Soda Jerk Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Monkees were better.Well, not really. But I like them. It's not even a guilty pleasure, because I feel great about it.So, the Monkees. Best band ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 So what would the Beatles output had developed into? Well, as Alan Partridge said, Wings were the band The Beatles could have been.Seriously though, if you take the fairly ropey Let It Be as their last album or watch any of the "Get Back" stuff it looks fairly ominous. But in actual fact in chronological terms they went back after that and put real effort into Abbey Road, knowing it would be their last record together, and it's brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (okay, townshend isnt the best guitarist, but neither was john lennon, if we're going to be pedantic. harrison was fantastic though) Lennon, actually was a very good guitarist, that's him playing all those cool bluesy lines on Get Back. Ditto McCartney, he's playing the cool solo on Taxman. That's not to say that George wasn't good, but they were all accomplished guitar players.When you look at not only their record sales, but the critical reception to their music, their evolution in such a short time and huge influence, not just musically but culturally, it's clear that nobody else even comes close.because i could quite easily attribute the same things to bands such as Queen and The Jimi Hendrix Experience and call them the best bands in the world. No, you couldn't. Seriously. Jimi Hendrix was succesful in terms of sales, but in no way even close to The Beatles. He certainly had an influence on guitar players but I don't think his music changed the world.Sames goes for Queen. Again, a succesful band, but let's face facts, they were a singles band. They made, what, one good album? Lots of great singles though for sure. And I don't really think they influenced that many people, maybe Mika. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 while I am a big beatles fan and would certainly say they are up there I don't know if record sales can be used a large part of the formula for determining 'best band ever'. let's not forget that the vast majority of the record buying public are morons with shit taste in music.in the interests of debate i would like to put forward Fugazi as the best band ever. their output was consistently brilliant throughout their career, sold a shitload of records and easily one of the most influential bands ever. i would bet more people have changed the way they conduct themselves due to fugazi than the beatles, though obviously the beatles have passivly influenced a much much higher amount of people. did the beatles change that many peoples lives or inspire as many people to take control of their own creative output or career in the same way that fugazi have? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 No, you couldn't. Seriously. Jimi Hendrix was succesful in terms of sales, but in no way even close to The Beatles. He certainly had an influence on guitar players but I don't think his music changed the world.Sames goes for Queen. Again, a succesful band, but let's face facts, they were a singles band. They made, what, one good album? Lots of great singles though for sure. And I don't really think they influenced that many people, maybe Mika.i don't think the beatles music changed the world. it had a massive influence on pop music and i guess pop culture but i don't think the world itself is a better place because of revolver. there's very few artists who i guess have that influence. the clash maybe, dylan perhaps, minor threat/fugazi, sex pistols at a push(if only for turning a generation onto punk) and possibly a few others. the beatles didn't care enough, too jokey to really change your life for and their peace and love message was a reaction to a movement they joined not that they started or influenced from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodyRATM Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Lennon, actually was a very good guitarist, that's him playing all those cool bluesy lines on Get Back. Ditto McCartney, he's playing the cool solo on Taxman. That's not to say that George wasn't good, but they were all accomplished guitar players.No, you couldn't. Seriously. Jimi Hendrix was succesful in terms of sales, but in no way even close to The Beatles. He certainly had an influence on guitar players but I don't think his music changed the world.Sames goes for Queen. Again, a succesful band, but let's face facts, they were a singles band. They made, what, one good album? Lots of great singles though for sure. And I don't really think they influenced that many people, maybe Mika.If the beatles didnt appear when they did, some other radio friendly, mother friendly band would have taken their fame. IMO the songs arent musically brilliant, and the vocals dont make me go "Wow thats a deep lyric".Bands like queen and the who, to me, are far better to listen to. The music actually sounds interesting. Theres been lyrics that have made me think "What? thats ace!" In regards to the solo stuff, i think theres 1 or 2 solo songs by John Lennon i liked. Fuck all by Paul Mccartney. Cheesy at best. All the beatles are to me are a cause for the oasis copycats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 i don't think the beatles music changed the world. it had a massive influence on pop music and i guess pop culture but i don't think the world itself is a better place because of revolver. there's very few artists who i guess have that influence. the clash maybe, dylan perhaps, minor threat/fugazi, sex pistols at a push(if only for turning a generation onto punk) and possibly a few others. the beatles didn't care enough, too jokey to really change your life for and their peace and love message was a reaction to a movement they joined not that they started or influenced