The Beatles

Originally posted by who?-kid
Ask them, not me. It's what they claim, not me. I think they would know better if they were influenced by the Beatles than both of us combined.

Do you think Black Sabbath would have existed without the Beatles ? Nope. Ozzy wanted to be one thing (after he had listened to the Beatles) : to be a musician and to be a Beatle ! Same for Frank Black.

Kurt Cobain almost always listened to the White Album when writing music. The heroes of Queen were the Beatles. Frank Zappa dedicated a whole album to the Beatles...

Do I have to continue ?

Yeah, I know that lots and lots of people claim the Beatles influenced the,....how much of that is name dropping and what is actually influence I don't know, but to be fair Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, The Who and others don't have too much in their songs that relate to the music of the Beatles. Especially since one of them was active before the Beatles....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Culturally that might actually hold some water too. When it's musical influence that's where it becomes blurry.

Well, I think I'd probably agree culturally too.

so we seem to have gone from the beatles being described as the best band ever...which was disproved...to the beatles having the best songwriters ever...which was also disproved....to the beatles being the most musically influential...which is neither provable or disprovable...to being the biggest cultural influence in music which is a bizarre statement

hip hop culture is probably currently the biggest single musical "culture" on the planet...so i guess you could argue that kool herc, afrika bambaataa and grand master flash as the biggest music culture influences ever

My favourites would be While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Mother Nature's Son and Come Together.

Oh and "Something" is one of the greatest love songs ever written....I dig Harrison...

First of all, I don't think anyone disproved those first two things, they are definitely matters of opinion.

I actually think the third one very probably is opinion as well.

Secondly, there is a very big difference for saying something is a big musical culture, and saying that it had a huge cultural impact. I know there is this whole Hiphop culture deal, but it is enclosed. It can't be measured against the iconic status and effect the Beatles had upon western society. So they say, and I tend to agree with.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, I don't think anyone disproved those first two things, they are definitely matters of opinion.

I actually think the thrid one very probably is opinion as well.

Secondly, there is a very big difference for saying something is a big musical cukture, and saying that it had a huge cultural impact. I know there is this whole Hiphop culture deal, but it is enclosed. It can't be measured against the iconic status and effect the Beatles had upon western society. So they say, and I tend to agree with.

enclosed?...hip hop culture dominates many facets of society outside of music...pretty much everything associated with "urban" culture around the world stems from hip hops influence...

musically, hip hop influences are far more predominant on pop music than rock music is now

Yes, and urban culture is still enclosed.

I really think iot is a glaringly oidd thing to look at the influence the Beatles had on the workld at the time- all the more so for starting something almost by accident, as opposed to hiphop which is more a representation of somehthing that was already there.

And there you go on - 'influences... on pop music'.

The whole submission ehre is that a lot of the Beatles' impact was cultural as OPPOSED to musical. They were partt of a phenomeonon that affected society as a whole. Four decades from now people will look back on hiphop as a popular fad that represented a section of society. I very much doubt anyone will say that they were part of a massive influence and even change ON society. The Beatles hardly nuked the world, but they did make a significant difference.

Originally posted by jaden101
😆

i see you hiding behind that curtain

*whispers* Sshhh.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And yet, you manage it in your post.

Justin Timberlake has popularity, platinum records, a mania of his own, many number one hits.

So does Britney, so does Christina, so does 50 Cent. Sales and popularity mean nothing when judging a band, you should know better.

So? They made some classic albums. I'm waiting for proof that they are without doubt the most influential band ever. The most namechecked for faux credibility, yes.

...I'll assume you're just joking when you use that as evidence.

The Backstreet Boys had famous members.

We have them to thank for the concept album and backmasking, oh how I'm overjoyed. I'm waiting for that evidence.

Avril Lavigne namechecks Zeppelin.

Fact: Many people have, do and will continue to namecheck The Beatles because they are The Beatles and hardly anyone dare criticise it.

This doesn't make them the most influential band ever, so if you're willing to provide fresh proof that I haven't already refuted from others, I'd be grateful.

