The Beatles - Page 4

Father Jack · #31 10-17-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wax1

I will agree that they were very influental for their time but not one of the greatest bands of all time. They had a few tracks that where great but nothing compared to the revolutionary music that came from Pink Floyd or Led Zeplin. Those guys where way ahead of their time! The B-Boys where more trendy that revolutionary. Sorry to say it.

You should be.

Pink Floyd and Led Zep were great....but if you look at te whole picture it doesn't even compare really. The beatles music changed as they grew....and resulted in much more mature songs with much better thought and recording qualities than the early days. I'm not a big fan of most of the "I wanna hold your hand" pop stuff of the early days...but it was still better than most of the fluff at the time in the early days of rock & roll. The beatles changed music....PF and LZ did not...they joined a drug culture of progressive rock that was already in full swing. It got to be so artsy in the end....the next big thing to finally change the art work genre was punk. Not as great a change as the Beatles pulled off...but a much needed change in the music industry just the same. If it wasn't for punk...we would of had another 300 Genisis clones.

Pink Floyd and Led Zep happened to be on the right track at the right time. Granted...most of their work is very good....but very repetitive in structure and performance.

I like nothing better than throwing on DSOTM or The Wall...or LZ's Physical Graffiti(sp?)...and kickin back with the stereo cranked to 11....but if I wanna really enjoy a great tune...and get my foot tappin....the beatles come through every time. It never grows tiring.

Drink!

KeeferSutherlandFTW · #32 10-17-2007, 02:32 PM

Well phrased.

CHEERS!!

wax1 · #33 10-17-2007, 04:07 PM

How can you say the work was repetitive? I don't understand where you came up with that? Their work is anything but repetitve! Listen to ALL their music. Not just the albums that where supposed to blend together. I DO understand what people see in the beatles and like but they can't hold a stick to a select few bands of their time. Period.

KeeferSutherlandFTW · #34 10-17-2007, 06:23 PM

I don't know Wax..who, in your opinion, was better than the Beatles at their time?

You're right though; Floyd and Zeppelin never even fringed on repetitious work.

WhatAmIDoing · #35 10-17-2007, 07:29 PM

In response to the song list, In My Life, Something, Let It Be, and Yesterday are great songs. Don't get me wrong. However, the Beatles have so many songs, and to me, these don't quite make the top. I believe it is the slow pace. A good slow song must be truly great for me to absolutely love it (personaly). They are good, but Octopus's Garden and Yellow Submarine are just so...happy making

Maybe I worded something wrong, but technically, i meant with revolutionizing sound and recording. The following reasons are listed by you, yourself.

Word to that my friend. word to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeeferSutherlandFTW

I'm a little disappointed that Octopus's Garden and Yellow Submarine are on the list but In My Life, Something, and Let It Be/Yesterday aren't.

These almost always appear on many top Beatles songs lists but are absent from yours. Any reasoning behind that? Just don't like those particulars? Curious is all because it is not a very common thing to slide against the grain, you know?

And as far as them being the greatest band of all time, you're absolutely right. But the reason listed, to me, feel a bit off. The Beatles are the greatest band to ever come along not because of their technical proficiency (just the opposite in fact! None of them could read music) but the fact that they could take something so simple and make it appeal to the masses. They spoke for an entire generation. Nothing like them had ever come around. George Martin and the Beatles were absolute trail blazers (pun intended?) in the field of audio engineering (first intentional use of distortion, making 8 and 16 track recorders off of 4 tracks, their composition, use of effects, and perfection of reverse tracking using a pencil are all their claim to fame)

It was the fact that the Beatles were in a right place, right time situation. Forever changing modern music, they are most likely the archetype for countless bands. There will never be another band like them.

WhatAmIDoing · #36 10-17-2007, 07:40 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Father Jack on this. Although, I do cede that neither Floyd nor Zeppelin were repetive, they certainly joined a motion already in full swing. Remove the Beatles, and rock & roll is still Elvis when those boys come into play. The Beatles certainly progressed and changed as time moved on. they all got better and brought what they learned to the group.

I do see how you can say that Zep is repetive, yet it is not so. each song is different, but a very distinct style. as with Floyd. The Beatles have a recognizeable sound, but you certainly can't stylize their music under any one genre. There's Revolution 9 and Across the Universe, and Lucy in the Sky for the pyschadelic sound. I Wanna Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Ticket to Ride, as examples of their pop rock style. Rocky Raccoon for the Country/narration style. Something, Strawberry Fields, Let It Be for the slow, chilled out music examples. Abbey Road if you're looking for a flowing album. They have so much of everything, and created so much of it that without them, such great bands as The Talking Heads, Yes, Floyd, and Zep do not exist.

~edit: Oh, and i almost forgot. When I'm Sixty-Four and All You Need Is Love for the swing.

WhatAmIDoing · #37 10-17-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wax1

How can you say the work was repetitive? I don't understand where you came up with that? Their work is anything but repetitve! Listen to ALL their music. Not just the albums that where supposed to blend together. I DO understand what people see in the beatles and like but they can't hold a stick to a select few bands of their time. Period.

Then who was better? Johnny Cash? Bob Dylan? The Monkees? Rolling Stones? Think about it...they were all great (and still are), but none have had the effect of the Beatles.

...actually, the Stones might have a rolling chance at that...They've definitly lasted a long time, and with results. However it really was to the Beatles that all the overdubbing, reversing, adjusting speeds, etc. of modern music is owed.

KeeferSutherlandFTW · #38 10-17-2007, 09:25 PM

Stones<Beatles in every way.

Father Jack · #39 10-18-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wax1

How can you say the work was repetitive? I don't understand where you came up with that? Their work is anything but repetitve! Listen to ALL their music. Not just the albums that where supposed to blend together. I DO understand what people see in the beatles and like but they can't hold a stick to a select few bands of their time. Period.

Let me clarify. I think both bands where(area) great. I did't mean repetitive like pop music or rap or hip hop is repetitive. Led Zep continued with the blues underlaying backbeat through almost everything. Robert Plant...with such a great voice...never really ventured into new territories. Robert Plant....great guitar player...but with the same style throughout. You can pick up on a Plant riff in a blind test. It's too bad he had to go and ruin some of their recordings with his horrible remastering for CD...but that discussion is for another day.

As for Floyd....yes they may of changed their sound....but basically still lots of layering of tracks with over dubbing. I'm not saying it isn't very enjoyable....I just can't get enough of their excellent quality in sound on their recordings. Not counting that crappy sound on the DVD live at Pompie(sp?). But I can grow tired of listening to Floyd after awhile....as well as Led Zep (and many others)...but you can put a different Beatles LP on one after another and not grow tired. The sound...the stylings, the backbeats from different cultures all change and create a fresh sound...even these many years later.

Please understand I'm not putting down these bands...but for true classic....way, way ahead of their time music....the beatles can't be touched.

Drink, Arse, Feck!

WhatAmIDoing · #40 10-18-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeeferSutherlandFTW

Stones<Beatles in every way.

True. But there are avid Stones fans who will fight you on that one. I however, am not one of them

. Can't come close to the masters man.

Oh, and Father Jack...hell yeah. Beatles are from everything and everywhere pulling their music, and it's so tight. the group is like..4 decently talented artists that combine to be the absolute best.