The Beatles are the greatest band

Togg wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good analogy at all. WWII affected everyone alive, in virtually every country. It affected the newly born, the young, the middle-aged, the old, the rich, the poor. The Beatles, on the other hand, only affected a relatively small segment of society - mostly young people living in the Western world. People in their 50/60s or older didn't give two tosses about The Beatles. Many even saw it as a fad - bad music for young people. They preferred the music of their generation.

The only aspect for which I'd say you had to be living in the 60s to really appreciate, is their affect on popular culture in the Western world, and the societal changes which their revolutionary brand of music brought about (it wasn't only The Beatles though - it was the music revolution in general, of which The Beatles formed the most prominent part). You had to live through those times to really appreciate the changes in attitudes, societal views, etc. This was not only brought on by music though - the 60s were an incredible time of change. You can't give too much merit to The Beatles.

But in terms of their music and legacy, no, you didn't have to be alive in the 1960s to truly understand their importance. If you learn about the history of popular music and you listen to The Beatles' albums in this context, you can pretty much understand their impact just as much as any music fan living in 1967.

Hyde Park 1976 wrote:

So OP's point is that Queen don't sell as much as the Beatles?

No, that wasn't my point.

I think Queen are more talented and have a better style.

Togg wrote:

Sure Prophet song could have been written, but it would have to have been performed by an orchestra, not four people...

Highly doubtable, hardly provable.

brENsKi wrote:

stevelondon20 wrote:

Queen are better in every way.

such a vapid statement ^^.
i'd bet you can't even begin to see (any of) the many things wrong with that comment, can you?

I don't need to explain to anyone why I posted that. It just felt right. Normally I will go into lengths to explain my posts. This time, I didn't see the need to do it. I feel they are the better band. Enough said...

The Real Wizard wrote:

stevelondon20 wrote:

Queen are better in every way.

Not much of an academic, are you?

You didn't back up your statement with opinions, never mind facts.

As I mentioned before I don't feel I needed to justify my post. However after careful thought, I now will. Also, academic skills are rife in my Vocabulary. You don't know me, so please don't judge me.

One reason was that Queens Harmonies were far superior to the Beatles. I feel the overall sound was far superior.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Oscar J wrote:

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.

... 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.

Disagreed, especially if we're still talking about whether the Beatles were the greatest composers of the 20th century. Which I stand by that they were not. While their music is very accessible and thus connects with a lot of people, I firmly believe that there's more to being a great composer than having written famous songs. Manfred Mann's Earth Band did stuff that, IMO, musically blows everything the Beatles did out of the water. Yet when you mention Manfred Mann, people go "Ooooh, Do Wah Diddy Diddy, I love that song!"

The Real Wizard wrote:

Oscar J wrote:

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.

... 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.

That's what I was talking about. The ultimate goal of writing a song, or I suppose producing any artistic work, is to connect with people.....even the musicians and bands that make the most experimental, progressive, complex music are trying to connect with some sort of an audience.

Oh, Manfred Mann! Ooooh, Do Wah Diddy Diddy, I love that song!

:)

Holly2003 wrote:

Oh, Manfred Mann! Ooooh, Do Wah Diddy Diddy, I love that song!

:)

Ha! Ha!




Said the Clown

Togg wrote:

Tried to post a long reply.... Baaa, wouldn't let me

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1408549/to-richard-re-posts-not-coming-through-at-all.aspx

^ makeshift fix here.

Togg wrote:

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.

But on the flip side - someone's experience of a major event like that can result in bias of the entire picture based on their limited experience of said event.

The person who wasn't there can arguably take more an objective view fueled purely by curiosity instead of emotion.

So it really can go both ways.

Togg wrote:

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.

OK, I'll definitely give you that. I grew up without computers and the internet, and saw the gradual growth to dialup and finally to high speed. Today's kids just cannot fathom the concept of no internet. Or can they? Can we not educate them to picture what the world was like? Without text messaging we just had to be more efficient in making plans. We managed. And we can tell them that humanity was able to make plans for about a hundred thousands years before a dick pic showed up in their pocket.

Both you and I grew up with paved roads and train tracks. Does this mean we'll never be able to understand what life was like in the 17th century? Even if we accumulate a scholarly amount of information from years of research?

We cannot discount the combined effects of effort, knowledge and creativity.

The Real Wizard wrote:

But the difference between then and now is - we have plateaued

Oh, come on! It's like those people who decades or centuries ago thought everything there was to known was known and everything there was to be invented had been invented... of course we haven't plateaued, just like people a hundred years ago hadn't (but they probably felt they had).

The Real Wizard wrote:

The platform for something bigger than The Beatles just cannot exist in the world as it is now

Of course it can. The fact it hasn't happened (although it could be argued that, in terms of album sales, Michael Jackson indeed was bigger) doesn't mean it cannot happen.

Adele is an example of an artist who, this decade, managed to rival the success once had by 'the greats.' Will she be remembered ten years from now? We'll have to wait and see. Same for someone who could be bigger than her (OK, that came out wrong...), more successful than Norah Jones and eventually outselling 20th century acts. But, back in 1976, the idea of 'Bo Rhap' becoming a timeless classic, as opposed to a short-lived hit, was relatively far-fetched.

Truth is, the overwhelming majority of people are infected with nostalgia, and think everything was automatically far better in the past because it was the past. There goes my point about The Beatles, Shakespeare, etc., all over again. Football-wise, I still remember when I was a kid and people thought Zidane was alright, but there was no way he would ever be as huge as Platini. People of my parents' generation probably still think that (to be fair, they both earned three golden balls, but Platini did so consecutively, which is arguably trickier). But a hundred years from now they might be equally remembered or perhaps Zizu will be more famous, whether it's for having actually won a World Cup (which Platini didn't) or for nutting Materazzi.

Considering The Beatles an extraordinary act with remarkable songwriting skills, magnificent use of technology (which their entourage had a lot do to with as well), outstanding commercial success and whose cultural impact is yet to be rivalled is completely true, even by the most conservative estimates.

To think they were the sole root of pop music as it is now, their songwriting skills were larger than anyone else in their century, nobody would have ever used technology that way if it hadn't been for them and nobody will ever come close... is a very, very, very, very long shot.

I had posted a long answer but it did not appear, only the quotes, so I deleted my post, I apologize.

I wanted to say something about the uniqueness of the Beatles which younger people cannot feel the way people could feel in the 20th century:

Before The Beatles pop music in Europe was a sub culture which was frowned upon by the middle class. Young middle class people had no rights and no say. Children were dressed like little adults, they had no clothes, no music, no style of their own that would have been tolerated or even approved by the parents. The Beatles changed that with a revolutionary power. All of a sudden young people had a voice to express themselves, all of a sudden they developed their own hopes and dreams about this world. Working class kids and students listened to the same music, wore the same clothes, had the same style. It was a landslide change in society which is really hard to explain. The Beatles succeeded in making the previously underground music tolerable for the establishment and paved the way for the youth culture in the Western world. It all happened through the power of their incredible music.