from the start.I really don't think you could say that Fugazi changed the world when 99% of the population probably haven't heard of them. Ditto The Clash, most people will only know Should I Stay or Should I Go because of the advert. Sad but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Lennon, actually was a very good guitarist, that's him playing all those cool bluesy lines on Get Back. Ditto McCartney, he's playing the cool solo on Taxman. That's not to say that George wasn't good, but they were all accomplished guitar players.No, you couldn't. Seriously. Jimi Hendrix was succesful in terms of sales, but in no way even close to The Beatles. He certainly had an influence on guitar players but I don't think his music changed the world.Sames goes for Queen. Again, a succesful band, but let's face facts, they were a singles band. They made, what, one good album? Lots of great singles though for sure. And I don't really think they influenced that many people, maybe Mika.and the beatles influenced who, oasis?i'd agree with the hendrix's music not changing the world - thats a point. his guitar playing changed electric guitarists and the sonic landscape of rock music forever, though.i'd still call queen a better band than the beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I really don't think you could say that Fugazi changed the world when 99% of the population probably haven't heard of them. Ditto The Clash, most people will only know Should I Stay or Should I Go because of the advert. Sad but true.no but my point, though probably badly worded, was that those who do hear these bands are more likely to actively change their lives because of it or be influenced by them due to the passion and style of music that they play. i do think that you're underestimating the popularity of the clash somewhat there though. obviously fugazi aren't a household name but the clash were enormous, and still are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 i'd still call queen a better band than the beatles.that's just wrong.anything brian may is involved with can never be better than anything done by anyone else. ever. he's more unlikeable than mccartney and that's fucking saying something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 and the beatles influenced who, oasis?i'd agree with the hendrix's music not changing the world - thats a point. his guitar playing changed electric guitarists and the sonic landscape of rock music forever, though.i'd still call queen a better band than the beatles.Well The Beatles influenced just about everybody who grew up in that era, I can't be arsed raking about the web and making a list, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've read an interview with somebody saying "I saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan and knew I wanted to be a rock star". They were even an influence on Hendrix. The lack of decent albums undermines the Queen argument hugely. Great singles and live act for sure though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 that's just wrong.anything brian may is involved with can never be better than anything done by anyone else. ever. he's more unlikeable than mccartney and that's fucking saying something.did he touch you up or something? **this thread isnt going to last very long, i think.** just incase you take it seriously, this was a joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 no but my point, though probably badly worded, was that those who do hear these bands are more likely to actively change their lives because of it or be influenced by them due to the passion and style of music that they play. i do think that you're underestimating the popularity of the clash somewhat there though. obviously fugazi aren't a household name but the clash were enormous, and still are.Aye, but it's more of a niche though isn't it. The Beatles had a mass-market appeal across a huge "demographic". Still, I think there's a decent argument to be made for The Clash being the best band ever, more so than Queen anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Well The Beatles influenced just about everybody who grew up in that era, I can't be arsed raking about the web and making a list, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've read an interview with somebody saying "I saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan and knew I wanted to be a rock star". They were even an influence on Hendrix. yes, there was that. doesnt mean i'm going to accept them as the best band in the world, though. Led Zep, black sabbath, hell, even bloody metallica get similar deification from their respective fanbases and they are nowhere near the best bands in the world. you still didnt answer what i asked regarding your rationale for your opening statement; could you please be a bit more concise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 this thread isnt going to last very long, i think.I hope you're wrong, it was intended to be a genuine discussion, as long as people don't get pissed off about someone disagreeing with their particular view, I'm sure we'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I hope you're wrong, it was intended to be a genuine discussion, as long as people don't get pissed off about someone disagreeing with their particular view, I'm sure we'll be fine.i hope i'm wrong too, but i fear this will get ugly, in true aberdeen-music style:down:ps - did i miss something, or are you dustydeviada, by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Aye, but it's more of a niche though isn't it. The Beatles had a mass-market appeal across a huge "demographic". Still, I think there's a decent argument to be made for The Clash being the best band ever, more so than Queen anyway.aye but their influence over that huge demographic was pretty slim. sure my mum liked the beatles but it didn't do anything more than give her some nice music to put on in the car, she didn't become a hippy or anything. i think the beatles were a soundtrack to their time but not a direct influence on it.the niche demographic who listen to bands like fugazi are more likely to respond to that music in a direct and life changing way. certainly countless record labels wouldn't exist if it weren't for fugazi and dischord(though you could argue that the beatles perhaps influenced this to some degree with apple), it's undoubtably inluenced and encouraged other business ventures as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 did he touch you up or something? **this thread isnt going to last very long, i think.