Beatles are best band ever!!! yes?

[etilit]

there are..no questions lol

ok...im picking a fight your thoughts?

 

[garth33]

Wilfred Brimley: Do you have the DIABETES? Need supplies...CALL LIBERTY MEDICAL!

 

[cacc]

The Monkees were better

 

[XMan101]

NO , they're nowhere near my favourite ! (But you knew that anyway )

 

[prinz4ming]

I beg to differ- Queen rule!!

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

Depends what you mean by "best".

I'll gladly discuss it, I'm not interested in "picking a fight".

 

[striker]

Absolutely!! The Beatles are clearly the best band without a doubt. Every band since them has been influenced by them whether they know it or not.
No arguing this one.. ;-)

 

[c750dt]

The best band of their time, perhaps. Ever, however, is a stretch.

 

[XMan101]

Nothing beats Gene Vincent & the Blue Caps


Be Bop a Lula baby

 

[etilit]

I'm not interested in "picking a fight".

sometimes just saying something provokes someone

Nothing beats Gene Vincent & the Blue Caps


Be Bop a Lula baby

who? lol

 

[XMan101]

Don't be funny kiddeo )

 

[etilit]

Don't be funny kiddeo )

what else is there babe? HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!:cheers::cheers::thumbs up:

 

[jw4833]

I can't honestly say that there were the best band ever because I was more into their music within the latter years as opposed to their earlier stuff with the exception of "Rubber Soul" and Sgt. Pepper's". Although there are many who believe they were, I beg to differ but I did like them.

 

[8oclockcoffee]

In answer to the question posed in the thread title: No. :rofl:

None of them could sing on key live. And they barely managed it in the studio. They had no proper breath support, and if it wasn't for electronic modification/amplification, they couldn't have managed at all. Thus they were not singers at all in my book. If it wasn't for what's-his-name who created their sound in the studio, they wouldn't have their current reputation. It's risible how their fans foam at the mouth when anyone doesn't agree that the Beatles were the be-all and end-all of popular music. They were precursors of Madonna, another talentless non-singer who managed to pick up trends just as they were becoming mainstream, thus giving the illusion (to those not paying close attention) of doing something slightly groundbreaking. Any odd instrumentation was the work of George Martin (I think that was his name... I can't be arsed to look it up!). The whole thing of doing a cohesive "concept" album predates the Beatles by many years. In popular music, it was done by Columbia records for Doris Day and Frank Sinatra (out of necessity, as their singles sales had declined by the mid 50s, so the focus was on album sales), and in jazz, Sarah Vaughan and Ella Fitzgerald and others had been doing it for years. And obviously, Classical Music releases were cohesive "concept" albums, going back to the original albums (or "books") of 78rpm records. (A record was one disc, an album was originally a set of records--symphonies and other longer classical works took multiple discs in the 78 era, and operas continued to take multiple records in the age of the LP, as well as the CD.)


The Beatles produced insipid pop music. And a dreadful step backwards from the pop music of the 1940s and 1950s. (The 1940s had all those glorious Big Bands! Plus the wonderful tunesmiths and lyricists of Tin Pan Alley! And lots of marvelous jazz!) And it's hilarious that people actually call McCartney a composer. He can't read sheet music, and has to have someone else write the arrangements and orchestrations of his sad little tunes. A real composer does it all himself.

Smokey Robinson and his Motown brethren/sistren were far superior.

As to the argument that the Beatles wrote and performed their own "music" I say big deal. They didn't write well (and what they did write was doctored by others in the studio), and they played badly and sang worse. As far as singer/songwriters go, Hoagy Carmichael came before them and did everything with more style and artistry. And in any event, any popular singer/songwriter pales in comparison to the truly great artists like Rachmaninov, who wrote and performed music for the piano that takes that instrument to its limits. And before him, there were other composer/musicians like Chopin (piano), Liszt (piano), Saint-Saëns (piano and organ), Paganini (violin), Handel (harpsichord and organ), Bach (harpsichord, organ, violin), Vivaldi (violin), etc. Modern pop musicians have a truly paltry talent when compared to writers and performers of complex music such as those of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras.


end rant.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

Someone said the Beatles were the most influential band. I think that title is more deserved by the Beach Boys.
Hardly a week goes by when I don't read a review of some new release described as having "echoes of the Beach Boys", "Beach Boy-esque harmonies", etc. Whenever I see an interview by some artist who is listing their musical influences, the Beach Boys almost always feature, if the asrtist likes any music from that period at all.

