The Beatles...best band in the history of the world

Discussion in 'Music' started by basquebromance, Sep 26, 2019.

  1. james bond
    Offline

    james bond Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,748
    Thanks Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +1,867
    It does sound amazing for a live performance and first appearnace in the US. The set is arranged so that we can't see their amps and stuff. The other thing I notice is they start out simple with repetition and they harmonize their songs well. The reaction of the audience is something we do not see today. At least for me. I'm too old to be going to some new band I just heard about.

    ETA: The last artist I remember who provoked that kind of reaction was Michael Jackson.



    McCartney explains about their songs.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. james bond
    Offline

    james bond Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,748
    Thanks Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +1,867
    Here's one take. Generally, if you listen to the top songs of the decade, then it's not a good representation. Most of the #1 songs you have heard, but they all aren't that good. For some reason, the were popular and made money to reach the Billboard #1 ranking, you know pop songs. What really made the songs of the decade were lesser songs from the better bands and individual musicians. It could've been a one hit wonder. The Beatles though were really good from the get go. Same with the Stones.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    15,768
    Thanks Received:
    2,095
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +10,509
    Agree with all except the last; late in the 60's decade we get Hendrix and some of the more complex music aimed at niches that were buying the new high quality stereo gear that was getting cheap enough for college kids to afford then. The Stones put out a huge pile of material, most of it crap but enough to still have a lot of 'good' stuff compared to to other bands. They also tend to suck live, which is why I would never pay to seem them on a tour. I paid to see Hendrix and Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, the latter several times, and always felt I got my money's worth; not the case with many bands of that era, who weren't good enough to sound even close to their records, and it's doubtful many of them even played on their studio recordings.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Mindful
    Offline

    Mindful Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    23,495
    Thanks Received:
    6,441
    Trophy Points:
    420
    Location:
    Here, there, and everywhere.
    Ratings:
    +40,118
     

Share This Page