Better than The Beatles? Who?

A

alec

White heterosexual male
Orderite
I was sitting in my most comfortable chair and I was listening to the new Radiohead album, 'In Rainbows', and I was thinking: 'Shit, man, those motherfuckers are good, they are brilliant, but you know what? They don't beat The Beatles. The Beatles still rule.'

The Beatles still rule. They do. They rule supreme. They are internationally regarded as the most influential band ever and I don't think that will ever change.
The Beatles came, saw and conquered. From 'Love Me Do' to 'Back in the U.S.S.R.', they paved the way for future musicians, producing music that has changed into folklore.

Radiohead are good. They made one of the most important records ever (OK Computer) and their seventh album is really awesome, but historically, contextually, musically, ... , if one were to be really honest, they are still second to The Beatles.

And then it struck me: some things probably can not be bettered. Ever. Again.
You can not write a more experimental book than Finnegan's Wake.
You can not paint a picture more enigmatic and perfect than Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.
Etcetera.

But then: what's the point of growing zits on your buttocks because you're sitting at a desk 10 hours a day, drawing, writing, dreaming, thinking?
What's the point of making music if you can't beat The Beatles anyway, if anything you ever make will be considered crap when compared to The Beatles? Etcetera.

Discuss.
 
fuck the Beatles tbfh. i've always been more of a Rolling Stone anyway from that era.

PS: havent listened to the new Radiohead
 
I personally cannot stand about 95% of the music that has ever been made.

Essentially, if it scares the people who live across the street from me, I like it.

KMFDM, Hanzel Und Gretyl, Ministry and MF Doom are on that list... That and the works of Wagner.
 
alec said:
But then: what's the point of growing zits on your buttocks because you're sitting at a desk 10 hours a day, drawing, writing, dreaming, thinking?
What's the point of making music if you can't beat The Beatles anyway, if anything you ever make will be considered crap when compared to The Beatles?
Click to expand...

To contribute in explaining our place in the universe and the sense, and ultimately, the purpose of all creation.

Duh.

EDIT: Also, fornicating with impressionable 1st year art academy students in the process. And with hawt models.
 
There's no point in trying to neglect the fact that The Beatles were one of the most influential bands in history, if not the most influential one.
Still, I never did quite like their music, not because it was bad, but because it was too corny for my taste. When it comes to the Beatles-Stones choice, I'd always go for Stones.
But now, in the last several years, I've found myself coming back to the music I practically grew up listening to - jazz and fusion.
 
Brother None said:
The Beatles suck.
Click to expand...

I don't like them either, but that doesn't stop me from respecting them for what they've done for Rock music, and therefore, for all derivatives of it, ending the string at the genres which i passionately listen to, namely, extreme metal.

You can top everything, believe me. I will not discuss what, if any, band is better then them, because it's, to be perfectly honest, a matter of one's musical taste.

From my point of view, trying to beat something, which is perfect, is a great motivation in itself. Even the simple fact that you are trying validates your effort. It does not guarantee success, it does not mean you will create anything that will stamp itself on the pages of history, and there's the possibility that putting too much energy into a thing which will fail will crush you, but at least no one will point a finger at you and say you created a piece which is deprived of any worth, because you put your blood, sweat and soul into it.
 
If i may throw my 2c

Well alec like you put it its about context and how relevant and powerfull it is for the moment its concieved and how it continues to percolate and find reason in time ...

That beeing said in my view the beatles were part of an evolutionary ladder of 20th century music or "modern music" and so were the stones ... they were a reaction and a progression of certain elements and in turn sparked reactions.

OK Computer and well Radiohead are on the other hand situated at the end of this straight line of developments in all its post-modern glory.

Alltho i dont think they can be compared i still think the Beatles had the bigger bang both culturally and in terms of concept and sound - especially since theyre work still ripples and can still be significant and relevant to today - but i do think this has a lot to do with the context.

Basically theres nothing left to be said musically - politically or culturally it will always have a certain degree of potency.

The point of making music is not to beat historical bests .. but just to express and do your thing and create cultural expressions relevant to your time both as sound and style and as message.

That beeing said. (and i apologize if some of those things were obvious to state and thus pointless)

:mrgreen:

I love the beatles.
I love the stones.
I love Radiohead.

if you want someone on par with the Beatles the obvious choice i think would be the late James Brown ... simply because (just like the Beatles maybe) an overwhelming majority of what you hear today can be either directly refferenced or is a result of his influence on popular music.

and after that there would be hip-hop - hard to name an artist because a lot of them didnt have such long careers like the Beatles ... but id pick Afrika Bambataa as an example any day.

forgive my long and incomplete post .. i has work to do


oh and thanks to alec for the topic .. it started a youtube romp for me ;)))

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=gZez_k4vAzU[/youtube]
 
Brother None said:
The Beatles suck.
Click to expand...

Coming from Kharn? I'd've never expected that! :roll:

Beatles are nice. So are the Rolling Stones, Radiohead and Velveeta.

To each their own, especially in the context of music's wider availability and portability via the intertubes and MP3 players than CDs and record labels.
 
alec said:
(Original Post)
Click to expand...

The Beatles don't rule, and they don't suck. To quote Scroobius Pip, "The Beatles are just a band." A GOOD band, granted. A very good band, depending on where your tastes lie. But not THE band. They may've spearheaded a shift in the musical zeitgeist, but if it hadn't been them, it would just as easily have been someone else-- they were a product of the times, not the other way around. And honestly, for all their brilliant body of work, they put out just as much useless chaff as the next band, even BEFORE Yoko came along.

Back when chamber music was in, I'm sure that the prevailing sentiment was "no one is ever going to top Ludwig Van Beethoven, so what's the point?"
 
You people are all crazy. The Beatles are the greatest band that ever was or will be. I usually try to be objective about these things especially since music is so subjective and relative, but this is the exception. Alec is right, the rest of you are wrong.

As for the other question; Not making music because you'll never beat the Beatles would be like giving up sex because you'll never beat Don Juan or Casanova.
 
Montez said:
You people are all crazy. The Beatles are the greatest band that ever was or will be. I usually try to be objective about these things especially since music is so subjective and relative, but this is the exception. Alec is right, the rest of you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's just a matter of taste. I can think of at least 200 bands i like more then the Beatles, simply because they're out of my scope of favourite genres. Hell, most of these bands are better then the Beatles in practically everything but the amount of inspiration they put/will put into future generations of music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top