[QUOTE] [b]stevelondon20 wrote:[/b]
Queen are better in every way. [/QUOTE]
Not much of an academic, are you?
You didn't back up your statement with opinions, never mind facts.
The Real Wizard
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
Of course The Beatles did not live and work in a vacuum, they were children of their time and society. Of course there were musical influences, the Beatles themselves always named these influences. However, they were the greatest composers in the 20th century, they were pioneers in every respect: studio work, live concerts, video art. They never sounded liky Dylan, Carl Perkins, Ravi Shankar - to name only a few. They always sounded like The Beatles.
It is true that none of them were top in their instruments but Ringo and George have always been quoted as ground breaking by later artists. However, you can be a great guitar player and never write a good song but the Beatles did not only write great songs by the dozens, they also developed the art of studio reording, pioneered experimenting with sounds and advanced pop music into an art form. There is no way to overrate the group, they were the greatest group ever imo. In 100 years people will still know the Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post.
Virtually everything that can possibly be said about them has been said, yet much of what they created remains shrouded in mystery. We have all the dates and times. We have hundreds of hours of tape of the songs being created. And we are still fascinated by what we do not know. It's like a drug - Beatles enthusiasts will forever seek the high of knowing something new about them, and they will never be satiated.
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles. Never mind music - very few figures in the last century of popular culture have been as influential as they were.
With this kind of legacy in tow (sure, it wasn't as big then as it was now but they must've had some idea), I have nothing but respect for all four of them for even attempting solo careers, as they must have known that they'd never create anything as great as what they had created before.
Of course The Beatles did not live and work in a vacuum, they were children of their time and society. Of course there were musical influences, the Beatles themselves always named these influences. However, they were the greatest composers in the 20th century, they were pioneers in every respect: studio work, live concerts, video art. They never sounded liky Dylan, Carl Perkins, Ravi Shankar - to name only a few. They always sounded like The Beatles.
It is true that none of them were top in their instruments but Ringo and George have always been quoted as ground breaking by later artists. However, you can be a great guitar player and never write a good song but the Beatles did not only write great songs by the dozens, they also developed the art of studio reording, pioneered experimenting with sounds and advanced pop music into an art form. There is no way to overrate the group, they were the greatest group ever imo. In 100 years people will still know the Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post.
Virtually everything that can possibly be said about them has been said, yet much of what they created remains shrouded in mystery. We have all the dates and times. We have hundreds of hours of tape of the songs being created. And we are still fascinated by what we do not know. It's like a drug - Beatles enthusiasts will forever seek the high of knowing something new about them, and they will never be satiated.
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles. Never mind music - very few figures in the last century of popular culture have been as influential as they were.
With this kind of legacy in tow (sure, it wasn't as big then as it was now but they must've had some idea), I have nothing but respect for all four of them for even attempting solo careers, as they must have known that they'd never create anything as great as what they had created before.
Oscar J
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff and Debussy, for example.
In the pop scene... even there they might have been the most effective ones, but hardly the greatest.
In the pop scene... even there they might have been the most effective ones, but hardly the greatest.
Vocal harmony
What they achieved should never be overlooked. What influenced them as people or a band shouldn't be held against them. All creativity requires influence and personality.
I can't think of another band who started life as a kind of blue print for pop success, a boy band who wrote and played and didn't rely on dance steps to put their songs over, which then developed into a serious musically and artistically influenced band.
Like Queen, they remained with their original lineup. Ten years was a long time for bands to stay together, there have been plenty that have been viewed as seriously gifted and intelligent but have gone through lineup changes or haven't lasted as long as ten years.
I don't think any of the reasons given for them not to be counted as one of, if not the greatest band hold water.
Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are....
I can't think of another band who started life as a kind of blue print for pop success, a boy band who wrote and played and didn't rely on dance steps to put their songs over, which then developed into a serious musically and artistically influenced band.
Like Queen, they remained with their original lineup. Ten years was a long time for bands to stay together, there have been plenty that have been viewed as seriously gifted and intelligent but have gone through lineup changes or haven't lasted as long as ten years.
I don't think any of the reasons given for them not to be counted as one of, if not the greatest band hold water.
Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are....
