why do people rate the beatles so highly?

[Carek1230]

The Beatles are historic in the Rock and Roll chapter of music. They were at the beginning of many changes in their generation's musical and fashion trends.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The Beatles are cool.

U2 are cool.

Both bands have proven that they deserve to be in these sorts of lists.

That's all I have to say.

Angela

 

[Hallucination]

U2's "emotion" isn't the only emotion there is. It's actually usually a bit distant, since Bono tends to write from a perspective or as a third party (unless he really is a heroin addict), kind of like, oh, I dunno, McCartney. Lennon got a bit emotional too, although he was much more direct.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that people look for different things in music? You honestly can't even imagine how someone could prefer Sgt. Pepper's... to The Joshua Tree? There must be an "agenda"? Do Bono's effusive vocals impress you that much?

What does "relevance" have to do with good music anyway? It's a cop-out term used by people who don't want to just come out and say, "I like this band more, and therefore, everyone should like this band more." You should write for Rolling Stone.

And yes, these are just dumb lists that pick a bunch of "safe" old bands. But that doesn't necessarily mean the bands don't deserve it. The backlash is stupid.

Music fans are the worst thing about music.

First of all I think it's pretty clear that I am able to comprehend someone likeing Sgt. Pepper's better than JT or AB. In fact I stated that I think it's ridiculous but it is of course only my opinion. And being relevant has everythig to do with being listed as one of the greatest rock bands ever. If a band had no relevance what soever they would never be considered by anyone for such a list. It's not a cop out term used by people who think everyone should like this band more than this band. It's a common sense term. If a band had never been relevant at one point or another nobody would care about them meaning nobody would include them on such a list. I figured that was pretty damn obvious. How about you post what you think without the condescending remarks and "subtle" insults. It makes you look like an ass. Also passing your opinions off as if they were fact makes you look even more ridiculous. Like you said "Music fans are the worst thing about music.".

 

[typhoon]

I like to think my insults are pretty straightforward.

 

[ZeroDude]

Musical taste is subjective.

Let's all continue on the path to death.

 

[Hallucination]

I like to think my insults are pretty straightforward.

Hence the quotation marks when I posted "subtle"

It's all good though. Obviously everyone is gonna have a different opinion on what's great, what's greater and what's the greatest. If it weren't that way there would be no need for these types of forums. As long as each individual realises that music taste it all relative to the listener than it's cool. It's when people lose that perspective that it becomes really annoying.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I like the beatles well enough - what I do NOT like is bands today, in 2005, trying to be them. That is actually kind of sad. There is a point where reverent fandom crosses over into lameness.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Musical taste is subjective.

Exactly. Thank you .

Angela

 

[U2Man]

what I do NOT like is bands today, in 2005, trying to be them. That is actually kind of sad. There is a point where reverent fandom crosses over into lameness.

Are you referring to anyone in particular?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well U2man, yes I am. However the list is too long to even begin on. I notice however that every second youngish band that comes along make some noises about wanting to be like the Beatles, and they get plaudits heaped on them because they manage the incredible (!) feat of making some of their songs sound 'Beatlesque'. Clear enough?

Full props to U2, I'm pleased that in the main their career has not depended on 'sounding like' the Beatles.

 

[Zoots]

Kieran, lemme take a wild stab in the dark and guess that you don't like Oasis.

 

[intedomine]

The Beatles are great, but it is strange to see Rubber Soul ranked so high...

And it seems that most lists tend to ignore the sheer brilliance of an album, and instead focus on how influential they were in shaping popular music over the past 50 years.

If brilliance was taken into greter consideration, I think Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree WOULD often make the top 20 of lists such as this.

But it is such a contentious thing to do is to create "best ever" album, band or single lists. Don't get me wrong, I love reading them, and they create great debate and discussion, but you can never take them as Gospel.

You should never also think that just because your personal top 10 albums of all time are all absent from the top 100 of lists such a these, reflects a less mature individual taste.

What it all boils down to is how enjoyable an album is to the individual.

At the moment for instance, my top 10 albums might be:

1. Achtung Baby
2. The Stone Roses
3. Throwing Copper
4. OK Computer
5. Whats the Story Morning Glory
6. Sgt Peppers
7. Out of Time
8. Aqualung
9. Dreamland
10. Meat is Murder

They may not be popularly considered amongst the greatest albums of all time, but they are the ones that I would most enjoy listening to, and in the end that is all that really matters...

