|
Post by revolver66 on Jan 27, 2009 0:22:33 GMT -5
I just had to do this! With the few other threads such as the Beatles VS the Monkees/Abba I was wondering what band you would personally pick to go head to head with the Fab Four? If you say none then list a Band/Artsit who is your Number Two favorite(or a small sampling of your very favorite Artists).
I also will note that the VS idea of the other threads is a bit strange as no matter how I like the other Artist the Beatles will always win!! ;D There's so much music and so little time....
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 27, 2009 0:51:18 GMT -5
This is along the same lines of a thread I started in the old board. I started by saying that the Beatles weren't the best because they wrote great songs because other people wrote great songs. It wasn't because they wrote a lot of them because others wrote a lot. It wasn't because they were the best musicians because they weren't, etc. Once people determined why the Beatles were the best for them, they were then asked to state who was second best, using that same criteria. Hope you have more luck with your thread. Only a couple of people responded to mine.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 27, 2009 3:09:50 GMT -5
I don't really have any interest in ranking artists against each other like they were sports teams, any more than I do ranking painters or hairstyles. I know who I like but I don't feel any desire to push my opinions on people, though it is fun to express them sometimes. So. . .
Along with -- perhaps after -- The Beatles, I would place Bob Dylan as my favorite and most respected artist of the rock'n'roll era. His work from his arrival in New York in 1961 (the year he recorded his first album) to fall 1975 (when he completed Desire, which was his biggest seller), makes almost fifteen years of staggering ingenuity, creative inspiration, cultural relevance, resonance, and certainly marked him as the most respected artist of that period by almost all his peers (even those who were jealous of him, like Phil Ochs and occasionally John Lennon).
After the mid-70s, Dylan's genius becomes erratic; at times he scales the same brilliant heights: the studio sessions for Shot of Love and Infidels (not the patchwork albums as released!); the best of Oh Mercy and Time Out of Mind, etc.; at other times he hit a previously unimagineable rock bottom, as with Down In The Groove or Dylan and the Dead, or with his current singing "voice".
But his peak period as described above -- one twice the length of The Beatles and even more productive -- re-defined popular songwriting forever.
When the history book of the rock era is written centuries from now, we will sift it to reveal the classic artists of the 50s to early 70s and their influences, sometimes going back to the 30s. When we sift that, we'll be left with The Beatles and Bob Dylan (and maybe Joni Mitchell and Elvis).
|
|
|
Post by alltouttt on Jan 27, 2009 9:13:51 GMT -5
Nice for a change to talk/read about something else than The Monkees, Abba or Paul's pretented shortcomings... Pretty futile to try to compare bands or artists from different genres and different eras... I mean ... Elvis was pretty much the most influencal performer of the 50's and helped popularize Rock&Roll to youths everywhere in the world... Didn't have a single creative bone in his gyrating body but the fact that he was not black and looked more *dangerous* than Fabian, Frankie Avalon, Pat Boone or Bobby Darin was good enough for American teenagers... Never mind the fact that Chuck Berry was the REAL Rock&Roll heavy of the 50's and the one who was at the forefront creatively and influentialy! Bob Dylan is another artist who did - like The Beatles - take the music of his time and, singlehandledly, elevated it to another level, ìnfluencing countless musicians from all genres along the way ... There you have it ... The three undisputed *Kings of the R'N'R Hill*, the most creative and influental artists in the pantheon of Rock music ... Personaly, I'm not a big fan of The Velvet Underground but like Brian Eno used to say about the band: "We may not have sell many records but everybody who did went on and started their own bands"! Creativity and influence doesn't always transform into popularity! After that, it all comes down to personal taste and your picks are as good as mine... Some people don't care much for Pink Floyd but the Meddle concert I saw back in the early 70's was a profond musical and sensorial experience that changed/expanded forever my perception of music ... I dismissed Frank Zappa as a weirdo after hearing his Sgt-Pepper's *We're Only in it for the Money* spoof in 1967 ... Took me a good 15 years before going back to his catalog only to realise that the guy was/is, along with Gershwin and Miles Davis, one of the most brilliant contemporary music composers of the twentieth century... And then, there are David Bowie, The Band, Santana, Jimi Hendrix, The Who ... just to name a few others of my older favorites... every one of those very creative and influental in their own musical niche... Not a single one I would ever try to compare with The Beatles ...