** just incase you take it seriously, this was a joke look at him! not even his mum could like him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soda Jerk Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I would say Queen as songwriters and composers are lightyears ahead of The Beatles though. The arrangements of the songs and the manner in which they performed them live was incredible whether you like them or not. They weren't consistent, but I really don't think anyone who can be considered to be involved with pop and rock music have come anywhere near to sounding as accomplished as Queen.I agree with the Fugazi point. Despite the audience being a thousand times smaller, they have actively changed the way alot of people percieve music as well as the way their write and perform their own, and I would suggest that is a much more evident effect than the Beatles had that kind of thing. On an even smaller scale, Crass be considered to have had the same effect. It's just a shame they couldn't actually write a song. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 you still didnt answer what i asked regarding your rationale for your opening statement; could you please be a bit more concise? Well, I don't know if I can, I tried to put forward a few criteria on which you could possibly judge them, namely:Records sales: Now, this isn't the be all and end all, as we all know that lots of people by crap records. But I do think it has to be in there somewhere. As far as I'm aware The Beatles have sold more records than anybody else, there's a list here List of best-selling music artists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but it has to be taken with a pinch of salt as they didn't really have efficient records for these kind of things in the past.Critical reaction: Again, reviewers' opinions don't really mean anything, BUT collectively the consensus does seem to be that The Beatles left an important body of work.Their evolution as a band: I still find this one amazing. To go from Chuck Berry covers in 1962 to Abbey Road in 1969 is incredible. To go from Chuck Berry covers in 1962 to Tomorrow Never Knows in 1966 is even more amazing really.Influence: Well, I'm probably not that well qualified to comment on this as I was born in 1977. But I did a quick Google search and this dude who was actually there in the 60s tries to explain it.The Impact of The Beatles - The Beatles' influence on popular culture - Zimbio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 dont deny it dave, if you had a mullet like that, you'd be gurning aswell.brian may had a better guitar tone than the beatles too.*runs* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Von Mondragon Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Sales can be irrelevant, there is as much a case to be made for the Velvet Underground (though not by me), due to massive cultural influence, and they sold poorly. a la The Rolling Stones who let's face it they made their last good album in the early 70's. .'Some Girls' is pretty good, and thats '78. All the albums up to 'Dirty Work' have at least one ace tune. I've read all the books that prove that the Stones were omnipotent in their Imperial Phase, but you'll have to take my word on it. The Tony Sanchez one is the best entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsby Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Sales can be irrelevant, there is as much a case to be made for the Velvet Underground (though not by me), due to massive cultural influence, and they sold poorly.So make it. That's the kind of thing I was hoping for with this thread, as opposed to people just saying "The Beatles are shit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 So make it. That's the kind of thing I was hoping for with this thread, as opposed to people just saying "The Beatles are shit".aside from my brothers fairly stupid response we've gotten some good discussion, i'll keep it going. so long as it's not about brian may. *shudder* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Zero Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Sales can be irrelevant, there is as much a case to be made for the Velvet Underground (though not by me), due to massive cultural influence, and they sold poorly.'Some Girls' is pretty good, and thats '78. All the albums up to 'Dirty Work' have at least one ace tune. I've read all the books that prove that the Stones were omnipotent in their Imperial Phase, but you'll have to take my word on it. The Tony Sanchez one is the best entertainment.I was kind of referring to albums that are decent as a whole rather than the odd good tune.Cultural impact when it applies to niche groups can't really be counted here I feel. Beat Happening probably influenced a load of folk to take a lo-fi, haphazardly talented approach to music but I don't think anyone would claim they are the best band ever. Except maybe RF Scott. They are pretty cool though.Brian May is no way more irritating than McCartney. Sure, he has had the same haircut for 40 years but then so has Ozzy Osbourne. And aside from poorly judged offspring he's still a bit of a guy. Actually, he went a bit more bouffant in the 80's didn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.