why do people rate the beatles so highly?

[akann]

Don't get me wrong, I love them and think that they are one of the greatest ever and that they are the only band that can come close to u2, but take a look at this list. I think it's from the rolling stone magazine, how can you posibly justify so many beatles albums in there?? and no u2 albums?? The JT and AB are a lot better than most of the records on that list.

Top 20 Albums of all time!

Look how many times the Beatles appear in this list:

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles

2. Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys

3. Revolver, The Beatles

4. Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan

5. Rubber Soul, The Beatles

6. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye

7. Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones

8. London Calling, The Clash My favourite of all time!

9. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan

10. The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Beatles

11. The Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley

12. Kind of Blue, Miles Davis

13. Velvet Underground and Nico, The Velvet Underground

14. Abbey Road, The Beatles

15. Are You Experienced?, The Jimi Hendrix Experience

16. Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan

17. Nevermind, Nirvana

18. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen

19. Astral Weeks, Van Morrison

20. Thriller, Michael Jackson

 

[UberBeaver]

I'll take a stab at this. Pretty much every album on that list represented a new direction or refinement in the music. They were all highly influential. With U2, you have a band that is great at what they do, but I don't think they generally alter the course of music too often. They are unique unto themselves. Like The Doors. No one really sounds like them, per se.

 

[OnFire]

Rolling Stone is a baby-boomer rag created for a born-in-the fifties audience. I would still rank the Beatles work above U2 but my list would have JT and AB in the top 10.

As good as Sgt Peppers is, I do think it's somewhat overated by critics. Revolver is better IMO, Rubber Soul is also essential.

 

[U2Man]

I'll take a stab at this. Pretty much every album on that list represented a new direction or refinement in the music. They were all highly influential. With U2, you have a band that is great at what they do, but I don't think they generally alter the course of music too often. They are unique unto themselves. Like The Doors. No one really sounds like them, per se.

Exactly.

And actually, it wouldn't be unfair to put even more Beatles albums on that list. "Help" could be there, for instance. And "The White Album" should rank among the first three on the list.

 

[UberBeaver]

And if you step back and look at what the Beatles did, you have to take into consideration that the pool of influences was much shallower then. When they did something original, it was truly original. Sgt Peppers, nothing sounded like that. It almost came out of thin air, purely the work of incredible imaginations. And to this day, almost 40 years later, it still sounds crisp and uptodate.

 

[Nube Gris]

The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are on the top 10 if not top 5
AB maybe the best ever album
Critics are afraid their credibility goes to hell if they don't consider The Beatles up there; its like a tradition
They know a lot of buyers want to see The Bealtles up there; they are playin' it safe....they want to sell the magazine after all

 

[yimou]

All the albums on that list is part of music history. In whatever genre they may fit. Thats why they will always end up on top of every list made. And thats the way it should be.

 

[U2Man]

All the albums on that list is part of music history. In whatever genre they may fit. Thats why they will always end up on top of every list made. And thats the way it should be.

Your comment deserves an:

 

[yimou]

Your comment deserves an:

Let me return the with a solid for your comments

U2Man, do you have Pet Sounds ??

 

[U2Man]

Let me return the with a solid for your comments

U2Man, do you have Pet Sounds ??

I once had but I cannot find it anymore

 

[AcrobatMan]

I dont like Beatles and I am proud of this fact

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

I think it's a manner of timing as well.

Let's take, I don't know, let's take the Avalanches. What they're doing isn't exactly new, but it's fairly interesting and innovative in a sense; but their one album was released about four years ago. The Beatles' legacy has extended for about 40 years. It's possible 40 years from now people will view the Avalanches in a Beatles-like fashion, simply because they have the huge benefit of hindsight.

And if anyone wants to slate Nirvana they can jolly well fuck off. Kurt Cobain didn't play wanky Jimmy Page guitar solos for a reason.

 

[yimou]

I once had but I cannot find it anymore

Pet Sounds = masterpiece

I dont like Beatles and I am proud of this fact

Whatever makes you happy

 

[U2Man]

Pet Sounds = masterpiece

I know. That's why I am still searching for it. It is truly great.