Togg
To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that time, there truly was nothing out there like them, we will never have that again, every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writing, no band has ever influences so many other artists. They were very much the first to show what would come, Elvis set the tone, but The Beatles made it into something that could extend into all forms of music, from pop to classical. okay they may not have written complex songs like Prophet song, but Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope. Yes they probably were/are the greatest band as everyone else came after and just extended what they had started.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.'
So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. There's indeed a world outside charting music.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are.... [/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's where I always use the Russia analogy: Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compared to any other individual country, Russia's a lot bigger (Canada, America and China are the only ones who are larger than *half* of Russia), but compared to the rest of the world combined, it's still a tiny part.
The Beatles, individually, were far more influential than any other act or band. But they were not more influential or important than all of those combined. Without Russia, a large part of the world would still exist. Without The Beatles, a large part of the influential background that fed the upcoming generations would still exist. Same for anybody, from Beethoven to ABBA, from Bach to Madonna, from Stan Matthews to Cristiano Ronaldo, from Plato to Nash.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that time[/QUOTE]
Typical 'you weren't there so your opinion's invalid' claim. Completely disagree.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writing[/QUOTE]
Not really. See the Russia example above.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope.[/QUOTE]
Of course it would've been possible. Canons existed long before The Beatles had even been born (long before their grandparents had even been conceived). Recording techniques were advancing and would've kept progressing with or without The Beatles. They were extraordinary, but to think that without them we'd still be using 1950's technology is completely ridiculous.
There were enough people in Brian's spectrum of influences for him to have been able to come up with The Prophet's Song and for the band + producer + engineers to have been able to record it.
Out of all the bones in the human body, the femur is the longest and strongest, but it doesn't mean the femur is all the body. The Beatles were by far the most influential act so far, but it doesn't mean the rest of them didn't exist. A person can live without a femur, music could've lived without The Beatles, and that doesn't make their impact any less important or their music any less magnificent.
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.'
So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. There's indeed a world outside charting music.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are.... [/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's where I always use the Russia analogy: Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compared to any other individual country, Russia's a lot bigger (Canada, America and China are the only ones who are larger than *half* of Russia), but compared to the rest of the world combined, it's still a tiny part.
The Beatles, individually, were far more influential than any other act or band. But they were not more influential or important than all of those combined. Without Russia, a large part of the world would still exist. Without The Beatles, a large part of the influential background that fed the upcoming generations would still exist. Same for anybody, from Beethoven to ABBA, from Bach to Madonna, from Stan Matthews to Cristiano Ronaldo, from Plato to Nash.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that time[/QUOTE]
Typical 'you weren't there so your opinion's invalid' claim. Completely disagree.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writing[/QUOTE]
Not really. See the Russia example above.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope.[/QUOTE]
Of course it would've been possible. Canons existed long before The Beatles had even been born (long before their grandparents had even been conceived). Recording techniques were advancing and would've kept progressing with or without The Beatles. They were extraordinary, but to think that without them we'd still be using 1950's technology is completely ridiculous.
There were enough people in Brian's spectrum of influences for him to have been able to come up with The Prophet's Song and for the band + producer + engineers to have been able to record it.
Out of all the bones in the human body, the femur is the longest and strongest, but it doesn't mean the femur is all the body. The Beatles were by far the most influential act so far, but it doesn't mean the rest of them didn't exist. A person can live without a femur, music could've lived without The Beatles, and that doesn't make their impact any less important or their music any less magnificent.
The King Of Rhye
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.
In the pop scene... even there they might have been the most effective ones, but hardly the greatest.
[/QUOTE]
But then how do you define 'greatest', in terms of pop/rock composers? If not the 'most effective', then what?
P.S. My 2112th post!!!! "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control........."
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.
In the pop scene... even there they might have been the most effective ones, but hardly the greatest.
[/QUOTE]
But then how do you define 'greatest', in terms of pop/rock composers? If not the 'most effective', then what?
P.S. My 2112th post!!!! "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control........."
Oscar J
By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.'
So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'
[/QUOTE]
I see your point, and it's a very good one.
But the difference between then and now is - we have plateaued into a place where the technology is virtually limitless, where there are millions of artists, where people's attention spans are shorter than ever, and where short term celebrity eclipses (or has even replaced) long term stature and respect. The platform for something bigger than The Beatles just cannot exist in the world as it is now, and as time goes on those chances will only shrink, because the above criteria is only going to worsen.
