| Day dop 02.08.2015 05:33 |
.... for many reasons. But Queen are my favourite band. I think that's a perfectly reasonable statement. I guess being as The Beatles don't exist as a group anymore, you could argue that "are" should be changed for "were". Although, no group has ever come close to matching their overall achievements since. However, Queen will always be my main love when it comes to music, just to be extra clear. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.08.2015 06:51 |
The Beatles were great. But also greatly overrated. There's been a lot of historical revisionism that's edited out the great influence that other artists had on The Beatles. It's striking how meeting Bob Dylan changed their style so dramatically, for instance. The Beatles did not exist in a void, and a lot of what they did was part of a bigger whole. The Beatles were the first band to reach universal stardom and arguably the only band ever to become the personification of popular music, but that's not a strictly musical consideration. I'd say that culturally speaking, The Beatles were definitely the "greatest" band. Musically, I find the claim untenable. |
| Mr.Mouth 02.08.2015 08:24 |
Nope.. |
| people on streets 02.08.2015 08:50 |
I like them both. Have all Beatles LPs and have all Queen LPs. I like the Stones as well. All for different reasons. Queen is and will always be my no.1 band. Mainly because of Freddie. |
| Oscar J 02.08.2015 09:38 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The Beatles were the first band to reach universal stardom and arguably the only band ever to become the personification of popular music, but that's not a strictly musical consideration. I'd say that culturally speaking, The Beatles were definitely the "greatest" band. Musically, I find the claim untenable. Agreed. |
| brENsKi 02.08.2015 10:11 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:The Beatles were great. But also greatly overrated. There's been a lot of historical revisionism that's edited out the great influence that other artists had on The Beatles. It's striking how meeting Bob Dylan changed their style so dramatically, for instance. The Beatles did not exist in a void, and a lot of what they did was part of a bigger whole.but it wasn't just Bob Dylan that influenced their transitionary period....factor in trips to India, the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" and many many other "events" and you see why they were/are the greatest band ever....always managing to stay ahead of the field thomasquinn 32989 wrote:The Beatles were the first band to reach universal stardom and arguably the only band ever to become the personification of popular music, but that's not a strictly musical consideration. I'd say that culturally speaking, The Beatles were definitely the "greatest" band. Musically, I find the claim untenable.i disagree. look at the comparative technology and tools available at that time, equate Abbey, Rd, Revolver, The White Album and Sgt Pepper to anything that has come since....and they are muscially, astounding |
| The Real Wizard 02.08.2015 10:16 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The Beatles were the first band to reach universal stardom and arguably the only band ever to become the personification of popular music, but that's not a strictly musical consideration. I'd say that culturally speaking, The Beatles were definitely the "greatest" band. Musically, I find the claim untenable.Nobody's ever accused any of the Beatles of being near the top of their field on their respective instruments (except perhaps McCartney on bass). It's the collective, not the sum of the parts, that made them great. They created music that will be cherished for centuries. And they were at the forefront of the growing studio technology - many advances were made purely because they had people working for them to make their dreams come to fruition. |
| master marathon runner 02.08.2015 10:41 |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
| queenUSA 02.08.2015 11:02 |
Among the greats but not the greatest. Together just 10 years. Unable to work past differences in the end. Are they the top greatest band of all time if bickering killed it? That's just me. But if you want to go by meausure of chart positions, sales, public polls - maybe they are, don't know. |
| mooghead 02.08.2015 12:32 |
"Together just 10 years." Yeah but listen to the difference between Please Please Me and Abbey Road, no band has ever evolved so much in such a short amount of time, then take into account the solo careers of each member (yes, including Ringo for a time), extraordinary... |
| stevelondon20 02.08.2015 16:18 |
Queen are better in every way. |
| musicland munich 02.08.2015 17:09 |
To me there is no "greatest band macho attitude"...not for Queen, Beatles,Stones or Pink Floyd or whoever...when we look back there is so many great music...just pick what you like and enjoy it :) |
| brENsKi 03.08.2015 01:27 |
stevelondon20 wrote: Queen are better in every way.such a vapid statement ^^. i'd bet you can't even begin to see (any of) the many things wrong with that comment, can you? |
| Rick 03.08.2015 05:58 |
Brian Wilson did a pretty good job at competing with The Beatles in the 60s. Without Pet Sounds, I seriously doubt the world would have seen Sgt. Pepper. |
| YourValentine 03.08.2015 06:17 |
Of course The Beatles did not live and work in a vacuum, they were children of their time and society. Of course there were musical influences, the Beatles themselves always named these influences. However, they were the greatest composers in the 20th century, they were pioneers in every respect: studio work, live concerts, video art. They never sounded liky Dylan, Carl Perkins, Ravi Shankar - to name only a few. They always sounded like The Beatles. It is true that none of them were top in their instruments but Ringo and George have always been quoted as ground breaking by later artists. However, you can be a great guitar player and never write a good song but the Beatles did not only write great songs by the dozens, they also developed the art of studio reording, pioneered experimenting with sounds and advanced pop music into an art form. There is no way to overrate the group, they were the greatest group ever imo. In 100 years people will still know the Beatles. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 06:33 |