 

[reptile]

A: List are shit, dont worry about them. I refuse to buy magazines that bring out list editions......

Broof of A is that any list of best albums that doesnt include the White album is just invalid....(this one album (yeah i know its a double) has had more influence on songwriters, bands , etc since its release, then any other by anyone ever!!!)

C: List are shit, dont worry about them..........

 

[Tennis05]

And if anyone wants to slate Nirvana they can jolly well fuck off. Kurt Cobain didn't play wanky Jimmy Page guitar solos for a reason. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, I think he's a great songwriter, but I also think he is given too much credit. let's remember that the ramones, the sex pistols and the entire punk rock revolution were the precedent for bands like nirvana.

 

[Numb1075]

Another reason why the Beattles are rated so highly is because 99.9% of pop/rock artists get there ideas, melodies, and ideas from the Beattles music. Most people don't even realize that much of what they are listening to wouldn't be possible w/o the Beattles & their breaking new sounds and the idea that anything is possible w/ music.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

those who came first will always be held in higher esteem than those who followed.

it's just the way it goes.

 

[U2girl]

Making the classic rock 4-men lineup and the concept of songwriting famous, also one of the first if not the first band to play a stadium

Having arguably the best songwriters ever

Experimenting wildly with the 60's "technology"

Influencing 95% or more music you hear today

just a few thoughts

 

[typhoon]

I know this is going to blow some people's minds here, but:

PEOPLE HERE RATE U2 MORE HIGHLY THAN OTHER PEOPLE.

That's the answer to every question of the form "Why is this band ranked higher in this arbitrary list than U2? That band is so overrated."

 

[typhoon]

To add to that, not everything is some big critical conspiracy where they feel obliged to praise a band because everyone else is doing it.

Just Nirvana.

 

[Nube Gris]

Headache in a Suitcase
that's the reason

 

[DaveC]

AB maybe the best ever album

No, it's not. Not even close. Despite the fact that U2 are my favourite band/artist by a LONG shot, if I had to choose only one album to listen to for the rest of my life it'd be a Bob Dylan or Beatles (maybe Led Zeppelin) album. Certainly NOT Achtung Baby. It's not even remotely close to the best album of all time.

Top 50, for sure. But not the best. Not even Top 10. Same with Joshua Tree.

People get all angry whenever these lists come out, like U2 is owed #1 in everything. U2's amazing. Life-changing, even. But to say that they're better than the Beatles an Bob Dylan...well that's a reach. Even Bono, with his enormous ego wouldn't claim that.

What really makes me go bonkers is when people bitch that The Edge isn't number one on some "Greatest Guitarists of All Time" list. I can't believe some people here honestly think that The Edge is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman.

Come on, people. Take off the fanboy glasses and *think*. These lists are pretty close to what the norm would be if you polled a random segment of the population.

[/rant]

 

[akann]

No, it's not. Not even close. Despite the fact that U2 are my favourite band/artist by a LONG shot, if I had to choose only one album to listen to for the rest of my life it'd be a Bob Dylan or Beatles (maybe Led Zeppelin) album. Certainly NOT Achtung Baby. It's not even remotely close to the best album of all time.

Top 50, for sure. But not the best. Not even Top 10. Same with Joshua Tree.

People get all angry whenever these lists come out, like U2 is owed #1 in everything. U2's amazing. Life-changing, even. But to say that they're better than the Beatles an Bob Dylan...well that's a reach. Even Bono, with his enormous ego wouldn't claim that.

What really makes me go bonkers is when people bitch that The Edge isn't number one on some "Greatest Guitarists of All Time" list. I can't believe some people here honestly think that The Edge is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman.

Come on, people. Take off the fanboy glasses and *think*. These lists are pretty close to what the norm would be if you polled a random segment of the population.

[/rant]

I think you're being pretentious here. I would take AB and JT over any beatles and Dylan records any day. I can sit down and listen to beatles records and honestly enjoy bits of it, but there are also a lot of fillers in there as well imho. They also don't have the emotion in their music (bits of abbey road apart) the way u2 has. AB was very progressive, it still sounds as fresh now as it ever has. I could say that about most u2 records actually, but couldn't say the same about the beatles.

