Are The Beatles the greatest band of all time?

[teaboy]

But this is one album. Surely to talk about the greatest band we need to look at sales figures of their entire catalog

http://www.therichest.com/entertainment/the-top-10-best-selling-artists-of-all-time/

No - you're confusing 'greatness' with 'popularity' again.

You could say that her 'best' work is greater than their 'best' work. Both of them are beaten by Shania Twain, by the way... (Michael Jackson's Thriller is top of the list)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Really? In which case Jive Bunny and Robson and Jerome were respectively two of the greatest bands from the 80s and 90s!

You could have done with an exclamation mark after that I think...

 

[Gally72]

J

For what they achieved in terms of pure songwriting, and the diverse styles of music they attempted and succeeded with, are The Beatles the greatest band of all time?

If not, who is?

There will never be anything like them ever,league of their own even with all that competition

 

[Buzzer]

You could have done with an exclamation mark after that I think...

Nah. They give me a headache. I read them as if someone is shouting "HA" at the end of the sentence.

 

[teaboy]

The interesting thing to note about that, is that out of all the wonderful artists mentioned, The Kinks, Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, Dylon, Elvis etc. - they are no where on that list. In fact, no album pre-1973 is in that top list, other than Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road. The Beatles are the only band from the '60s that feature in those lists. Buying habits and music consumption obviously changed, but it's remarkable that they feature up so high.

Indeed. Also, radio air-play is ignored (possibly rightly due to the control execs have over it) but that has a great influence on sales figures.

 

[BadFish]

No - you're confusing 'greatness' with 'popularity' again.

You could say that her 'best' work is greater than their 'best' work. Both of them are beaten by Shania Twain, by the way... (Michael Jackson's Thriller is top of the list)

No I am not the greatest band would beat other bands in many different measures, Sales figures is one measurable way that The Beatles beat all comers. There are other scales in which the Beatles will come top and many in which they will feature highly in. My opinion is that they perform across the board in more measures of greatness than any other band. Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Elvis and a few other bands would come close but none would perform so consistently in so many areas, This is the reason that they are considered by most people to be the greatest band of all time.

If this is subjective, can I ask where you would put them and who you would put above them?

 

[BadFish]

In 2004 — 50 years after Elvis Presley walked into Sun Studios and cut "That's All Right" — Rolling Stone celebrated rock & roll's first half-century in grand style, assembling a panel of 55 top musicians, writers and industry executives (everyone from Keith Richards to ?uestlove of the Roots) and asking them to pick the most influential artists of the rock & roll era. The resulting list of 100 artists, published in two issues of Rolling Stone in 2004 and 2005, and updated in 2011, is a broad survey of rock history, spanning Sixties heroes (the Beatles) and modern insurgents (Eminem), and touching on early pioneers (Chuck Berry) and the bluesmen who made it all possible (Howlin' Wolf).

The essays on these top 100 artists are by their peers: singers, producers and musicians. In these fan testimonials, indie rockers pay tribute to world-beating rappers (Vampire Weekend's Ezra Koenig on Jay-Z), young pop stars honor stylistic godmothers (Britney Spears on Madonna) and Billy Joel admits that Elton John "kicks my ass on piano." Rock & roll is now a music with a rich past. But at its best, it is still the sound of forward motion. As you read this book, remember: This is what we have to live up to.

Who won? .......You guessed it...

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231#ixzz2emGJ5iN1
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

[Stato]

As a band they constantly broke new ground and pushed the boundaries of what music was about./QUOTE]

No they really didn't.

It worked like this:

Ray Davies puts raga sounds on 'See My Friends'.
Music fans like Lennon & McCartney notice.
High brow critics pay no attention to The Kinks as they are considered low art.
Kids like the weird sounds on the record, but don't have the cultural education to know their origin.
The Beatles make 'Norwegian Wood'.
High brow critics pay attention to everything the Beatles do, so write broadsheet newspaper articles saying 'The Beatles have introduced raga to western pop music.'
Kids think 'It sounds like that noise on The Kinks record, but as I had never heard of Raga until now, who am I to question?'
History is written by the critics: Another Beatles innovation in the can.