stevelondon20 wrote: Queen are better in every way.Not much of an academic, are you? You didn't back up your statement with opinions, never mind facts. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 06:34 |
YourValentine wrote: Of course The Beatles did not live and work in a vacuum, they were children of their time and society. Of course there were musical influences, the Beatles themselves always named these influences. However, they were the greatest composers in the 20th century, they were pioneers in every respect: studio work, live concerts, video art. They never sounded liky Dylan, Carl Perkins, Ravi Shankar - to name only a few. They always sounded like The Beatles. It is true that none of them were top in their instruments but Ringo and George have always been quoted as ground breaking by later artists. However, you can be a great guitar player and never write a good song but the Beatles did not only write great songs by the dozens, they also developed the art of studio reording, pioneered experimenting with sounds and advanced pop music into an art form. There is no way to overrate the group, they were the greatest group ever imo. In 100 years people will still know the Beatles.Excellent post. Virtually everything that can possibly be said about them has been said, yet much of what they created remains shrouded in mystery. We have all the dates and times. We have hundreds of hours of tape of the songs being created. And we are still fascinated by what we do not know. It's like a drug - Beatles enthusiasts will forever seek the high of knowing something new about them, and they will never be satiated. In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles. Never mind music - very few figures in the last century of popular culture have been as influential as they were. With this kind of legacy in tow (sure, it wasn't as big then as it was now but they must've had some idea), I have nothing but respect for all four of them for even attempting solo careers, as they must have known that they'd never create anything as great as what they had created before. |
| Oscar J 03.08.2015 07:19 |
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff and Debussy, for example. In the pop scene... even there they might have been the most effective ones, but hardly the greatest. |
| Vocal harmony 03.08.2015 07:23 |
What they achieved should never be overlooked. What influenced them as people or a band shouldn't be held against them. All creativity requires influence and personality. I can't think of another band who started life as a kind of blue print for pop success, a boy band who wrote and played and didn't rely on dance steps to put their songs over, which then developed into a serious musically and artistically influenced band. Like Queen, they remained with their original lineup. Ten years was a long time for bands to stay together, there have been plenty that have been viewed as seriously gifted and intelligent but have gone through lineup changes or haven't lasted as long as ten years. I don't think any of the reasons given for them not to be counted as one of, if not the greatest band hold water. Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are.... |
| Togg 03.08.2015 07:34 |
To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that time, there truly was nothing out there like them, we will never have that again, every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writing, no band has ever influences so many other artists. They were very much the first to show what would come, Elvis set the tone, but The Beatles made it into something that could extend into all forms of music, from pop to classical. okay they may not have written complex songs like Prophet song, but Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope. Yes they probably were/are the greatest band as everyone else came after and just extended what they had started. |
| Sebastian 03.08.2015 07:56 |
The Real Wizard wrote: In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.' So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.' Oscar J wrote: They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.Excellent point. There's indeed a world outside charting music. Vocal harmony wrote: Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are....Yes, but that's where I always use the Russia analogy: Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compared to any other individual country, Russia's a lot bigger (Canada, America and China are the only ones who are larger than *half* of Russia), but compared to the rest of the world combined, it's still a tiny part. The Beatles, individually, were far more influential than any other act or band. But they were not more influential or important than all of those combined. Without Russia, a large part of the world would still exist. Without The Beatles, a large part of the influential background that fed the upcoming generations would still exist. Same for anybody, from Beethoven to ABBA, from Bach to Madonna, from Stan Matthews to Cristiano Ronaldo, from Plato to Nash. Togg wrote: To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that timeTypical 'you weren't there so your opinion's invalid' claim. Completely disagree. Togg wrote: every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writingNot really. See the Russia example above. Togg wrote: Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope.Of course it would've been possible. Canons existed long before The Beatles had even been born (long before their grandparents had even been conceived). Recording techniques were advancing and would've kept progressing with or without The Beatles. They were extraordinary, but to think that without them we'd still be using 1950's technology is completely ridiculous. There were enough people in Brian's spectrum of influences for him to have been able to come up with The Prophet's Song and for the band + producer + engineers to have been able to record it. Out of all the bones in the human body, the femur is the longest and strongest, but it doesn't mean the femur is all the body. The Beatles were by far the most influential act so far, but it doesn't mean the rest of them didn't exist. A person can live without a femur, music could've lived without The Beatles, and that doesn't make their impact any less important or their music any less magnificent. |
