God Bless the brilliance of this band, all of the members, everything involved with them, all pure beauty, impacting the lives of countless amounts of people.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

They were, FAR from the greatest band ever, how about THIS far?

 

 

 

No one else could quite reach the heavenly space this band managed to attend.  Far, Far away. Sure thing.

 

 

Its not about him being the greatest drummer of all time, its about him being a part of the equation which produced the greates band of all time!

Honestly, not a fan. Not a bad band...just never really got into them.

 

Hey, you know I love you Bri, how bout we pull a good ol Triad as the Jeff Airplane would say?

 

Two notes:

1. We shouldn't probably be here if they didn't exist;

2. Check how many Beatles' songs were covered/revisited by our beloved prog-bands.

 

 

I agree and this another band would certainly be discussed just like they are, no?  

 

 

 

No, this is it, this is it.......The best.

 

I know and love all of your bands, I love Zappa, I love alot......but Come on, The Beatles???? They are from another planet!

 

That's impossible, Fripp is already ahead

 

Atomic Rooster might not appreciate that comment

 

I can assure everyone that they were far from the best band of all time!

The most influencial of all time, yes, without a doubt. They changed music history. And they wrote some very good songs. They also wrote some rubbish, like most bands do, and they were, by their own admission, average musicians. You'd be surprised how many people here in Liverpool, even now, don't rate them very highly. A classic case of a band being in the right place at the right time.

I'm not saying all this to put them down. They were certainly good at what they did. But I am just adding some balance to the picture painted of them.

(Something that always makes me laugh is the amount of tourists who come here and visit 'The Cavern', not knowing that it isn't the original place were they played - the original was knocked down and is round the corner from the new one.)

But I did have some Beatles albums, mainly stereo ones from Germany that my brother-in-law brought back with him when in the army. My favourite Beatles period was the early one - pre '65.

 

 

Speesh, Genesis were the best prog band. As The Beatles are not prog, there is a subtle difference.

 

i totally disagree with what you say, but i defend (not with my life) your right to say it! IMHO The Beatles and Frank Zappa bear no comparison whatsoever, most of what Zappa did seemed to be extended jamming mixed with silly humour, miles and miles and miles of tape and dozens and dozens of albums, i bet they just jammed all day and left someone reloading the tape machine all day!  i have a copy of "Hot Rats" which is a brilliant album, but all the others i've heard are totally lost on me.

 

The Beatles learned their craft the hard way, and perfected their enormous talent over the years, their musical genius  reached everybody and captured the mood of the times perfectly. If I hadn't heard of The Beatles in 1962 i doubt if my interest in music had come to much at all, we all owe the boys a great debt of gratitude for influencing all genres of music.

 

so there!

 

I don't believe it's possible to over-rate the Beatles at all.

 

It is possible to underestimate their importance, however - people seem to do that all the time

 

I totally agree Mark.

 

Now that all depends on which Beatles songs you listened to - I can't believe you listened to the entire catalogue in one sitting...

 

If you're saying that "Eleanor Rigby" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" (as but two examples) lack multi-layered textures, complex harmonies and adventurousness, then you haven't listened to either.

 

As for rhythms, I'd challenge you to find anything more exciting in early 1960s rock music.

When they surfaced as a band in America, they were probably pretty damned amazing.
However, in now times, compared to countless prog bands, they are lacking.
No one adores the beatles greats as much as I do (well... maybe others do BLINDLY)
but I will never once even put them on the top 10 of most talented groups.
I say again, they are a great band, but to call them the greatest band in the whole world, that has ever been... that's just blind fanboyism.
Most popular would be a much more suitable claim.

I SAY AGAIN! I LOVE THE BEATLES! In mine own mind, no one can like them more than I do, but there are limits. LIMITS!
Edit- I have to add, to clear it up, I would have to agree though that they are probably the most important band that ever was. That's as clear as saran wrap.

 

They are just the BEST.

 

Certif1ed wrote: Now that all depends on which Beatles songs you listened to - I can't believe you listened to the entire catalogue in one sitting...

Certainly not, my wife wouldn't have stood for it.

 

Certif1ed wrote: If you're saying that "Eleanor Rigby" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" (as but two examples) lack multi-layered textures, complex harmonies and adventurousness, then you haven't listened to either.

