:o  There, I said it.  They're great if you're into the thing, but they're not undisputedly the greatest band ever.  I mean, they were the first powerhouse band besides Elvis, but first doesn't equal best.  There are many bands I personally like more, and there are  some more talented (perhaps not many, but some mos def).


Flame if you will  :)

:o  There, I said it.  They're great if you're into the thing, but they're not undisputedly the greatest band ever.  I mean, they were the first powerhouse band besides Elvis, but first doesn't equal best.  There are many bands I personally like more, and there are  some more talented (perhaps not many, but some mos def).


Flame if you will  :)


Hey HullHouseFan! we are all entitled to our opinions...I wish I can say something else, but I think, it's only an opinion of a party of one.

Hot Wax

Hello!

Yeah.  I'm not bashing the Beatles.  I'm more poking fun at critics.  They seem to have a list of things they must like:

1. The Beatles
2. Gone With The Wind
3. The Rolling Stones
4. Elvis
5. Seinfeld
6. Pre 1980 disney movies

I guess it comes down to personal taste.  Perhape you are confusing being overrated with being overhyped. True, there is a tendency for music critics to confer god-like status on the Beatles, and this coupled with the fact that most classic rock/oldies stations play the same Beatles songs over and over might lead you to this conclusion. To truly appreciate the Beatles, you have to dig deeper and listen to some of their lesser-known songs. I would recommend "In My Life," in which John Lennon reflects on his younger days and places and people that are no longer there. (Yes, even back in the 60's there were people who waxed nostalgic on the "good old days.")
    You also must place the Beatles in their proper historical context. No other group before or since the Beatles has had such an enormous impact on popular music. They were the first British group to make it big in the U.S., and they paved the way for many other British groups such as the Kinks, the Animals, the Who, the Rolling Stones, and the Yardbirds; and later groups such as Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. (They were also the first rock group to wear their hair long.) The Beatles also boasted not one but two of the greatest lyricists/composers of the 20th century: Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Both of them had prolific solo careers after the breakup of the Beatles, and John Lennon was also very active politically.
    I could say something about Bob Saget, but I'll save it.  ;)

When the Beatles first started, they were basically like many other groups. In fact, they were influenced by Buddy Holly and they did have a lot of bubblegum. But, unlike many groups, they grew. When Sgt. Pepper's album came out, they did things that were totally different from anything else on the airwaves. Most all rock music afterwards was influenced by them. IMO, yes, I think the Beatles were ONE of the greatest groups ever. To me, they invented what we call rock-n-roll today.



Cat

I agree with Cat....ONE of the greatest groups ever...speaking of One...here's a group that split up in 1970 and yet thier CD "1" went to #1 in 2000.  :)

quote:  I could say something about Bob Saget, but I'll save it. 

I've heard so many Saget jokes  ;)  Yes, I do think he's kind of a f****ot  ;D ;D ;D
But I like his character on Full House.  He's the perfect soft-touch  :D

As for the Beatles, yeah one the best bands ever definitely.  It just seems to me music critics are quite arrogant about the 60s generation.  I mean yeah it's not the Beatles fault.  I'm more just saying having an "official" best band ever is only going to lead to disaster.  A while ago people on this board were debating if Nirvana was as influential as the Beatles.  While I don't think they were, I enjoy Nirvana more just because they're more my style.  Not really my time, though, I wasn't even two when "Teen Spirit" first hit the charts.

Maybe it's because The Beatles had so many albums. ???



Howard

When the Beatles first started, they were basically like many other groups. In fact, they were influenced by Buddy Holly and they did have a lot of bubblegum. But, unlike many groups, they grew. When Sgt. Pepper's album came out, they did things that were totally different from anything else on the airwaves. Most all rock music afterwards was influenced by them. IMO, yes, I think the Beatles were ONE of the greatest groups ever. To me, they invented what we call rock-n-roll today.

Cat


I always thought that Monty Norman "James Bond Theme" intro to Help! was the start of them becoming really different and clever.

If Beatles came out, say, 20 yrs later, how popular do you think they would of been? 

If Beatles came out, say, 20 yrs later, how popular do you think they would of been? 
Hard to say. Thier music, imho, is timeless ;)

Look at my avatar! Enough said.  ;)

Tanya

Look at my avatar! Enough said.  ;)

Tanya



;D ;D ;D



Cat

Look at my avatar! Enough said.  ;)

Tanya
Personally, I enjoy your "sig line" picture as well ;)

If Beatles came out, say, 20 yrs later, how popular do you think they would of been? 



most likely FHF,they would've been popular with the teenage kids of the 80's.



Howard

If Beatles came out, say, 20 yrs later, how popular do you think they would of been? 


But before you fast foward The Beatles 20 yrs, you have to go back to the 60s and think what if The Beatles didn't exist, what would music be like in the 80s, 90's and today. Best not to think about it, it hurts my head ;) :)

But before you fast foward The Beatles 20 yrs, you have to go back to the 60s and think what if The Beatles didn't exist, what would music be like in the 80s, 90's and today. Best not to think about it, it hurts my head ;) :)


most likely Motown,Funk,and Disco probably? ???



Howard

But before you fast foward The Beatles 20 yrs, you have to go back to the 60s and think what if The Beatles didn't exist, what would music be like in the 80s, 90's and today. Best not to think about it, it hurts my head ;) :)
Most of the one-hit-wonder garage bands from that era would've been a lot bigger.

I think the 80s would have supported them  8), but considering they're a product of the 60s they wouldn't be the same.  The 90s MIGHT support them, but I doubt the 2000s would.

most likely Motown,Funk,and Disco probably? ???



Howard


I agree, with more of a blues sound as well. But don't forget, pop would still be there. Maybe not dangerous, but a lot sugary than before.

Tanya

I agree, with more of a blues sound as well. But don't forget, pop would still be there. Maybe not dangerous, but a lot sugary than before.

Tanya



Tanya,what exactly do you mean by sugary? ???
Would The Beatles had more of an 80's sound to their music? ???


HOWARD

If Beatles came out, say, 20 yrs later, how popular do you think they would of been? 


A few years ago they had a 'greatest hits' album titled "#1's" that topped the charts... against heavy hitters like Backstreet Boys.

Tanya,what exactly do you mean by sugary? ???
Would The Beatles had more of an 80's sound to their music? ???


HOWARD


Sugar pop is what I referred to (aka Bubblegum, no substance, just dance music). I really don't know because we'd have to imagine what life would've lead to from the sixties without them to the eighties.

Tanya

I agree with Cat....ONE of the greatest groups ever...speaking of One...here's a group that split up in 1970 and yet thier CD "1" went to #1 in 2000.  :)
As I said.... :)

Sugar pop is what I referred to (aka Bubblegum, no substance, just dance music). I really don't know because we'd have to imagine what life would've lead to from the sixties without them to the eighties.

Tanya





only one can imagine. ;D



Howard

So are you saying the Beatles are still cool today, Rock?  8)  It could be.  I know the some kids today are into old rock musik.  But if they came out today people would probably see them as way before their time. In fact, if they came out anytime after 1975 they'd just be followers.  But they started in the mid-60s, so they were leaders. 

On an off note, does anything here agree that the 50s and before shared more in common with 1900 than with 2000?

So are you saying the Beatles are still cool today, Rock?  8)  It could be.  I know the some kids today are into old rock musik.  But if they came out today people would probably see them as way before their time. In fact, if they came out anytime after 1975 they'd just be followers.  But they started in the mid-60s, so they were leaders. 

On an off note, does anything here agree that the 50s and before shared more in common with 1900 than with 2000?
Actually they "Technically" came along in the late 50's and hit big in the early 60's ;)

Actually they "Technically" came along in the late 50's and hit big in the early 60's  ;)

Oh really?  That's interesting!  Like how Nirvana were around in 1987 but didn't get big until 1991?

It's interesting how the music of decades has its root in the middle of the previous one.  ???

Actually they "Technically" came along in the late 50's and hit big in the early 60's  ;)

Oh really?  That's interesting!  Like how Nirvana were around in 1987 but didn't get big until 1991?

It's interesting how the music of decades has its root in the middle of the previous one.  ???
Well, lots of bands pay thier dues for years sometimes....the J. Geils band formed in 1969...had a small hit in '73 "Give It To Me" and then waited 7 more years to break through with 1980's "Love Stinks" LP :)

Well, lots of bands pay thier dues for years sometimes....the J. Geils band formed in 1969...had a small hit in '73 "Give It To Me" and then waited 7 more years to break through with 1980's "Love Stinks" LP 

FHF Here (same person as FullHouseFan!),

Yeah I know what you're saying.  Nobody with talent immediately gets signed  :)  Or else they'd be random people off the street.

FHF Here (same person),

I agree Rock.  :)  Nobody immediately gets signed.

FHF Here (same person),

I agree Rock.  :)  Nobody immediately gets signed.
Unless you happen to be a modern "Boy Band" the likes of In-Stink or the Back Door Boys :P

OK. I can agree that they are very hyped, but I maintain that they were the greatest band of all time. Take great by its true definition here. Has any band ever had more influence, more record sales, more diversity, more cultural impact? I don't think so. I think I read somewhere that they have sold around 1.1 BILLION records, CD's, and tapes altogether.