| The King Of Rhye 03.08.2015 08:02 |
Oscar J wrote: They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example. In the pop scene... even there they might have been the most effective ones, but hardly the greatest.But then how do you define 'greatest', in terms of pop/rock composers? If not the 'most effective', then what? P.S. My 2112th post!!!! "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control........." |
| Oscar J 03.08.2015 08:52 |
By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 09:15 |
Sebastian wrote:I see your point, and it's a very good one.The Real Wizard wrote: In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.' So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.' But the difference between then and now is - we have plateaued into a place where the technology is virtually limitless, where there are millions of artists, where people's attention spans are shorter than ever, and where short term celebrity eclipses (or has even replaced) long term stature and respect. The platform for something bigger than The Beatles just cannot exist in the world as it is now, and as time goes on those chances will only shrink, because the above criteria is only going to worsen. The difference between now and then is that we have the benefit of hindsight to know the difference. Information is more accessible now than ever, so we can see the fuller picture better than anyone else before us could have seen it. Of course I could be wrong on all this, but let's look at the facts: 1950s - Elvis 1960s - The Beatles 1970s - Led Zeppelin 1980s - Michael Jackson There is no equivalent for the 90s and beyond. There's too much saturation, far too much short term product being marketed. There just isn't any room for anything to last anymore. Of all the music created since Thriller, there's maybe one album that will be talked about a century from now - OK Computer. Even Nevermind will fade into obscurity, as grunge was very much of its time. While we may have the masses listening to fad pop music, the kinds of people who listened to The Beatles in the late 60s are listening to such a wide variety of music now. There were only a few hundred artists to choose from then. There are millions now, and the internet has made them all accessible. So the great, longstanding artist has been replaced by availability and diversity. And that's not a bad thing. It's just different. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 09:27 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: P.S. My 2112th post!!!! "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control........."ha ! |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 09:28 |
Oscar J wrote: By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO.... unless your criteria for songwriting is the ability to connect with people over 50 years later? Music theory means jack squat to 99.9% of the people who have been moved by The Beatles since 1964. |
| Costa86 03.08.2015 09:41 |
Very interesting topic and discussion. It is hard to come to a purely objective conclusion on which is the greatest band amongst some very great and important bands. It is rather easy to objectively say that Queen are a better band than Blink 182, or that The Bee Gees were a greater band than Nickelback. But when comparing the very best - The Beatles, Queen, etc., I think 'the greatest' is very much a subjective and extremely multi-factorial thing. One thing you have to ask yourself is, if The Beatles are NOT the greatest band, then which band is? I think it might be possible to make the case for Queen, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin having been the greatest bands. But, if you do this, many will rightly remark that The Beach Boys were just as great, or The Rolling Stones, and so on, and so forth. What I think we can say with reasonable certainty is that The Beatles ticked many of the boxes of factors which make a band the greatest - but it didn't thick them all, and it certainly wasn't the best at everything. I do think they had the best overall package though, and I think they were a more important band than Queen - especially influence wise - both musically and culturally. This is kind of like discussing which is the best small family car. Most would say it's the Volkswagen Golf. It doesn't handle quite as well as a Ford Focus (although the Mk III Focus has lost out a bit in this department, due to Ford's effort to make a car which handles favourably according to both European and American tastes), it doesn't look anywhere near as nice as an Alfa Romeo Giulietta or a Mazda 3, and it sure ain't as reliable as a Toyota Auris. Overall, it's probably the best, however - even taking into account its historical greatness throughout its lifetime. But, still, this is very subjective. Because you'll find many who'd say the Focus is the best overall. So I think this is less about proving The Beatles were completely and totally better than the 'second-best band', and more about finding out if The Beatles had that little something extra which made them a better overall package, and thus the best amongst greats. |
| Togg 03.08.2015 10:04 |
Sebastian wrote:The Real Wizard wrote: In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.' So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'Oscar J wrote: They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.Excellent point. There's indeed a world outside charting music.Vocal harmony wrote: Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are....Yes, but that's where I always use the Russia analogy: Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compared to any other individual country, Russia's a lot bigger (Canada, America and China are the only ones who are larger than *half* of Russia), but compared to the rest of the world combined, it's still a tiny part. The Beatles, individually, were far more influential than any other act or band. But they were not more influential or important than all of those combined. Without Russia, a large part of the world would still exist. Without The Beatles, a large part of the influential background that fed the upcoming generations would still exist. Same for anybody, from Beethoven to ABBA, from Bach to Madonna, from Stan Matthews to Cristiano Ronaldo, from Plato to Nash.Togg wrote: To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that timeTypical 'you weren't there