Of course none of this means that the Beach Boys were a better or a worse band than the Beatles, such judgment being mostly subjective.

 

[XMan101]

In answer to the question posed in the thread title: No. :rofl:

None of them could sing on key live. And they barely managed it in the studio. They had no proper breath support, and if it wasn't for electronic modification/amplification, they couldn't have managed at all. Thus they were not singers at all in my book. If it wasn't for what's-his-name who created their sound in the studio, they wouldn't have their current reputation. It's risible how their fans foam at the mouth when anyone doesn't agree that the Beatles were the be-all and end-all of popular music. They were precursors of Madonna, another talentless non-singer who managed to pick up trends just as they were becoming mainstream, thus giving the illusion (to those not paying close attention) of doing something slightly groundbreaking. Any odd instrumentation was the work of George Martin (I think that was his name... I can't be arsed to look it up!). The whole thing of doing a cohesive "concept" album predates the Beatles by many years. In popular music, it was done by Columbia records for Doris Day and Frank Sinatra (out of necessity, as their singles sales had declined by the mid 50s, so the focus was on album sales), and in jazz, Sarah Vaughan and Ella Fitzgerald and others had been doing it for years. And obviously, Classical Music releases were cohesive "concept" albums, going back to the original albums (or "books") of 78rpm records. (A record was one disc, an album was originally a set of records--symphonies and other longer classical works took multiple discs in the 78 era, and operas continued to take multiple records in the age of the LP, as well as the CD.)


The Beatles produced insipid pop music. And a dreadful step backwards from the pop music of the 1940s and 1950s. (The 1940s had all those glorious Big Bands! Plus the wonderful tunesmiths and lyricists of Tin Pan Alley! And lots of marvelous jazz!) And it's hilarious that people actually call McCartney a composer. He can't read sheet music, and has to have someone else write the arrangements and orchestrations of his sad little tunes. A real composer does it all himself.

Smokey Robinson and his Motown brethren/sistren were far superior.

As to the argument that the Beatles wrote and performed their own "music" I say big deal. They didn't write well (and what they did write was doctored by others in the studio), and they played badly and sang worse. As far as singer/songwriters go, Hoagy Carmichael came before them and did everything with more style and artistry. And in any event, any popular singer/songwriter pales in comparison to the truly great artists like Rachmaninov, who wrote and performed music for the piano that takes that instrument to its limits. And before him, there were other composer/musicians like Chopin (piano), Liszt (piano), Saint-Saëns (piano and organ), Paganini (violin), Handel (harpsichord and organ), Bach (harpsichord, organ, violin), Vivaldi (violin), etc. Modern pop musicians have a truly paltry talent when compared to writers and performers of complex music such as those of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras.


end rant.

Damn! That's good!

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

Modern pop musicians have a truly paltry talent when compared to writers and performers of complex music such as those of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras.

This comes across as somewhat elitist. I can understand how one could think that, if "pop musicians" refers to most of the vapid offerings that dominate the pop charts these days. However if you broaden the definition to include progressive rock acts such as Genesis, Yes, Focus and their modern-day heirs such as porcupine Tree, Opeth and Anathema, people who hardly ever get radio airplay but might if they ar lucky occasionally make the album charts, some of that music is just as rich and complex as anything produced in the Classical or Romantic periods. This comes from someone who loves quite a lot of "classical" music, especially from the romantic period onwards.

Also, I know I keep banging on about the Beach boys, and many of you probably only know of them through sing-a-long pop songs like "Help Me Rhonda", "I Get Around" and "Little Deuce Coupe". Their later stuff was amazing. I defy anyone to listen to the song "Surf's Up" and then claim that such a song would not have been worthy of one the great classical composers.

 

[XMan101]

My Favourite Beach Boys track is one of their later ones called "Rock & Roll to the Rescue". I rescued it from an old tape someone leant me.

Never been a huge fan of theirs but they did have some wonderful melodies.