Their music is so varied, it seems that they covered all the forthcoming styles of music before they were even ideas. They were doing mid-70's rock in 1968. They are one of the only bands that had so much early success and adoration that they were able to do absolutely anything they wanted in the studio without reproach. The albums Rubber Soul through Let it Be are so unbelievably brilliant. When discussing favourite bands, I rarely even include the Beatles, for to me they are on a completely different level than everything else. There are also very few bands I know of where each song they ever made is good. I have a lot of bands that I like, but almost all of them have made songs that I don't much like (all this while having only a few records... the Beatles had tons).

All this is not even mentioning the solo work that each one went on to create... all of it brilliant. Especially Lennon and Harrison.

I agree with FHF. They had maybe one or two good songs at the most and have inspired many people but I don't think they are anywhere near the best band ever. Than again I'm probably one in a million to think that way. Oh well.....  :)

I agree with FHF. They had maybe one or two good songs at the most and have inspired many people but I don't think they are anywhere near the best band ever. Than again I'm probably one in a million to think that way. Oh well.....  :)
I absolutely agree....with your last sentence  ;D BUT I DO respect your opinion, Miss Tainted ;)

I absolutely agree....with your last sentence ;D BUT I DO respect your opinion, Miss Tainted ;)
lol Thanks....

I agree with FHF. They had maybe one or two good songs at the most and have inspired many people but I don't think they are anywhere near the best band ever. Than again I'm probably one in a million to think that way. Oh well.....  :)



Thanks, MissTainted.  :)  I think they were great although I'm not a fan of their style, but they are so hyped it makes me like them less.  They are genius but I cannot stand the arrogance critics and the 60s generation has made of them.  imo System of a Down, Tool, Nirvana, Atmosphere, (yes for a time) Devo, and Elvis are of the same plane of or even superior genius.

your right, the beatles are overrated, so are the 60s. why? because the baby boomers still have an influence in our society. they hold jobs and make money, they have a strong voice, considering the sheer numbers of them. they want to feel they have importance so they flaunt their ideals and idols to the younger generations about when they were young. thats why you see arrogance amongst beatles fans. they were told the beatles were the most important and influential band of the twentieth century, of coarse they're right and how dare you say otherwise!

it's a generation thing. right now 'generation x' is growing stronger as we get older and earn more money and influence society with our worldviews, thats why the 80s is seeing such a revival, we want to be remembered too!

there will be a time when the beatles would be nothing more than a chapter in some history book, when the last living link to the past dies.

your right, the beatles are overrated, so are the 60s. why? because the baby boomers still have an influence in our society. they hold jobs and make money, they have a strong voice, considering the sheer numbers of them. they want to feel they have importance so they flaunt their ideals and idols to the younger generations about when they were young. thats why you see arrogance amongst beatles fans. they were told the beatles were the most important and influential band of the twentieth century, of coarse they're right and how dare you say otherwise!

it's a generation thing. right now 'generation x' is growing stronger as we get older and earn more money and influence society with our worldviews, thats why the 80s is seeing such a revival, we want to be remembered too!

there will be a time when the beatles would be nothing more than a chapter in some history book, when the last living link to the past dies.
I don't have a hardon for the Beatles like so many people (particularly baby boomers) do. However, I honestly believe that in the future, John Lennon and Paul McCartney will be looked back upon as some of the great composers of the 20th century.

Personally I like the Who more.

I don't have a hardon for the Beatles like so many people (particularly baby boomers) do. However, I honestly believe that in the future, John Lennon and Paul McCartney will be looked back upon as some of the great composers of the 20th century.

Personally I like the Who more.



I agree :) Like I said Al, this isn't a rant against the Beatles, it's a rant against Boomer arrogance. 

Not to say all Boomers harbor it, I'm just tired of 60s are great, right now sucks etc.  And many Xers/late boomers have this attitude (tongue-in-cheek on my part):

Everything before the 80s was GREAT and PERFECT too, but the 80s were the decade of Christ.  Reagan the Witness of God as President, no violence on TV OR real life, sex was BAD, there was NO GREED  ::), no electronics to destroy kid's lives.  1990 was the year Satan went down upon the world and all Hell broke loose, and we've been in a changeless Lake of Fire since.

::)  ::)  :P  >:(  ;D  ;D  ;D

I agree :) Like I said Al, this isn't a rant against the Beatles, it's a rant against Boomer arrogance. 

Not to say all Boomers harbor it, I'm just tired of 60s are great, right now sucks etc.  And many Xers/late boomers have this attitude (tongue-in-cheek on my part):

Everything before the 80s was GREAT and PERFECT too, but the 80s were the decade of Christ.  Reagan the Witness of God as President, no violence on TV OR real life, sex was BAD, there was NO GREED  ::), no electronics to destroy kid's lives.  1990 was the year Satan went down upon the world and all Hell broke loose, and we've been in a changeless Lake of Fire since.

::)  ::)  :P  >:(  ;D  ;D  ;D
Every generation is going to try and tell you that the pop culture from their era is the best. If you talk to someone in their 70's or 80's, they'll try and tell you that Glenn Miller and Frank Sinatra were the greatest ever, and that all of this rock n' roll nonsense is a bunch of crap.

80's the decade of Christ? HA!!! I grew up in the 80's, and I know I'll get roasted for this, but I thought even back then that 90% of the music that came out in the 80's was total sh*t. My favorite bands as a teenager? (Awating flaming arrows) CCR and The Beatles.  ;)

Every generation is going to try and tell you that the pop culture from their era is the best. If you talk to someone in their 70's or 80's, they'll try and tell you that Glenn Miller and Frank Sinatra were the greatest ever, and that all of this rock n' roll nonsense is a bunch of crap.

80's the decade of Christ? HA!!! I grew up in the 80's, and I know I'll get roasted for this, but I thought even back then that 90% of the music that came out in the 80's was total sh*t. My favorite bands as a teenager? (Awating flaming arrows) CCR and The Beatles. ;)


I agree :)  I like the 80s atmosphere and the decade did have its fair share of good music, but yeah come on!  It wasn't as great as many people over at inthe80s and some at this site put it out to be. 

I don't think my parents would let me buy the Butthole Surfers album, but my bro probably will :)  I love "Pepper" and "Shame of Life"!  Classic!

-FHF  8)

Some people might think The Beatles are overrated but no artists in the last 2 years will have sales like these on Amazon in as little as 5 years from now...

Amazon.com sales rank in music (as of 2/7/05 at about 08:30pm)

The White Album...................................#100
Abbey Road...........................................#93
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.....#155
Rubber Soul..........................................#137
The Beatles 1........................................#17


And some of those albums are almost 40 years old!

Some people might think The Beatles are overrated but no artists in the last 2 years will have sales like these on Amazon in as little as 5 years from now...

Amazon.com sales rank in music (as of 2/7/05 at about 08:30pm)

The White Album...................................#100
Abbey Road...........................................#93
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.....#155
Rubber Soul..........................................#137
The Beatles 1........................................#17


And some of those albums are almost 40 years old!


I really don't believe any artist will own the top 5 and 8 of the top 10 songs in the USA like The Beatles did. And the CD "1" went to #1 in the year 2000....30 years after they broke up ;)

Some people might think The Beatles are overrated but no artists in the last 2 years will have sales like these on Amazon in as little as 5 years from now...

Amazon.com sales rank in music (as of 2/7/05 at about 08:30pm)

The White Album...................................#100
Abbey Road...........................................#93
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.....#155
Rubber Soul..........................................#137
The Beatles 1........................................#17


And some of those albums are almost 40 years old!




I haven't heard much Beatles, but as great as they are, do you really think they deserve every bit of as*-kissing they get from critics and music people?  Even my favorite band, System of a Down, doesn't deserve that.
A favorite band is a matter of opinion, they're should be one which must be liked or else you have "no taste".

I love all this talk of "boomer arrogance." I think it is equally arrogant to generalise and dismiss their generation and its trends altogether for reasons either political or ignorant. There was a lot more to the 60s than just sex, drugs, and rock and roll... There was social reform, education, and a generation of newfound intellectualism whose art and literature continues to influence us. Not to mention, these people are your parents and grandparents.

Favourites are always subjective, but then again there are just plain observable facts. Name another band that had as much or more impact as they did on popular music, then prove it. No one is asking the world to bend over and kiss their arses, but give credit where it is due. For their time, they were brilliant, and they were the most successful rock group in history (over 1.1 billion albums sold). They are and will be relics of modern history.

I'm only 19, and discovered the Beatles when I was 15... still love them and I'm still not tired of them. My parents were never particularly fond of the Beatles either.

I love all this talk of "boomer arrogance." I think it is equally arrogant to generalise and dismiss their generation and its trends altogether for reasons either political or ignorant. There was a lot more to the 60s than just sex, drugs, and rock and roll... There was social reform, education, and a generation of newfound intellectualism whose art and literature continues to influence us. Not to mention, these people are your parents and grandparents.

Favourites are always subjective, but then again there are just plain observable facts. Name another band that had as much or more impact as they did on popular music, then prove it. No one is asking the world to bend over and kiss their arses, but give credit where it is due. For their time, they were brilliant, and they were the most successful rock group in history (over 1.1 billion albums sold). They are and will be relics of modern history.

I'm only 19, and discovered the Beatles when I was 15... still love them and I'm still not tired of them. My parents were never particularly fond of the Beatles either.




I hope I didn't offend you, but if you are I understand.  ;)  Perhap's I'm being a tad arrogant, but there are many things I like about the 1960s (like hippies!) It was a neat decade, perhaps the most interesting of the entire 20th century (the 40s and 90s being next).  But album sales don't equal due respect.  I mean Britney Spears has sold millions! 