so your opinion's invalid' claim. Completely disagree.Togg wrote: every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writingNot really. See the Russia example above.Togg wrote: Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope.Of course it would've been possible. Canons existed long before The Beatles had even been born (long before their grandparents had even been conceived). Recording techniques were advancing and would've kept progressing with or without The Beatles. They were extraordinary, but to think that without them we'd still be using 1950's technology is completely ridiculous. There were enough people in Brian's spectrum of influences for him to have been able to come up with The Prophet's Song and for the band + producer + engineers to have been able to record it. Out of all the bones in the human body, the femur is the longest and strongest, but it doesn't mean the femur is all the body. The Beatles were by far the most influential act so far, but it doesn't mean the rest of them didn't exist. A person can live without a femur, music could've lived without The Beatles, and that doesn't make their impact any less important or their music any less magnificent. |
| Togg 03.08.2015 10:15 |
Tried to post a long reply.... Baaa, wouldn't let me In a nutshell... It is reasonable to state you had to live through it, I didnt live through WWll, I didnt experience the suffering, family loss, hunger, how could I know what it was like by reading about it? only maybe a snapshot, but my experience will be limited by that fact i didnt see it in person. The Beatles were unlike anything else on the radio, they changed how we thought of music, only may Les Paul had as much influence given he invented the electric guitar (properly) and the first multitrack recorder. Only one of the classical composers prior to modern music changed our world as much at The Beatles did. Every now and then someone comes along and changes everything Walt Disney changed annimation forever, Apple changed mobile technology forever and for that matter computing technology prior to that, kids today dont even comprehend what a world without mobiles was like, blimey we didnt even have a phone in the house when I was born... so i'd say to understand that you'd need to be there, not simply read about it. Sure Prophet song could have been written, but it would have to have been performed by an orchestra, not four people... the technology was there in the 70's but nobdy had thought to use it like that, not even Les Paul. But the Beatles sowed the seed... as for us still using 1950's tech.... of course not, but it would have taken a lot longer to get here without the Beatles pushing the envelope. |
| Fat Bottomed Queen 03.08.2015 10:20 |
So OP's point is that Queen don't sell as much as the Beatles? |
| Costa86 03.08.2015 10:38 |
Togg wrote: Tried to post a long reply.... Baaa, wouldn't let me In a nutshell... It is reasonable to state you had to live through it, I didnt live through WWll, I didnt experience the suffering, family loss, hunger, how could I know what it was like by reading about it? only maybe a snapshot, but my experience will be limited by that fact i didnt see it in person. The Beatles were unlike anything else on the radio, they changed how we thought of music, only may Les Paul had as much influence given he invented the electric guitar (properly) and the first multitrack recorder. Only one of the classical composers prior to modern music changed our world as much at The Beatles did. Every now and then someone comes along and changes everything Walt Disney changed annimation forever, Apple changed mobile technology forever and for that matter computing technology prior to that, kids today dont even comprehend what a world without mobiles was like, blimey we didnt even have a phone in the house when I was born... so i'd say to understand that you'd need to be there, not simply read about it. Sure Prophet song could have been written, but it would have to have been performed by an orchestra, not four people... the technology was there in the 70's but nobdy had thought to use it like that, not even Les Paul. But the Beatles sowed the seed... as for us still using 1950's tech.... of course not, but it would have taken a lot longer to get here without the Beatles pushing the envelope.I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good analogy at all. WWII affected everyone alive, in virtually every country. It affected the newly born, the young, the middle-aged, the old, the rich, the poor. The Beatles, on the other hand, only affected a relatively small segment of society - mostly young people living in the Western world. People in their 50/60s or older didn't give two tosses about The Beatles. Many even saw it as a fad - bad music for young people. They preferred the music of their generation. The only aspect for which I'd say you had to be living in the 60s to really appreciate, is their affect on popular culture in the Western world, and the societal changes which their revolutionary brand of music brought about (it wasn't only The Beatles though - it was the music revolution in general, of which The Beatles formed the most prominent part). You had to live through those times to really appreciate the changes in attitudes, societal views, etc. This was not only brought on by music though - the 60s were an incredible time of change. You can't give too much merit to The Beatles. But in terms of their music and legacy, no, you didn't have to be alive in the 1960s to truly understand their importance. If you learn about the history of popular music and you listen to The Beatles' albums in this context, you can pretty much understand their impact just as much as any music fan living in 1967. |
| Day dop 03.08.2015 10:39 |
Hyde Park 1976 wrote: So OP's point is that Queen don't sell as much as the Beatles?No, that wasn't my point. |
| Fat Bottomed Queen 03.08.2015 10:47 |
I think Queen are more talented and have a better style. |
| Sebastian 03.08.2015 10:50 |
Togg wrote: Sure Prophet song could have been written, but it would have to have been performed by an orchestra, not four people...Highly doubtable, hardly provable. |
| stevelondon20 03.08.2015 11:56 |