 

[Biscuit]

In 2004 — 50 years after Elvis Presley walked into Sun Studios and cut "That's All Right" — Rolling Stone celebrated rock & roll's first half-century in grand style, assembling a panel of 55 top musicians, writers and industry executives (everyone from Keith Richards to ?uestlove of the Roots) and asking them to pick the most influential artists of the rock & roll era. The resulting list of 100 artists, published in two issues of Rolling Stone in 2004 and 2005, and updated in 2011, is a broad survey of rock history, spanning Sixties heroes (the Beatles) and modern insurgents (Eminem), and touching on early pioneers (Chuck Berry) and the bluesmen who made it all possible (Howlin' Wolf).

The essays on these top 100 artists are by their peers: singers, producers and musicians. In these fan testimonials, indie rockers pay tribute to world-beating rappers (Vampire Weekend's Ezra Koenig on Jay-Z), young pop stars honor stylistic godmothers (Britney Spears on Madonna) and Billy Joel admits that Elton John "kicks my ass on piano." Rock & roll is now a music with a rich past. But at its best, it is still the sound of forward motion. As you read this book, remember: This is what we have to live up to.

Who won? .......You guessed it...

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231#ixzz2emGJ5iN1
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Brilliant last paragraph:

The second he [McCartney] sang the opening lines — "Close your eyes, and I'll kiss you" — the crowd's reaction was so intense that it all but drowned the song out. It was very thrilling but also rather disconcerting. Perhaps I understood in that moment one of the reasons why the Beatles had to stop performing. The songs weren't theirs anymore. They were everybody's.

 

[teaboy]

No I am not the greatest band would beat other bands in many different measures, Sales figures is one measurable way that The Beatles beat all comers. There are other scales in which the Beatles will come top and many in which they will feature highly in. My opinion is that they perform across the board in more measures of greatness than any other band. Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Elvis and a few other bands would come close but none would perform so consistently in so many areas, This is the reason that they are considered by most people to be the greatest band of all time.

If this is subjective, can I ask where you would put them and who you would put above them?

I wouldn't put them anywhere. I wouldn't compile the list. I simply don't know enough music to do so, and I doubt many people do. There are far too many variables, especially socially over time, to fairly compare across eras (even if you quantify what is meant be 'greatness' anyway). What's the point anyway? Having a definitive list for all time would ruin debates like this.

They were an important band and a popular band. Mersey-beat (which certainly wasn't 'just' the Beatles) influenced much music afterwards, just like hip-hop, punk, and disco have (and will), and just like skiffle, blues and jazz (and many, many other genres) did before them and continue to do. Kids will always do different things with music. Some of it will be popular, some of it not. To hold the Beatles up as some sort of yardstick is weird.

 

[BadFish]

As a band they constantly broke new ground and pushed the boundaries of what music was about./QUOTE]

No they really didn't.

It worked like this:

Ray Davies puts raga sounds on 'See My Friends'.
Music fans like Lennon & McCartney notice.
High brow critics pay no attention to The Kinks as they are considered low art.
Kids like the weird sounds on the record, but don't have the cultural education to know their origin.
The Beatles make 'Norwegian Wood'.
High brow critics pay attention to everything the Beatles do, so write broadsheet newspaper articles saying 'The Beatles have introduced raga to western pop music.'
Kids think 'It sounds like that noise on The Kinks record, but as I had never heard of Raga until now, who am I to question?'
History is written by the critics: Another Beatles innovation in the can.

Not sure what you are intending to prove with one example. My understanding of the period is that many bands were doing a lot of innovating and breaking new ground. To say the Beatles made now innovations because the Kinks did too proves little in this discussion.

Once again my point that they are the greatest band based on a variety of measures is being disputed based on one. They were not the more innovative band ever but they were certainly up there.

 

[Icy Gull]

To hold the Beatles up as some sort of yardstick is weird.

Not sure I can even start to argue about them with you if you feel like that, strangest comment I have seen on this thread.

 

[Stato]

Not sure what you are intending to prove with one example. My understanding of the period is that many bands were doing a lot of innovating and breaking new ground. To say the Beatles made now innovations because the Kinks did too proves little in this discussion.