I haven't heard much Beatles, but I don't discount them or the sixties they hailed from.  I'm just tired of everybody saying how evil and dumb today my generation (and time) and the 1990s gen are.  There are things about today (teen pop, mainstream rap, South Park) I dislike but I loathe this "superiority" thing some, though definitely not all, Boomers have.  I mean my parents are late Boomers but they don't regard my gen as "inferior" the way some to.  I don't care if they insult my gen's culture (I dislike most of it too), it's when they insult ME and MY peers it gets on my nerves.  And also when they say music's better because it's old.  wtf?  good music is good, bad music is bad. 

I will say the Beatles were the most influential band of the 20th century, but they're not necessarily the best.  They're not a "gift from God" like someone posted once.  No band is.

-FHF  :)

You know who really is overrated and who is a prime example of "boomer arrogance?" Crosby, Stills, and Nash.  :P

You know who really is overrated and who is a prime example of "boomer arrogance?" Crosby, Stills, and Nash.  :P


you know who is really talented and a fantastic group..CSN(Y)  8)
(AL-B,it would be too obvious to cite this as an example of boomer arrogance  ;D..i just happen to really enjoy the group  ;))

you know who is really talented and a fantastic group..CSN(Y)  8)
(AL-B,it would be too obvious to cite this as an example of boomer arrogance  ;D..i just happen to really enjoy the group  ;))


I also enjoy the group.  So much, in fact, that I saw them in concert about 10 years ago!  8)

you know who is really talented and a fantastic group..CSN(Y)  8)
(AL-B,it would be too obvious to cite this as an example of boomer arrogance  ;D..i just happen to really enjoy the group  ;))
They have some good songs but they come across as being self-important (particularly David Crosby, although I did like his work in the Byrds.)

They have some good songs but they come across as being self-important (particularly David Crosby, although I did like his work in the Byrds.)


ditto that.  Neil Young is a thorn in my ear.  "hey hey, my my, rock and roll will never die"  geez he
tried his best to kill it with that song. 

I Love LOTS of Neil Young songs...a few are

Heart Of Gold
Harvest Moon
Cinnamon Girl
And my all-time favorite....Only Love Can Break Your Heart.  He also wrote "Lotta Love" sung by the late Nicolette Larson in 1981 :\'(

I Love LOTS of Neil Young songs...a few are

Heart Of Gold
Harvest Moon
Cinnamon Girl
And my all-time favorite....Only Love Can Break Your Heart.  He also wrote "Lotta Love" sung by the late Nicolette Larson in 1981 :\'(


I like Buffalo Springfield and Neil Youngs first with Crazy Horse.  After that ....nahhhh.

I like Buffalo Springfield and Neil Youngs first with Crazy Horse.  After that ....nahhhh.
Well he kinda bridged the decades with and without Crazy Horse... :)

To me,the Beatles were the first rock band that ever really MATTERED to me...considering the first REAL (read:non-children's)album I ever owned was "Beatles '65"(I think in England it was called "Beatles For Sale")...I got it as a present for my sixth birthday,when I got my first REAL(read:non-kiddie)phonograph....my parents KNEW I loved the Beatles...The Fab Four sowed the seed for the music nut I am today! Also listening to AM radio late at night,hearing stuff like Motown....Paul Revere and the Raiders...Buffalo Springfield...the Lovin' Spoonful...The Mamas and the Papas...Radio stations like WABC(New York)and WFIL-AM(Philadelphia)as well as Atlantic City's then-top 40 WMID!

Anyone from Philadelphia PA here who remembers WMMR-FM 93.3 during the early to mid 70's...now that was AWESOME!!!

you know who is really talented and a fantastic group..CSN(Y)  8)
(AL-B,it would be too obvious to cite this as an example of boomer arrogance  ;D..i just happen to really enjoy the group  ;))


So true, Ktel.

Their Deja Vu album is one of the 1970's best albums. Our House and Everybody I Love You have always been my favorite CSN&Y songs. Stills, Nash and Young are what made the group. I never really cared for Crosby.

http://www.techwebsound.com/Crosby,%20Stills,%20Nash%20&%20Young%20-%20Deja%20Vu.JPG

Our house is a very
Very, very fine house
With two cats in the yard
Life used to be so hard
Now everything is easy
'cause of you

(that'll be in my head the whole day now  ::) )

So true, Ktel.

Their Deja Vu album is one of the 1970's best albums. Our House and Everybody I Love You have always been my favorite CSN&Y songs. Stills, Nash and Young are what made the group. I never really cared for Crosby.

http://www.techwebsound.com/Crosby,%20Stills,%20Nash%20&%20Young%20-%20Deja%20Vu.JPG

Our house is a very
Very, very fine house
With two cats in the yard
Life used to be so hard
Now everything is easy
'cause of you

(that'll be in my head the whole day now  ::) )



right on,z  8)

I hope I didn't offend you, but if you are I understand.   ;)  Perhap's I'm being a tad arrogant, but there are many things I like about the 1960s (like hippies!) It was a neat decade, perhaps the most interesting of the entire 20th century (the 40s and 90s being next).  But album sales don't equal due respect.  I mean Britney Spears has sold millions! 

I haven't heard much Beatles, but I don't discount them or the sixties they hailed from.  I'm just tired of everybody saying how evil and dumb today my generation (and time) and the 1990s gen are.  There are things about today (teen pop, mainstream rap, South Park) I dislike but I loathe this "superiority" thing some, though definitely not all, Boomers have.  I mean my parents are late Boomers but they don't regard my gen as "inferior" the way some to.  I don't care if they insult my gen's culture (I dislike most of it too), it's when they insult ME and MY peers it gets on my nerves.  And also when they say music's better because it's old.  wtf?  good music is good, bad music is bad. 

I will say the Beatles were the most influential band of the 20th century, but they're not necessarily the best.  They're not a "gift from God" like someone posted once.  No band is.

-FHF  :)


Their generation had to hear the same from earlier generations and so forth. Our kids will hear it from us. It's true that album sales don't equal due respect, but the Beatles' accomplishment plus their album sales are something to be in awe of. If you haven't heard much Beatles, as you say, then I would be willing to wager that if you spent a little time listening to their later work, you'd be eating many of these words. I remember being equally defiant when it came to the Beatles before a friend of mine forced me to listen. I encourage you to listen to the White Album. I think that is the album which best represents their greatness. If you've listened to that and you still think they're mediocre... well then I guess at least that's an informed decision.

Their generation had to hear the same from earlier generations and so forth. Our kids will hear it from us. It's true that album sales don't equal due respect, but the Beatles' accomplishment plus their album sales are something to be in awe of. If you haven't heard much Beatles, as you say, then I would be willing to wager that if you spent a little time listening to their later work, you'd be eating many of these words. I remember being equally defiant when it came to the Beatles before a friend of mine forced me to listen. I encourage you to listen to the White Album. I think that is the album which best represents their greatness. If you've listened to that and you still think they're mediocre... well then I guess at least that's an informed decision.


I'll listen to a song off Launchcast :)  What would you suggest?

-FHF  :)

I'll listen to a song off Launchcast :)  What would you suggest?

-FHF  :)


Like McDonald said, listen to The White Album, to really appreciate The Beatles and to give them a fair chance listen to an entire album, a few times over, not just a song.

I'll tell you what, you pick up a Beatles CD over the weekend and give it a listen to a few times over and I'll go buy anything you suggest  and do the same. :)

We've had this debate before Full House Fan, at least once to my knowledge.

The upshot of it all is, yes, it comes down to personal taste, so if you personally prefer System Of A Down to The Beatles that's fine.
Myself, I don't know much of their work but I really like "Chop Suey", just downloaded it onto my iPod today as it happens.
AL-B hit the nail on the head for me however, you shouldn't confuse over rated with over hyped, particularly if you haven't heard much of The Beatles work yourself as you admitted.

I'm English and I've never properly understood what a "baby boomer" is anyway. When exactly did the baby boom start and end?
I guess it must be post WW2 but up until what year of birth is one classed as a baby boomer?

I was born in 1963 so I missed the real heyday of The Beatles. By the time I was 14 I was heavily into The Clash and Talking Heads.
Despite that, I bought several Beatles' albums (White Album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road) and I still listen to them to this day (when I can be bothered to get my vinyl turntable out).

We've had this debate before Full House Fan, at least once to my knowledge.

The upshot of it all is, yes, it comes down to personal taste, so if you personally prefer System Of A Down to The Beatles that's fine.
Myself, I don't know much of their work but I really like "Chop Suey", just downloaded it onto my iPod today as it happens.
AL-B hit the nail on the head for me however, you shouldn't confuse over rated with over hyped, particularly if you haven't heard much of The Beatles work yourself as you admitted.

I'm English and I've never properly understood what a "baby boomer" is anyway. When exactly did the baby boom start and end?
I guess it must be post WW2 but up until what year of birth is one classed as a baby boomer?

I was born in 1963 so I missed the real heyday of The Beatles. By the time I was 14 I was heavily into The Clash and Talking Heads.
Despite that, I bought several Beatles' albums (White Album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road) and I still listen to them to this day (when I can be bothered to get my vinyl turntable out).


IMO Baby Boom is 1946-1964, although people born in the 60s are pushing it.

IMO Baby Boom is 1946-1964, although people born in the 60s are pushing it.

You're quite right, I am an old git!  :(

You're quite right, I am an old git! :(


Is that the British sarcasm I've been hearing about?

