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

Bruce_T_Laney

Platinum Member
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
34,934
Reaction score
6,127
Points
1,140
Location
Hell
Popular sure but most influential?

Pink Floyd to me influence more bands than the Beatles in my opinion.

As for music we sing to I still believe the Eagles became that band...

Just my two cents on it...
Eagles had too many groupies to be a serious band, my friends!
( rolling up a newspaper and swatting you on the nose while saying bad for that bad hump )

I would say the Beatles had more groupies...
 

Wintw

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2016
Messages
530
Reaction score
45
Points
68
ACTUALLY they are the fourth greatest recording artist in the world.

1) Michael Jackson
2) Led Zeppelin (world's greatest cover group! :20:)
3) QUEEN
4) The BEATLES
5) FREE
6) The EAGLES
7) Fleetwood Mac
8) CREAM
9) Jimi Hendrix
10) Elvis Presley
11) Frank Sinatra
12) Louis Armstrong
13) The Rolling Stones
14) Elton John
15) David Bowie
16) Guns N' Roses
17) Whitesnake
18) Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers
19) Def Leppard
20) Guns N' Roses
21) Bon Jovi
22) Jack White
23) The Cars
 

Persistence Of Memory

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
842
Points
190
People don't realize that this group wrote and released all those tunes from about 62-69. That will never happen again.

Even your Mother Should Know that...lol


Audio ain't the greatest, but the vid is
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,951
Reaction score
2,461
Points
290
Location
Texas
Never cared for them.
They were just a barbershop quartet with a new gimmick that suckered teenage girls into parting with some of their allowances to buy their records. They made a lot of money at it, so they're revered and worshipped because of that, and teenage boys wanted to mimmick them, or at least the money they made.
 
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
53,281
Reaction score
5,335
Points
1,870
Location
LaPorte, Indiana

"Paul McCartney slaved over getting Oh Darling's vocals right. he was really screaming it, so he couldnt do it more than twice a day. He used to come in every day and try it and say "No I havent done it yet. i'll try again tomorrow"
 

sparky

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
16,912
Reaction score
2,959
Points
280
Location
paradise
What impressed me was how their song writing kept getting better and more creative. The early years were pretty simplistic, still good but their later work was excellent and some of it downright amazing.
A study for any aspiring R&R'er

~S~
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,694
Reaction score
571
Points
155
They had the biggest overall influence on the music industry so you could say they were the best band ever. In 50's and 60's America, rock n roll music was a 'passing fad', but after that appearance on the Ed Sullivan show it exploded - every neighborhood had 3 garage bands, guitar and other musical instrument sales skyrocketed.... the culture changed ( good and bad ). They set the stage for every successful rock band that followed them.

I was living in NYC when John Lennon was killed and millions of people flocked to the memorial all that week around Central Park - Beatles music everywhere - it was insane.




.
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.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,694
Reaction score
571
Points
155
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.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,951
Reaction score
2,461
Points
290
Location
Texas
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.
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top