Once again my point that they are the greatest band based on a variety of measures is being disputed based on one. They were not the more innovative band ever but they were certainly up there.

I think you are missing my wider point. The arts establishment had no time for pop music, but were forced to consider The ubiquitous Beatles. Upon paying attention, the critics were surprised to see that either this pop music lark was deeper than they thought, or that Lennon & McCartney were geniuses. The trend for arts criticism is to lean towards crediting one innovator as its easier to study than the shifting social attitudes and economic influences which have shaped a whole generation of artists. Lennon and McCartney were labelled as innovators, but there is not one concrete thing that can be pointed to that they did before anyone else.

 

[teaboy]

Not sure I can even start to argue about them with you if you feel like that, strangest comment I have seen on this thread.

Eh? The whole "The Beatles are the greatest band of all time" thing is weird. It reduces every other musician ever to 'yeah, but they weren't as good as the Beatles'. It also suggests that there's an aim in music to be as good as the Beatles, despite the 50+ years of worldwide musical culture between then and now. If music will never be as great again, what's the point?

 

[MICK PATCHAM]

The Kinks were much better than the Beatles

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

No they really didn't.

It worked like this:

Ray Davies puts raga sounds on 'See My Friends'.
Music fans like Lennon & McCartney notice.
High brow critics pay no attention to The Kinks as they are considered low art.
Kids like the weird sounds on the record, but don't have the cultural education to know their origin.
The Beatles make 'Norwegian Wood'.
High brow critics pay attention to everything the Beatles do, so write broadsheet newspaper articles saying 'The Beatles have introduced raga to western pop music.'
Kids think 'It sounds like that noise on The Kinks record, but as I had never heard of Raga until now, who am I to question?'
History is written by the critics: Another Beatles innovation in the can.

Spot on.

Putting musical history into context often provides a nice timeline for when things happened often contradicting popular opinion.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I think sales are slightly misleading.

I remember rightly The Dave Clark 5 band outsold many of the top british artists of the time rivalling the Beatles sales early on.

Then you had a group like Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich who racked up as many or more top 10 hits as some of the top bands of the day.

Sales don't always translate into high quality output.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Once again my point that they are the greatest band based on a variety of measures is being disputed based on one. They were not the more innovative band ever but they were certainly up there.

I think that's what people are asking.

What were their innovations in music?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Eh? The whole "The Beatles are the greatest band of all time" thing is weird. It reduces every other musician ever to 'yeah, but they weren't as good as the Beatles'. It also suggests that there's an aim in music to be as good as the Beatles, despite the 50+ years of worldwide musical culture between then and now. If music will never be as great again, what's the point?

I think this is a point where you have to drop the idea of greatest being necessarily better (as weird as that sounds). I for one would put The Beatles up as the greatest band ever, however that isn't to say no one has produced better music, or better albums or better songs. I wouldn't even say they were my favourite group, but just in terms of so many factors, I find it hard to imagine not accepting their legacy as the greatest band that has been.

 

[PFJ]

I think that's what people are asking.
What were their innovations in music?

Their inovations are there to be heard . They came from a Rock'n'Roll /skiffle generation with a shared love of American rock n roll and Paul's affection towards Buddy Holly. From 3 albums of mainly standards with original compositions thrown in , it was clear they wanted more . Whether it be accidental feedback on I Feel Fine , which most other bands would have discarded .they kept it in .A British pop/rock band using sitars in 1965 . Unheard of. Sound effects over the music of Sgt Pepper , the use of segueways rather than gaps .Sgt Pepper again and the brilliant finale on Abbey Road . Paul asking George Martin about the instrument that orchestral feller used on the telly last night . Oh , that'll be a French Horn. Lets put that in then , but make not sound like a French Horn. Using strings to enhance their own music. Using other instruments and then elonggating the sound to create a new sound . If you listen to the demo of Strawberry Fields and then listen to the version we all know and love , the difference is stunning. The music is stretched a slowed down to make that final version. . The boys knew what sounds they wanted and George Martin knew a way to achieve it. And this all recorded over 16 tracks on a 4 track machine.

And all that in 8 years . If that is not innovation , I don't know what is !!!