-FHF  ;D

Maybe they are overrated a bit, but they did make some good songs, particularly their late '60s music.

Here's another subtle and key (yet overlooked) element of what made the Beatles' sound so unique and innovative: The bass-playing skills of Paul McCartney. Paul McCartney was probably one of the most influential bass players ever. I myself hadn't realized this until I once read a Playboy interview with John Lennon (published only a short time before his tragic death in 1980 and one of the most in-depth interviews he had given in years), and the interviewer asked him some questions about what he thought of his former bandmates. When it came to Paul McCartney, Lennon made a few snide remarks (since there was always a clash of egos between John and Paul, especially after the breakup) but then he said that the one thing he really admired about Paul was his bass-playing.
    Ever since then, whenever I hear a Beatles song (or even some of McCartney's solo work) come on the radio, I make a point to turn up the bass and key in on Paul.  McCartney's style wasn't particularly flashy or technical, but it was very melodic and very effective in moving a song along. (I espcecially like the bass line in "Twist and Shout.")

PLEASE!! Do NOT judge the Beatles by the White Album! Sorry gord, but that particular LP is more of a recording of thier fragmenting! Don't get me wrong, I like some of the songs...but If I had to suggest Just one LP...it would be the british version of "Rubber Soul"...."Help!" is another...along with "A Hard Day's Night"...and "Abbey Road"...well, you get my point :D ;)

It's all personal taste, I like the White album, I like Sgt Peppers and Revolver alot to lately. Where to start for a new listener ? Who knows ? The White album has tons of songs and lots of variety. All I was saying was that if he is going to give the Beatles a fair listen to he should get an album, a studio album, beg steal buy or burn :)

It's all personal taste, I like the White album, I like Sgt Peppers and Revolver alot to lately. Where to start for a new listener ? Who knows ? The White album has tons of songs and lots of variety. All I was saying was that if he is going to give the Beatles a fair listen to he should get an album, a studio album, beg steal buy or burn :)
I definately respect your opinion, gord :) I was simply stating that for a true "Beatles" LP the White Album would probably be the worst example....it's more likely to be used as an example of the guys going thier separate ways...it's like four solo LP's melted into two :D If I had just ONE LP to reccomend, it would probably be Rubber Soul :)

I have a question for you, FHF (and for our other younger members), and don't be afraid to answer it honestly. I am not trying to start any "my generation vs. your generation" kind of thing or anything like that, but I am genuinely curious:  When people your age hear groups like the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, or the Who, or even Led Zeppelin, do you think of it as "old people's music?" Do you feel the same way upon hearing "classic rock" today that I did when I was 16 and my parents would listen to Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin or Tony Bennett???

Am I turning into my dad??? :o :o :o

I have a question for you, FHF (and for our other younger members), and don't be afraid to answer it honestly. I am not trying to start any "my generation vs. your generation" kind of thing or anything like that, but I am genuinely curious: When people your age hear groups like the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, or the Who, or even Led Zeppelin, do you think of it as "old people's music?" Do you feel the same way upon hearing "classic rock" today that I did when I was 16 and my parents would listen to Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin or Tony Bennett???

Am I turning into my dad??? :o :o :o




Yeah, probably.  Beatles, Rolling Stones, yeah pretty much the way you viewed Sinatra.  Now 80s metal, no, that's cheesy stuff my older cousins would like.  The 80s is like before my time, but not beyond my comprehension the way the 50s, 60s, and to a lesser extent the 70s are.

You and people your age (born 1970ish), I don't quite see you as parent figures.  You could be my parents, but I more see you guys as older cousins or young uncles/aunts.  You know what I mean?

People born before 1968, those are like parents to me.

Yeah, probably.  Beatles, Rolling Stones, yeah pretty much the way you viewed Sinatra.  Now 80s metal, no, that's cheesy stuff my older cousins would like.  The 80s is like before my time, but not beyond my comprehension the way the 50s, 60s, and to a lesser extent the 70s are.
You know what's funny? I've actually come to like Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin and Tony Bennet, plus a lot of the other singers and groups my parents like.
You and people your age (born 1970ish), I don't quite see you as parent figures.  You could be my parents, but I more see you guys as older cousins or young uncles/aunts.  You know what I mean?
I actuallly have a nephew and niece that are around your age. I also have a nephew who's about 11 or 12, and who reminds me a lot of myself when I was his age. (He's way into the Beatles. ;D)

You know what's funny? I've actually come to like Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin and Tony Bennet, plus a lot of the other singers and groups my parents like. I actuallly have a nephew and niece that are around your age. I also have a nephew who's about 11 or 12, and who reminds me a lot of myself when I was his age. (He's way into the Beatles. ;D)


That is funny  ;D  I'm into eighties music right now. It's sorta stuck between your gen's music and mine's.  I guess my taste in music is a bit shallow, but I think keyboards sound awesome!  I like a lot of rock from the 90s and 2000s though.

-FHF

That is funny  ;D  I'm into eighties music right now. It's sorta stuck between your gen's music and mine's.  I guess my taste in music is a bit shallow, but I think keyboards sound awesome!  I like a lot of rock from the 90s and 2000s though.

-FHF
If you're really into 80's music, I'll bet that if you checked out a few pawn shops and/or secondhand music stores (or eBay), you could find a used 80's vintage Roland synthesizer for a reasonable price.

To me,the Beatles were the first rock band that ever really MATTERED to me...considering the first REAL (read:non-children's)album I ever owned was "Beatles '65"(I think in England it was called "Beatles For Sale")...I got it as a present for my sixth birthday,when I got my first REAL(read:non-kiddie)phonograph....my parents KNEW I loved the Beatles...The Fab Four sowed the seed for the music nut I am today! Also listening to AM radio late at night,hearing stuff like Motown....Paul Revere and the Raiders...Buffalo Springfield...the Lovin' Spoonful...The Mamas and the Papas...Radio stations like WABC(New York)and WFIL-AM(Philadelphia)as well as Atlantic City's then-top 40 WMID!

Anyone from Philadelphia PA here who remembers WMMR-FM 93.3 during the early to mid 70's...now that was AWESOME!!!


WMMR is still there! They had the most famous dj there - I think his name was Joey something and he had a thick mustache. He looked Italian! I'm from Philly btw!

WMMR is still there! They had the most famous dj there - I think his name was Joey something and he had a thick mustache. He looked Italian! I'm from Philly btw!
I'm Italian also :)

I'm Italian also :)


So is your real name Mario?  :D

So is your real name Mario?  :D
No but when I get angry I turn into

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n08/awaj/what/wario.jpg              Wario!

You know, I've never met an Italian person before.  ???

No but when I get angry I turn into

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n08/awaj/what/wario.jpg Wario!




;D Good one, Mark!

;D Good one, Mark!
Thanks, FHF ;D ;)

Hello!

Yeah.  I'm not bashing the Beatles.  I'm more poking fun at critics.  They seem to have a list of things they must like:

1. The Beatles
2. Gone With The Wind
3. The Rolling Stones
4. Elvis
5. Seinfeld
6. Pre 1980 disney movies


I personally don't like Seinfeld, but that's just me

I personally don't like Seinfeld, but that's just me


I'm not much of a fan either.  Nor of Friends.

I personally don't like Seinfeld, but that's just me


I don't care much for Elvis or Gone With the Wind.

I've just read this thread - very interesting POV's. :D


Their generation had to hear the same from earlier generations and so forth. Our kids will hear it from us. It's true that album sales don't equal due respect, but the Beatles' accomplishment plus their album sales are something to be in awe of. If you haven't heard much Beatles, as you say, then I would be willing to wager that if you spent a little time listening to their later work, you'd be eating many of these words. I remember being equally defiant when it came to the Beatles before a friend of mine forced me to listen. I encourage you to listen to the White Album. I think that is the album which best represents their greatness. If you've listened to that and you still think they're mediocre... well then I guess at least that's an informed decision.


First off, I have to agree I way prefer their latter (say 1967-70) stuff, what I'd call their "classic rock" era, over the 1964-66 "oldies" era -- back then, they were still good, but more of a pop/50's rock hybrid.

I actually can say I "grew up" with The Beatles almost as much as 80's stuff (my parents listened to it alot, so to be honest, when I was real little, I didn't even know which songs were "new" and what wasn't!). I was especially into Part 1 of the White Album, and Sgt. Peppers.

Oddly enough, I never quite grasped the "generations" concept until probably Junior High, so I had no idea it wasn't typical to listen to older music. On the other end of the spectrum, despite all that "history" I grew up used to, I still like some modern music. Oddly enough, it was due to how much I remember liking "new" music as a kid that makes me still listen to things from now. I want to like upcoming stuff the same way I had excitement for it then, even if I can't get into it as much - if that makes sense.

I like some of the pop/punk (just the less "emo"-sounding bands) and indie/alternative rock (to me, there's a slight difference between alternative & grunge--alternative is a litlte more upbeat/silly; grunge is darker). No matter how bad music gets, I think I'll always be with it to an extent. I'm not one of those people that really changes every few years either. ;)

I've just read this thread - very interesting POV's. :D

First off, I have to agree I way prefer their latter (say 1967-70) stuff, what I'd call their "classic rock" era, over the 1964-66 "oldies" era -- back then, they were still good, but more of a pop/50's rock hybrid.

I actually can say I "grew up" with The Beatles almost as much as 80's stuff (my parents listened to it alot, so to be honest, when I was real little, I didn't even know which songs were "new" and what wasn't, LOL!). I was especially into Part 1 of the White Album, and Sgt. Peppers.