 

[MrBrau1]

They're really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, good.

 

[U2Man]

Kieran, lemme take a wild stab in the dark and guess that you don't like Oasis.

Yeah, those were the ones I was thinking of, too.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Sure, Oasis are one, but don't think they're the only ones. Being like the beatles is a growth industry!

 

[dudeman]

lots of good points here, also remember this -
the beatles did everything they did withing a span of like 10 years. in the time it takes bands today to record 3 or so albums, they did everything. certainly it was a different time and place, but they routinely put out 2 albums a year at the beginning of their career. they essentially revolutionized the recording process, perfected pop songwriting, and melded pop with substance in a way the world had never seen or even imagined.

 

[dudeman]

i want more from typhoon -
that dude's funny.

 

[U2Man]

Yeah, I hope typhoon won't be discouraged from posting too.

 

[Nube Gris]

dudeman U2 has done it better and longer, and they have made the greatest live impact the world has ever seen
and they continue.....don't forget that, there's even more brilliance to come from the greatest band of all time: U2

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

They're really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, good.

I was gonna write a long post but that about says it really.

 

[xaviMF22]

dudeman U2 has done it better and longer, and they have made the greatest live impact the world has ever seen
and they continue.....don't forget that, there's even more brilliance to come from the greatest band of all time: U2

the beatles had more impact on music than U2

 

[MrBrau1]

the beatles had more impact on music than U2

yep.

It's not debatable.

 

[Zoots]

Yeah, I hope typhoon won't be discouraged from posting too.

Hi U2Man!

 

[U2Man]

Hi Zoot!

Nube Gris, what exactly do you mean by 'better and longer'? U2 have been together for some 25+ years now, yes. But what matters is what they have managed to create in all of those years, and U2's catalogue is by any measure an ant compared to the Beatles'. Give U2 another 25 years and they will not be able to match the song treasure of The Beatles. Not even close. This is of course my perspective, but I think you'll find similar opinions among people outside a board like this.

 

[OnFire]

Yeah, I hope typhoon won't be discouraged from posting too.

This will flush him out:

What's so great about the Beatles anyway, Like didn't George Gershwin or Irving Berlin write all their songs for them?

 

[dudeman]

dudeman U2 has done it better and longer, and they have made the greatest live impact the world has ever seen
and they continue.....don't forget that, there's even more brilliance to come from the greatest band of all time: U2

did you read what i said? i said nothing about the beatles longevity - there's nothing to speak of. only that all the amazing music they made, and the crazy transition they went through, all occurred over a dizzyingly SHORT period of time. 240+ songs, 14 albums (i think) in 10 years! U2 was never ever remotely so prolific. try squeezing everything u2 did, image-wise, musically from boy to zoo tv to pop to HTDAAB and have it all done by 1990 and you're getting close. i'm not sure any 'big' band has ever been so active. maybe zeppelin...granted, it's a different business now, and u2 actually tours, but that wasn't my point.
and the term 'better' is subjective.
and don't you forget that without the beatles, u2's music would sound very different indeed. everyone's would.

 

[dudeman]

anyone with some time should check out the wikipedia entry for sgt. peppers. give it a read, and you'll see just how many artistic and technological advances the beatles made on this one album alone. they changed the entire recording process. techniques and concepts that artists routinely use today (and we take for granted) were literally invented by members of the beatles and george martin during this 4 month session. from the double track vocal technology used today prominently by billy corgan, to paul's technique of recording 'line in' bass parts, they invented flanging and a bunch of other effects, panning of effects signals to other channels (see radiohead and nigel godrich)...beyond their songwriting genius, they were a technically brilliant bunch. they deserve ALL the accolades. it's a fascinating read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band

 

[typhoon]

This will flush him out:

What's so great about the Beatles anyway, Like didn't George Gershwin or Irving Berlin write all their songs for them?

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

TYPHOON SMASH.

 

[melon]

I'm not the greatest fan of their work, personally, but even I can appreciate their contributions to the music world. Popular music today would be nothing without them.

Melon

 

[livi40]

This will flush him out:

What's so great about the Beatles anyway, Like didn't George Gershwin or Irving Berlin write all their songs for them?

Please oh please oh PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm...please?



livi