The Beatles wrote SONGS. They didn't need to noodle away at a guitar or do anything excessively complex, because they wrote amazing songs regardless. Sure, "Let It Be" and "Hey Jude" are dominated by pianos and simple guitar parts. Doesn't change the fact that they are probably two of the best pop songs ever written, period. "Something," the whole entire suite on the second side of Abbey Road, "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," "Yesterday," "Lovely Rita," "Fool On the Hill," "Strawberry Fields Forever"...I could make a reasonable case for any of those being one of the finest pop rock songs ever written.

 

There's a helluva lot more to the Beatles than "She Loves Me" and the Ed Sullivan Show. But this isn't a "defend the Beatles" thread, so I'll stop now. Go buy Revolver and Abbey Road, then come back and see if your opinion's changed.

[Guest redbaron51]

He won't. He is a narrow minded person who can't except creativity in a variety of music (grindcore and death metal are good, but you gotta listen to a variety of music to grasp the concept of creativity)

[Guest redbaron51]

also about the Stones longitivity...I think it hurt them more than helped them IMO

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

also about the Stones longitivity...I think it hurt them more than helped them IMO

Oh, definitely, definitely Xero. Seriously, nothing they've put out since Some Girls has been notable in the least. Keep on touring, sure, but leave the albums to the guys who are still writing good, new music.

[Guest redbaron51]

i don't mind them touring, but i found like Stones later albums really bad, also i find that if the lead singer pursue's a solo career it usually suck (minues Ozzy and Peter Gabriel)

[Guest King_TIL]

I don't understand why some people laugh at the comparison between the Beatles and Nirvana. Neither was the best band of its era (The Who, The Stones, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden), yet both are remembered most fondly because they broke into the mainstream first. Plus, the driving creative force in each band died from a gunshot wound.

[Guest godthedog]

I don't understand why some people laugh at the comparison between the Beatles and Nirvana. Neither was the best band of its era (The Who, The Stones, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden), yet both are remembered most fondly because they broke into the mainstream first. Plus, the driving creative force in each band died from a gunshot wound.

some big differences:

 

nobody considers the beatles the best because they were the first 'british invasion' band. had they stopped making music in 1965, nobody would cream themselves over how good they were. i know I certainly wouldn't. it's what they did in the latter half of their careers that they're idolized for.

 

and when john was shot the beatles had already broken up and had already gotten the reputation as the greatest band ever. when cobain died nirvana was still together, and they were fighting with pearl jam over the 'best band of the 90s' title.

[Guest thefrenchargel]

He won't. He is a narrow minded person who can't except creativity in a variety of music (grindcore and death metal are good, but you gotta listen to a variety of music to grasp the concept of creativity)

Try reading my earlier post again, I said specifically that I recognize talent in other form of music, I just don't like it. Junior Brown is probably one of the more technically sound guitarists I've ever heard, do I like his music though? Not at all, country does nothing for me, but this thread isn't about country either, I'm just stating an example of a talented musician who I RESPECT, but do not LIKE. There's a big difference there. Same goes with the Beatles, great songwriters, and talented musicians, not the best obviously, but talented none the less. I just detest their music, which is a matter of personal opinion like anything else. Am I trying to say that Dying Fetus or Malevolent Creation is going to turn the world on its ear and influence pop music for years to come? Of course not. Do I think the members of those bands are better pure musicians? Absolutely. Like I said, I'm taking nothing away from the influence they had on other bands, that fact is indisputable, but had the Who or the Stones been in their place at that time, this thread would be titled "Who's better than The Who?" Their latter stuff was really experimental and creative, but I don't think it can touch Floyd in those aspects. The Rolling Stones more recent stuff does suck, so maybe that was a bad example. For longevity..think more along the lines of, say, Bob Dylan.

[Guest TheyCallMeMark]

Writing good pop songs doesn't make you anywhere near "the greatest band ever". Hell, I would dispute those were good pop songs. I have heard nearly all the Beatles songs you mentioned, and know how to play three of the (Elanor Rigby, Yesterday, Michelle) and I can tell you for certain every Beatles song I've heard has managed to completely disintrest me and everyone else I've me. Except my mom. And she only liked them because it was the big deal at the time, now even she, a crazed Beatles fanatic realizes they were just a poppy boy band.

 

If you really think that no band ever would have started if the Beatles hadn't, you really need to take a look at the bigger picture. Sabbath wasn't influenced by the Beatles... they started playing Elvis covers. The Beatles sucess was not necsessary for the spawning of rock music. Do you think AC/DC sat around and listend to the Beatles all day? John Lennon wasn't some brilliant musical genious who was the only person who ever would've started a band. There were jazz bands and blues bands at the same time that had the same concept... It was just waiting to be turned into rock music. Clapton was more necsesary in creating rock than the Beatles were by a long shot.