The difference between now and then is that we have the benefit of hindsight to know the difference. Information is more accessible now than ever, so we can see the fuller picture better than anyone else before us could have seen it.
Of course I could be wrong on all this, but let's look at the facts:
1950s - Elvis
1960s - The Beatles
1970s - Led Zeppelin
1980s - Michael Jackson
There is no equivalent for the 90s and beyond. There's too much saturation, far too much short term product being marketed. There just isn't any room for anything to last anymore. Of all the music created since Thriller, there's maybe one album that will be talked about a century from now - OK Computer. Even Nevermind will fade into obscurity, as grunge was very much of its time.
While we may have the masses listening to fad pop music, the kinds of people who listened to The Beatles in the late 60s are listening to such a wide variety of music now. There were only a few hundred artists to choose from then. There are millions now, and the internet has made them all accessible. So the great, longstanding artist has been replaced by availability and diversity.
And that's not a bad thing. It's just different.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.'
So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'
[/QUOTE]
I see your point, and it's a very good one.
But the difference between then and now is - we have plateaued into a place where the technology is virtually limitless, where there are millions of artists, where people's attention spans are shorter than ever, and where short term celebrity eclipses (or has even replaced) long term stature and respect. The platform for something bigger than The Beatles just cannot exist in the world as it is now, and as time goes on those chances will only shrink, because the above criteria is only going to worsen.
The difference between now and then is that we have the benefit of hindsight to know the difference. Information is more accessible now than ever, so we can see the fuller picture better than anyone else before us could have seen it.
Of course I could be wrong on all this, but let's look at the facts:
1950s - Elvis
1960s - The Beatles
1970s - Led Zeppelin
1980s - Michael Jackson
There is no equivalent for the 90s and beyond. There's too much saturation, far too much short term product being marketed. There just isn't any room for anything to last anymore. Of all the music created since Thriller, there's maybe one album that will be talked about a century from now - OK Computer. Even Nevermind will fade into obscurity, as grunge was very much of its time.
While we may have the masses listening to fad pop music, the kinds of people who listened to The Beatles in the late 60s are listening to such a wide variety of music now. There were only a few hundred artists to choose from then. There are millions now, and the internet has made them all accessible. So the great, longstanding artist has been replaced by availability and diversity.
And that's not a bad thing. It's just different.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]
P.S. My 2112th post!!!! "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control........."[/QUOTE]
ha !
P.S. My 2112th post!!!! "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control........."[/QUOTE]
ha !
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO.[/QUOTE]
... unless your criteria for songwriting is the ability to connect with people over 50 years later?
Music theory means jack squat to 99.9% of the people who have been moved by The Beatles since 1964.
By "effective" I meant that they were very good at writing songs that sold well. Being in the "public's consciousness" is not a great measure of songwriting abilities IMO.[/QUOTE]
... unless your criteria for songwriting is the ability to connect with people over 50 years later?
Music theory means jack squat to 99.9% of the people who have been moved by The Beatles since 1964.
Costa86
Very interesting topic and discussion. It is hard to come to a purely objective conclusion on which is the greatest band amongst some very great and important bands. It is rather easy to objectively say that Queen are a better band than Blink 182, or that The Bee Gees were a greater band than Nickelback. But when comparing the very best - The Beatles, Queen, etc., I think 'the greatest' is very much a subjective and extremely multi-factorial thing.
One thing you have to ask yourself is, if The Beatles are NOT the greatest band, then which band is? I think it might be possible to make the case for Queen, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin having been the greatest bands. But, if you do this, many will rightly remark that The Beach Boys were just as great, or The Rolling Stones, and so on, and so forth. What I think we can say with reasonable certainty is that The Beatles ticked many of the boxes of factors which make a band the greatest - but it didn't thick them all, and it certainly wasn't the best at everything. I do think they had the best overall package though, and I think they were a more important band than Queen - especially influence wise - both musically and culturally.
