Are The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever?...Or Were They?

[onelife]

Ringo was/is a great drummer. Anybody that can lay down a groove like he did gets full marks in my book.

 

McCartney and Harrison have often praised the contribution "Ritchie" made to the band when he joined.

 

It's no coincidence that The Beatles spent six years in the pre-Ringo days and six years post-Ringo and were phenomenally successful during the latter.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Lots of people put down Ringo as a "simpleton" drummer (which IMHO is not a bad thing), but I attended a clinic put on by my good pal Gregg Bissonette where he broke down the grooves Ringo played in an audio and visual presentation, and to everyone's surprise what he played and how he played it was quite significant and complicated. It just amazingly came across as a simple groove.

Gregg further showed examples of other songs that were influenced by the grooves Ringo played. It changed my entire perspective on his influence on drums and drumming. (Not to mention what I referenced above about how it affected Ludwig.)

 

He was also apparently incredibly consistent in the studio, take after take - which was important for them, considering they often did dozens and dozens of takes.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Yes (pun intended), he was an exceptional bass player and I loved his tone, too. How he could play such complex parts while being "in the pocket" was pretty amazing.

 

(Interesting aside: I fell in love with a custom bass while I was visiting a luthier. He had made it at Chris Squire's request, so it wasn't for sale but I couldn't have afforded it anyway. Chris ended up not buying it for some reason which the luthier considered trivial, like the shape of the inlays or something, but which was important to Chris. Said luthier was sufficiently upset he called me and said "You really appreciated that bass, you can buy it if you like." I said indeed it was a fantastic bass, but couldn't afford it. So he sold it to me for $400 because he wanted it to go to someone who truly appreciated it. As part of the deal, it had strings on it which Chris Squire had played ).

 

 

Okay, so you really just want me to hate you, taunting me.....

 

That's what I paid for my first Ric, a 4001 jetglo, in 1978. I made the huge mistake of selling it around 1982...for $200 to a Sam Ash.

 

Pics??

 

And that's what I really admired about Chris...amazingly intricate lines that still nailed the beat and grooved. HIs tone is still like capturing lightning in a bottle for me. I've never gotten close. I've read that he used to hold the pick really close, so his fingertips hit the strings along with the pick.

[Folder]

I think you have to take it in context of what was happening at that time.

 

 

The Beatles were the first. They set the template for others to follow.

Because they did things that hadn't been done before they are considered by many people to be the greatest. Some have said the Beatles are the point where pop music became an art form.

 

Is Jimi Hendrix the greatest guitar player? There are probably members of this forum who play guitar as well or even better than Hendrix. Yet Hendrix still gets voted number one in most "greatest guitar player" polls. But Hendrix was a visionary and an innovator creating a new language for the guitar. Therefore he is considered one of the greats. Everybody playing guitar today has been either directly or indirectly influenced by what Hendrix was doing 50 years ago.

[Folder]

 

The way they evolved from being a "Boy Band" for the teeny boppers to becoming serious composers and pushing the listeners mind into new sonic possibilities , is awe inspiring.

 

I think even McCartney said the Beatles were the first boy band but in my view they are the antithesis of what a boy band is. Boy bands are usually prefabricated. They are put together by some sort of producer for the purpose of appealing to teenagers.

 

The Beatles on the other hand were young music fans who started their own band. They paid their dues playing for years in bars getting paid next to nothing. They played their own instruments, wrote their own songs and were heavily involved in arranging and producing their recordings

[onelife]

The Beatles, like Elvis, spawned thousands of imitators who were able to grasp some of what they did but very few could cover the entire package. There were lots of mop tops in suits with Epiphone Casinos but they didn't have the vocal blend or the songwriting. The Monkees were prefabricated with ideas based on the movie "Help" and the music was Don Kirshner's thing.

 

If we extrapolate, it could be said that The Beatles were indeed the first boy band.

[WRGKMC]

 

I think even McCartney said the Beatles were the first boy band but in my view they are the antithesis of what a boy band is. Boy bands are usually prefabricated. They are put together by some sort of producer for the purpose of appealing to teenagers.