brENsKi wrote:I don't need to explain to anyone why I posted that. It just felt right. Normally I will go into lengths to explain my posts. This time, I didn't see the need to do it. I feel they are the better band. Enough said...stevelondon20 wrote: Queen are better in every way.such a vapid statement ^^. i'd bet you can't even begin to see (any of) the many things wrong with that comment, can you? |
| stevelondon20 03.08.2015 12:00 |
The Real Wizard wrote:As I mentioned before I don't feel I needed to justify my post. However after careful thought, I now will. Also, academic skills are rife in my Vocabulary. You don't know me, so please don't judge me.stevelondon20 wrote: Queen are better in every way.Not much of an academic, are you? You didn't back up your statement with opinions, never mind facts. One reason was that Queens Harmonies were far superior to the Beatles. I feel the overall sound was far superior. |
| Oscar J 03.08.2015 12:28 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Oscar J wrote: By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO.... unless your criteria for songwriting is the ability to connect with people over 50 years later? Music theory means jack squat to 99.9% of the people who have been moved by The Beatles since 1964. Disagreed, especially if we're still talking about whether the Beatles were the greatest composers of the 20th century. Which I stand by that they were not. While their music is very accessible and thus connects with a lot of people, I firmly believe that there's more to being a great composer than having written famous songs. Manfred Mann's Earth Band did stuff that, IMO, musically blows everything the Beatles did out of the water. Yet when you mention Manfred Mann, people go "Ooooh, Do Wah Diddy Diddy, I love that song!" |
| The King Of Rhye 03.08.2015 12:37 |
The Real Wizard wrote:That's what I was talking about. The ultimate goal of writing a song, or I suppose producing any artistic work, is to connect with people.....even the musicians and bands that make the most experimental, progressive, complex music are trying to connect with some sort of an audience.Oscar J wrote: By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO.... unless your criteria for songwriting is the ability to connect with people over 50 years later? Music theory means jack squat to 99.9% of the people who have been moved by The Beatles since 1964. |
| Holly2003 03.08.2015 14:12 |
Oh, Manfred Mann! Ooooh, Do Wah Diddy Diddy, I love that song! :) |
| AlbaNo1 03.08.2015 15:57 |
Holly2003 wrote: Oh, Manfred Mann! Ooooh, Do Wah Diddy Diddy, I love that song! :)Ha! Ha! Said the Clown |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 20:33 |
Togg wrote: Tried to post a long reply.... Baaa, wouldn't let melink ^ makeshift fix here. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 20:39 |
Togg wrote: It is reasonable to state you had to live through it, I didnt live through WWll, I didnt experience the suffering, family loss, hunger, how could I know what it was like by reading about it? only maybe a snapshot, but my experience will be limited by that fact i didnt see it in person.But on the flip side - someone's experience of a major event like that can result in bias of the entire picture based on their limited experience of said event. The person who wasn't there can arguably take more an objective view fueled purely by curiosity instead of emotion. So it really can go both ways. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2015 20:44 |
Togg wrote: kids today dont even comprehend what a world without mobiles was like, blimey we didnt even have a phone in the house when I was born... so i'd say to understand that you'd need to be there, not simply read about it.OK, I'll definitely give you that. I grew up without computers and the internet, and saw the gradual growth to dialup and finally to high speed. Today's kids just cannot fathom the concept of no internet. Or can they? Can we not educate them to picture what the world was like? Without text messaging we just had to be more efficient in making plans. We managed. And we can tell them that humanity was able to make plans for about a hundred thousands years before a dick pic showed up in their pocket. Both you and I grew up with paved roads and train tracks. Does this mean we'll never be able to understand what life was like in the 17th century? Even if we accumulate a scholarly amount of information from years of research? We cannot discount the combined effects of effort, knowledge and creativity. |
| Sebastian 04.08.2015 01:23 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But the difference between then and now is - we have plateauedOh, come on! It's like those people who decades or centuries ago thought everything there was to known was known and everything there was to be invented had been invented... of course we haven't plateaued, just like people a hundred years ago hadn't (but they probably felt they had). The Real Wizard wrote: The platform for something bigger than The Beatles just cannot exist in the world as it is nowOf course it can. The fact it hasn't happened (although it could be argued that, in terms of album sales, Michael Jackson indeed was bigger) doesn't mean it cannot happen. Adele is an example of an artist who, this decade, managed to rival the success once had by 'the greats.' Will she be remembered ten years from now? We'll have to wait and see. Same for someone who could be bigger than her (OK, that came out wrong...), more successful than Norah Jones and eventually outselling 20th century acts. But, back in 1976, the idea of 'Bo Rhap' becoming a timeless classic, as opposed to a short-lived hit, was relatively far-fetched. Truth is, the overwhelming majority of people are infected with nostalgia, and think everything was automatically far better in the past because it was the past. There goes my point about The Beatles, Shakespeare, etc., all over again. Football-wise, I still remember when I was a kid and people thought Zidane was alright, but there was no way he would ever be as huge as Platini. People of my parents' generation probably still think that (to be fair, they both earned three golden balls, but Platini did so consecutively, which is arguably trickier). But a hundred years from now they might be equally remembered or perhaps Zizu will be more famous, whether it's for having actually won a World Cup (which Platini didn't) or for nutting Materazzi. Considering The Beatles an extraordinary act with remarkable songwriting skills, magnificent use of technology (which their entourage had a lot do to with as well), outstanding commercial success and whose cultural impact is yet to be rivalled is completely true, even by the most conservative estimates. To think they were the sole root of pop music as it is now, their songwriting skills were larger than anyone else in their century, nobody would have ever used technology that way if it hadn't been for them and nobody will ever come close... is a very, very, very, very long shot. |