Actually, I was not saying that.  I said that "their music generally lacks the multi-layered textures, more complex harmonics, rhythms, nuances, and adventurousness that excites me."  If you find their output mostly very satisfactory in regards to said qualities, and it excites you, fantastic. It has these qualities, but I find it still lacking for my tastes.

This is a bit of an aside:

I don't think, nay I know it, the "Fab 4" excelled at composition nor technique.  Nor do most rock bands for that matter.

As with E. Rigby, many (most I expect) of the songs that were best layered and had the best harmonies were scored, conducted, and arranged by their producer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin - George Martin . 

I find the rhythms pleasing in the experimental "Tomorrow Never Knows."  It has interesting effects (tape loops, processed vocals, compression) -- a cleverly engineered song, and good ideas from the Beatles too.

But, to the general topic, I consider the Beatles much less of a band because they were so dependent on Martin's "musical expertise."  They were quite dependant on help to flesh out their ideas.  It doesn't make the songs bad, of course, though I still don't find them great, but I have more respect for musician's musicians and composer's composers.  These guys seriously lacked serious training.

They got by with a lot of help from their friends.

 

Cert wrote: As for rhythms, I'd challenge you to find anything more exciting in early 1960s rock music.

I'll pass that challenge back to you as that period of rock is not of particular interest to me.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any rock that is more exciting rhythmically before the mid-sixties than the Beatles early albums.  But then I'm not really excited by early 60's rock to tell the truth (I far prefer jazz from that time).

 I'm much more interested in the Beatles mid-sixties to seventy period, and I can think of a great many bands from that time that excite me more rhythmically and otherwise.  But hey, that's me.

I still like The Beatles, but they don't wow me anymore.  Historically important?  Absolutely.  Influential?  Assuredly.  Groundbreaking? I won't deny the impact of their albums.  Were the band members as gifted, versatile, and skilled as a great many other musicians/ composers of their time, before their time, or after their time (I offered no temporal or genre limits in my former post)?  I say no.  Could they have done it on their own?  Very doubtful.  But nothing uncommon about that of course.


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts

Logan wrote: As with E. Rigby, many (most I expect) of the songs that were best layered and had the best harmonies were scored, conducted, and arranged by their producer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin - George Martin .  I find the rhythms pleasing in the experimental "Tomorrow Never Knows."  It has interesting effects (tape loops, processed vocals, compression) -- a cleverly engineered song, and good ideas from the Beatles too.

 

Logan wrote: But, to the general topic, I consider the Beatles much less of a band because they were so dependent on Martin's "musical expertise."  They were quite dependant on help to flesh out their ideas.  It doesn't make the songs bad, of course, though I still don't find them great, but I have more respect for musician's musicians and composer's composers.  These guys seriously lacked serious training. They got by with a lot of help from their friends.

-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.

See above - about Martin and the arrangements.

Read it just a few seconds ago, my memory isn't so bad that I need to re-read it. 

The fab 4 were no slouches in the songwriting department - by not acknowledging that, you show your lack of knowledge in the field of songwriting.

Are you positive that that must be the case and there could be no possible other reason for such an omission? A bit presumptuous (not that I would ever claim to be an authority in the "Strawberry Fields" *pun for puns sake* of songwriting ).  I do recognise them as good songwriters.  In fact I take that as a given, but perhaps it does indicate something of my interests in that I did not feel it necessary to include that in aid of my thoughts on this subject. At least on page two of this thread I mentioned John Lennon's good songs.

Cert wrote: You're not a rock historian of any kind then, as that period - specifically 1965-67 is of immense interest because that is when rock changed from the simple songs of the 1950s onward into the more complex beast we appreciate on this forum. It's an absolutely fascinating and critical time in rock history.

 
Never claimed to be a rock historian, so the jibe seems unnecessary.  I have no qualms in claiming that I am a music lover who knows something about music history,  In fact, I said that I am not particularly interested in early 60's rock music (I don't enjoy it so much) but my next sentence was meant to indicate that I am more interested in the mid-sixties up (from 1965 on in fact because of the reasons you noted).  Did I have to spell that out?

It is doubtful they could have done it without either Epstein or Martin, as Marketing has been important to rock music since Elvis Presley/Colonel Parker - but their own songs are so much stronger than the material available for them to cover at the time (as evidenced on their albums before "Rubber Soul") that it is a nonsense to say that they were less gifted, versatile or skilles as composers or musicians in rock music at that time - all the recorded evidence is to the contrary - and if you have no interest in that period of music, then how can you possibly pass judgement?

