nope.

I consider them one of the best rock bands ever and among one of the most influencial.

Yup...right up there with the Beatles, Stones, Who, Led Zep, Sabbath and TOOL :lol: ...

Yes. Greatest. End of debate.

No its not. Thats the kind of pathetic arrogance I hate about most Beatles fans. They feel because they came first no one can outdo them. BS. Zeppelin & Floyd were far greater than the Beatles. I dont care how much they were influenced by them. (students can outdo instructors you know)

Well, it is all personal opinion....maybe arrogant...but it is just a fans opinion. Personally, I like the Beatles a lot.
It was the first band (along with the Stones) that began my interest in RnR.

I know many who do not like the Beatles and/or Stones (so what... ;) )...and I know many who do not like Led Zep
or Floyd too. My opinion, there are few other bands that I like a hell of a lot more than Zep or Floyd...and I
would put Floyd way ahead of Led Zep. So as you can tell I can get really tired of hearing about Led Zepplin
as the greatest band as well :)

...as do I about the Beatles, actually it makes me sick, just like how Nirvana is on every top list that represents the new generation -wink-

Thats why I said it can be debated. But no, tell that to a Beatles fan and your commiting a holy sin :lol:

Yup...don't -ef- with them... :lol: it does get scary and I actually like the Beatles....

Close MJKTool, but no cigar. At least you didn't say something like AC/DC.

Actually I am smoking that cigar with my feet on the table and blowing that smoke from the cigar in your face! "In your face! In yo face!!" Zeppelin had a FAAAR greater dummer, lead guitarist & vocalist. Also had a way better way of writing epic songs....just to name a couple things. Care to come at me with something other than "yes they are, no debate...na na na na na"

:lol:

I like the Beatles too, go figure that :)

Clearly there are bands who were better at guitar riffs and even musical composition than the Beatles. (Hendrix clearly has no equal as far as guitar work goes imo.) But Zeppelin's songwriting wasn't as consistently touching or profound. A song isn't just strictly music, it's words (vocals/lyrics), it's personality, it's the concept of an entire album.

Beatles songs speak to you like no other songs in the history of rock. It's hard to find the equivalent of A Day in the Life or Something or Blackbird in other bands. They're literary. And that's one of the most important legacies of the blues, an individual pouring their heart out and telling a story. (Some would say that heavy metal misses the point of the blues entirely).

Furthermore, no band went through as many changes in such a short period of time, from I Wanna Hold Your Hand to I Am the Walrus. The Beatles could do soul (Let It Be), blues (Yer Blues), proto-metal (Helter Skelter), love songs (I Will), political songs (Revolution No. 1), trippy songs (Tommorow Never Knows), novelty songs (Continuing Story of Bungalo Bill), country (Rocky Racoon) and just flat-out rock(Everybody's Got.....My Monkey).

Also important is the prominent role played by the piano in their music, as well as the classical influences. They could just put a string arrangement behind McCartney's vocals and have a great track, Eleanor Rigby or She's Leaving Home. Again, not something many bands were capable of.

And this is another thing that made them uniquely modern and revolutionary - their emphasis was always on production, not performance. They'd do a hundred takes to get it down; they'd run their vocals through vocoders; McCartney recorded his vocals in slow-motion and sped the tape to make his voice higher in pitch for When I'm Sixty-Four. They stretched the limits of what a studio was capable of.

Obviously this isn't a black-or-white issue. Tangerine could be a response to much of what i've argued above. Led Zeppelin are no doubt in my Top 3 or 4 favorite bands of all time as well and THEY'RE influence and place in music history is not to be underestimated. When you consider them along with The Kinks and Black Sabbath, then you've got the ingredients for heavy metal for the next three decades.

But the fact is as far as The Beatles' influence and rank is concerned when all is said and done, today we are left with 5 era-changing albums:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Not to mention dozens of B-sides and lesser albums/compliations. No other band did this much great work or had as much of an impact on popular music and culture as a whole. No other.

--

They speak to who? You? Thats fine. Doesnt mean they speak to everybody, as I would not even be having this discussion to you if they did. Albums relate to different people and their different situations in life. Beatles had struck a chord with you, just like other bands did the same to me. And don't tell me other bands don't pour their heart out in their music....again that is a pretty pompous attitude. Roger Waters was a damn fine story steller btw.

They were great at that and thats what just about every Beatles fan loves to shove in your face. But you know what...so what! They created concept albums with different lyrical content each time. Does that equate to some kind of amazement. Not to me, it just means they are not letting themselves get stuck in the same repitition over and over again. Growth is good, but not something that should be lauded as "greatness".

Pink Floyd sure as hell was able to incorporate the piano as well as a ton of other arrangements behind Gilmour/Waters, even better imo.

Pink Floyd did this as well. But I personally prefer a band who can create that magic without a bazillion takes because it tranforms well to onstage.

And not one of them can touch this gem imo: :)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Fine, but thats going back to influence again. And as I said I dont particulary equate influence to overall greatness. They were the first I will give them that.

Way to undermine all non-rock music, Rivero!

haha

We were always talking just Rock and Roll bands here.

Dark Side isn't even Floyd's best album, let alone one that's better than Revolver.

That's not the point. Yr points about the Beatles' strengths are at the expense of other bands/forms of music; more or less, because, as you claim, the Beatles are informed by these musical characteristics = these are higher forms of music = other forms are lower.

I strongly disagree. See the Dark Side of the Moon, it talks to me...it tells a story to me like no other one of their albums can do at the same level......

See, each person needs something different from an album - Dark Side is a good album, but it leaves me rather cold, because it has little heart and practically no discernable melodies. That is not a problem with the Beatles.

Dark Side leaves me rather warm and fuzzy inside personally. And I imagine it does to millions of other people as well, as reflected by it being in the top 20 selling albums of all time...

And how do you measure the amount of "heart" that went into making an album? Are you saying The Beatles put more "heart" into their albums?

Although Dark Side could be considered the "quintessential" album, I think you'll find that most Pink Floyd fans consider this to be their best:



http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


This is THE ALBUM. A unique piece of art and one could argue the finest prog rock album ever made. Perfect, deliberate lyrical sequencing, especially with the knowledge that it was written as a sort of memorial for Syd Barrett. Deep insight that had yet to fall into the introspective naval gazing of their later work. An album that has a clear message and vision of what it wants to convey to the listener, offering a snapshot of the band at a specific lyrical and musical peak in their careers. Emotionally uplifting, even moving, Wish You Were Here explores all dimensions of the members' musical talents and the sounds and textures they, as a group, were able to produce. For a time overshadowed by both Dark Side and The Wall, imo Wish You Were Here nevertheless remains Pink Floyd's finest hour.

Well I guess I'm not in that "most" catagory. Wish You Were Here is my 2nd favorite from Floyd with Animals very closely following. But still, to me, it doesnt top Dark Side.

So you're saying whatever is most popular/has sold the most is best?
I strongly disagree there.

What I meant was that PF, especially DSTM, comes more from the mind, than the heart/soul. There's not a lot of emotion running through DSTM - it comes accross far too calculated and rather cold (I won't even go into how OVER-produced it is). Beatles are almost the flip-side to that, where they run almost purely on feelings and emotions.

No. Where did I say that? I'm just saying alot of people, along with me, apparently get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside from that album. Because no one would have bought it if they didnt, especially in that large amount of numbers. It "talks to alot of people".

Thats the second time you have put words into my mouth in this thread. Not a great way to get your point across....imo.

But it was argued by, what seems like a devout Beatles fan, that The Beatles "emphasis was always on production, not performance"

:confused: