I disagree with much of Dafydd's post. As a Beatlephile, I think they are given the status that is their due. They were the first pop group taken seriously as musicians. They enabled many future artists (most of whom were undeserving) artistic creativity unknown previously. Their efforts in expanding the genre from moom/June sentimentality to introspective self-expression was remarkable.

They invented cover art, set a standard for stretching their boundaries and challenging their audience, and inspired many great artists to do the same.

As to your choices for superior artists: Led Zep (self-indulgent blues noodling and total lack of self-control), Bowie (have you ever heard him live? I did and thought he couldn't sing in tune on a bet,) the Moodys (can you listen to "Nights in White Satin" and stay awake? I can't,) and Country freaking Joe (Fixin' to Die Rag is clever, but what is creative about Rock and Soul Music or much else of that period?)

Biased I am (the Beatles introduced me to mucis in my preteens via my older brothers,) but I cannot "Imagine" (pun intended) music today without the contributions of the Beatles in general, and John Lennon specifically.

Dafydd:

Nonsense.

Well, I don't have much of an opinion about the Beatles' artistic merit.

I will, however, repeat what an older man told me. (Older than me, that is...) He claimed that the Beatles became famous because they tapped into the angst of their generation.

I suspect that this is what made them popular/overhyped. I guess that is also why I just don't get Beatles music--I was born in a different generation.

I don't have any particular love affair for the Beatles, but I did enjoy their music greatly growing up. I was about 9 when they first hit Ed Sullivan's stage, so I agree with Steelhand and karrde, that a lot of it has to do with where you were in your own journey when introduced to them.

The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield and a few others were better IMHO, but that doesn't mean I enjoyed the Beatles less.

McCartney without Lennon was soda without the fizz. Same flavor, essentially the same drink, but sweeter and stickier with something missing...

Lennon was overrated. Actually I think most of the 60's rock and roll greats are overrated. The best stuff they stole from the blues/folk masters - just ask any of them. How could they possibly live up to the importance we have given them?

All pop music is overrated. Can Britney sing? Ever really listen to Madonna? Both stink. How about the revered Dylan, with his nasal imitation schtick of Woody Guthrie that he has been doing for 40 years? But so what?

And rock and roll was never about having a good voice, or good muscianship. In fact, frequently just the opposite. Just ask Joey Ramone. Or better yet, David Byrne "I couldn't talk to people face to face, so I got on stage and started screaming and squealing and twitching."

        Daffyd, you remind me of a guy who told how he got his daughter to read Tolkien, and she said 'It's OK, but isn't it awfully derivative?'

        Many groups were arguably better than the Beatles, but they were better after the Beatles. I remember reading of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards meeting Lennon and McCartney. M & K asked J & P if they'd write a song for the Stones, and J & P said, sure, and went off to a corner to write it. Mick and Keith say to each other 'That's it? They just go sit in a corner and do it? Hell, we can do that.'

The Beatles were trailblazers for the most of the groups you consider better.

I like the Beatles' music. I'm tired as all get out of the passionate worship of the ageing baby boomer about them, but the music is alright. Fits the elevator without having to be redone on Strings. As for the Rolling Stones, I'm not sure if they think they are playing Rock and Roll or are just perpetrating the biggest joke on the Boomer generation yet.

If the latter, then hey, Go Mick! Eh? Oh, I said GO MICK!! MICK JAAAAGER!

Ah nevermind.

Stephen M. St. Onge:

The Beatles were trailblazers for the most of the groups you consider better.

And plenty of groups were trailblazers for the Beatles, from Elvis to Little Richard to Dylan to the psychedelic groups in San Francisco ca. 1964-65, to Ravi Shankar.

The claim isn't that the Beatles were the greatest group of 1966 or 1967, but that they were the greatest rock'n'roll group ever... which means they must compete with all who come after them.

I love a lot of Beatles songs -- mostly weird ones like "Hey Bulldog" and "Only a Northern Song," but also old standards like "Norwegian Wood," "Across the Universe," "Blue Jay Way," and "the Fool On the Hill." The very first record I actually owned was the single with "Hey Jude" on one side and "Revolution" on the other (I think I was eight).

Remember my points: that the Beatles are the most overhyped group in history... not that they're not great. And that John by himself (or with the virago) was crappy (can anybody actually listen to Double Fantasy without wincing?), but John + Paul had a certain amount of magic.

Don't take it for more than it is.

(King Crimson, my personal favorite group, sang a wicked snide of the Beatles on their Lizard album, "Happy Family": "Happy family, one-hand clap/Four went on and none came back.")

Incidentally, I do like McCartney and Harrison on their own more than Lennon on his own. Yoko on her own is probably banned by Common Article IV of the Geneva Conventions.

Dafydd

Most overrated person ever.

Dafydd
I've got to disagree with you. There is nothing, repeat, nothing better than a warm Krispy Kreme donut (including listening to any type of music by any group/performer).