 

The Beatles on the other hand were young music fans who started their own band. They paid their dues playing for years in bars getting paid next to nothing. They played their own instruments, wrote their own songs and were heavily involved in arranging and producing their recordings

 

 

 

The Monkeys in contrast were a pre fabricated band. They lip synced all the music and I don't thing they even played or wrote much of their music, at least not till much later. They were all cashing in on the Beatle mania of the time using TV, advertising and album sales. It made sence because the public wanted it and anyone who could pull it off was ensured popularity and a paycheck.

 

There were many bands from both the US and England who used the same formula. I have a collection of a original albums from that time and its amazing how many bands did become popular using that same formula. It was used for most bands up until the internet killed the record industry and even then bands use it for all their live stuff. You don't see too many bands that have a star singer and a backup band any more. Maybe Rap with computerized material has filled that void?

[Folder]

 

 

It was used for most bands up until the internet killed the record industry and even then bands use it for all their live stuff.

 

Huh?

 

I don't know what you are referring to but I think it's pretty easy to identify a boy band. I'm thinking bands like "New Kids on the Block" or "NSYNC" or the "Spice Girls" (girl band ). Bands where it's pretty obvious that they were put together by outsiders specifically to appeal to a youth audience.

 

 

[Mr. Hardgroove]

I'm thinking bands like "New Kids on the Block" or "NSYNC" or the "Spice Girls" (girl band ). Bands where it's pretty obvious that they were put together by outsiders specifically to appeal to a youth audience.

 

 

Hello Folder.

You're thinking of the "recent" definition of the term. Although the exact words weren't used in The Beatles day, most understand

what was inferred by it.

[Mark L]

Yes

[Folder]

 

Hello Folder.

You're thinking of the "recent" definition of the term. Although the exact words weren't used in The Beatles day, most understand

what was inferred by it.

 

Hello Mr. Hardgroove,

 

I was commenting about WRGKMC's quote that the boy band formula "was used for most bands up until the internet killed the record industry"

Obviously teen idol types have been around since the 50's and obviously there were always a lot of artists that appealed to teens. But I think the "boy band formula" is more popular now since the internet came on line (last 15 years) . Not less.

 

For me the real impact of the Beatles was that they were the whole package. They wrote, arranged and produced their own material at time when that was not the norm. Pretty much the antithesis of what boy bands are. The fact that they appealed to teens and were exploited because of it had little to do with the music they made.

[1001gear]

Beatles - probably in the top 5 tunists for combo; so far anyway. Rock bands tend to rock for a couple minutes tops and then brick wall on they gotta rock or something.

[capitalist]

IMO a few seminal R&R innovators. No particular order: Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Link Wray, Elvis, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran, The Who, The Beatles, VH, The Kinks, Jerry Lee Lewis, Led Zep, The Ramones, The Clash, XTC, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Heart, Sly & The Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, I am sure I inadvertently omitted a few but I became tired of typing.

[Minning Around]

Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 opinions as to who is the greatest. It's too subjective. You'll get a flame war going with this thread.

Ask ten people and you'll get something like this:

4 will say The Beatles

2 will say the Stones

2 will say Led Zep

1 will say Pink Floyd

1 will say Rush (there is always one of those)

 

 

[AJ6stringsting]

What blew me away, was an interview George Harrison did a few years before he died, he stated, " When the Beatles broke up, we felt like we were discharged from the Army".

[Craig Vecchione]

All will be 100% correct!

[Craig Vecchione]

What blew me away' date=' was an interview George Harrison did a few years before he died, he stated, " When the Beatles broke up, we felt like we were discharged from the Army".[/quote']

 

Hardly surprising, as one can imagine that even being adored has to get really old when it's constant and goes on for years. And of course along with adoration comes expectation...many that could never be met. And then throw in all the leeches and the jealous haters.

 

Yeah, I'd be ready for something...anything...else.

