The Beatles are the most important band ever

Ledbetterman10

facepollution wrote:

Ok, people are incapable of judging The Beatle's output from a purely objective standpoint, because it has forever been drummed into everyone's heads from birth, that The Beatles were the 'start' of rock, and nobody else can come close.

I don't doubt their influence, but on a technical basis, they are no more important than the artists who influenced them in the first place.

actually, it wasn't drummed into my head that they were the start of rock, it was drummed into my head that they were the BEST rock band. and I didn't like that. My earliest recollections of listening to my dad's vinyls were loving CCR and the Beach Boys but not liking the Beatles. now, the only Beatles that my dad owned at the time were Hard Day's NIght, Revolver and the Yellow Submarine soundtrack. this is the best band in the world? not to discredit those works but I just said, "dad, it's okay but not as good as Elvis or Chuck Berry."

my next attempt at the Beatles came maybe when I was 10 or so and my dad had bought himself the White Album. it was like a roller coaster. some songs came off as the best song I'd ever heard (USSR, While My Guitar, Birthday), some came off as terrible to me (Everybody has something to hide, Honey Pie, Long Long Long) and some things I had no idea what to make of (Revolution 9, Good Night, Helter Skelter, Piggies). i just didn't get them. I was only 11 though I guess.

it wasn't until I was 13 so and got into Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon that I got the Beatles. by now, I had turned away from my dad's rock and dug what was going on at the time (Nirvana, PJ, Guns, Smashing Pumpkins, etc). but then I, like everyone else, heard Darkside of the Moon and was enchanted with psychedelic tracks like On the Run and Any Colour You like. and songs like Time that has just this atmosphere to it that makes it more than just a rock song with a good solo. I began listening to Floyd and Led Zeppelin all the time....and suddenly Helter Sketler and Revolution 9 made a little sense. I stole my dad's white album CD and listened to it all the time

god, i've been ranting (let's call it reminiscing). finally I go to a CD store with the intent to buy a Beatles album. looked through the rack and track listings, and went with Magical Mystery Tour because it had the most familiar sounding song titles on it (Penny Lane, All You Need Is Love, Strawberry Fields Forever) and there was no turning back. the next year was the Beatles anthology series and finally there were faces to go with the voices and stories behind the songs and I was obsessed. so in closing, not everyone thinks highly of the Beatles because it's what we've always told. and and it's possible to go from not liking them to them being your favorite band of all time. and trust me, once you finally get, a splendid time is guaranteed for all. AND TONIGHT MR. KITE IT TOPPING THE BILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alex_Coe

aNiMaL wrote:

On the whole, The Beatles wrote anything but simple music. Most of their catalog is very complex musically and very hard for professional musicians to replicate. Not impossible, just not easy at all.

Noes! TV box says they were simple. I believe TV. TV is heap strong. TV is your father.

MCG

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I mean who ISNT influenced by the beatles?

Who influenced the Beatles? If they influenced the worlds most important band wouldn't that make them the worlds most important band? I've successfully blown my own mind, daily mind blowing count is at 3.

Ledbetterman10

MCG wrote:

Who influenced the Beatles? If they influenced the worlds most important band wouldn't that make them the worlds most important band? I've successfully blown my own mind, daily mind blowing count is at 3.

well obviously it's not like the Beatles invented music. they were influenced by guys like Chuck Berry who was influenced by guys like Leadbelly who probably listened to things like dixieland which has roots in folk and on and on. I mean we can go all the way back to cavemen clapping two rocks together for percussion if we want.

MCG

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

well obviously it's not like the Beatles invented music. they were influenced by guys like Chuck Berry who was influenced by guys like Leadbelly who probably listened to things like dixieland which has roots in folk and on and on. I mean we can go all the way back to cavemen clapping two rocks together for percussion if we want.

The Caveman Rock Clappers are a personal favorite of mine, they really give it their all live in concert.

muppet

The Beatles are not most important band!!!!!!! It is Chris Cornell and his band!!!!!! He makes beautiful music!!!!! Carry On is a masterpiece!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ledbetterman10

MCG wrote:

The Caveman Rock Clappers are a personal favorite of mine, they really give it their all live in concert.

yeah but if you're not close to the stage, you probably won't hear much.