A photograph of them walking across a zebra crossing somehow makes them the most influential band ever?

Are you having a laugh? Get real.

Is it? Very pointless if the above examples are anything to go by.

We get it, they're famous. One of the most famous bands ever, one of the most popular bands ever, but this doesn't equate to them being the most influential.

There's no "without doubt". The fun thing is, your list is all Beatles fans come up with. Irrelevent bs about fame, videos and fanbase. It means nothing to influential music.

Claiming The Beatles as the best anything is simply a cop out for people who know no better.

If you genuinely think they made the best music ever, or someone does, fine, preference. To claim they are the most influential is to have a burden of proof. Bakerboy, KMC's resident blind fanboy of The Beatles, hasn't been able to do it, and nor could Whirlysplatt.

You've named the exact same irrelevent things as they did. Everything BUT the music, proving that people are just too afraid to realise that they were nothing more than a great pop band who made great pop music.

-AC

If you are comparing the beatles level of fame , popularity, sales and durability of those qualities with justin , britney, christina or those people you are crazy. Only wait 35 years and we can compare it with justice. Now, comparing them with the beatles at the same age, there arent any comparation possible.

First conceptual album: sargent peppers. First individual works album: white album. More madurity showed in a young artist in an album: revolver. First group doing a video clip not only about live peformances, etc. I think that those things are very influential in the next generations of musical artists.

Again, foolness. Any backstreet boy cant be compared to John Lennon, Paul Macartney, George Harrison or Ringo Starr.

Tell me what people did a conceptual album before the beatles. That is clearly a influence, i think.

Queen, the rolling stones, the who or pink floyd as oldies and oasis and blur as newies name the beatles as a clear influence for them. And so, when the people claims that led zeppelin is their influence, its a fact. When they do the same with the beatles, is only because they are famous. Interesting theory.

The zebra crossing not, the sargent pepper cover yes.

Famous and influential.

You didnt proove aything . Not new arguments by your part, same bullshit as always and you dont go to any part. Try better.

Originally posted by jaden101
pick a pop band...any pop band...add some delusional fools who think they are the greatest band ever

and you have a perfect match for the beatles

what have we proved throughout the existance of this thread

1: that many bands before and after the beatles were better musicians
2: that many bands before and after the beatles were better songwriters
3: that many bands before and after the beatles were followed by delusional people who think they are "the best

hence many bands are exactly like the beatles...and many are considerably better

Take a great band as the beatles with a lot of incluence in future generations, and we have a lot of fools and clows posting ridiculous claims like you are posting without any valid proof or argument.

And please, tell me about those bands of yours, i want names, not ghost arguments and bands.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, while you are at it disprove that Bob Dylan was the most influental, what about the doors..what about Britney Spears..all kinda hard to disprove without being sure how to measure influence in the first place.

To your response, my reply is: I can't really. 😬

But, I would likely gauge that based on the response of musicians past and present that would name the Beatles more often than anyone else. And they would and still do. 🙂

And please, to compare people like patton or the cure with the beatles is simply absurd. Those people cant be compared with the beatles in all the terms. Led Zeppelin, yes, they were great and almost as good as the beatles, but not those people.

Again, if some people say: the werent the best playing their instruments, its totally right. But when you talk of them as songwritters, no rivals for them except Dylan. Lennon, Macartney and harrison were three of the best songwritters in music story. The three of them in a group means that this group was the best songwritter group ever. Of course the stones, led zeppeling, queen and others have great songwritters and songs, but not so many as the beatles.

Same with the albums: Abbey road, revolver, sargent pepper, white album, rubber sould, etc. I cant think in a group with so many great albums.

To underrated the beatles is totally absurd. They have their place in musical history.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, this is why I said I didn't understand what is meant by 'most influential'.

What do we mean by that? Influential where? And influential in what sphere?