Oddly enough, I never quite grasped the "generations" concept until way later (say, late Elementary school or Junior High) 'cause it seemed foreign to me. Maybe because my folks weren't like that -- in those days, I still remember, mom was really into buying music, and in fact is still hip today. Dad was born in 1938, but despite being in his mid 40's by the time I was born (67 today), still liked "current" things in the 80's. So I had no idea that was not typical. ;D

On the other end of the spectrum, despite all that "history" I grew up used to, I still like some modern music (just not the gangsta rap, nu metal or Britney-ish stuff!). Oddly enough, it was due to how much I remember liking "new" music as a kid that makes me still listen to things from now. I want to like upcoming stuff the same way I had excitement for it then, even if the end result is I sometimes don't - if that makes sense.

I like some of the pop/punk (just the less "emo"-sounding bands) and indie/alternative rock (to me, there's a slight difference between alternative & grunge--alternative is a litlte more upbeat/silly; grunge is darker).

No matter how bad music (or anything else, for that matter) gets, I think I'll always be with it to an extent. I'm not one of those people that really changes every few years either. ;)


Some of my fav bands are numetal, but the genre has gotten really generic and I'm glad it's in its decline now.  It's nice to hear keyboard in rock.  The 2000s are like a more corporate, preppy 90s.  It's like if you took urban 90s styles and slapped suburban, Yuppie 80s attitudes onto them, basically.

I'm Italian also :)


This one kid at my school keeps insisting that I look Italian. He insists I must have a mediterranean background, but I don't.

This one kid at my school keeps insisting that I look Italian. He insists I must have a mediterranean background, but I don't.
Is HE Itlalian?

i agree.the beatles are extremely overrated. while they were doing their "la dee doo wop" music, jimi hendrix was pumping songs out that o one had ever heard. a style that had never been attempted before.

After listening to the five albums considered the Beatles' greatest, 'A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road' (I haven't heard the 'White Album' yet) I too am questioning the fab four's reputation. Or more so, the 'greatness' of their later albums. While great albums, I find they only had a few strong songs on each album, while the rest were mediocre. This is particularly true of Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver and Abbey Road. Songs like Dr. Robert, Sixty Four, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, You Never Give Me Your Money. They just sound so simplistic and amatuerish...it's hard to believe they were written by the same duo who wrote such masterpieces as Hey Jude and Eleanor Rigby. But then again, I suppose they were not the most inconsistent band in the world. IMHO, the Beach Boys' pet sounds was better than ANY Beatles' album.

I think, your all sick in the head. Now seriosuly if you dont think the beatles are the greatest band ever... well your wrong. They are. I mean, 1965 the world was beginning to change when Rubber Soul came out. Music would never be the same. Then one year later Revovler, the greatest rock album ever, technically and musically, the beatles had just begun experimenting, then next before you know it the second greatest album ever (Sgt. Peppers).

hey man, you have your opinions. that does not make a band the best there ever was. everyone has their own opinions.you cant just tell someone that the beatles were the best band ever.especially considering their monotonous, repetitious, simplistic songs. how can a band be the greatest when their songs are so simple and not very original. but thats my opinion. other people may not believe the same way, well, thats their deal.personally i feel that the doors was the greatest band. their lyrics and music challenged the status quo and opened a nations eyes up. i think that jimi hendrix was the most influential because when the beatles were doing their pop thing, jimi was coming out with sounds that had never been heard before. and dont tell me that the beatles influenced hendrix. hendrix started in 65, and listening to the two, i think that there is no comparison whatsoever. but that is my opinion. i dont just go out ant tell everyone that that is the way it is. i tell them that it is my opinion. so dont tell me that the beatles is the greatest band ever and if i disagree, im wrong, so you can go and live a sheltered life and try not to open your eyes and live closed minded.thats your choice.

personally i feel that the doors was the greatest band

The Doors are one of the bands I feel are most overrated...I heard their 'Greatest Hits' and was not even the slightest impressed (given their reputation). But then again, it shows how opinions differ.

I used to play a game with my nephew that I called "Beatles Or Not." We'd listen to a classic rock station, and when a new song would come on, I'd say, "Beatles or not?" When I asked him the question I'd hold my knuckle ominously over his head, and if he got it wrong I'd give him a noogie. (I just know that he's gonna be a big f**ker when he grows up, and when he turns about 19 or 20 he's gonna kick my @ss.) ;D

Just look at the amount of work The Beatles released between 1964 to 1970. Now look at how the albums progressed and how they grew musically in such a short amount of time. Their impact on the world, not only musically, but socially is immeasurable. How can you make such a ludicrous statement? If your comparing them to their peers during the sixties, they opened the door for all these artists. If your comparing them to todays artists, they did it first. The Beatles changed rock n' roll, they took what the founding fathers did and blew it out of the water. They are the most important artists in modern music. Their impact is still felt today and a whole new generation is discovering them. Their music is timeless and will be listened to when we're all dead and buried.
Overrated? I don't think so!

well im sorry to say, but when the beatles were doing their pop laa dee doo bee bop, jimi hendrix was changing the world with his music. jimi hendrix was playing his music in 64. he just never got on his feet and got signed untill 66. so to tell me that their pop music influenced rock and roll is ludicrious.get your stuff straight. IMO

i agree.the beatles are extremely overrated. while they were doing their "la dee doo wop" music, jimi hendrix was pumping songs out that o one had ever heard. a style that had never been attempted before.
True, but The Beatles were also very innovative and ifluencial as well ;)

yeah you are right. jimi hendrix was making a very unique sound that influenced many guitarists, but the beatles were more mainstream, so their influence stretched farther.also, the beatles were more pop (IMO) so jimi cant really be compared to that genre

well im sorry to say, but when the beatles were doing their pop laa dee doo bee bop, jimi hendrix was changing the world with his music. jimi hendrix was playing his music in 64. he just never got on his feet and got signed untill 66. so to tell me that their pop music influenced rock and roll is ludicrious.get your stuff straight. IMO


Hendrix may be a good guitarist, but the reason for his popularity was that he died at such a young age. When that happens people tend to make you a martyr. To put down The Beatles all because you like Hendrix is ludicrous. So maybe YOU should get your stuff straight.

yeah you are right. jimi hendrix was making a very unique sound that influenced many guitarists, but the beatles were more mainstream, so their influence stretched farther.also, the beatles were more pop (IMO) so jimi cant really be compared to that genre


I'm not the world's greatests Beatles' band, but have you even heard much of their music? It was as experimental (yet still popular and musically cohesive) as the more 'far out' bands. Maybe not so much in the work up to Revolver, but Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road were experimental.

well blinkyfish, maybe you should just try to state your opinion instead of trying to start an argument with someone else because of theirs. i feel that the beatles were overrated because i believe their music was simple, monotonous and annoying. but that is my opinion. i feel that jimi hendrix was playing much more experimental music, but thats my opinion. so maybe instead of shoving something that is your opinion, (and only an opinion at that) into my face, you should state an IMO. and i do have my info straight. i have researched both and have listened to both all my life. so maybe Blinkyfish, you should stop being vindictive.

The Beatles knew what it took.  They knew that the public would just love songs like i wanna hold your hand, eight days a week, and Hello/Goodbye, and because of that, those are the songs you hear.  I love the beatles but i don't care for these songs.  Just get past these few songs and you will get past the repetiveness.  Even John was pissed off by these songs.  He hated that I am the Walrus got the B-side on one of there singles while a stupid song like hello/goodbye got the a-side.  He said it was,"three minutes of contradictions and meaningless juxtapositions".  Try the underrated songs like hey bulldog, you never give me your money, dear prudence, baby youre a rich man, when i'm 64, tommorow never knows, helter skelter, and your bird can sing, here there and everywhere, i've just seen a face, i need you, for no one, getting better to just name a few. Or go to the hits like Strawberry Fields Forever, I am the Walrus, The fool on the Hill, Here comes the sun, something, Yesterday, Let it Be, Revolution (about vietnam, still works for Iraq), ect.  You listen to these and get back to me.  ;)

well im glad tohear that one of the beatles actually had a sense for less monotony. that is the one thing i hate in a song. specially when it is irritating in the first place. i will listen to those songs. i have heard helter skelter, and it just irritates me. i wish it was just a little bit more composed. i have heard a lot of their songs, but i will listen to the ones listed and i will get back to you on my opinion. thanx:)

BEK

a banded that is really over rated is ac/dc.. or well maybe theyre just over worn. almost everyone has a ac/dc shirt.even the people who dont really listen to them.

i agree.the beatles are extremely overrated. while they were doing their "la dee doo wop" music, jimi hendrix was pumping songs out that o one had ever heard. a style that had never been attempted before.
Hey...as someone who was around in the 60's(born in 1960)...the Beatles mean a h*ll of a LOT to me. One of a very FEW things great about my childhood is hearing their music...as well as the Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds, the Kinks...and American bands like the Beach Boys(especially Pet Sounds and the 'car songs')...Paul Revere and The Raiders...The Byrds...Buffalo Springfield...the Lovin' Spoonful...
Why ANYONE would think the Beatles are overrated is beyond me...look at how INNOVATIVE they were...especially in the studio.

How come I remember hearing those bands as a mere kid...RADIO..WMID(the top 40 station in Atlantic City NJ during the 60's and early 70's) WFIL(Philly 560 AM)...also WMMR and WIOQ FM both outta Philly...

also having an older sister....

