Conquer Club

Army of GOD wrote:
Who cares if they created a lot of music? U2 created a lot of music and they still only have one good song (Sunday Bloody Sunday, though Bono tries his hardest to ruin it). I just can't stand the cult following they have. From a purely artistic appreciation standpoint, I think they're shit. Their songs are catchy, yea, but in the same way LMFAO's songs are catchy.

They're lightyears, creatively, behind the likes of Queen, Pink Floyd, the Who and other bands.

Well I've created a lot of poop but I don't compare myself to The Beatles. So you can't compare U2 to them either.

I think you dislike them because a lot of people like them.

And about creation, when you try to create something, something that in itself can survive time because it's useful, or beautiful you'll understand what I mean. One thing is the conscious management of emotions and art, a composition, like these guys you mentioned did, and quite another is just simply get deep into dispair and just tell what you see. It has its appeal it's true, and we can relate to it, but IMO it doesn't have the same value.

I think The Beatles have a good amount of songs that have this value of composition. Just forgive them because they didn't thought life was meaningless and worthless like you and didn't wrote songs like "creep". Forget the fact that they have millions following them and listen to a couple of their songs.

And I just know just too little about them but I can discern that.

Just a disclaimer, I'm probably way out of my place here, I know little about music, I might be wrong of course, but personally I value lot creation, and I've tried creating and I know it takes a lot, it takes talent but it also takes the management of that talent, and it takes patience and courage and confidence. It's too easy to criticize.

nietzsche wrote:Just a disclaimer, I'm probably way out of my place here, I know little about music, I might be wrong of course, but personally I value lot creation, and I've tried creating and I know it takes a lot, it takes talent but it also takes the management of that talent, and it takes patience and courage and confidence. It's too easy to criticize.

Well then you're a might confused, methinks. If you valued creation or originality, you'd recognize that the Beatles have little of it. They're songs are all very simple and generic. There are far superior acts out there that have greater artistic value than the Beatles.

-TG

Army of GOD wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:They're nothing but pop music.

And pop music can't possibly be good?

It can be good, but only if we're in the 80s.

That's funny...I typically think of 80s music as largely useless.

Army of GOD wrote:Ok, so I admit I'm just pissed that most people consider them to be a better band than Queen, which in my opinion is no contest, but whatevski.

I would put Queen right up there with them as far as quality and skill (in fact, I would put them above The Beatles just on skill itself), but I think as far as influence within the genre, the Beatles (and a couple of others of their time, like The Animals) are greater.

"A Day in the Life" is their best... but I'm voting "I am the Walrus."

I am not sure I can nail down a favorite, but here is a potential top 6 in no particular order...though I am sure I could swap in a lot of songs...

• All Together Now
• Yellow Submarine
• I Wanna Hold Your Hand
• Twist and Shout
• I Saw You Standing There
• Please Mr. Postman

(I realize Twist and Shout and Please Mr. Postman were covers, but I love those two covers more than some of their other songs).


--Andy

I'm not a fan of the Beatles, but my favorite song is You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. Pearl Jam does an excellent cover.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Just a disclaimer, I'm probably way out of my place here, I know little about music, I might be wrong of course, but personally I value lot creation, and I've tried creating and I know it takes a lot, it takes talent but it also takes the management of that talent, and it takes patience and courage and confidence. It's too easy to criticize.

Well then you're a might confused, methinks. If you valued creation or originality, you'd recognize that the Beatles have little of it. They're songs are all very simple and generic. There are far superior acts out there that have greater artistic value than the Beatles.

-TG

That's the exact same point that AoG made. Only because others are better, he consider The Beatles are no good. I disagree. I never said they were the best or something of that sort.

I didn't mention originality. I did mention creation. And I'm not confused, I think they did created songs of value. Sometimes less is better.

50 years on and the majority of The Beatles' works are still popular. Hard to argue with public opinion. Sure there were many songs that were saccharin sweet and instantly forgettable (even if the damn melodies aren't) but they still had the gift to write music and lyrics that moved people - and to me that's what matters most in any piece of work, from Purcell to modern times. A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, Eleanor Rigby......and pioneering albums such as Rubber Soul and Sgt.Pepper's.....all brilliant.

Agree with the statement re the talents of Queen. I have the sheet music for many groups and artists and their compositions are pure genius - very clever stuff indeed. And Pink Floyd are right up there as well (they are probably my 1 & 2, and I'd be hard-pressed to say who is better) so it's funny how they both cropped-up in the same sentence earlier.

On a side note, I own no U2 sheet music and hopefully never will.

And to answer the question....A Day in the Life is my favourite Beatles number, though I think the biggest poll ever done on this finished with I Am the Walrus at #1.

Let It Be

The backstory of this is pretty cool (Paul's mom speaking to him in a dream, etc..)

There doesn't need to be some silly argument about whether the Beatles are be best ever,.. way too subjective and pointless. They were great, Pauls was a musical genius (better rounded, educated, and musically than John) and a great collaboration of talents resulted in magic.