| YourValentine 04.08.2015 04:45 |
I had posted a long answer but it did not appear, only the quotes, so I deleted my post, I apologize. I wanted to say something about the uniqueness of the Beatles which younger people cannot feel the way people could feel in the 20th century: Before The Beatles pop music in Europe was a sub culture which was frowned upon by the middle class. Young middle class people had no rights and no say. Children were dressed like little adults, they had no clothes, no music, no style of their own that would have been tolerated or even approved by the parents. The Beatles changed that with a revolutionary power. All of a sudden young people had a voice to express themselves, all of a sudden they developed their own hopes and dreams about this world. Working class kids and students listened to the same music, wore the same clothes, had the same style. It was a landslide change in society which is really hard to explain. The Beatles succeeded in making the previously underground music tolerable for the establishment and paved the way for the youth culture in the Western world. It all happened through the power of their incredible music. |
| Togg 04.08.2015 06:05 |
Costa86, my point about WWll was not that you couldn't read all about it and understand the impact in hindsight, more that to truly understand what it was like to live through you really had to be there, reading about bombs dropping on your house will never be the same as watching them. Likewise to understand what effect the Beatles had on their generation you had to understand what life was like before them... even with the benefit of hindsight you can't fathom what it was actually like to suddenly have a total change on the radio from what had gone before. The closest I can think of was Apple launching either the personal computer or the iPhone, it literally changed the world overnight, I dont really belive anyone will understand that in years to come, because reading about it is different to being there. I agree with much of what Seb says, and sure what i have stated might be hard to prove, because you can never go backwards to see, you can't uninvent something. but i believe the Beatles changed more than people realise, no artist since has had such a dramatic impact on the music industry, MJ sold millions, Maddona danced in underwear, and Queen recorded the first truly multidimensional recording, but if you were alive before the Beatles they were just small steps in the evolution not the quantum jump they had in 1963. |
| tcc 04.08.2015 07:33 |
I think the Beatles can be considered the greatest band because they set the precedent in touring the world as a performing band. After their phenomenal success, concerts became an industry in the music world. |
| brENsKi 04.08.2015 09:09 |
@Sebastian: I think Bob's comment that things have plateaued is 100% correct from a musical perspective. @ YV spot on. everything was a subculture until the Beatles.. the simple fact is that music will never be the same again. maybe technology (in the 60s) was changing - but the Beatles were the trailblazers who grasped the changes and made them work first. The beatles were the musical pioneers who took risks and no other band changes so much in 7½ years of recording. you can't compare anything pre 65 to anything they did after. their song-writing, use of the studio and arrangement was second to none at that time. sure artists came later who did the same - but they all (queen included) flattered by imitation. one final point: unless science or evolution changes the human ear significantly - allowing it to hear, understand and enjoy frequencies previously inaudible, music cannot really evolve much further. and certainly not as much as it did during the 20 years between 1960 and 1980. instead of saying "queen were better...blah blah blah" we should be celebrating the fact that the beatles were the greatest, and without them we may never have heard the version of queen we know and love |
| hobbit in Rhye 04.08.2015 14:16 |
I disagree on some of your points Sebastian:
Sebastian wrote:I'm not aware that people thought like that?? Are you sure? How can they think that they have known and invented everything when there are so many things around that they haven't understood yet?The Real Wizard wrote: But the difference between then and now is - we have plateauedOh, come on! It's like those people who decades or centuries ago thought everything there was to known was known and everything there was to be invented had been invented... of course we haven't plateaued, just like people a hundred years ago hadn't (but they probably felt they had). As you said, theoretically it could happen. But in reality, the chance is really tiny. The reason is this age of internet. For the first time in history, everyone has access to every information and all kinds of arts. Not only music, but almost every fields bloom in diversity (not necessarily in quality). I think that's what Wizard meant by "plateaued". As a consequence, human brain can only process that much of information. If they dig wide, they can't dig deep. The chance of some band sweeping everybody off their feet as The Beatles did is like 0.1% because there are abundance of things around their feet.The Real Wizard wrote: The platform for something bigger than The Beatles just cannot exist in the world as it is nowOf course it can. The fact it hasn't happened (although it could be argued that, in terms of album sales, Michael Jackson indeed was bigger) doesn't mean it cannot happen. Adele is an example of an artist who, this decade, managed to rival the success once had by 'the greats.' Will she be remembered ten years from now? We'll have to wait and see. Same for someone who could be bigger than her (OK, that came out wrong...), more successful than Norah Jones and eventually outselling 20th century acts. But, back in 