DOSW

I've only recently started seriously listening to the Beatles. They have always been my mom's favorite band since she was a pre-teen in the sixties, and when I was a youngster she would sometimes play stuff from their earlier years in the car... songs like She Loves You, Can't Buy Me Love, you know the type. I didn't like or dislike it. But recently I started listening to Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album, and Abbey Road, and a lot of it is really amazing. They have their fair share of poppy numbers reminiscent of their earlier years but the rest is complex music while still retaining melody. It's quite a feat if you think about it.

Klumpie

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

The Rolling Stones:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. you can't be serious. they're a better than average rock band, that's all.

Great argument.

The question isn't who do you like the most??? Because I like the Beatles also better then The Rolling Stones.

But the question is???

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Are the beatles the most important band ever?

I mean who ISNT influenced by the beatles?

This was my answer:

Klumpie wrote:

The Rolling Stones were the first who played blues-rock. Mick Jagger was the first rocksinger who didn't sing like a boyband-boy, but uses his own beastly vocals. Keith Richards was the first who played hard riffs on the guitar (also Dave Davies from the Kinks did this at the same time). Watts and Wyman were the first who introduced jazz rhythms in the rock music. Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath were all more influenced by The Rolling Stones then The Beatles. The Rolling Stones were also the first who introduced sex, drugs and violence into the rock music.

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

Nowaday there are more bands you can compare with The Rolling Stones then the Beatles.

dunkman

Klumpie wrote:

Great argument.

The question isn't who do you like the most??? Because I like the Beatles also better then The Rolling Stones.

But the question is???


This was my answer:

Nowaday there are more bands you can compare with The Rolling Stones then the Beatles.

the beatles ARE the most IMPORTANT band ever.. the Stones were a good blues band but they had to get The Beatles to hand them a hit in their early career.. a song that Paul and John thought so substandard they gave it to Ringo to sing!

The Stones just took the blues and made it white mans blues... they arent as important as the beatles and thats fact...

Nowaday there are more bands you can compare with The Rolling Stones then the Beatles.

name me 5... you name me five... not some magazine review or stoopid website list.. YOU name me 5!!

Ledbetterman10

Klumpie wrote:

Nowaday there are more bands you can compare with The Rolling Stones then the Beatles.

exactly, because there's nothing that special about the Stones. the Beatles simply can't even be imitated. they are truly one of a kind. and newsflash: THE STONES WERE INFLUENCED BY THE BEATLES.

FinsburyParkCarrots

facepollution wrote:

Ok, people are incapable of judging The Beatle's output from a purely objective standpoint, because it has forever been drummed into everyone's heads from birth, that The Beatles were the 'start' of rock, and nobody else can come close.

I don't doubt their influence, but on a technical basis, they are no more important than the artists who influenced them in the first place.

Well, on a technical basis, let's applaud perhaps the greatest musician in the history of popular music, my hero Eric Dolphy (getting this out of a feckin' bass clarinet, for gawd's sake):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuiIyDxa750


But, you have to see that nananana stuff in 1968, within the context of its time. There's a famous story of The Stones bringing an acetate of Beggars Banquet to a party at which The Beatles were present, and playing it (thinking The Beatles were finished). Then The Beatles played their acetate of Hey Jude, and Keef pulled an unusual whitey*. Mind you, if Jimi had been there, playing demos from Electric Ladyland, they'd all have been fucked, because The Jimi Hendrix Experience was culturally and musically more important than feckin' anyone, ever, since Homer.



Edit: Whoops! I realise that* phrase might not translate across the pond. I mean, "pulled an adverse physical and psychological reaction and hue to a sudden, shocking input of an unexpected substance, unusual given the individual's tolerance to everything in sight."

facepollution

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Well, on a technical basis, let's applaud perhaps the greatest musician in the history of popular music, my hero Eric Dolphy (getting this out of a feckin' bass clarinet, for gawd's sake):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuiIyDxa750


But, you have to see that nananana stuff in 1968, within the context of its time. There's a famous story of The Stones bringing an acetate of Beggars Banquet to a party at which The Beatles were present, and playing it (thinking The Beatles were finished). Then The Beatles played their acetate of Hey Jude, and Keef pulled an unusual whitey. Mind you, if Jimi had been there, playing demos from Electric Ladyland, they'd all have been fucked, because The Jimi Hendrix Experience was culturally and musically more important than feckin' anyone, ever, since Homer.