This is kind of like discussing which is the best small family car. Most would say it's the Volkswagen Golf. It doesn't handle quite as well as a Ford Focus (although the Mk III Focus has lost out a bit in this department, due to Ford's effort to make a car which handles favourably according to both European and American tastes), it doesn't look anywhere near as nice as an Alfa Romeo Giulietta or a Mazda 3, and it sure ain't as reliable as a Toyota Auris. Overall, it's probably the best, however - even taking into account its historical greatness throughout its lifetime. But, still, this is very subjective. Because you'll find many who'd say the Focus is the best overall.
So I think this is less about proving The Beatles were completely and totally better than the 'second-best band', and more about finding out if The Beatles had that little something extra which made them a better overall package, and thus the best amongst greats.
One thing you have to ask yourself is, if The Beatles are NOT the greatest band, then which band is? I think it might be possible to make the case for Queen, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin having been the greatest bands. But, if you do this, many will rightly remark that The Beach Boys were just as great, or The Rolling Stones, and so on, and so forth. What I think we can say with reasonable certainty is that The Beatles ticked many of the boxes of factors which make a band the greatest - but it didn't thick them all, and it certainly wasn't the best at everything. I do think they had the best overall package though, and I think they were a more important band than Queen - especially influence wise - both musically and culturally.
This is kind of like discussing which is the best small family car. Most would say it's the Volkswagen Golf. It doesn't handle quite as well as a Ford Focus (although the Mk III Focus has lost out a bit in this department, due to Ford's effort to make a car which handles favourably according to both European and American tastes), it doesn't look anywhere near as nice as an Alfa Romeo Giulietta or a Mazda 3, and it sure ain't as reliable as a Toyota Auris. Overall, it's probably the best, however - even taking into account its historical greatness throughout its lifetime. But, still, this is very subjective. Because you'll find many who'd say the Focus is the best overall.
So I think this is less about proving The Beatles were completely and totally better than the 'second-best band', and more about finding out if The Beatles had that little something extra which made them a better overall package, and thus the best amongst greats.
Togg
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.'
So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. There's indeed a world outside charting music.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are.... [/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's where I always use the Russia analogy: Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compared to any other individual country, Russia's a lot bigger (Canada, America and China are the only ones who are larger than *half* of Russia), but compared to the rest of the world combined, it's still a tiny part.
The Beatles, individually, were far more influential than any other act or band. But they were not more influential or important than all of those combined. Without Russia, a large part of the world would still exist. Without The Beatles, a large part of the influential background that fed the upcoming generations would still exist. Same for anybody, from Beethoven to ABBA, from Bach to Madonna, from Stan Matthews to Cristiano Ronaldo, from Plato to Nash.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that time[/QUOTE]
Typical 'you weren't there so your opinion's invalid' claim. Completely disagree.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writing[/QUOTE]
Not really. See the Russia example above.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope.[/QUOTE]
Of course it would've been possible. Canons existed long before The Beatles had even been born (long before their grandparents had even been conceived). Recording techniques were advancing and would've kept progressing with or without The Beatles. They were extraordinary, but to think that without them we'd still be using 1950's technology is completely ridiculous.
There were enough people in Brian's spectrum of influences for him to have been able to come up with The Prophet's Song and for the band + producer + engineers to have been able to record it.
Out of all the bones in the human body, the femur is the longest and strongest, but it doesn't mean the femur is all the body. The Beatles were by far the most influential act so far, but it doesn't mean the rest of them didn't exist. A person can live without a femur, music could've lived without The Beatles, and that doesn't make their impact any less important or their music any less magnificent.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
In today's world of million of bands and virtually limitless technology, there will never be a band greater or more influential than The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely categorically 100% disagree with that. Back in 1960, people probably thought the same about whoever (e.g., Little Richard or Elvis) and claimed with remarkable certainty that there would never ever be anyone like them. Enter The Beatles. Back in 1981, there were probably millions who claimed there'd never ever be a record which could outsell Dark Side, Eagles Greatest Hits or Back in Black. Enter Thriller. There were probably loads of experts in the late 16th century who thought of Shakespeare, 'sure, he's alright, but he'll never ever be as well-known or influential as Sophocles or Seneca.'
So, by that logic, there might come someone bigger than The Beatles, whether it's in 2016 or 2010 or whenever ... and just like, at the time, nobody thought The Beatles would be bigger than Elvis or Chuck Berry, people will receive said act with a similarly negative 'prophecy.'
