They're clearly not the best band ever.
I can and have made cases against them being so and achieved every one of them.
From my experience, the only people who still believe them to be the best ever are:
A) Old codgers who are stuck in a time once past and not willing to admit that music is mostly better now than it ever was then, by far.
B) Younger music fans looking drastically for a safe ground of credibility.
C) People who genuinely do like them the most ever. Which is fine, but doesn't mean they're the best ever.
-AC
I know I'm entitled to my opinion, thanks for informing me.
It's not based on my age, first of all. Second, 20 on the 11th.
I like The Beatles, but people continually labelling them as the best ever is ridiculous. Quite clearly, because they are not.
Claiming they are better than every band since is stupid.
My age is irrelevant when it comes to music. I know what I'm talking about, that's all you really need to know on the matter.
As I said, if The Beatles are your favourite band ever, fair enough. To claim they are better than any band ever is just...oblivious.
-AC
Attaching the title of "best ever" to any band is really unrealistic and for the most part an assumption.. especially when you don't specify a criteria but just say "best" in general. So naturally people will pick the bands they like the most, since obviously there's no clear cut way of deciding what the best band really is.
I'm thinking that while a lot of people claim that they are the best ever, they are saying so for a reason, not purely on taste/preference of music, which is why you claim them not to be...which, again is ok.
I think most people who claim them to be the best say so because they had 2 of the greatest songwriters ever in one band (most never have one-fact), and they developed the traditonally adopted blueprintprint for the typical rock song....stanza, chorus, stanza, chorus....interlude, stanza, chorus. Everyone has covered/copied all of their songs.
Lastly, if they are considered the greatest it's because they are bestowed that title by their peers. Perhaps, even by those who you fancy to be the greatest.
Bakerboy, the last time we did this, you claimed they were the best ever at everything, I since proved you completely and brutally wrong, causing you to back out and claim you were bored. Don't come back in cheerleading someone else just because you haven't got the sense or knowledge to debate anything.
Originally posted by BobbyD
I'm thinking that while a lot of people claim that they are the best ever, they are saying so for a reason, not purely on taste/preference of music, which is why you claim them not to be...which, again is ok.
Not it's not solely why I claim them not to be. It's because in any area, be it innovation, technique or whatever else that is actually provable, The Beatles have been surpassed. The only area that is non-arguable is music produced. In which case I said, if you prefer them more than any band, fine.
Moving on...
Originally posted by BobbyD
I think most people who claim them to be the best say so because they had 2 of the greatest songwriters ever in one band (most never have one-fact), and they developed the traditonally adopted blueprintprint for the typical rock song....stanza, chorus, stanza, chorus....interlude, stanza, chorus. Everyone has covered/copied all of their songs.
It's not a fact that most never have one great songwriter, it's also an opinion that they are two of the greatest ever. One thing with fans of The Beatles is that they confuse fact with opinion. Your love of McCartney/Lennon notwithstanding, they're not factually two of the greatest ever. I think they were an awesome combination, don't get it twisted. The fact that it can be argued proves it's not a fact, though.
Second, everyone has copied all of their songs? Do you just listen to The Beatles or something? Everyone has COVERED all their songs? They have some of the most covered, it doesn't mean everyone has. Nor does this prove them to be the greatest anything.
Moving on...
Originally posted by BobbyD
Lastly, if they are considered the greatest it's because they are bestowed that title by their peers. Perhaps, even by those who you fancy to be the greatest.
So? A lot of the musicians I love hold opinions I disagree with. What's your point?
Mikael of Opeth thinks A Day in the Life is one of the best songs ever, and he's one of my idols. It don't agree, by any means.
Another thing about fans of The Beatles, they tend to ramble without proving anything. Much like you just did.
Outside of personal preference (technique, innovation etc) The Beatles have been surpassed.
-AC
Originally posted by bakerboyMatter of opinion, I guess. At one point I thought the Beatles were the best band ever too. Personally I think Coltrane is miles ahead of the Beatles in all areas of music. Songwriting, technique, emotion.. he's got it all. Same with the other two but to a lesser extent.
None of those three artists were as good and brillaint and important in music history as Lennon, Macartney or Harrison. They were good artists, but not as the beatles.
Alpha, innovative? You're kidding me, right? There is no band that has proven to be MORE innovative than the Beatles. I can't even believe you said that. But, to somewhat defend your argument and support your debate, of course bands progress over time and churn out techinically better and challenging music...instrumentation got better too! Aye.
Your point is no different than athletes today being better than they were 20 years ago, which for the most part I absolutely agree with. The question remains are today's athletes better players, more often than not, the answer is no. The same analogy can be applied here.
I know this is subjective...it's like judging figure skating. Eesh, I sense some hostility when you argue. Either that, or you just like a good debate.
Its impossible to discuss with that centaury guy, because the only thing that he does is posting that if you arent agree with him, you havent any kind of musical knowledge. Posting that rush surpassed the beatles is a clear evidence about the one who doesnt have any clue of musical knowledge. Also, he insists on post that the beatles werent the best band without any valid proof of that. Man, i dont care if my opinion doesnt count for you. I dont post my opinions for people like you, but think on it, the beatles did their stuff in first 60s, when music bands werent the same thing than today, they innovate in many ways and they opened the ways for many another groups. That is one of the reasons because they are so great.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Alpha, innovative? You're kidding me, right? There is no band that has proven to be MORE innovative than the Beatles. I can't even believe you said that. But, to somewhat defend your argument and support your debate, of course bands progress over time and churn out techinically better and challenging music...instrumentation got better too! Aye.
Yes, there are bands that are more innovative. Faith No More, Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, Rush, Mindless Self Indulgence, Tool, Opeth, Emperor.
The Beatles were innovative in the sense that they did certain things first, but these things have been surpassed and bettered. It's ridiculous to say otherwise. You're stuck in a time vortex, innovation is provable. Hence it's a fact there are more innovative bands.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Your point is no different than athletes today being better than they were 20 years ago, which for the most part I absolutely agree with. The question remains are today's athletes better players, more often than not, the answer is no. The same analogy can be applied here.
That wasn't even an analogy, that was a contradiction combined with some kind of jibber jabber.
It can't be applied here and your inability to understand why is exactly the reason why so many fans of The Beatles have an extremely blinkered view. If you think The Beatles make better music than anyone else, while I disagree, that's your opinion and I cannot factually prove one bands music to be better than another, regardless how obvious it might be.
However, when it's areas such as innovation, technical prowess, it becomes provable. These are both areas in which The Beatles have been monumentally surpassed. They are many worlds away from the innovation of Mike Patton's bands, MSI etc. Whilst being smashed in the area of technical prowess by bands like Rush, Dream Theater, Tool, The Dillinger Escape Plan and so forth.
Originally posted by BobbyD
I know this is subjective...it's like judging figure skating. Eesh, I sense some hostility when you argue. Either that, or you just like a good debate.
I do like a good debate, hence why debating with fans of The Beatles bores me. Because they're always so easy while at the same time being quite stressful. Purely because you seem to confuse subjective with objective.
Bakerboy being a shining example. He asks people to post anyone better, then when you do he gets out of his pushchair and has a tantrum.
Bakerboy, I went pages with you, smashing every argument you had and giving every bit of proof that you asked for. It deteriorated to the point that you chickened out, so don't start again. I've done this with you before, I won't do so again. Especially seeing as the material you are puking out right now is exactly the same argument as the one I ruined for you back then.
-AC