Oh hell yeah, Hendrix fucking rules all. I totally understand The Beatles' place in history and importance, but I still think there are plenty of other bands who were better.

FinsburyParkCarrots

facepollution wrote:

Oh hell yeah, Hendrix fucking rules all. I totally understand The Beatles' place in history and importance, but I still think there are plenty of other bands who were better.

As musicians? Sure. As songwriters? That depends upon whether you think less is more, in songwriting. Is In My Life an aesthetically more satisfying song than Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, production values notwithstanding? Is Sad Eyed Lady more important given its influence on the development of lyrical songwriting, and if so, does that make it a better song than In My Life, which doesn't really explore simile, metaphor or other figurature language but talks literally without stylistic device?

What's better?

It's a matter of what you feel like, at the time. I've a couple of degrees in literature, and I could use all sorts of literary theory to big up Sad Eyed Lady. But, as a songwriter, I love the way the melody of In My Life connects with the words, and the ease with which the words can be sung clearly, and covered. They just register. In some ways, Hey Jude is similar. It's "forgettable" in the sense that it doesn't create any clever text or break lyrical cliches, but it sticks in the head, and not in the way that Agadoo by Black Lace or the Mr Blobby Theme sticks, either.

There's a sense of full circle about the way The Beatles used that nanananana section to Hey Jude. In 1968, everyone and their pet dog was trying to be heavy with words. Hey Jude was the first really clever post-rock boom, pop song.

pjoasisrule

For those doubters, here are just some of the many reasons they are the most important band

They helped popularize rock music, they have influenced pretty much every rock band since them, they have created music with influences of many different genres (many of which were never used in rock music before), they were one of the first (if not the first) to create promotional videos, they influenced the way people dressed, they influenced the way people think, they were innovators in the studio/recording process, the have accomplished many incredibly remarkable records as for as sales and the billboard chart goes, they are one of the few rock bands that is well known in every part of the world.

JamnPearl

If you're including artists, then I would say Elvis.

Klumpie

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

exactly, because there's nothing that special about the Stones.

So who influenced the world more?

We have all those shitty bands thanks to the Rolling Stones. That's why The Beatles are special.

catefrances

hmm. way back in the 70s in school, we were taught many songs to sing. we were all wee children with no concept of popular music. but one song i remember we all learned was yellow submarine. imagine my surprise when years later i was to utter the words, really? that's a beatles song? when i discovered the truth.

now, and despite the fact that i am hardly the biggest beatles fan, those simplistic songs are the songs i expose my children to most, purely because they are simple. they're easy to sing and catchy as hell.

trammeus

Klumpie wrote:

The Rolling Stones were the first who played blues-rock. Mick Jagger was the first rocksinger who didn't sing like a boyband-boy

And what does it mean with importance and influence?
Apart that there was Elvis before Jagger.

Klumpie wrote:

, but uses his own beastly vocals. Keith Richards was the first who played hard riffs on the guitar (also Dave Davies from the Kinks did this at the same time). Watts and Wyman were the first who introduced jazz rhythms in the rock music.

Jazz rythms???
Watts had laways played the same rhythm and it has nothing to do with jazz.

Klumpie wrote:

Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath were all more influenced by The Rolling Stones then The Beatles.

What? Zep, DP and BS were influenced by the blues, nothing else.


The Rolling Stones were also the first who introduced sex, drugs and violence into the rock music.[/quote]

And so?

Klumpie wrote:

The Beatles were doing nothing new, they were only doing things what other bands did before them. And they did it good, that's why they get much more credits then other bands.

oh my god, I cannot believe it.




http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html[/quote]

My3rdEye

MCG wrote:

The Caveman Rock Clappers are a personal favorite of mine, they really give it their all live in concert.

I actually did laugh out load at this!