See, when you talk of The Beatles being influential, what you would normally refer to is culture, more precisely Western culture, with a bit of buzz beyond the Iron Curtain. Their cultural impact on the 60s is one of the biggest phenomenon of all time, which is one of the reasons why they came to embody it. But there, it eas as much to do with attitude, dress and, for that matter, haircuts, and the way they caught a popular mindset and rode that wave rather well. They were turning out pretty mainstream music at that point; most the innovation came when they were big enough to have leeway too.

I'm a big Beatles fan, but I dunno how to judge their influence on a purely musical level. That's a very different area.

But there is a certain feeling tha The Beatles changed the face of music; that's where the arguments comes from.

That's nice, but it has no place being in a claim that they influenced music the most ever, and remain so today. That's a stupid claim.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Correction : THE most famous band ever, THE most popular band ever. Ok, now let's move on.

It means as little as it did when you first said it. Now we can move on.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Some classic albums ? "Sergeant Pepper's", "Rubber Soul", "Revolver", "Abbey Road" and "The White Album" are masterpieces that still show up in the inevitable top 100 lists of best albums. Don't forget these albums are 40 years old ! That's two generations.

Yes, they made some classic albums. What's your point? I say they made some classic albums, you name the classic albums. What did you hope to achieve there?

Classic doesn't always mean great through and through. I really like The Beatles, for the record. I think they made great music and some great albums that ARE very good. To deny that people go over the top based on things that have NOTHING to do with music, is stupid.

So what if they show up on "Best 100" lists? They're all opinion. I am well aware that popular opinion suggests something of The Beatles, but popular opinion also suggests something of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. Going by popular opinion or voted lists is like saying the MTV Awards are some kind of credible standard bearer.

They made 5 classic albums over two generations, brilliant. Mike Patton has released over twenty influential and genre-creating albums, not to mention influential, in about half that time, with as many bands as The Beatles have had albums. Oh...darn. That doesn't count does it? Because he's just musically influential. I forget you need the screaming girls and platinum records.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Come back in 40 years and see if there are still 5 people who will remember him.

They won't, and we both know that, but that's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about popularity and how it affects the judgement regarding influence.

The Beatles were a very good band and I love a lot of their music, don't take this as me being some anti-The Beatles fan. However, that's another thing I disagree with, 'Kid.

More and more people are shying away from sucking off The Beatles everyday, why? Because they're not as timeless as everyone says. If you try arguing with an old fan of The Beatles, the reply is usually: "You had to be there.". If you had to be there, amidst all the swaying hype and propaganda, how does that make them timeless? They're still revered because yes, they did innovate, yes, they did have an influence on culture. However, musically, they are not the most influential band of all time. They're just cited as it because they're famous beyond any other.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You can wait a long time. I already explained how I felt about the influential stuff.

But hey, no problem : if you disagree, fine, just tell me who you think is the most influential band ?

(This should be fun)

I honestly don't think there is one singular band, I just don't think The Beatles would be that band if there was.

The Beatles are more inspirational than they are influential. They inspire a huge amount of people, and that is undeniable. However, Metallica are an influential band, Faith No More were an influential band, Rush (who have more worthy praise as musicians than The Beatles will ever have) are an influential band.

The Beatles are just an inspiration, because they were so famous and also good. They showed you could be world famous and also talented. Inspiring someone to make music, and influencing that music are two totally different areas.

Rush are hailed not only for their near unparalled musicianship, but for their longevity, their innovation, their inspiration and their credibility.

When was the last time you saw The Beatles come out on top of a great musicianship poll that wasn't voted by retards? Rush have been putting out records of consistent quality since the late 70s and are still going, continually influencing new bands getting into them, as well as older bands who are considered influential.

I'm not saying there's A band, I'm saying you could (and should) choose better than The Beatles.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Oh come on, so everybody who admits the Beatles were a big influence - that's a lot of people by the way - is just namedropping ? Why don't you just call them liars ? This is your lamest reply ever

Did I say that? Or did I say that The Beatles were, are and always will be namechecked for sheer credibility, rather than honesty? I said the latter. It isn't always that way, but that is a way that is prolific.

