Boards

that the Beatles really weren't that consistent, and that although they have loads of great songs it's the result of a bit of musical diahorrea. They have a higher hit rate than usual, but other bands have probably achieved a similiar amount of quality (even if they weren't quite as groundbreaking)

Of course, i wouldn't be able to comment. Never heard of them

i'm not sure i could name a band since that could write both lyrics and music so effortlessly.

I don't even need to justify.

that they never got ahead of the pack in the first place. i would be one of those people.

it's simple historicisation of music that says that The Beatles begot pop/psychedelica, which begot prog which begot punk which begot etc etc. it doesn't take into account the strands of genres that have existed for decades before their zenith. The Beatles just serve a lot of purposes nicely - the good 'ol days of music; British pride that "everything" started there and that that does not is a deviation from the true path; the simplification of music etc.

lots of reasons, not necessarily because The Beatles were particularly better than current songwriters. There were less overused ideas back in the 60s, as rock and pop were relatively new artforms. If your music genre is less than 10 years old, it's easier to come up with fresh sounding ideas than if it's 50 years old. There's a lot of received wisdom bias there, as well. History has proven them right, and current bands havn't had the chance to be proven right yet. We know The Beatles were great because received wisdom tells us they're great, because 2 generations have established that they're great. Maybe in 30 years time, Radiohead or someone like that would have 2 generations insisting to the next that they were one of the greats, and reveived wisdom will say that they are one of the greats. Modern music is more fractured, also. Everyone agreed that The Beatles were great, but now that everyone listens to music in small compartments, and nobody agrees on anything. Not because the bands aren't great, but because everything's subgenred to hell and there's no real shared listening experience thing anymore.

Last point is that bands just aren't encouraged to be that prolific in the modern musical environment. The best bands may well be fully capable of churning out great song after great song, and have hundreds in them, but the industry is geared towards 12 songs every year or 2, and no real need or encouragement to write more. 12 songs, job's done for 2 years when it comes to songwriting, and the band and label machine concentrates on other things, as the recording, mixing, marketing and touring process is much more time consuming, involved and sophisticated as it was in 1967.

coupled with the fact that everything was being properly experimented with for the first time.

People often say "yeah but they wrote a lot of shit". I don't understand this. "a lot of shit" as in, what? 4 or 5 songs? We're talking songs that make you go "god this is bad". Not songs that aren't brilliant.

There just needs to be some huge shift in the way music's made. To me, it seems like the guitar-bass-drums-singer was the thing of the 20th century. Hopefully its not going to last for as long as the orchestral format for music did and something totally novel will come around soon.

I spose there's the argument that they just got there first. They were the first band to write music which could appeal so universally and change so much within the space of seven years.

Talking about The Beatles.

when it comes to improving peoples lives, lyrical prowness, hallmarks of history.
WE'RE ALL IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE
IT'S YELLOW
STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER
LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS
they touch me to my core, they do.

*shrug*

never really that fussed tbh...

Always thought they were a bit over rated meself.....

UNDER THE SEA
IN AN OCTOPUS'S GARDEN IN THE SHADE

they were actually pretty lame until they started tripping and that.

in fact, they ruined music by firmly imprinting the verse chorus verse model on popular music which older blues and orchestral music (FAR FAR more interesting) didn't utilise. I'd actually argue that both the first Velvet Underground album and Pet Sounds easily surpass the beatles.

now, awful awful awful things happen in the name of pop (Oasis) and that is their legacy.

they made some music which is more of less perfect. but a lot of music that came after is completely different, and if you take a beatles song as what is quality, then anything that doesnt sound like it is automatically not quality, which is not the case.

in terms of pop, theyve not been surpassed because they perfected the style of music.

and hasn't since Revolver.

Therefore they have never been surpassed in their absolute particular genre.

There have been, by my subjective reckoning, around 15, give or take a couple, better bands since The Beatles, but obviously they have done slightly different music.

This is a pretty stupid thread.

i'm not really bothered.

For this thread to work, we need to first determine that the fundemental premise is actually true.

First, were the Beatles the best musicians technically, either at the time or since? Objectively - no.

Subjectively, did they write the best songs with the skills they did have? Well, anyone whose favourite song isn't by the Beatles will tell you no.

Therefore, the answer to your question is that yes, they have been surpassed. Everywhere except possibly in the wallet area.

Does that lessen the success of prolific nature? No.

Has anyone surpassed the Beatles musically? Yes. Radiohead are a good example of "passing" the Beatles with a guitar based album that doesn't look sideways at Revolver.

Commercial success? I can NEVER see a pop act transceding world borders like the Beatles did ever again. So no.

This is right up his alley.

until the Model T came along mass produced cars were unheard of. They revolutionised transport and made cars accessible to the average person. No car since has had such an impact. But, would I seriously want to drive one today? No. Would I argue from the comfort of my air conditioned ford focus that the Model T is the pinacle of automotive achievement? No.

Yes the Beatles were groundbreaking. Well done them. But, they have been totally surpassed by modern bands, singers and songwriters.