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
They were not the greatest composers in the 20th century. Consider the names: Strauss, Rachmaninoff Debussy, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. There's indeed a world outside charting music.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Just look at the influence they had on what followed, and the number of people who know who they are.... [/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's where I always use the Russia analogy: Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compared to any other individual country, Russia's a lot bigger (Canada, America and China are the only ones who are larger than *half* of Russia), but compared to the rest of the world combined, it's still a tiny part.
The Beatles, individually, were far more influential than any other act or band. But they were not more influential or important than all of those combined. Without Russia, a large part of the world would still exist. Without The Beatles, a large part of the influential background that fed the upcoming generations would still exist. Same for anybody, from Beethoven to ABBA, from Bach to Madonna, from Stan Matthews to Cristiano Ronaldo, from Plato to Nash.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
To fully understand what influence The Beatles had you had to live through that time[/QUOTE]
Typical 'you weren't there so your opinion's invalid' claim. Completely disagree.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
every band since owes them so much whether they like them or not, from recording techniques to song writing[/QUOTE]
Not really. See the Russia example above.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Phorphet song wouldn't have been possible had the Beatles not pushed the envelope.[/QUOTE]
Of course it would've been possible. Canons existed long before The Beatles had even been born (long before their grandparents had even been conceived). Recording techniques were advancing and would've kept progressing with or without The Beatles. They were extraordinary, but to think that without them we'd still be using 1950's technology is completely ridiculous.
There were enough people in Brian's spectrum of influences for him to have been able to come up with The Prophet's Song and for the band + producer + engineers to have been able to record it.
Out of all the bones in the human body, the femur is the longest and strongest, but it doesn't mean the femur is all the body. The Beatles were by far the most influential act so far, but it doesn't mean the rest of them didn't exist. A person can live without a femur, music could've lived without The Beatles, and that doesn't make their impact any less important or their music any less magnificent.[/QUOTE]
Togg
Tried to post a long reply.... Baaa, wouldn't let me
In a nutshell...
It is reasonable to state you had to live through it, I didnt live through WWll, I didnt experience the suffering, family loss, hunger, how could I know what it was like by reading about it? only maybe a snapshot, but my experience will be limited by that fact i didnt see it in person.
The Beatles were unlike anything else on the radio, they changed how we thought of music, only may Les Paul had as much influence given he invented the electric guitar (properly) and the first multitrack recorder.
Only one of the classical composers prior to modern music changed our world as much at The Beatles did.
Every now and then someone comes along and changes everything
Walt Disney changed annimation forever, Apple changed mobile technology forever and for that matter computing technology prior to that, kids today dont even comprehend what a world without mobiles was like, blimey we didnt even have a phone in the house when I was born... so i'd say to understand that you'd need to be there, not simply read about it.
Sure Prophet song could have been written, but it would have to have been performed by an orchestra, not four people... the technology was there in the 70's but nobdy had thought to use it like that, not even Les Paul. But the Beatles sowed the seed...
as for us still using 1950's tech.... of course not, but it would have taken a lot longer to get here without the Beatles pushing the envelope.
In a nutshell...
It is reasonable to state you had to live through it, I didnt live through WWll, I didnt experience the suffering, family loss, hunger, how could I know what it was like by reading about it? only maybe a snapshot, but my experience will be limited by that fact i didnt see it in person.
The Beatles were unlike anything else on the radio, they changed how we thought of music, only may Les Paul had as much influence given he invented the electric guitar (properly) and the first multitrack recorder.
Only one of the classical composers prior to modern music changed our world as much at The Beatles did.
Every now and then someone comes along and changes everything
Walt Disney changed annimation forever, Apple changed mobile technology forever and for that matter computing technology prior to that, kids today dont even comprehend what a world without mobiles was like, blimey we didnt even have a phone in the house when I was born... so i'd say to understand that you'd need to be there, not simply read about it.
Sure Prophet song could have been written, but it would have to have been performed by an orchestra, not four people... the technology was there in the 70's but nobdy had thought to use it like that, not even Les Paul. But the Beatles sowed the seed...
as for us still using 1950's tech.... of course not, but it would have taken a lot longer to get here without the Beatles pushing the envelope.
Fat Bottomed Queen
So OP's point is that Queen don't sell as much as the Beatles?