Imagine wins best song in a lot of polls simply because John Lennon is dead and people think they have to vote for him. This doesn't change it being a great song, but it proves my point.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Here are some people / bands with strong influences (more or less) by the Beatles - their words, not mine. Do me a favour and argue about most of them

Do you want a hundred names extra ?

Go on then, give me a hundred names extra, it'll prove as much as all those names do. What's your point? Those people claim to, or were, inspired by/influenced by The Beatles. Sweet. This doesn't prove they were the most influential band ever, it means a shit load of bands have a common interest. You could do the same with Rush.

I'm not sitting here denying they were influential, but you're sitting there trying to prove they were without doubt (a.k.a fact) the most influential band ever. You cannot. You can only provide why you believe it.

Originally posted by who?-kid
And to end, a quote from Alice Cooper : I was sixteen when the Beatles came out. If anyone tells you they weren’t influenced by the Beatles, they are lying to you. The Beatles influenced everyone".

First, if you're referencing a source, best not make it a second rate theatre show and third rate musician such as Alice Cooper.

16, typical nostalgic age, but let's assume he's being 100% honest. He's also being foolish. "If anyone tells you they weren't influenced by The Beatles, they are lying to you.". I.E: "I was, so were others, so everyone simply must be because that's the rule.". Give me a break. I'll reply to his quote with yours:

Originally posted by who?-kid
That's only a matter of opinion, nothing more nothing less.

The Beatles were never peerless. There are and have been extremely credible debates regarding The Beatles Vs The Beach Boys, The Beatles Vs The Rolling Stones.

Zappa was peerless, Rush were peerless, Mike Patton is peerless. More importantly, they did it on their own, they didn't have their producer come up with ideas and then conveniently say "We thought the same thing!".

Originally posted by who?-kid
Do you think Black Sabbath would have existed without the Beatles ? Nope. Ozzy wanted to be one thing (after he had listened to the Beatles) : to be a musician and to be a Beatle ! Same for Frank Black.

Yes, Ozzy. Front man of Black Sabbath. He said they inspired him and he wanted to be a Beatle. How much of The Beatles music do you hear in Black Sabbath's dark heavy metal? Not much, because inspiration does not equal influence. Tony Iommi is the one who more or less invented the heavy metal sound, I've never heard such comments from him.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Kurt Cobain almost always listened to the White Album when writing music.

He's made greater remarks regarding Killing Joke and The Melvins. One of their most famous and greatest songs, one of the most recognisable intros ever, was ripped from a Killing Joke song. Noted by Dave Grohl himself.

Originally posted by who?-kid
The heroes of Queen were the Beatles. Frank Zappa dedicated a whole album to the Beatles...

Heroes, yeah. How much of The Beatles do you hear in Queen? How much of The Beatles' poppy, upbeat music do you hear in the improvisational and peerless work of Frank Zappa? Inspiration, not musical influence that shows.

Do you have to continue? Continue showing us that The Beatles were very inspirational, popular and influential? No, because we know that, but if I were you I'd rephrase this "without doubt" malarky, or back it up.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, and urban culture is still enclosed.

I really think iot is a glaringly oidd thing to look at the influence the Beatles had on the workld at the time- all the more so for starting something almost by accident, as opposed to hiphop which is more a representation of somehthing that was already there.

And there you go on - 'influences... on pop music'.

The whole submission ehre is that a lot of the Beatles' impact was cultural as OPPOSED to musical. They were partt of a phenomeonon that affected society as a whole. Four decades from now people will look back on hiphop as a popular fad that represented a section of society. I very much doubt anyone will say that they were part of a massive influence and even change ON society. The Beatles hardly nuked the world, but they did make a significant difference.

i really dont see how anyone can say that urban culture is somehow enclosed given that it dominates youth culture throughout the world

not to mention that hip hops influence can reach areas which were just not reachable to the beatles in their heyday...the former soviet union, africa, the middle east, china...they are all huge areas of the world that were pretty much untouched by western cultural influences in the 1960's...thats not the case now...and hip hop is the fastest growing western influence in terms of music influencing culture...in these parts of the world

like i said before...the beatles were all but forgotten among youth culture before oasis showed up in the early 90's...

And please, tell me about those bands of yours, i want names, not ghost arguments and bands

already did...in this thread...not to mention that you never replied to my post when i asked if paul mccartney is such a brilliant song writer...why is his solo stuff totally ignored?

by the way...what's a "clow"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's nice, but it has no place being in a claim that they influenced music the most ever, and remain so today. That's a stupid claim.

It means as little as it did when you first said it. Now we can move on.

Yes, they made some classic albums. What's your point? I say they made some classic albums, you name the classic albums. What did you hope to achieve there?

Classic doesn't always mean great through and through. I really like The Beatles, for the record. I think they made great music and some great albums that ARE very good. To deny that people go over the top based on things that have NOTHING to do with music, is stupid.

So what if they show up on "Best 100" lists? They're all opinion. I am well aware that popular opinion suggests something of The Beatles, but popular opinion also suggests something of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. Going by popular opinion or voted lists is like saying the MTV Awards are some kind of credible standard bearer.

They made 5 classic albums over two generations, brilliant. Mike Patton has released over twenty influential and genre-creating albums, not to mention influential, in about half that time, with as many bands as The Beatles have had albums. Oh...darn. That doesn't count does it? Because he's just musically influential. I forget you need the screaming girls and platinum records.

They won't, and we both know that, but that's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about popularity and how it affects the judgement regarding influence.

The Beatles were a very good band and I love a lot of their music, don't take this as me being some anti-The Beatles fan. However, that's another thing I disagree with, 'Kid.

More and more people are shying away from sucking off The Beatles everyday, why? Because they're not as timeless as everyone says. If you try arguing with an old fan of The Beatles, the reply is usually: "You had to be there.". If you had to be there, amidst all the swaying hype and propaganda, how does that make them timeless? They're still revered because yes, they did innovate, yes, they did have an influence on culture. However, musically, they are not the most influential band of all time. They're just cited as it because they're famous beyond any other.

I honestly don't think there is one singular band, I just don't think The Beatles would be that band if there was.

The Beatles are more inspirational than they are influential. They inspire a huge amount of people, and that is undeniable. However, Metallica are an influential band, Faith No More were an influential band, Rush (who have more worthy praise as musicians than The Beatles will ever have) are an influential band.

The Beatles are just an inspiration, because they were so famous and also good. They showed you could be world famous and also talented. Inspiring someone to make music, and influencing that music are two totally different areas.

Rush are hailed not only for their near unparalled musicianship, but for their longevity, their innovation, their inspiration and their credibility.

When was the last time you saw The Beatles come out on top of a great musicianship poll that wasn't voted by retards? Rush have been putting out records of consistent quality since the late 70s and are still going, continually influencing new bands getting into them, as well as older bands who are considered influential.

I'm not saying there's A band, I'm saying you could (and should) choose better than The Beatles.

Did I say that? Or did I say that The Beatles were, are and always will be namechecked for sheer credibility, rather than honesty? I said the latter. It isn't always that way, but that is a way that is prolific.

Imagine wins best song in a lot of polls simply because John Lennon is dead and people think they have to vote for him. This doesn't change it being a great song, but it proves my point.

Go on then, give me a hundred names extra, it'll prove as much as all those names do. What's your point? Those people claim to, or were, inspired by/influenced by The Beatles. Sweet. This doesn't prove they were the most influential band ever, it means a shit load of bands have a common interest. You could do the same with Rush.

I'm not sitting here denying they were influential, but you're sitting there trying to prove they were without doubt (a.k.a fact) the most influential band ever. You cannot. You can only provide why you believe it.

First, if you're referencing a source, best not make it a second rate theatre show and third rate musician such as Alice Cooper.

16, typical nostalgic age, but let's assume he's being 100% honest. He's also being foolish. "If anyone tells you they weren't influenced by The Beatles, they are lying to you.". I.E: "I was, so were others, so everyone simply must be because that's the rule.". Give me a break. I'll reply to his quote with yours:

The Beatles were never peerless. There are and have been extremely credible debates regarding The Beatles Vs The Beach Boys, The Beatles Vs The Rolling Stones.

Zappa was peerless, Rush were peerless, Mike Patton is peerless. More importantly, they did it on their own, they didn't have their producer come up with ideas and then conveniently say "We thought the same thing!".

Yes, Ozzy. Front man of Black Sabbath. He said they inspired him and he wanted to be a Beatle. How much of The Beatles music do you hear in Black Sabbath's dark heavy metal? Not much, because inspiration does not equal influence. Tony Iommi is the one who more or less invented the heavy metal sound, I've never heard such comments from him.

He's made greater remarks regarding Killing Joke and The Melvins. One of their most famous and greatest songs, one of the most recognisable intros ever, was ripped from a Killing Joke song. Noted by Dave Grohl himself.

Heroes, yeah. How much of The Beatles do you hear in Queen? How much of The Beatles' poppy, upbeat music do you hear in the improvisational and peerless work of Frank Zappa? Inspiration, not musical influence that shows.

Do you have to continue? Continue showing us that The Beatles were very inspirational, popular and influential? No, because we know that, but if I were you I'd rephrase this "without doubt" malarky, or back it up.

-AC

Stop your crazy love for mike patton. How can you compare the album from an artist who is still working with a group with less of 10 years of career? Also, with that handicap, the beatles albums are more classic the the patton ones, and yes, classic means good. Not only old.

Again, its BOTH INSPIRATION AND INFLUENCE. naturally, you cant hear anything from the beatle on queen or david bowie music, because they are doing his own stuff and all. But they have claimed that the beatles and mainly john lennon( freddie mercury's heroe and mith) have been a great inspiration and influence for their music. That doesn mean same style or same sound.

Originally posted by bakerboy
First conceptual album: sargent peppers. First individual works album: white album. More madurity showed in a young artist in an album: revolver. First group doing a video clip not only about live peformances, etc. I think that those things are very influential in the next generations of musical artists.

They were the first to do a few things, yes, I said that. I'm also waiting for something actually relevent to the discussion.

That being that some people are foolish enough to believe The Beatles are the most influential musical band ever. Fact is, as stated before, they didn't have the first concept album ever. That's the negative effect of how famous The Beatles were, you see. "I haven't heard it anywhere before! They must be the first!".

No, Mr. Frank Zappa was. 1966's Freak Out!, a whole year before The Beatles.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, foolness. Any backstreet boy cant be compared to John Lennon, Paul Macartney, George Harrison or Ringo Starr.

So what? His point was that they had famous members. Matters none.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Tell me what people did a conceptual album before the beatles. That is clearly a influence, i think.

A) Frank Zappa. June 1966.

B) It's innovation, not influence.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Queen, the rolling stones, the who or pink floyd as oldies and oasis and blur as newies name the beatles as a clear influence for them. And so, when the people claims that led zeppelin is their influence, its a fact. When they do the same with the beatles, is only because they are famous. Interesting theory.

Yes, they're influential, I'm aware. My point is that you need proof if you're gonna claim they are the most influential EVER without doubt. You can't prove it.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The zebra crossing not, the sargent pepper cover yes.

Big deal, it means nothing, I'm discussing music.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Famous and influential.

But not THE most influential, musically.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You didnt proove aything . Not new arguments by your part, same bullshit as always and you dont go to any part. Try better.

Yes, while you've just reposted the same argument I've tossed aside about 10 times before.

-AC

Originally posted by bakerboy
Stop your crazy love for mike patton. How can you compare the album from an artist who is still working with a group with less of 10 years of career? Also, with that handicap, the beatles albums are more classic the the patton ones, and yes, classic means good. Not only old.