I can't help but respond to this one.. FullHouseFan... I think you ought to listen to their records in full.. that will give you the full scope of the Beatles repoirtore. If you have, then I guess you can disregard what I just said..

Yet, by listening to all their albums completely, it's extremely hard for one to say they're overrated. To me, the Beatles are not quite as overhyped as some other bands, like U2 (U2 is hardly worthy of being overhyped) or the like. I feel like the Beatles are JUST now getting recognized for years and years of hard work...

So, unfortunatly, things like the radio and critics have turned the Beatles into cookie cutter like lads - but they were a much more complex group than one would topically see.

hey. everyone has their own opinion. im just stating mine. if you like the beatles, i guess thats your own taste. but my mental setting prevents me from enjoying the beatles (that was kind of meant as a joke...haha)

peace,
BEK

hey. everyone has their own opinion. im just stating mine. if you like the beatles, i guess thats your own taste. but my mental setting prevents me from enjoying the beatles (that was kind of meant as a joke...haha)

peace,
BEK
http://www.geocities.com/mark21566/musicGuitar.gifHey, I respect your opinion...I happen to think the some very overated acts are Springsteen, Dylan (For singing not for writing) and the Rolling Stones ::)

http://www.geocities.com/mark21566/musicGuitar.gifHey, I respect your opinion...I happen to think the some very overated acts are Springsteen, Dylan (For singing not for writing) and the Rolling Stones ::)


I wholeheartedly agree with you, R&R Fan.

I can't help but respond to this one.. FullHouseFan... I think you ought to listen to their records in full.. that will give you the full scope of the Beatles repoirtore. If you have, then I guess you can disregard what I just said..

Yet, by listening to all their albums completely, it's extremely hard for one to say they're overrated. To me, the Beatles are not quite as overhyped as some other bands, like U2 (U2 is hardly worthy of being overhyped) or the like. I feel like the Beatles are JUST now getting recognized for years and years of hard work...

So, unfortunatly, things like the radio and critics have turned the Beatles into cookie cutter like lads - but they were a much more complex group than one would topically see.
I wonder if those who think the Beatles are overrated ever sat and actually LISTENED to Sgt. Pepper...or Abbey Road...Rubber Soul....Or even watched IN THEIR ENTIRETY "A Hard Day's Night","Help!" or even "Yellow Submarine"..

I wonder if those who think the Beatles are overrated ever sat and actually LISTENED to Sgt. Pepper...or Abbey Road...Rubber Soul....Or even watched IN THEIR ENTIRETY "A Hard Day's Night","Help!" or even "Yellow Submarine"..


It's true, TonyStewartistheMan!. I have done all of that (plenty times over :0) And that is why I can appreciate them. Some people *especially younger kids* don't understand the scope of their creativity because they are only judging it based on what little they've heard. So sad  :-[

Whoa, haven't been here a while.

After hearing more of the Beatles' music, I think while influential they are not, as many have claimed, responsible for 'inventing pop/rock'. As they have said themselves, they were just products of their generation. More a reflection or symbol of everything their generation represented. I think if the Beatles' weren't around music wouldn't be all that much different...others would have filled their shoes doing the experimenting etc. But anyway...just another pointless opinion.

Whoa, haven't been here a while.

After hearing more of the Beatles' music, I think while influential they are not, as many have claimed, responsible for 'inventing pop/rock'. As they have said themselves, they were just products of their generation. More a reflection or symbol of everything their generation represented. I think if the Beatles' weren't around music wouldn't be all that much different...others would have filled their shoes doing the experimenting etc. But anyway...just another pointless opinion.


That is a good point, yet there are certain landmark artists - whether they give themselves credit or not - that did change the face of music. It's like saying all the 1960's artists *which obviously there were many* did something that really stood out. Some did, and some didn't. Many didn't stand the test of time, or they just survived off a couple of hits that were one hit wonders or near flukes. The Beatles wrote in a manner that reflected a generation because they practically reinvented it. Before them, Elvis had done a similar thing - he reinvented how music could be heard and understood, and gave it a whole new meaning... many just followed suit...

yes, i have watched a hard days night, and yes i have listened to sgt peppers, and yes ive listened to help, and yes ive listened to abbey road, and i still dont like the,. it may be just me, but its my opinion. i just dont like them. if you like them, by all means enjoy them, but i dont enjoy listening to them

BEK

yes, i have watched a hard days night, and yes i have listened to sgt peppers, and yes ive listened to help, and yes ive listened to abbey road, and i still dont like the,. it may be just me, but its my opinion. i just dont like them. if you like them, by all means enjoy them, but i dont enjoy listening to them

BEK
Okay,name me a group whose records had better production values and sound quality?No stuff like girl groups..

yes, i have watched a hard days night, and yes i have listened to sgt peppers, and yes ive listened to help, and yes ive listened to abbey road, and i still dont like the,. it may be just me, but its my opinion. i just dont like them. if you like them, by all means enjoy them, but i dont enjoy listening to them

BEK


I think it's a pretension thing for people to dislike something like the Beatles. They just don't want to appreciate them because it may look "cool" to not like something as raw and talented as the Beatles were. Then it turns into pop culture ignorance, unfortunately.

My 11 year suddenly got turned on to the Beatles, that's all she wants to listen to, yeh yeh yeh ;D

actually...no im not trying to look cool by not liking the beatles. why would someone dislike such a popular group to be cool. i think you have it the other way around. and how does production quality or standards have anything to do with the music itself? and you know what. im almost starting to get angry. cant you people just accept the fact that i dislike the beatles, without trying to give me a psychoanalysis?! i dont like the beatles. so what. i respect your opinion, you should dam well respect mine!

BEK

actually...no im not trying to look cool by not liking the beatles. why would someone dislike such a popular group to be cool. i think you have it the other way around. and how does production quality or standards have anything to do with the music itself? and you know what. im almost starting to get angry. cant you people just accept the fact that i dislike the beatles, without trying to give me a psychoanalysis?! i dont like the beatles. so what. i respect your opinion, you should dam well respect mine!

BEK


Whoa, I didn't want to get you angry - It was just an observation and I apologize for any anger I caused.  :( Aside from that, I guess what irks me most are the reasons behind not liking them. I'm not saying you have to like anything. I mean, I don't like metal music all that much and there isn't going to be much convincing me otherwise. Yet, I have some very good reasons for not liking metal music. The same goes for rap music. I could understand those two polarities, but to me, it's hard to say you can't like the Beatles, if lets say, you like The Doors. They fall within almost the same catagory (as far as styles go). Yet, I don't like the Grateful Dead and they're similar to the Beatles in some way or another.. so yes, all it could come down to is a matter of opinion - I suppose.

Yet, some music is rather repetitive in style, chord progression, melody, texture, etc.  It's hard for one to say the Beatles were the same band in 1970 than they were in 1963. Even the Rolling Stones, for being around 40 years, have not strayed too far from their hard rock roots. It's about familiarity for most bands to stick to that one dinstinguishing style of theirs - it's something else to stray completely from that - and successfully.

To me, the Beatles were once like the Beethoven of modern day music. What Beethoven did to Classical music are what the Beatles did for Rock & Roll. And who's gonna say that Beethoven sucks  ;)

yeah you are right. jimi hendrix was making a very unique sound that influenced many guitarists, but the beatles were more mainstream, so their influence stretched farther.also, the beatles were more pop (IMO) so jimi cant really be compared to that genre


Okay- one more point to make - What's wrong with the Beatles being more popular that Jimi Hendrix? Or in that case, what's wrong about them being more mainstream?

Jimi Hendrix is now just as famous (if not equally) as the Beatles, and even just as highly regarded.

This makes me think about many guitarists who have stood in the shadow of Jimi Hendrix's persona and legend, rather than his genius. Guitarists such as Al Stewart, Mark Knopfler, Chet Atkins, Strunz & Farah, etc. are just AS good as Hendrix, if not better - why haven't they recieved their due recognition?

Just because it's pop and mainstream, doesn't make it bad or unlistenable. I suppose sometimes you have to trade one for the other.

yes,the beatles were overrated and equally overhyped.
lennon and mccartney were talented,harrison was mediocre
and ringo,musically speaking,was a horrible drummer,but
the beatles changed the way music was viewed by fans.
they became "rock and roll" non-conformist.long hair,
stage antics and screaming fans is what rebellious teens
were looking for.their style made them popular not talent.

i see some of your point. the reason jimi hendrix is more well known is because of the fact that a lot of the styles that he had experimented with the guitar, were things people had never heard of until that time. i never said there was anything wrong with the beatles being sooo popular. i just dont like them. if people like them, alright. good for them. i just hate their chord progressions and style. i find much of their music repetetive, and almost (i cant find the correct word for it, but this is as close as im going to get) cheesy. kind of hoaky. i like the doors because they spoke of things many people didnt have the gull to speak of. they werent really revolutionary, but i love their music. i love their lyrics. but thats me. truthfully, this is probably going to be my last entry. im tired of debating this whole thing. the truth is the beatles are very popular. i dont like them. i like jimi. i like morrison. i dislike the beatles, and that is my opinion. my taste. :-X

 

On an off note, does anything here agree that the 50s and before shared more in common with 1900 than with 2000?


I might agree with you on this FullHouseFan!, if it hadn't been for three very important inventions and two very important events between 1900 and 1950 and they are in order:

1.  The mass production of the automobile
2.  The motion pictures and all the improvements they had made up to and including the 1950's.
3.  Franklin D. Roosevelt and Social Security.
4.  The invention and hopefully only twice use of the Atomic bomb.
5.  And finally, the United Nations.

