The Beatles are the greatest band

Costa86, my point about WWll was not that you couldn't read all about it and understand the impact in hindsight, more that to truly understand what it was like to live through you really had to be there, reading about bombs dropping on your house will never be the same as watching them.
Likewise to understand what effect the Beatles had on their generation you had to understand what life was like before them... even with the benefit of hindsight you can't fathom what it was actually like to suddenly have a total change on the radio from what had gone before. The closest I can think of was Apple launching either the personal computer or the iPhone, it literally changed the world overnight, I dont really belive anyone will understand that in years to come, because reading about it is different to being there.

I agree with much of what Seb says, and sure what i have stated might be hard to prove, because you can never go backwards to see, you can't uninvent something. but i believe the Beatles changed more than people realise, no artist since has had such a dramatic impact on the music industry, MJ sold millions, Maddona danced in underwear, and Queen recorded the first truly multidimensional recording, but if you were alive before the Beatles they were just small steps in the evolution not the quantum jump they had in 1963.

I think the Beatles can be considered the greatest band because they set the precedent in touring the world as a performing band. After their phenomenal success, concerts became an industry in the music world.

@Sebastian:
I think Bob's comment that things have plateaued is 100% correct from a musical perspective.
@ YV
spot on. everything was a subculture until the Beatles..



the simple fact is that music will never be the same again. maybe technology (in the 60s) was changing - but the Beatles were the trailblazers who grasped the changes and made them work first.

The beatles were the musical pioneers who took risks and no other band changes so much in 7½ years of recording. you can't compare anything pre 65 to anything they did after. their song-writing, use of the studio and arrangement was second to none at that time. sure artists came later who did the same - but they all (queen included) flattered by imitation.

one final point: unless science or evolution changes the human ear significantly - allowing it to hear, understand and enjoy frequencies previously inaudible, music cannot really evolve much further. and certainly not as much as it did during the 20 years between 1960 and 1980.

instead of saying "queen were better...blah blah blah" we should be celebrating the fact that the beatles were the greatest, and without them we may never have heard the version of queen we know and love

I disagree on some of your points Sebastian:

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

But the difference between then and now is - we have plateaued
[/QUOTE]

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).
[/QUOTE]

I'm not aware that people thought like that?? Are you sure? How can they think that they have known and invented everything when there are so many things around that they haven't understood yet?

[QUOTE][QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

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

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.
[/QUOTE]

As you said, theoretically it could happen. But in reality, the chance is really tiny. The reason is this age of internet. For the first time in history, everyone has access to every information and all kinds of arts. Not only music, but almost every fields bloom in diversity (not necessarily in quality). I think that's what Wizard meant by "plateaued". As a consequence, human brain can only process that much of information. If they dig wide, they can't dig deep. The chance of some band sweeping everybody off their feet as The Beatles did is like 0.1% because there are abundance of things around their feet.

It's not even comparable with 90s as 90s compared with 60s. In my opinion this age may only compare with the Industrial Revolution which changed everything to the core.

People in the data processing domain are saying that they have too much of data in their hand, and their true fear is of not being able to process it profoundly enough.

If you mentioned Adele, I haven't listened much to her except 2 or 3 of her hit songs. I guess she's good, but I have too many things detracting me. Meanwhile with The Beatles, I was not interested at first despite all of the praising in the media, but I couldn't avoid them for long because their reference and influence was everywhere. That says about the two different eras.

Once I listened to The Beatles, I understood what the fuss was about. They had the whole package. They might not be the best in their respective instruments, or in composing, or in selling albums, but when you combine all those factors together, they stand aloft.

At this point there's nothing else for me to add. I see your points, I still disagree. Or better: I agree to disagree. If there's ever an act bigger than The Beatles, chances are they're gonna show up long after we're all dead, so we'll never know who'll be right.

[QUOTE] [b]stevelondon20 wrote:[/b]

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

[/QUOTE]

If I Fell
Because

Those two songs are absolute perfection.

Also bear in mind that The Beatles didn't have 16 and 24 track tape to work with.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]Also bear in mind that The Beatles didn't have 16 and 24 track tape to work with.[/QUOTE]

a point i've also made a few times - but one that gets lost on the stepfords.
some can't comprehend the ingenuity involved in recording stuff to four (or from 66 onwards) 8 tracks...and having to continually "bounce" what you've recorded all down to one track just to free up another....incredible minds/creativity at work


Bob, can I add to your two songs:

In My Life
= perfection +1

Paperback Writer as well. Or Michelle, even Run for Your Life has some amazing harmonies, very underrated.

