Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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?
Five classic albums in what, 8 years ? Not many bands can say that. That's something to take into consideration.
Classic doesn't always mean great through and through.
Pfft I don't know... it has to be pretty good before it can be considered a classic.
I really like The Beatles, for the record.
And I like them too. But I only have four albums of the Beatles, so I'm not the biggest fan ever. But on those albums, they defined pop music.
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.
Partially true. But again, it's something it has to be taken into consideration. You can't deny every single bit of respect they receive from fellow musicians.
They made 5 classic albums over two generations
Over two generations ? Didn't they split in 1970 ?
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.
And still, Mike Patton isn't that well known or influential. People who follow (alternative) music, know him. Musicians know him. People who follow pop/rock music, know him from his time with Faith no More.
Don't ask the average John Doe about Fantômas or Mr Bungle however. He wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about.
You want an influential band ? Try Radiohead, or to a lesser extent, Coldplay. Not Mike Patton.
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 thing you don't seem to realize, is that the biggest reason of their popularity, is because they made great music !
More and more people are shying away from sucking off The Beatles everyday, why? Because they're not as timeless as everyone says.
Nothing is timeless.
I honestly don't think there is one singular band, I just don't think The Beatles would be that band if there was.
You're avoiding the question. Until somebody gives me a more influential band than the Beatles, I stick to them.
The Beatles are more inspirational than they are influential.
That's playing with words.
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.
I know. Without the Beatles, some musicians would never have picked up a guitar. That's of course also influencing people.
When was the last time you saw The Beatles come out on top of a great musicianship poll that wasn't voted by retards?
Stop doing that. Like everybody who votes for the people, is an old hippie.
I'm not saying there's A band, I'm saying you could (and should) choose better than The Beatles.
I asked you who. You didn't answer the question...
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.
Imagine is a good song, but not that great. A bit overrated.
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.
No I couldn't.
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.
And I provide a lot. You don't even look at 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.
You got a point there. I could quote Bono, is that okay ?
Bono : What would have my life been, without the Beatles ?
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.
True, but I don't want to turn this into a Beatles vs the Beach Boys vs the Rolling Stones thread. There are enough of them already.
I love the Rolling Stones by the way.
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!".
Peerless.... I don't know... I don't care about Rush and I respected Zappa more than I appreciated his music.
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.
So Tony Iommi is the one who should get shot ?
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.
I backed it up. I can back it up much more. But why should I ? I can give tons of examples of famous musicians claiming how the Beatles changed their life, but you won't accept it.
So tell me, why should I even bother ?
-AC
WK