 

[LyricalDrug]

And if anyone wants to slate Nirvana they can jolly well fuck off. Kurt Cobain didn't play wanky Jimmy Page guitar solos for a reason.

I agree, I think he's a great songwriter, but I also think he is given too much credit. let's remember that the ramones, the sex pistols and the entire punk rock revolution were the precedent for bands like nirvana. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, agreed. Nirvana is great, one of the best bands ever, but they're still overrated. Achtung Baby is better than Nevermind.

 

[Hallucination]

No, it's not. Not even close. Despite the fact that U2 are my favourite band/artist by a LONG shot, if I had to choose only one album to listen to for the rest of my life it'd be a Bob Dylan or Beatles (maybe Led Zeppelin) album. Certainly NOT Achtung Baby. It's not even remotely close to the best album of all time.

Top 50, for sure. But not the best. Not even Top 10. Same with Joshua Tree.

People get all angry whenever these lists come out, like U2 is owed #1 in everything. U2's amazing. Life-changing, even. But to say that they're better than the Beatles an Bob Dylan...well that's a reach. Even Bono, with his enormous ego wouldn't claim that.

What really makes me go bonkers is when people bitch that The Edge isn't number one on some "Greatest Guitarists of All Time" list. I can't believe some people here honestly think that The Edge is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman.

Come on, people. Take off the fanboy glasses and *think*. These lists are pretty close to what the norm would be if you polled a random segment of the population.

[/rant]

Funny. You state that Achtung isn't even close as if it's a fact. It's actually an opinion. These lists mean nothing in the big scheme of things. Another list down the road will have an entirely different ranking. Oh and to say that even Bono wouldn't admit to U2 being better or as good might just be a stretch. Sure he may never say it becasue he'd be blasted for it but Bono has been quoted as saying U2 songs have more weight to them than Beatles songs. What does that mean? certainly not that their songs weigh more in kilograms. I agree with whoever posted the sugestion that alot of critics feel their credibility is on the line if they don't include certain bands or albums. I mean sure Sgt. Pepper's was amazing and it was experiemental but for anyone to sit here and honestly say that it is a better album than AB or JT is ridiculous. Though that is simply my opinion. So many bands and albums are remaining on these lists due to their reputation. They were the first rock n' roll bands so of course their albums were inovative but if it wasn't them it would've been somone else. U2 is one of the greatest of all time, AB and JT are two of the greatest(top 20 most definately) albums of all time and the only thing working against U2 being on these lists at this time is that they are still relevant. Look at the list again and you can only spot two bands that are still somewhat relevant today. Bruce Springstien and the Rolling Stones. And in fact their relevance today can be questioned. Sure they're stil great but how relevant are they? I kind of went all over the place with this post but just look back at the list again and think. There's obviously more to it than simply great albums. there's an obvious agenda. As someone else pointed out, don't worry about lists.

 

[typhoon]

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.

 

[akann]

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.

Not true. I was comparing u2 with the beatles and not anyone else. I think radiohead have just as much emotion in their music as u2 does imho and would rank ok computer alongside JT and AB. I was just stating the fact that I don't enjoy the beatles as much as u2. is that so wrong?? or are the beatles so untouchable that we are not allowed to like other groups more??

 

[Acrobat_Al]

or are the beatles so untouchable that we are not allowed to like other groups more??

Yes, they're...



I love U2, I love the Beatles, I love Radiohead, I love Nirvana... that's all that matters...this discussion is pointless...

 

[Nube Gris]

akkan
great post, as always
U2 ocuppies an emotional terrain that didn't exist before them, as Bono mentioned. He so fucking right!
AB and Joshua Tree are infested with those elements, in a way never reached before, not even by The Beatles
This is one of the strongest points to suggest that this albums should be considered at the very top of every list

And someone said AB is better than Nevermind. Of Course it is!
A lot better, a lot fucking better! no question about it