1976, the idea of 'Bo Rhap' becoming a timeless classic, as opposed to a short-lived hit, was relatively far-fetched. It's not even comparable with 90s as 90s compared with 60s. In my opinion this age may only compare with the Industrial Revolution which changed everything to the core. People in the data processing domain are saying that they have too much of data in their hand, and their true fear is of not being able to process it profoundly enough. If you mentioned Adele, I haven't listened much to her except 2 or 3 of her hit songs. I guess she's good, but I have too many things detracting me. Meanwhile with The Beatles, I was not interested at first despite all of the praising in the media, but I couldn't avoid them for long because their reference and influence was everywhere. That says about the two different eras. Once I listened to The Beatles, I understood what the fuss was about. They had the whole package. They might not be the best in their respective instruments, or in composing, or in selling albums, but when you combine all those factors together, they stand aloft. |
| Sebastian 04.08.2015 14:19 |
At this point there's nothing else for me to add. I see your points, I still disagree. Or better: I agree to disagree. If there's ever an act bigger than The Beatles, chances are they're gonna show up long after we're all dead, so we'll never know who'll be right. |
| The Real Wizard 04.08.2015 14:22 |
stevelondon20 wrote: One reason was that Queens Harmonies were far superior to the Beatles. I feel the overall sound was far superior.If I Fell Because Those two songs are absolute perfection. Also bear in mind that The Beatles didn't have 16 and 24 track tape to work with. |
| brENsKi 04.08.2015 17:42 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Also bear in mind that The Beatles didn't have 16 and 24 track tape to work with.a point i've also made a few times - but one that gets lost on the stepfords. some can't comprehend the ingenuity involved in recording stuff to four (or from 66 onwards) 8 tracks...and having to continually "bounce" what you've recorded all down to one track just to free up another....incredible minds/creativity at work Bob, can I add to your two songs: In My Life = perfection +1 |
| Sebastian 04.08.2015 18:31 |
Paperback Writer as well. Or Michelle, even Run for Your Life has some amazing harmonies, very underrated. |
| The Real Wizard 05.08.2015 09:12 |
hobbit in Rhye wrote:Look up the history of "the end of art" arguments. They've been made for hundreds of years.Sebastian wrote:I'm not aware that people thought like that?? Are you sure? How can they think that they have known and invented everything when there are so many things around that they haven't understood yet?The Real Wizard wrote: But the difference between then and now is - we have plateauedOh, come on! It's like those people who decades or centuries ago thought everything there was to known was known and everything there was to be invented had been invented... of course we haven't plateaued, just like people a hundred years ago hadn't (but they probably felt they had). |
| brENsKi 05.08.2015 10:34 |
best part about all this? some people think we're exaggerating how great the Beatles really were. Truthfully though, it's difficult to talk about them and describe their influence, innovation, creativity, songwriting and (most importantly) body of work and give them their full due. > their ear for what was catchy, artistic, and musically stunning at once was unmatched at that time. > they stretched technology beyond it's limits > they created harmonies that were things of beauty > no other band is cited as an influence by anywhere near as many other bands > they sold albums without the assistance of promotional singles one final point - IMO there's (at least) three CDs' worth of album tracks that are far superior to other major bands' greatest hits compilations |
| Day dop 05.08.2015 14:31 |
Just a little fun.... Something I was just talking about elsewhere.... and I'm aware how great these albums are already, however, there's a few tracks on the Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour albums which aren't as strong as some of the others. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band With a Little Help from My Friends Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Getting Better Fixing a Hole She's Leaving Home Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Within You Without You When I'm Sixty-Four Lovely Rita Good Morning Good Morning Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band A Day in the Life Magical Mystery Tour album Magical Mystery Tour The Fool on the Hill Flying Blue Jay Way Your Mother Should Know I Am the Walrus Hello, Goodbye Strawberry Fields Forever Penny Lane Baby, You're a Rich Man All You Need Is Love However, combining the best tracks (imo), which would've made a far better album (same amount of tracks as on Sgt. Pepper). Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Magical Mystery Tour The Fool on the Hill Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Strawberry Fields Forever Penny Lane She's Leaving Home I Am the Walrus Your Mother Should Know Hello, Goodbye All You Need Is Love A Day in the Life Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) ^ That would've probably beaten Abbey Road or Revolver into pole position in many peoples books. |
| hobbit in Rhye 05.08.2015 14:53 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Look up the history of "the end of art" arguments. They've been made for hundreds of years.Thank you. I've looked it up and it's a thought-provoking argument (how could it not be when it quoted Hegel ^^ ). However, when I read Sebastian's post about "(people) thought everything there was to known was known and everything there was to be invented had been invented" I took it as if he was talking about knowledge and inventions in general, and it's impossible to think that there's no more to those 2 fields. If he was talking about knowledge in music, or technology in art, then alright I kinda see the point. |
| brENsKi 05.08.2015 17:26 |