That is funny  ;D  I'm into eighties music right now. It's sorta stuck between your gen's music and mine's.  I guess my taste in music is a bit shallow, but I think keyboards sound awesome!  I like a lot of rock from the 90s and 2000s though.

-FHF


FHF, just a clue, much of the 1980's music, especially after Disco definitely died in about late 1981 (I graduate high school that year and was born late in the Baby Boom, in 1963) is based on what the Beatles started.  A matter of fact if memory serves me correctly, starting in 1982 with the Human League's "Don't You Want Me" there was a mini-British invasion, not to dissimiliar to the British invasion of pop/rock music started by the Beatles in 1964.

I agree with others on this site, listen all the way through the British released version of "Rubber Soul" (and several times) to fully appreciate the Beatles and yes, listen to Paul's bass playing.  As much as I was a fan of Lennon (and especially the lyrics that he wrote and sang), the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles if it wasn't for Paul's bass playing.  And in many respect you will hear what I heard in the 1980's during the mini-British invasion started by the Human League, but also included such groups as Culture Club, Duran Duran, Police (who actually did start in the late-1970's), the Eurythmics, etc., there are many similiarities to the music and if you don't believe me there, check out some of the other groups that were the Beatles' peers from Britian (although I agree the Beatles left many of them behind), such as Herman's Hermits, early Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks, Moody Blues, etc. (You might be very pleasantly surprised). 

And yes I agree with you the Beatles weren't GODS, but to me, they certainly were one of the most brilliant musicians that ever lived and they might actually go down into history books or at least music history books and I dare say not only will they continue to influence music, but also literature for centuries.  (A matter of fact some textbooks even have the Beatles tune, "Eleanor Rigby" -- on another great album of theirs to listen to, "Revolver" -- in literature as an excellent poem).         

I don't care much for Elvis or Gone With the Wind.


I actually like some of Elvis' music (especially his early stuff, and a few of his later songs such as "Suspicious Minds"), but I hate "Gone With The Wind" and here I am living here in Atlanta, GA right now.

Of course the funniest thing about the author of the book, GWTW, was when I was working at the Margaret Mitchell Branch Library in downtown Atlanta I use to get calls on the switchboard asking me where Margaret Mitchell was.  ;D  (Sometimes I had to control myself to not say something like, "Hmmmmmmm, let me see?  Where is she buried?"  ;))

hey man, you have your opinions. that does not make a band the best there ever was. everyone has their own opinions.you cant just tell someone that the beatles were the best band ever.especially considering their monotonous, repetitious, simplistic songs. how can a band be the greatest when their songs are so simple and not very original. but thats my opinion. other people may not believe the same way, well, thats their deal.personally i feel that the doors was the greatest band. their lyrics and music challenged the status quo and opened a nations eyes up. i think that jimi hendrix was the most influential because when the beatles were doing their pop thing, jimi was coming out with sounds that had never been heard before. and dont tell me that the beatles influenced hendrix. hendrix started in 65, and listening to the two, i think that there is no comparison whatsoever. but that is my opinion. i dont just go out ant tell everyone that that is the way it is. i tell them that it is my opinion. so dont tell me that the beatles is the greatest band ever and if i disagree, im wrong, so you can go and live a sheltered life and try not to open your eyes and live closed minded.thats your choice.


I do agree with this somewhat, but I did like Jimi Hendrix, the Doors (I was told at one of the alma maters or at least one of the colleges Jim Morrison attended for a semester when he lived in Florida, St. Petersburg Junior College -- when I was getting my Associates degree, and I was told this by Professors who remembered Morrison {again this is back in 1981 - 83 when I was 18 to 20 years old, mind you} that I favored Jim Morrison!  And then I started singing, "Light My Fire" and others agreed that I sounded like him too.  For a couple of years I thought for sure this was, "Hey, Kurt Russell, you have nothing on me in playing Jim Morrison!!!"  ;D), but i also liked the Beatles!!!

To each his own.

Peace brothers.   

Hendrix may be a good guitarist, but the reason for his popularity was that he died at such a young age. When that happens people tend to make you a martyr. To put down The Beatles all because you like Hendrix is ludicrous. So maybe YOU should get your stuff straight.


I don't believe this is necessarily true, either.  Don't forget that "Are You Experienced?" and "Electric Ladyland" and "Axis:  Bold As Love" -- all Jimi Hendrix albums were selling quite well back in 1967 - 68 (maybe not entirely on the same international level as the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's" lp or the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour" lp or the Beatles' "White Album" was), but certainly Jimi's albums were selling quite well enough -- if not more to put them in the Top 10 {I do believe "Are You Experienced?" even went to #1} on the Bilboard Magazine Album charts of the time period. 

Again to each his own. 

And what about those of us who love both Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles?

Peace brothers.

i see some of your point. the reason jimi hendrix is more well known is because of the fact that a lot of the styles that he had experimented with the guitar, were things people had never heard of until that time. i never said there was anything wrong with the beatles being sooo popular. i just dont like them. if people like them, alright. good for them. i just hate their chord progressions and style. i find much of their music repetetive, and almost (i cant find the correct word for it, but this is as close as im going to get) cheesy. kind of hoaky. i like the doors because they spoke of things many people didnt have the gull to speak of. they werent really revolutionary, but i love their music. i love their lyrics. but thats me. truthfully, this is probably going to be my last entry. im tired of debating this whole thing. the truth is the beatles are very popular. i dont like them. i like jimi. i like morrison. i dislike the beatles, and that is my opinion. my taste. :-X


Well, it's okay. We are all entitled to our opinion. I guess for me, I just like a solid reason for stuff like that otherwise I find it debatable, although that isn't really what I want to do - debate. Now that I see what your reasons are behind not liking them - finding them hoaky, cheesy, and repetitive, then I can catch a glimpse of what some of your reasoning is beind not liking them.

That is a good point, yet there are certain landmark artists - whether they give themselves credit or not - that did change the face of music. It's like saying all the 1960's artists *which obviously there were many* did something that really stood out. Some did, and some didn't. Many didn't stand the test of time, or they just survived off a couple of hits that were one hit wonders or near flukes. The Beatles wrote in a manner that reflected a generation because they practically reinvented it. Before them, Elvis had done a similar thing - he reinvented how music could be heard and understood, and gave it a whole new meaning... many just followed suit...


I agree with this ultraviolet52.  I actually would venture a guess that if the Beatles had not broken into the states, with their early hits (such as "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Please, Please Me", etc.) and started the British invasion that it's possible much of the experimentation by other groups, later, might NOT have happened.

In some regards the Beatles were a leader of music, too.  Or at the least pointing to where rock music needed to develop, go or grow.

Some people arguing this point about whether the Beatles are overrated or not, need to remember what immediately was happening in rock music, in the U.S., just before they arrived for their appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" in February 1964 and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" held the #1 spot on the Billboard Magazine Hot 100 charts for seven weeks (and then was followed for three weeks by "She Loves You" and then for 5 more weeks by "Can't Buy Me Love"), and that is what was happening in the years since Elvis had gone into the army in 1960, was that rock 'n' roll was being considered as dying out (or at least the raunchy rock 'n' roll not only expressed by Elvis, but by such artists as Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Chuck Berry & Fats Domino, etc., in the late 1950's, was really starting to be watered down). 

Just look at the two #1 songs immediately before, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, here they are:

For four weeks in January 1964:  "There!  I've Said It Again" by Bobby Vinton (big whoop de doo, for experimentation or much raunchyness)!

and for five weeks from the end of November 1963 (after Kennedy's was assassinated -- btw, there is something great about how the Beatles really rejuvenated the younger people of 1964 after JFK's assassination that is very very important and should not be underrated)  we had from a monastery in France:  "Dominique" by Singing Nun (yeah, really experimental and I'd love to just sit and listen to Singing Nun for the rest of my life or when I'm young over a Beatles' song or album, yeah right! ;))

So the Beatles are extremely important and were very important for music and yes, culture itself.

Now don't get me wrong, again I agree the Beatles were NOT GODS, but certainly they were Brilliant musicians and if at the sametime they were also Great Showmen and Great at publicity (although they certainly got there own fair share of bad press in the 1960's, as well, take a look at what happened when they went and got their medals from Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 or when John said what he did about the Beatles and Jesus Christ in 1966), SO WHAT!!!!     

I agree with this ultraviolet52.  I actually would venture a guess that if the Beatles had not broken into the states, with their early hits (such as "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Please, Please Me", etc.) and started the British invasion that it's possible much of the experimentation by other groups, later, might NOT have happened.

In some regards the Beatles were a leader of music, too.  Or at the least pointing to where rock music needed to develop, go or grow.

Some people arguing this point about whether the Beatles are overrated or not, need to remember what immediately was happening in rock music, in the U.S., just before they arrived for their appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" in February 1964 and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" held the #1 spot on the Billboard Magazine Hot 100 charts for seven weeks (and then was followed for three weeks by "She Loves You" and then for 5 more weeks by "Can't Buy Me Love"), and that is what was happening in the years since Elvis had gone into the army in 1960, was that rock 'n' roll was being considered as dying out (or at least the raunchy rock 'n' roll not only expressed by Elvis, but by such artists as Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Chuck Berry & Fats Domino, etc., in the late 1950's, was really starting to be watered down). 