Get Back --
Norwegian Wood
I feel fine
The Benefit of Mr Kite

I like this one:- short and sweet

A day in the Life is my favourite Beatles song too. I'm sure I read somewhere that today it is often placed at the top of lists of greatest songs, greatest beatles songs, etc, but it didn't become such an acclaimed song until the 80's after Lennon died when people were reacquainting themselves with Beatles music.

As for the Beatles being overrated and not being as good as Pink Floyd and Queen and all this hogwash:

1: While it is true that Pink Floyd and Queen produced some amazing music, it is also true that they produced some utter fucking drivel. The Beatles on the other hand have a constant stream of good content. While it isn't always great it is rarely poor. Take Revolver, it doesn't really have any standout tracks, but it has no filler either. It's a complete album where the songs compliment each other.

Of course, unlike most bands who search for a type of sound and then stick to it, bands like the Beatles, Pink Floyd and Queen experiment with their music, trying out different things. The difference between the three is that when it came to experimentation the Beatles always succeeded, the same cannot be said of the other two. Whether it's the breathy folk song 'You've got to hide your love away' with the clever social commentary or the punkish childlike abandon of 'Helter Skelter', the beatles were never greater than when they stepped away from what was comfortable to them.

I don't know about Queen, but I know Pink Floyd were influenced by the Beatles, as were just about every other band. In lots of ways. It's not a coincidence that Paint it Black and Norwegian Wood both have sitars in them. One of them because the other. I'll let you guess which comes first.

And of course commercially the Beatles decimated The Rolling Stones, there's no contest. The beatles were more popular. To take that though and say The Beatles made pop music, or that only fangirls liked the Beatles is naive. And utterly wrong. Is Mick Jagger a fangirl? Well he's got the hair. Take something simple like the bands sleeve for their ninth studio album, "the white album", where it's just a white sleeve. It's a simple idea, like Metallica's "the black album".

If 6 out of 10 say the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, and 1 of the remaining 4 says the Beatles are overrated, who is right?

Many of the posters are confusing 2 different things: creation and execution. As far as execution, the critics are right -- George Harrison, their best guitarist, was only mediocre, Ringo is a mediocre drummer, Paul is a mediocre Bassist. Comparing them to Queen, Pink Floyd, U2, never mind to virtuoso groups like Yes, Kansas, Moody Blues or ELP in that respect, sure they don't come out too well. (For that matter, rock guitarists of the last 3 decades are doing things that would make Hendrix choke, but he is respected for his innovation, and the fact that they couldn't do what they do now if he hadn't done what he did then.)

Their greatness was in a much more intangible area. They changed popular music completely. They introduced a level of artistry into pop/ rock-and-roll music that just didn't exist, or at least was extremely rare before. Before the Beatles, people largely bought singles (45's), but with the Beatles people began buying LP's, because so many of the songs were hit-worthy, and there began to be themes to the albums. In that respect, no other group remotely compares.

My personal favorite, probably Eleanor Rigby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dsz4dB6DuM

Yep, Eleanor Rigby another good one:


Link fixed:

SOmething:

daddy1gringo wrote:(For that matter, rock guitarists of the last 3 decades are doing things that would make Hendrix choke, but he is respected for his innovation, and the fact that they couldn't do what they do now if he hadn't done what he did then.)

Are you talking about technical guitar playing skills or artistic?

I'm no fan of Hendrix's guitar playing, but I consider certain guitarists like Paige, Clapton, etc. to be infinitely better than 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all modern guitarists artistically. Technically, though, that's not quite as far, given the innovations in music production, sound production, etc.

I'd say Morello is the most innovative guitarist that I know of though.

Army of GOD wrote:They're light years, creatively, behind the likes of Queen, Pink Floyd, the Who and other bands.

One of the dumbest comments you've ever made and light years beyond the ignorance
of the simplistic "overrated" label. The Beatles didn't just effect pop music,
they changed all music that followed.

This is MUSIC we're talking about here... and there really is no best. No best band,
no best singer, no best guitar player. All those labels are subjective and without merit.
There is great music produced over many eras, written and produced by great composers
and performed by great musicians.

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:They're nothing but pop music.

And pop music can't possibly be good?

It can be good, but only if we're in the 80s.

That's funny...I typically think of 80s music as largely useless.
.

I suspect more people think the 80's were bad than think the Beatles were good.

The Beatles were one of my favorites. I like Queen, a lot, too. They are both good in different ways and for different reasons. Comparing them is just dumb. The Beatles helped create the world that allowed Queen to flourish. The Beatles will remain popular, in part because many of their songs (particularly the Paul's stuff) hit feelings most people have in easy to sing words/tunes. Queen will likely be remembered for more technical prowess, though some people consider John Lennon's songs masterful. (and others consider him overrated, of course).

AndyDufresne wrote:I realize Twist and Shout and Please Mr. Postman were covers, but I love those two covers more than some of their other songs.

Twist and Shout by the Top Notes was written by Phil Medly & Bert Russell. Originally titled "Shake It Up Baby," recorded in 1961 and covered by The Isley Brothers in 1962. The Beatles released it on their first UK album in 1963, the last song of 11 tunes recorded in a 10 hour session produced by George Martin.