If it wasn't them who pioneered tape-lopps, backward vocals etc. etc., then it'd have just been someone else along the line. James Brown, IMO, is much more musically influential, he pioneered a whole genre and style of playing!

by the Kinks

in the Beatles' music that is pretty hard to replicate today. As well as how great and joyous it sounds, there's a feeling of excitement and zeitgeistyness. Maybe that's more propergated by their legend than the music itself, but who cares. They're just fantastic to listen to. Music doesn't surpass and replace other music anyway, it's not as if something comes along and you throw all your old records away because they don't compare. What a pointless way to look at music. Are the Beach Boys better than The Beatles? Differently both better than the other. Are their modern bands better at what they do than the big old B? Technically and harmonically yeah almost certainly, but I don't figuratively wet myself with jubilation when I hear RadioFutureZionblahblahFunkface.

they have th odd good track but apart from that over rated.

Sure they are hugly influential and massive but what the heck I just aint keen on them.

Radioheaddddddddddddd

I wouldn't agree with the assertion in the thread it's 90% brilliant - there were a fair few dodgy moments. Which, to be honest, is part of what's great about them i.e. they're willigness to try stuff and risk it not working but it still remains the case in my view.

Don't be shy. Ah, dont bother, I'll tell you:

too black too strong

fuck this band

Herr. douchebag

bob_suall

Error_ Error_Error_Er

Kukalaka

Stelthy

Bundoz (big time)

Alex-in-Ciderland

jimitheexploder

The only reason I point this out is cause their comments were so obviously circumspection (and therefore not qualified to judge) and only surpassed in their stupidity by appleappleGreen the writer of this stupid thread. The obvious reason The Beatles have not been surpassed is cause whatever celestial forces that created the perfect storm we call The Beatles just hasn't come into play again since The Beatles phenom happened.

Artistically, there's been musical genius that has surpassed The Beatles long before, during and many times since The Beatles existed but there has never been an artist before, during or since The Beatles that had the genius, talent, the support (and scorn) of the masses and the mystique of The Beatles- and there probably never will be.

To all those who haven't heard the albums I mentioned above: I implore you to buy them when the remastered versions come out or buy them now and then buy them again when remasters are issued- I guarantee you'll see what all the hub bub is about.

Kula Shaker.

Great band.

But not the best.

ends this conversation in the favour of The Beatles.

the beatles are very good. well done. but now everyone's talking like grandads, lecturing kids on what's good. it's not as though anyone can answer the question

The Beatles wrote enough songs for fourteen albums.

Most bands/songwriters, in their entire careers, possibly lasting forty years, would hope to write maybe twenty classic songs. The Beatles have well over a hundred, in eight years.

The inability of any other band to write that number of quality songs is merely because Lennon, McCartney, and later Harrison were much better and infinitely more prolific.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here, is the rapid progression that The Beatles made throughout their chronology. Their early albums, whilst showcasing some great songwriting potential and energy (as well as imagination) in their cover versions were little more than cover versions. But listen to those early versions and you can here a really subtle progression through to the classic pop of Rubber Soul and Revolver. Their songwriting gradually become more adventurous and, above all, matured without losing their naivity.

But then of course some elements of Sgt. Pepper and the White Album are unbelievable risky for a mainstream pop band - when you consider the transition there were only 5-6 years after their Mersey Beat pop records, it's an absolutely amazing transition.

Above all those, their music and it's context are inseperable. There may have been better and more consistent songwriters before and since and without question there have been technically better musicians. However, their cultural impact was huge and this has yet to be match with such a level of credibility.

Add to all this that the Abbey Road medley is the most perfect sequence in the history of pop music and I rest my case.

I'd argue that Donna Summer/Giorgio Moroder's I Feel Love is as important to modern western music as anything The Beatles ever wrote.

As is Grandmaster Flash's The Message

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN EXISTS.

Mong.

or any band we wish to compare to them actually are.
The Beatles as the best band ever is so ingrained in our culture and musical history that it is set in stone.
As a mass collective this belief can never be challenged regardless of actual musical value.

I haven't read through the whole thread.

But what still amazes me personally about The Beatles is the sheer levels of quality ,(mostly) consistency and development that they exhibited over such an incredibly short period, lets say 1961-1970. I think that is the reason why they exist as such an anomaly.

To suggest they haven't been surpassed musically is obviously a massive bone of contention, but I do agree with the original poster in terms of the timing of their output.

To make the most crass comparison available;

The Beatles: 1962-1970 (8 years) - at least 8 classic albums.

Oasis: 1993-2008 (15 years) - at least 1 classic album.

The output is the key in this thread.

Impotent

As your arguments usually are

Giorgio Moroder (at best) served to temporarily legitimize disco music and break ground for the techno movement. Moroder's filmic work (an undervalued artform and not as easy to do as most think, just listend to Cat People the other day) But broken down, Moroder's work was basically a high octane Kraftwerk. The Beatles' importance on Western Music is probably greater than Moroder's and Grand Master Flash - maybe he (Biggy Grand)pioneered a technical style with his innovative turntable technique which in turn helped birth rap and hip hop but only a brain dead labratory ape would rival his contribution to western music with that of The Beatles. Trust me, 100 years from now; it's going to be Grand Master who? And his contribution to Western Music and all the cultural impact in general that he's had will just be a mild flavor in a pot of musical stew- but The Beatles will still be The Beatles and their music will still be available in stores and not just some dusty archival residue heap.

were/are more inspiring and have influenced more bands and genres than The Beatles.

ok, can it die now?

But yellow submarine is a massive pile of wank.

Nothing good about that song at all.

Of course they have countless other amazing songs.

shut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut up

not clever. but please. all the smart people, please just go and enjoy the beatles.

shut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut upshut up

Nuff said...Revolver comes a close second

I'd say Nina Simone's probably better than the Beatles.