Of course I'm well aware of the marketing in music... But it seems my writing didn't come across again.  I did not say that they were less skilled etc. than composers or musicians in rock music at that time, I said that there were many composers/ musicians who were more talented... I deliberately chose to say both before during and after as well as a comment to allude to the fact that I was not specifically referring to the rock genre or defining temporal limits as an absurd-ist riposte to a  former comment of yours (your challenge to me to find a band from the early 60s that was as rhythmically exciting).  It was just meant as a bit of fun in response to the temporal and genre boundaries you set in your challenge.  Really, I had initially just meant that the Beatles rhythmic approaches do not appeal much to me (especially their early stuff it must be said...)  Nothing wrong with your challenge, you were just approaching it from a different angle than I was initially.

Did I ever say I have no interest in that period?  I said I'm not particularly interested in the early 60s rock music (really I don't enjoy listening to much music of this time).  At one time I liked it more.  And I once was more into the Beatles and had all of their albums (albeit hand-me-downs from my brothers).  It's just that I have found more rock music of interest from the mid-'60s up: '65 to 67 are great years... I like much more rock music from '65-69 than '60-64 as would most people here.  I guess this time I could have said see above.

If you're not taking the music in its proper context, then it's still very difficult to find songwriters in the popular music arena that are as accomplished as the Beatles - and you HAVE to set genre limits, as there is absolutely no point in comparing the Beatles with song maestros like Schubert, the Italian School and so on - you said it yourself, they had no training, which is the most remarkable thing about them.

When analysing the music one must look at it in the proper context, obviously.  But this all referred back to the initial post you quoted which was really about me saying it's not to my taste for such and such a reason.  Prog rock was my initial yardstick as this topic was raised in the Prog forum initially, and of course that this is being posited at a Prog board as THE best band.  Proto-Prog classified bands very rarely appeal nearly so much to me as the Prog bands as I enjoy.

While The Beatles were influential and helped pave the way for Progressive rock (as I said in an earlier post here), I do not consider them to be at the same level as the Prog bands that came out, well, not many years later.  Not that I can expect it as rock music evolved... and darned quickly, and they played a big part in that.

They weren't composers of art music until later in their careers, but composers of folk songs. And at that, they are still unsurpassed.

Well that's subjective (I mean I've been approaching this more from a subjective angle and you've been going more for objective evaluation). So many great folk song composers.

I was merely probing to find out your reasons for dismissing the music as lightweight (something you made clearly apparent). My statements weren't intended as jibes - but I must admit I found it hard to conceal my incredulity at the apparent naievity of some of the statements coming from someone who clearly has an appreciation for fine music.

 

I would remind you that this is the Proto-Prog lounge...

 

Indeed - I know the problem...

Logan wrote: While the Proto-Prog section is for discussing Proto-Prog bands, and therefore it is usually best to draw comparisons to other of like ilk, considering the opening statement, ludicrous and hyperbolic though it is in a sense, is "The Beatles are, were, and always will be the greatest band to ever exist on this Earth, and for the Human Race in general" that opened the doors wide for mentioning bands of any genre as I, and others saw it.  Therefore I have no problem using Prog as a yardstick -- especially as this topic, as I recall, was originally placed in the Prog forum, an act which is likely to cause people to draw even more comparison between the Beatles and pure Prog bands.  Some do consider the Beatles a true  Prog band for their later work.

 

I agree that the opening statement was rather OTT - I guess I've just got used to TLC's style, and didn't take him at his word.

 

I wouldn't take all of prog as a yardstick - there are so many poor songwriters in Prog, and the music of the genre as a whole is not a useful thing to use as a comparison, IMO.

Logan wrote: In honour of TLC and the Beatles, I will play Magical Mystery Tour from start to finish.  Ah, it's good to be the Egg Man again -- koo koo koo choo.  I had forgotten just how much I like them (Progressive Rock corrupted me -- no, a certain Prog Snob mentality somehow got a hold of me -- I blame it on bad influences here since I used to be so nice ).

 

...sorry about that

 

 

Logan wrote: Bravo for the Beatles!!! I seriously mean it.

 

I'll second that - my MFSL copy of MMT arrived only recently, and I've been hammering it - I'd forgotten just how good it is.

 

 

God help us, what would have happened if that band had been The Rolling Stones???