Day dop wrote: However, combining the best tracks (imo), which would've made a far better album (same amount of tracks as on Sgt. Pepper). Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Magical Mystery Tour The Fool on the Hill Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Strawberry Fields Forever Penny Lane She's Leaving Home I Am the Walrus Your Mother Should Know Hello, Goodbye All You Need Is Love A Day in the Life Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) ^ That would've probably beaten Abbey Road or Revolver into pole position in many peoples books.ah, but Penny Lane + Strawberry Fields were not part of the original Magical Mystery Tour album also you've just compiled a 13-track (mini) greatest hits - there's 8 singles on that list !!! |
| Day dop 05.08.2015 19:14 |
brENsKi wrote:I know (although I keep forgetting that about MMT). It goes to highlight the top notch songs they came up within a short space of time though.Day dop wrote: However, combining the best tracks (imo), which would've made a far better album (same amount of tracks as on Sgt. Pepper). Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Magical Mystery Tour The Fool on the Hill Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Strawberry Fields Forever Penny Lane She's Leaving Home I Am the Walrus Your Mother Should Know Hello, Goodbye All You Need Is Love A Day in the Life Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) ^ That would've probably beaten Abbey Road or Revolver into pole position in many peoples books.ah, but Penny Lane + Strawberry Fields were not part of the original Magical Mystery Tour album also you've just compiled a 13-track (mini) greatest hits - there's 8 singles on that list !!! It's also me being a bit picky. Despite the importance of S.P, I only like about half of tracks on that album, or rather, the ones I've pulled off there. The same with MMT too. Overall, I prefer Abbey Road, The White album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, and probably even Help. But by pulling the best tracks off each album (well, MMT as we now know it) and imagining it like that instead, I'd say it's even stronger than any of those albums (and that's saying something). Out of curiosity, what's your favourite album by them? And whilst I'm in an inquisitive mood, what's your favourite Queen album too? My answer to each of those questions would most most likely keep coming back to The White Album and Sheer Heart Attack. |
| Togg 06.08.2015 06:36 |
I remember the sheer joy of playing my first copy of Sgt Pepper from start to finish on my first ever record player, not until ANATO did I feel the same about an album, it's hard to describe the feeling Sgt Pepper to me was every track being a little gem. Somehow you just dont get that playing one track in isolation, a sad fact about todays music buyers that gets lost, it's all about the track and not the whole journey of the album. Maybe we will never see the like of The Wall, or other concept albums again. |
| brENsKi 06.08.2015 08:11 |
Day dop wrote:Out of curiosity, what's your favourite album by them? And whilst I'm in an inquisitive mood, what's your favourite Queen album too? My answer to each of those questions would most most likely keep coming back to The White Album and Sheer Heart Attack.almost always - Abbey Rd - everything about it, musically and construction-wise is genius...sometimes Rubber Soul runs it close, for me queen? Almost always "II" but i have occasions when i prefer "I" your comments about "that time period" were spot-on from Rubber Soul - Abbey Rd (65-69) they were stunning - no other band anywhere produces quality music (in such quantity) in a five year period. 7½ albums and plenty of non-album singles = 115 total songs..most of it quality Togg wrote:I remember the sheer joy of playing my first copy of Sgt Pepper from start to finish on my first ever record player, not until ANATO did I feel the same about an album, it's hard to describe the feeling Sgt Pepper to me was every track being a little gem. Somehow you just dont get that playing one track in isolation, a sad fact about todays music buyers that gets lost, it's all about the track and not the whole journey of the album. Maybe we will never see the like of The Wall, or other concept albums again.another excellent post. i think you could be right. mainly because the musical architects of "albums" as a genre are all disappearing off the "the great gig in the sky" there is some hope, while bands like KoL, killers and foos exist.. but sadly, there are few and further between |
| Day dop 06.08.2015 10:39 |
Togg wrote: I remember the sheer joy of playing my first copy of Sgt Pepper from start to finish on my first ever record player, not until ANATO did I feel the same about an album, it's hard to describe the feeling Sgt Pepper to me was every track being a little gem. Somehow you just dont get that playing one track in isolation, a sad fact about todays music buyers that gets lost, it's all about the track and not the whole journey of the album. Maybe we will never see the like of The Wall, or other concept albums again.Give Steven Wilson's Hand. Cannot. Erase. album a try. You might like it. |
| brENsKi 06.08.2015 13:29 |
Day dop wrote:My answer to each of those questions would most most likely keep coming back to The White Album and Sheer Heart Attack.i love The White Album (aka The Beatles) it challenges. it's fabulous and irksome at once. if they'd made a single album it would've been their best, but they didn't, and it wasn't |
| Day dop 06.08.2015 13:55 |
brENsKi wrote:I wouldn't want to change anything about that album. It's superb as it is. For its highs and lows, and even what could be perceived as its flaws, that's what makes it imo. There's so much to it, I've never even came close to getting tired of it.Day dop wrote:My answer to each of those questions would most most likely keep coming back to The White Album and Sheer Heart Attack.i love The White Album (aka The Beatles) it challenges. it's fabulous and irksome at once. if they'd made a single album it would've been their best, but they didn't, and it wasn't |
| brENsKi 06.08.2015 16:10 |
^^^that's exactly where i've been with Abbey Road and Rubber Soul....for forty years lol |
| stevelondon20 11.08.2015 14:22 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Granted mate. Because has amazing harmonies.stevelondon20 wrote: One reason was that Queens Harmonies were far superior to the Beatles. I feel the overall sound was far superior.If I Fell Because Those two songs are absolute perfection. Also bear in mind that The Beatles didn't have 16 and 24 track tape to work with. |