Just look at the two #1 songs immediately before, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, here they are:

For four weeks in January 1964:  "There!  I've Said It Again" by Bobby Venton (big whoop de doo, for experimentation or much raunchyness)!

and for five weeks from the end of November 1963 (after Kennedy's was assassinated -- btw, there is something great about how the Beatles really rejuvenated the younger people of 1964 after JFK's assassination that is very very important and should not be underrated)   we had from a monastery in France:  "Dominique" by Singing Nun (yeah, really experimental and I'd love to just sit and listen to Singing Nun for the rest of my life or when I'm young over a Beatles' song or album, yeah right! ;))

So the Beatles are extremely important and were very important for music and yes, culture itself.

Now don't get me wrong, again I agree the Beatles were NOT GODS, but certainly they were Brilliant musicians and if at the sametime they were also Great Showmen and Great at publicity (although they certainly got there own fair share of bad press in the 1960's, as well, take a look at what happened when they went and got their medals from Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 or when John said what he did about the Beatles and Jesus Christ in 1966), SO WHAT!!!!     


Thanks for the agreement - I feel like I am agreeing with a lot of your comments here, as well.
This is how I feel about the topic (one final comment and I shall bow out gracefully, lol)

To appreciate some sort of song that doesn't have some repetition is to not like any music at all. Music is all about repetitive beats. People sometimes don't see that many pop songs are actually more carefully crafted than they give them credit for. The Beatles were actually known at the time to go off the beaten track of a traditional pop song and give it their own spin.

I know exactly where you're coming from about the Beatles first #1, right after Bobby Vinton's decent lovelorn song decided to slide down the charts into Pre-Fab Four Oblivion. One who examines the charts prior to the Beatles will be astonished at how little pop music had changed between the 40's, 50's and early 60's. Obviously, Rock & Roll had made it's mark in 1955, but it was still secondary to artists like Pat Boone, Bobby Vinton, Frank Sinatra wannabe's, and quartets like the Four Aces. There were a few that were slowly changing the scene a little bit - like the Beach Boys and little one hit wonder bands/groups and some R & B greats. But, nothing prepared anyone for what the Beatles had to offer.

So, now that I have just reinstated a lot of what cnbpjb said (does pjb stand for peanut jelly butter??), I will just go dig a hole and bury me bloody head... lol

(does pjb stand for peanut jelly butter??)


;D LOL!!!

No, pjb does not stand for that though.  The cnb is someone else's initials that share this e-mail address.

PJB are my initials, Peter James (and I don't want to tell you my last name thank you very much).

BTW, why do I always misspell Bobby Vinton's last name as being like the last name of my favorite actor who I salute on the left side of everyone's screen, Harley Venton  -- although Harley was on an episode of "Kate & Allie" in 1984 where they misspelled his last name in the closing credits as the Bobby with a different spelling, but similiar name.  But this is aggravating, because I'm sure Harley Venton was not a really great fan of Bobby Vinton -- as I wasn't (Harley always came across as waaaay too cool for that even if he was born ten years before I was in 1953). (The only song I myself ever liked from Bobby Vinton was "Blue Velvet").

Now don't get me wrong, again I agree the Beatles were NOT GODS, but certainly they were Brilliant musicians

I'd say 'adequate', especially when they first ventured out...

Reminds me of that famous interview some music hack had with Lennon about Ringo...

Q. Do you think Ringo is the best drummer in the world?

A. He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!

and if at the sametime they were also Great Showmen and Great at publicity (although they certainly got there own fair share of bad press in the 1960's, as well, take a look at what happened when they went and got their medals from Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 or when John said what he did about the Beatles and Jesus Christ in 1966), SO WHAT!!!!     


Well, their act was versatile and they certainly had the stamina, but Epstein really has to take credit for making it 'presentable' and also for their publicity angle...before he came along, swearing on stage was the norm for them!
And of course, don't forget a good old-fashioned bit of luck...
Epstein said during the time, '...The Beatles are successful because they are good - they are a phenomenon because they are lucky!'

And as for musical progression, a whole heap of credit must go to producer George Martin, and engineers Norman 'Hurricane' Smith and Geoff Emerick who allowed them to freely experiment with what the studio could cope with...'Abbey Road' was a bit of a dinosaur, even in the 60s!

But at the end of the day, the net product - the music - speaks for itself...

thank you all for appreciating my opinion. and i think its cool that you (ummmm. i forgot. i remember that the last letters are pjb) like different styles of music.

Peace!!
BEK

:o  There, I said it.  They're great if you're into the thing, but they're not undisputedly the greatest band ever.  I mean, they were the first powerhouse band besides Elvis, but first doesn't equal best.  There are many bands I personally like more, and there are  some more talented (perhaps not many, but some mos def).


Flame if you will  :)


I think FullHouseFan is overrated.

There I said it.

SamMalone - Cheers!
;)

I'd say 'adequate', especially when they first ventured out...

Reminds me of that famous interview some music hack had with Lennon about Ringo...

Q. Do you think Ringo is the best drummer in the world?

A. He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!

Well, their act was versatile and they certainly had the stamina, but Epstein really has to take credit for making it 'presentable' and also for their publicity angle...before he came along, swearing on stage was the norm for them!
And of course, don't forget a good old-fashioned bit of luck...
Epstein said during the time, '...The Beatles are successful because they are good - they are a phenomenon because they are lucky!'

And as for musical progression, a whole heap of credit must go to producer George Martin, and engineers Norman 'Hurricane' Smith and Geoff Emerick who allowed them to freely experiment with what the studio could cope with...'Abbey Road' was a bit of a dinosaur, even in the 60s!

But at the end of the day, the net product - the music - speaks for itself...


As Sam Malone said about FullHouseFan, I think this Paul is also sooooooooooo overrated!!

Furthermore, Paul and all the rest of you:  If the only thing you can think of to do is bash people who like the Beatles:

Then why don't you Get A Life?!!!!!!!!

There are sooooooooooo many other things that need to be questioned then others being fans of the Beatles, than that issue.

Oh, wait a minute, if I met any of you on the street, I'd want to totally avoid them.

Okay, well, lets just keep things in perspective here - Ringo was a great drummer, maybe not the best - but I am not one who specializes in a drummer's accuracy so I don't want to make an inaccurate statement saying he is the best. So, let's just say this - Ringo was a great drummer - a vast improvement to their original drummer, Pete Best. But, that's not to say that Paul McCartney wasn't great either (he did play the drums on several of their songs - and who's to tell the difference?)

So, concerning great drummers from so-so drummers, I think Ringo ranks in the "great" column.

I do agree that Epstein had a lot to do with their style and their changed demeanor from being the leather clad group with cigarettes hanging from their mouth to suits and shaggy haired clean cut lads.

I also agree that George Martin *a 5th Beatle, lol* really did put a fantastic effort into the Beatles success and their overall production. He was like the leader whom they could follow and so were the engineers. But, because of their allowance, we can thank them for letting each of the fab four use their creativity to their fullest potential. I think it was other artists that didn't see this opportunity as much as the Beatles did and that's what sets the Beatles apart.

Okay, well, lets just keep things in perspective here - Ringo was a great drummer, maybe not the best - but I am not one who specializes in a drummer's accuracy so I don't want to make an inaccurate statement saying he is the best. So, let's just say this - Ringo was a great drummer - a vast improvement to their original drummer, Pete Best. But, that's not to say that Paul McCartney wasn't great either (he did play the drums on several of their songs - and who's to tell the difference?)

So, concerning great drummers from so-so drummers, I think Ringo ranks in the "great" column.

I do agree that Epstein had a lot to do with their style and their changed demeanor from being the leather clad group with cigarettes hanging from their mouth to suits and shaggy haired clean cut lads.

I also agree that George Martin *a 5th Beatle, lol* really did put a fantastic effort into the Beatles success and their overall production. He was like the leader whom they could follow and so were the engineers. But, because of their allowance, we can thank them for letting each of the fab four use their creativity to their fullest potential. I think it was other artists that didn't see this opportunity as much as the Beatles did and that's what sets the Beatles apart.


Well, okay ultraviolet, you said it better and nicer and more polite than I was willing to. :)

Well, okay ultraviolet, you said it better and nicer and more polite than I was willing to. :)


No problem..  ;)

I do like the Beatles - at least I like many of their songs - but I wouldn't come even close to calling them the "Greatest Band In History" as I've heard others do, they ain't even my favorite band of the era, but my mother and her friends were hippies and that's obviously affected my tasts in music.

I was 10 years old when the Beatles first came to the U.S. I loved their music then and I love it now.

I have to say that so many great songs *and* recordings came from that band that they should get props as "best band ever" if any band should.

Forty years later they're still being begged for on I-tunes, and rereleases of their work still sell well. Everyone has covered them. The team of Lennon and McCartney produced fun pop tunes and then, with "Rubber Soul" successfully took popular music in a whole new direction.

It's not that everything they did was a winner; I can't listen to "Revolution No. 9', though that was when they were barely speaking to each other and not really working together anymore. But they had a batting average that was pretty high by any number of measures.

Cheers,
MaryMary

If Beatles came out, say, 20 yrs later, how popular do you think they would of been? 

probably not as popular....they were in the right place at the right time

:o  There, I said it.  They're great if you're into the thing, but they're not undisputedly the greatest band ever.  I mean, they were the first powerhouse band besides Elvis, but first doesn't equal best.  There are many bands I personally like more, and there are  some more talented (perhaps not many, but some mos def).


Flame if you will  :)


FLAMES BOO-COO!!! Think I'll pass on this thread. >:(.... ;)