I leave commenting on the rest of your post to those who care to.

Kevin

I grew up thinking the Beatles were the cream of the crop but it is the memories of the times I had that keep them there.Half the time I will change stations when one of there songs come on now because it just does not live up to the memories.

Its sorta like watching the first StarWars movie. When I see it now days I think 'ooh dear!' I thought that was great?

Oh Daffyd - you go too far at last. You hath transduced the sacred. Not Lennon, John Lennon post-beatles I could care less about. No, thou hast libeled the Master - Mr. Clapton.

I'm not sure what the greatest rock'n roll band of all time is - but I'm sure about the greatest album. Layla - Derek and the Dominoes. Derek (aka Eric) and a chappie named Duane Allman were the lead guitarists on that album.

Greated band of all time? Maybe the Beatles (Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album), maybe the Stones (early 70's), maybe early Springsteen. Hard to say because anyone who has been around for any period of time is going to have some crap in their catalog. Take Clapton for example. I'm a big fan of his early blues stuff with the Yardbirds and Bluesbreakers but didn't like Cream as much overall. Clapton has been tapering off since the mid-70's but still manages a great album about once a decade. From the Cradle is the latest one.

Better then Stevie Vaughn? Yeah. Better than Hendrix? Maybe. Hendrix had the makings of a great bluesman. There is an album of Henrix doing blues which is fantastic. The problem with Hendrix is that so much of his stuff is from the psychedelic period - and that stuff hasn't aged as well as what came before and after.

I've always felt similarly about the Beatles.

SRV was definitely a great guitar player. Clapton is good too, and Layla is nice, but lets be honest here -- the end of that song drifts off into diversionary squealing.

I'm much more partial to Jimmy page's brand of brilliance.

More than anything, I'd like my contribution to this thread to be a shameless plug for a guy who I've enjoyed live several times and is, in my opinion, the cream of the crop when it comes to guitar. His name is Monte Montgomery, and he's pretty amazing. I think he's likely one of the best guitar players currently breathing.

http://www.montemontgomery.com/

Many groups were arguably better than the Beatles, but they were better after the Beatles.

Eggsactly. There were many great albums made in the late 60's - but much of it only occurred after the artists heard Rubber Soul, Revolver, The White Album and in some cases Sgt Pepper. Brian Wilson steadied down and did Pet Sounds after hearing Revolver. The Who's best stuff (Who Sell Out, Tommy, and Quadrophenia - same thing. The Beach Boys and the WHo were singles bands before the Beatles showed the way.

SRV was definitely a great guitar player. Clapton is good too, and Layla is nice, but lets be honest here -- the end of that song drifts off into diversionary squealing.

Diversionary squealing? Get thee behind me, foul fiend! I'm talking about Layla the album - Bell Bottom Blues, Nobody knows You, and the best version of Little Wing ever recorded. Even Hendrix did little which can touch it - much less Vaughn. Had Stevie Ray or Jimi lasted - well that's another story....

Don:

There were many great albums made in the late 60's - but much of it only occurred after the artists heard Rubber Soul, Revolver, The White Album and in some cases Sgt Pepper.

So what?

The Beatles couldn't have played what they played without many groups that went before them... some of whom they themselves credited (Little Richard, Muddy Waters, Elvis, Dylan, Simon and Garfunkle -- especially "Bridge Over Troubled Water," which heavily influenced "Let It Be" -- and Ravi Shankar).

But there were unacknowledged others which influenced them, such as bands like Country Joe, which was hot in San Francisco, playing psychedelia, before the Beatles recorded any similar stuff. And the Moody Blues. And various country-western bands.

The claim I was refuting, Don, is not that the Beatles influenced other groups; of course they did, as they were influenced by others.

The claim is that they're "the greatest rock'n'roll group ever"... and in that race, having been influenced by the Beatles does not mean a group cannot be better than the Beatles.

(Just as the fact that the Beatles were influenced by Little Richard does not make it illogical to believe they were better performers than he.)

Dafydd

It's a judgement call, Dafydd. It's part innovation, part influence, and partly how long they stayed on top. I personally prefer the Moodys to the Beatles - but would never describe them as greater. Elvis had a few years in the 50's when he was virtually untouchable and one great album in 1969 (his best work IMHO). But the rest of his work is largely mediocre. The Beatles stayed on top for 5 or 6 years. I haven't seen any Rock'n Roll act do it for that long. They were easily as influential as Elvis.

To make my point let me use a simile. I'm an art buff and have been to most of the great galleries in the US and Europe. One might ask who was greater - Tiepolo or Giotto? Tiepolo was far more technically adept than Giotto. Not surptising given that he lived 350 years after Giotto did and a lot had been learned. Tiepolo's technically polished paintings don't speak to me the way Giotto's cruder works do. In my opinion the only Italian painter after Leonardo who is worth a curse is Carrevaggio.

So technically more advanced is not necessarily 'better'; is Phil Collins better than BB King? Nope.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)