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jan 27, 2009 9:18:46 GMT -5
Let there be no more questions about it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 27, 2009 10:43:10 GMT -5
I don't really have any interest in ranking artists against each other like they were sports teams, any more than I do ranking painters or hairstyles. I agree with that and that is my complaint with having a Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. Rock and Roll isn't a zero sum game where The Beatles achievments meant less achievements for other groups or artists; it opened the door for others to follow. I think Bob Dylan's songs will be long remembered and savored. As long as there are garage bands, the music The Rolling Stones will be remembered and played. Those would be my picks at least. Probably several others if I dwelled on it, and newer artists too. The Beatles, Dylan and Stones had good timing: their core fans were made up the Baby Boomers, the most affluent generation ever in the Western world. We are perhaps arrogant to think that even the iconic music of the 196O's will survive after all the Boomers are gone and their kids.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jan 27, 2009 12:50:35 GMT -5
When I started this thread it wasn't to pit one band/artist against another. That isn't really what Music is all about. Getting some views and ideas of what makes an Artist so important is interesting to me(and I hope others). That being said JSD says that when all the Boomers are gone the Music won't be as relevant. Well isn't that the case of all History that isn't current? That being said Musical History will always be and can be studied(and surprise) even listened to by those that wish. I mean we can all make timelines of the Music that has become History making. That being said those more in the know can also make sub settings of the influence the Music had that now makes it so important. Also I don't see the Stones as a garage Band but to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 27, 2009 14:00:41 GMT -5
That being said JSD says that when all the Boomers are gone the Music won't be as relevant. I was just wondering, I didn't say that as a certainty because I don't know. I would agree that even today The Beatles are a musical benchmark, a band that still sets certain standards, but I was just wondering if in another 50 years they will be a mere curiosity for the historically inclined and nothing more. Rock and roll isn't very old in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jan 27, 2009 14:07:07 GMT -5
That being said JSD says that when all the Boomers are gone the Music won't be as relevant. I was just wondering, I didn't say that as a certainty because I don't know. I would agree that even today The Beatles are a musical benchmark, a band that still sets certain standards, but I was just wondering if in another 50 years they will be a mere curiosity for the historically inclined and nothing more. Rock and roll isn't very old in the scheme of things. My thought is that in 50 to 100 years time, the Beatles will probably be regarded in the same manner that Beethoven and Mozart are today, a very high standard of music.
|
|
|
Post by cboxpalace on Jan 27, 2009 14:59:05 GMT -5
Pink Floyd and The Beach Boys come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jan 27, 2009 15:22:22 GMT -5
That being said JSD says that when all the Boomers are gone the Music won't be as relevant. I was just wondering, I didn't say that as a certainty because I don't know. I would agree that even today The Beatles are a musical benchmark, a band that still sets certain standards, but I was just wondering if in another 50 years they will be a mere curiosity for the historically inclined and nothing more. Rock and roll isn't very old in the scheme of things. I get what you mean. I think eventually all great things that age become moreso History for the curious to explore. To keep the Beatles more current deals with Apple/EMI releasing and promoting the Fabs..such as giving the fans what they want and exposing things such as Let It Be,Live At The Hollywood Bowl etc to newer fans. As you say Rock N Roll isn't that old so let the Re-Masters and what else out and the Beatles will stay Relevant for a longer time period. We also still have Paul & Ringo so that always helpsunless Ringo wakes up on the wrong side of the bed..lol
|
|
|
Post by wolfsblood on Apr 23, 2009 19:24:41 GMT -5