 

They were only popular because girls liked their music and thought they were cute. Guys weren't sitting there listening to the records and rocking out or wanting to do that sort of thing. It's just a music-elitist thing that people think they have to say the Beatles were the best thing since sliced bread. In reality, the situation is parrallel to if in twenty years all of us guys were prasing the New Kids On The Block because they were the first boy band and that makes them musically geniuses.

 

Actually I've never heard "Revolver", so I can't comment on that album but I have heard at least portions of their other albums.

 

I'm going to retract my statement that all their lyrics were just pop, because I probably haven't heard their more deep stuff that came later. Still, I would definatly dispute that their songwriting ability alone means they deserve to be "the greatest band ever".

 

I think the Nirvana/Beatles analogy is very fair and accurate. The only difference I think Kurt Cobain was an artist of exceptional skill who was creating absolutely brilliant songs ("In Utero" is pretty much the only "artsy" album I'm into) whereas the Beatles weren't natural talents they just developed with experiance. That's just me, though.

 

And the thread could be about defending the Beatles, after all, how else could we have a discussion about it?

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Writing good pop songs doesn't make you anywhere near "the greatest band ever".

 

Not good pop songs. Great pop songs, plenty of harder rockers, and an amazingly deep catalog. And, if writing great songs doesn't make you the greatest band ever, what does? Being able to shred real well? Being experimental?

 

If you really think that no band ever would have started if the Beatles hadn't, you really need to take a look at the bigger picture.

 

Of course other bands would have started. The amazing mainstream success of Sgt. Pepper's in particular, however, was what opened the door to the public's perception of rock music as art form.

 

Do you think AC/DC sat around and listend to the Beatles all day?

 

AC/DC is mediocre cock-rock at its finest. Just thought I'd weigh in on that for a moment. I'm pretty sure Bon Scott listened to the Beatles a fair amount in his youth. Most people did. (This is a silly statement, but I really wanted to find a way to incorporate the phrase "cock-rock" into my discourse.)

 

Guys weren't sitting there listening to the records and rocking out or wanting to do that sort of thing.

 

...yes, they were. Talk to most people who were alive and listening to music in the 1960's.

 

In reality, the situation is parrallel to if in twenty years all of us guys were prasing the New Kids On The Block because they were the first boy band and that makes them musically geniuses.

 

No, not really. Again I come back to the songwriting: if anyone wants to put "Hangin' Tough" next to "All You Need Is Love," go right ahead. I will call you stupid and hit you with a sock full of quarters.

 

Actually I've never heard "Revolver", so I can't comment on that album but I have heard at least portions of their other albums.

 

I'll tell you that portions don't really cut it. If you haven't heard all of at least Revolver, Abbey Road, and really, now that I think about it, Sgt. Pepper's, you haven't heard the Beatles at their most fully-formed. You don't have to if you don't want; I'm just saying that you're really missing out. 1966 and onward is pretty damn amazing for them.

 

I think the Nirvana/Beatles analogy is very fair and accurate. The only difference I think Kurt Cobain was an artist of exceptional skill who was creating absolutely brilliant songs ("In Utero" is pretty much the only "artsy" album I'm into) whereas the Beatles weren't natural talents they just developed with experiance. That's just me, though.

 

This is an interesting thought. Cobain was an impressive songwriter, I'll agree. The Unplugged album is one of my personal favorites, and In Utero ain't too shabby either. You have a point in that the Beatles developed in experience--that is largely what I've been saying, as the stuff from 62-65 is good but fairly standard pop by today's standard, but around Revolver and Rubber Soul, when they'd had a few years under their belt and been developing music for a long time, they started to really let it all out. How long of a history do Nirvana have? I know that their biggest success came in the early 90's, but how long had they been recording before they were able to release Bleach?

 

All in all, I generally don't agree with your conceptions about the Beatles, mostly because I really believe that you can't fully appreciate them unless you've heard all the albums I've mentioned before in full, not just snippets. If you haven't, then from your frame of reference, the Beatles really are a pretty good pop band, and that's it. You haven't heard all the good stuff, I'm tellin' ya!

[Guest TheyCallMeMark]

Maybe you're right. I think I'll give the three albums you mentioned a shot. I doubt I'll become a fan or anything but hey maybe it'll help me see what everyone is talking about, eh? My dad was growing up in the 60's, as was my mom and the way my dad described it to me is it was like basically all the girls were into them because they were cute and the guys didn't really like them a bunch but would listen to them because there weren't alot of other options around at the time.

 

Still though I feel that there are many, many bands which are more deserving of the greatest label but I hate the Beatles a little less.