Excuse me? My crazy love for Mike Patton? Says the guy who is so far buried inside Paul McCartney that it's not even funny, and for less reason.

Mike Patton has adapted to and altered/mastered more genres than The Beatles ever hoped to. Moreover, he does it all with nothing more than his mind and voice. I don't expect you to understand, I've encountered you enough to know how buried you are.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, its BOTH INSPIRATION AND INFLUENCE. naturally, you cant hear anything from the beatle on queen or david bowie music, because they are doing his own stuff and all. But they have claimed that the beatles and mainly john lennon( freddie mercury's heroe and mith) have been a great inspiration and influence for their music. That doesn mean same style or same sound.

Then all I see there is inspiration. I see, nor hear, any influence. Nor can you prove there is, you assume.

-AC

Originally posted by jaden101
i really dont see how anyone can say that urban culture is somehow enclosed given that it dominates youth culture throughout the world

not to mention that hip hops influence can reach areas which were just not reachable to the beatles in their heyday...the former soviet union, africa, the middle east, china...they are all huge areas of the world that were pretty much untouched by western cultural influences in the 1960's...thats not the case now...and hip hop is the fastest growing western influence in terms of music influencing culture...in these parts of the world

like i said before...the beatles were all but forgotten among youth culture before oasis showed up in the early 90's...

already did...in this thread...not to mention that you never replied to my post when i asked if paul mccartney is such a brilliant song writer...why is his solo stuff totally ignored?

by the way...what's a "clow"

I didnt know that an "n" was so imporant for you. But lets see. Paul Macartney was and is one of the best songwritters ever. Clearly, when Lennon and him were togheter, they did their best songwrittern work, because it was a magical conection. But not. Not only he is the solo creator of some of the most beatiful songs of the beatles( hey jude, yesterday, eleanor rigby, let it be, the long and widding road, the fool on the hill, etc) he did excellent solo stuff with the wings and alone( band on the road, live and let die, no more lonely nights, the girl is mine, etc).

Originally posted by bakerboy
he did excellent solo stuff with the wings and alone( band on the road, live and let die, no more lonely nights, the girl is mine, etc).

but its not considered among the best is it?...no...thus proving you wrong

and for that matter...harrisons stuff isn't regarded as amongst the best ever either...thus making you wrong again

and john lennon was to busy being a junked up hippy **** and getting shot to make too much solo stuff to prove himself

the beatles were a phenomenon in the same way that take that were a phenomenon...they made lots of girls scream at them for no apparent musical reason

and the only reason they persist in being touted as good is that it appears to be "cool" to do it

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They were the first to do a few things, yes, I said that. I'm also waiting for something actually relevent to the discussion.

That being that some people are foolish enough to believe The Beatles are the most influential musical band ever. Fact is, as stated before, they didn't have the first concept album ever. That's the negative effect of how famous The Beatles were, you see. "I haven't heard it anywhere before! They must be the first!".

No, Mr. Frank Zappa was. 1966's Freak Out!, a whole year before The Beatles.

So what? His point was that they had famous members. Matters none.

A) Frank Zappa. June 1966.

B) It's innovation, not influence.

Yes, they're influential, I'm aware. My point is that you need proof if you're gonna claim they are the most influential EVER without doubt. You can't prove it.

Big deal, it means nothing, I'm discussing music.

But not THE most influential, musically.

Yes, while you've just reposted the same argument I've tossed aside about 10 times before.

-AC

I think that it is pretty relevant to the discussion.

Not in the same way that the sargent peppers. Cover, musical themes related , etc.

Not as famous or even close.

Its both innovation and influence.

By the same way, could you proove that they arent or could you proove that there are some bands more influential than the beatles? and why they are more influential? Im waiting, because you all the time asking proofs and you dont show any one, only that one of frank zappa, that is a good one, but it wasnt as conceptual or innovate in all the terms that sargent pepper was.

So, if you are discussing music, why you post that argument here? Not sense here.

The most infulential and more inspiring.