Please, Mr. Postman by the Marvellettes was Motown's first #1 record on the Hot 100 Billboard Charts, written by Georgia Dobbins, William Garrett and Brianbert (Brian Holland & Robert Bateman).

Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, released in the summer of 1967 is a monumental accomplishment by the Beatles and is #1 on most album lists.

Got to go with Hey Jude. If you've ever been in a large crowd- say at a festival, and it gets played, everyone joins in. There's little else like it.

PLAYER57832 wrote: The Beatles helped create the world that allowed Queen to flourish.

I always consider this an extremely dishonest argument.

Ok, without the Beatles, Queen wouldn't exist. Without the artists before the Beatles, the Beatles wouldn't exist. Without the artists before the artists before the Beatles, the artists before the Beatles wouldn't exist and so on and so forth.

I won't deny the Beatles were important for the popularization of music, but in the same way artists before them were important. But I will say that their music is of the same ilk as the Backstreet Boys and Justin Beiber.

Army of GOD wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: The Beatles helped create the world that allowed Queen to flourish.

I always consider this an extremely dishonest argument.

Ok, without the Beatles, Queen wouldn't exist. Without the artists before the Beatles, the Beatles wouldn't exist. Without the artists before the artists before the Beatles, the artists before the Beatles wouldn't exist and so on and so forth.

I won't deny the Beatles were important for the popularization of music, but in the same way artists before them were important. But I will say that their music is of the same ilk as the Backstreet Boys and Justin Beiber.

I knew AoG was going to post something like this lol. I even was about to tell him to say that without Hittler, the world as we know it wouldn't exist and therefore there would be no Beatles but people is so sensitive I thought it would backfire on me.

Army of GOD wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: The Beatles helped create the world that allowed Queen to flourish.

I always consider this an extremely dishonest argument.

Ok, without the Beatles, Queen wouldn't exist. Without the artists before the Beatles, the Beatles wouldn't exist. Without the artists before the artists before the Beatles, the artists before the Beatles wouldn't exist and so on and so forth.

I won't deny the Beatles were important for the popularization of music, but in the same way artists before them were important. But I will say that their music is of the same ilk as the Backstreet Boys and Justin Beiber.

I shouldn't even dignify this stupid bullshit with a reponse, becasue you're either just trolling, or you're just being an ignorant twit.

You know the radio isn't really that old right? Rock and roll music was almost brand new when the beatles appeared.

Exaplin to me what the Beatles have in common with the backstreet boys:

They'r both in the music industry. They're all male. They're popular. That's pretty much it.

The Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, were self taught, they were adept at more than one instrument. They pioneered certain devices and ideas. They made the blueprint for how to make music that was copied by so many other people. When people say you wouln't have so and so without the Bealtes, a big part of that is that the Beatles inspired those people to make music, Ozzy Osborne is one for example. And they influenced what type of music those people made. Do the backstreet boys inspire people to make music? The Beatles were the first to do so many things that hadn't been done before. You know when Jonny Greenwood said he was very excited at the prospect of doing string parts that didn't sound like 'Eleanor Rigby', which is what all string parts have sounded like for the past 30 years. Do you think he was grossly exaggerating or just pointing out the reality that the strings on Rigby had a significant impact that influenced a lot of work after it. Radiohead another band greatly influenced by te Beatles.

There were 4 creative forces with the Beatles all with different ideas and different influences that they brought to the group and their music making. They experimented with their music.

How is any of that that of the same ilk as the backstreet boys and Justin Beiber?

I'm it's not even fucking close, it's just a fucking absurdly ignorant clueless thing to say.

You think because you see clips of Beatles concerts where all you can hear is screaming girls means that only teenage girls liked them so they're just like the backstreetboys.

If you're not going to provide extensive evidence and logically sound argument to back up your claims, then you should just shut the f*ck up about the Beatles being just like the Backstreetboys because it's completely ignorant of history. Just cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there.

oVo wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:They're light years, creatively, behind the likes of Queen, Pink Floyd, the Who and other bands.

One of the dumbest comments you've ever made and light years beyond the ignorance
of the simplistic "overrated" label. The Beatles didn't just effect pop music,
they changed all music that followed.

This is MUSIC we're talking about here... and there really is no best. No best band,
no best singer, no best guitar player. All those labels are subjective and without merit.
There is great music produced over many eras, written and produced by great composers
and performed by great musicians.

Caveat #1 - I do not like most of the Beatles' songs.
Caveat #2 - They were an influential musical group.

I can hardly say that they changed all music. Was there no rock and roll before the Beatles? They certainly popularized rock and roll to an extent, although perhaps Elvis had already done that in the United States (although he did not event the genre either).

There is a happy medium between overindulging in this "BEATLES = BEST/FIRST" nonsense and "BEATLES = BOY BAND" stuff. I do think the Beatles are very much overrated, but I think that's mostly a matter of taste.

By the way, I saw Paul McCartney in concert - the dude still has it. Seriously. I compare him to when I saw Bob Dylan and it's like night and day.