As much as I love Kiss I think one band really approaches the Beatles in terms of sheer talent and innovation: Led Zeppelin. As with the Beatles, every Zeppelin album is creative and every song is thought out and has meaning. And like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin broke up before they ran out of ideas. In fact they both left off with some of their best music. In Through The Out Door and Abbey Road are timeless rock albums that left the fans of these bands wanting more and wondering what might have been.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 23, 2009 20:26:22 GMT -5
That being said JSD says that when all the Boomers are gone the Music won't be as relevant. Well isn't that the case of all History that isn't current? That being said Musical History will always be and can be studied(and surprise) even listened to by those that wish. I mean we can all make timelines of the Music that has become History making. That being said those more in the know can also make sub settings of the influence the Music had that now makes it so important. One thing for certain-the music of the 20th century is permanently recorded. Anything before this century has been handed down in the form of sheet music, folk songs, cultural tunes spread from generation to generation. This past century is the first from which generations to come will be able to hear and visualize as it happened. Does that mean it will survive in popularity? We can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 25, 2009 10:57:15 GMT -5
As much as I love Kiss I think one band really approaches the Beatles in terms of sheer talent and innovation: Led Zeppelin. As with the Beatles, every Zeppelin album is creative and every song is thought out and has meaning. And like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin broke up before they ran out of ideas. In fact they both left off with some of their best music. In Through The Out Door and Abbey Road are timeless rock albums that left the fans of these bands wanting more and wondering what might have been. Although I was a very casual fan of that band, from where I grew up, there was no doubt that Led Zeppelin owned the 1970's with the mid to older teens. They weren't hitmakers like The Beatles but as depicted in the Fox sitcom "That 70's Show," almost every basement in every home had a Zeppelin poster and it seemed that every day at school I saw scores of Zeppelin tee-shirts. The 1970's in the suburbs was potent grass, easy sex and Led Zeppelin. Of course, I was the Beatles' geek going on about the Red and Blue albums so I missed all the good stuff.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Apr 25, 2009 11:24:47 GMT -5
I suppose the Beatles Achilles heel in terms of 'greatness' is live gigs. Although the Bealtes were trail-blazers of the stadium gig, for all sorts of reasons (mainly technical) their concerts weren't on a par with subsequent bands from the late 60s onwards. All sorts of 70s rock bands (Zeppelin, Floyd, Queen etc) can boast a greatly superior live track record than the Beatles - although they have a lesser canon of songs.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 25, 2009 19:23:52 GMT -5
I wasn't a big Zep fan until In Through the Outdoors. By then I was also really into the Who. The biggest negative with Zep when it comes to a "band" is that Robert Plant was really the only singer.
As for the Beatles live track record, you really can't go by the pre-1967 stuff. Had they went on tour in the 70s-they would have probably had the likes of Preston/Hopkins, perhaps Klass and Eric. Not sure if McCartney would have given up his four string-although he often did with all the Wings line-ups and of course through the 90s and today.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Apr 25, 2009 21:03:27 GMT -5
As much as I love Kiss I think one band really approaches the Beatles in terms of sheer talent and innovation: Led Zeppelin. As with the Beatles, every Zeppelin album is creative and every song is thought out and has meaning. And like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin broke up before they ran out of ideas. In fact they both left off with some of their best music. In Through The Out Door and Abbey Road are timeless rock albums that left the fans of these bands wanting more and wondering what might have been. Although I was a very casual fan of that band, from where I grew up, there was no doubt that Led Zeppelin owned the 1970's with the mid to older teens. They weren't hitmakers like The Beatles but as depicted in the Fox sitcom "That 70's Show," almost every basement in every home had a Zeppelin poster and it seemed that every day at school I saw scores of Zeppelin tee-shirts. The 1970's in the suburbs was potent grass, easy sex and Led Zeppelin. Of course, I was the Beatles' geek going on about the Red and Blue albums so I missed all the good stuff. You and me both, bro. But at least I don't have to tell my kids, "Do as I say - not as I did!"
|
|