[QUOTE] [b]hobbit in Rhye wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

But the difference between then and now is - we have plateaued
[/QUOTE]

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).
[/QUOTE]

I'm not aware that people thought like that?? Are you sure? How can they think that they have known and invented everything when there are so many things around that they haven't understood yet?

[/QUOTE]

Look up the history of "the end of art" arguments. They've been made for hundreds of years.

best part about all this?
some people think we're exaggerating how great the Beatles really were. Truthfully though, it's difficult to talk about them and describe their influence, innovation, creativity, songwriting and (most importantly) body of work and give them their full due.

> their ear for what was catchy, artistic, and musically stunning at once was unmatched at that time.
> they stretched technology beyond it's limits
> they created harmonies that were things of beauty
> no other band is cited as an influence by anywhere near as many other bands
> they sold albums without the assistance of promotional singles

one final point - IMO there's (at least) three CDs' worth of album tracks that are far superior to other major bands' greatest hits compilations

Just a little fun....

Something I was just talking about elsewhere.... and I'm aware how great these albums are already, however, there's a few tracks on the Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour albums which aren't as strong as some of the others.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
With a Little Help from My Friends
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Getting Better
Fixing a Hole
She's Leaving Home
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!
Within You Without You
When I'm Sixty-Four
Lovely Rita
Good Morning Good Morning
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
A Day in the Life


Magical Mystery Tour album

Magical Mystery Tour
The Fool on the Hill
Flying
Blue Jay Way
Your Mother Should Know
I Am the Walrus
Hello, Goodbye
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
Baby, You're a Rich Man
All You Need Is Love


However, combining the best tracks (imo), which would've made a far better album (same amount of tracks as on Sgt. Pepper).

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
The Fool on the Hill
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
She's Leaving Home
I Am the Walrus
Your Mother Should Know
Hello, Goodbye
All You Need Is Love
A Day in the Life
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)


^ That would've probably beaten Abbey Road or Revolver into pole position in many peoples books.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Look up the history of "the end of art" arguments. They've been made for hundreds of years.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I've looked it up and it's a thought-provoking argument (how could it not be when it quoted Hegel ^^ ).
However, when I read Sebastian's post about "(people) thought everything there was to known was known and everything there was to be invented had been invented" I took it as if he was talking about knowledge and inventions in general, and it's impossible to think that there's no more to those 2 fields.
If he was talking about knowledge in music, or technology in art, then alright I kinda see the point.

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
However, combining the best tracks (imo), which would've made a far better album (same amount of tracks as on Sgt. Pepper).

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
The Fool on the Hill
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
She's Leaving Home
I Am the Walrus
Your Mother Should Know
Hello, Goodbye
All You Need Is Love
A Day in the Life
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)

^ That would've probably beaten Abbey Road or Revolver into pole position in many peoples books.[/QUOTE]

ah, but Penny Lane + Strawberry Fields were not part of the original Magical Mystery Tour album
also you've just compiled a 13-track (mini) greatest hits
- there's 8 singles on that list !!!

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
However, combining the best tracks (imo), which would've made a far better album (same amount of tracks as on Sgt. Pepper).

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
The Fool on the Hill
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
She's Leaving Home
I Am the Walrus
Your Mother Should Know
Hello, Goodbye
All You Need Is Love
A Day in the Life
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)

^ That would've probably beaten Abbey Road or Revolver into pole position in many peoples books.[/QUOTE]

ah, but Penny Lane + Strawberry Fields were not part of the original Magical Mystery Tour album
also you've just compiled a 13-track (mini) greatest hits
- there's 8 singles on that list !!!
[/QUOTE]

I know (although I keep forgetting that about MMT). It goes to highlight the top notch songs they came up within a short space of time though.
It's also me being a bit picky. Despite the importance of S.P, I only like about half of tracks on that album, or rather, the ones I've pulled off there. The same with MMT too. Overall, I prefer Abbey Road, The White album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, and probably even Help. But by pulling the best tracks off each album (well, MMT as we now know it) and imagining it like that instead, I'd say it's even stronger than any of those albums (and that's saying something).

Out of curiosity, what's your favourite album by them?

And whilst I'm in an inquisitive mood, what's your favourite Queen album too?

My answer to each of those questions would most most likely keep coming back to The White Album and Sheer Heart Attack.

I remember the sheer joy of playing my first copy of Sgt Pepper from start to finish on my first ever record player, not until ANATO did I feel the same about an album, it's hard to describe the feeling Sgt Pepper to me was every track being a little gem. Somehow you just dont get that playing one track in isolation, a sad fact about todays music buyers that gets lost, it's all about the track and not the whole journey of the album. Maybe we will never see the like of The Wall, or other concept albums again.