[Anderton]

IMO a few seminal R&R innovators. No particular order: Little Richard' date=' Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Link Wray, Elvis, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran, The Who, The Beatles, VH, The Kinks, Jerry Lee Lewis, Led Zep, The Ramones, The Clash, XTC, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Heart, Sly & The Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, I am sure I inadvertently omitted a few but I became tired of typing.[/quote']

 

One the elements I think iworth considering is how much an artist influenced other artists.

 

After "Sergeant Pepper's," every band had to do a "Sergeant Pepper's" (e.g., Jefferson Airplane "After Bathing at Baxter's")

Think of how many artists Buddy Holly influenced. His stripped-down, no-nonsense songwriting really resonated.

There never would have been a Prince without a Little Richard.

Consider how many musicians Kraftwerk influenced, but they're rarely mentioned as one of the great bands. But they are. They invented a type of music.

The Byrds were also hugely influential. They crafted a much-imitated sound (Tom Petty, anyone?) that if they'd never existed and appeared today, would still be considered fresh and innovative.

 

 

 

[onelife]

...

There never would have been a Prince without a Little Richard.

...

 

McCartney would be half the singer he is (he'd still be really good) without Little Richard.

 

[video=youtube;X7dHoEmUtIs]

[tbry]

My 94 year old mother would never say the Beatles were the best... to her it just doesn't resonate....for me they were/are the best Popular Music group ever. I find it hard to believe that in the future there will be a band of men/boys whatever that will change the face of music like the Beatles did...to me that makes them the best ever.

[onelife]

I find it difficult to say there will never be another. We might have said that about Mozart before the world heard Beethoven.

 

One of my students, an 11 year old, came to me the other day with a guitar and said she wanted to learn a song that she had been playing in The Beatles: Rock Band. It was "Dig A Pony" so we had a quick listen to it on YouTube and I showed her the riff from memory. Today, I dug out the "Let It B… Naked" CD and gave it a serious listen.

 

Yeah, they were a good band. Paul McCartney is an excellent back up singer. They were a huge part of a team (including the guys who built George Harrison's Telecaster) that contributed to making some great sounding recordings of their songs. It's notable that Alan Parsons was the tape operator for the rooftop session - the guy who actually recorded it.

 

A whole lot of things lined up to make The Beatles thing happen. I think McCartney's vocal work on the others' songs is enough in itself to make the band great and no one can deny his gift for melody that made even the silly love songs great. Lennon's testaments about the human experience and Harrison's songs about the spiritual quest added a depth to the music that still stands up today.

 

Add to that the marketing contributions of Brian Epstein, the musical sensibilities of George Martin, the fearless recording initiatives of Geoff Emerick and the financial backing and studio resources from EMI and it certainly looks like a unique combination of excellence.

[Tomm Williams]

I'll suggest one thing that might contribute to this topic. I'm not claiming to have unlimited data to draw upon but........................I have never seen another thread like this (in any forum) where this same question is asked concerning any band OTHER than The Beatles. Not conclusive evidence of their stature but certainly worth considering.

[tjnugent]

I can accept the Beatles as the greatest band ever. I can accept The Beach Boys/ACA Brian Wilson the Second Best behind the Beatles, but I cannot accept Van Halen as the best of anything...

[WRGKMC]

The band cant be fully appreciated unless you judge them in historical aspect.

 

I grew up during the 60's and hearing their hits on the radio during that time. Their hits and their popularity dwarfed most of the competition. They were leaders who others copied. When another band got close to their level, they simply came out with something better which left the competition in the dust. It would take them a year to catch up and again, the Beatles came out with something way ahead of the curve.

 

Before the Beatles you'd have a single star member in a band. Elvis, Buddy Holly, even Mic Jagger stood out as the star of the band and the band was essentially unknown and there as backup. Even listening to an old Elvis song, you'd hear the vocals way up front and the band playing meekly in the background. Its just the way the music industry worked promoting a single entity.

 

The Beatles were the first band where all the members became household names. You'd say Ringo Star and everybody knew exactly who he was. You'd say Charlie Watts and people would say, Who the heck is that?

 

This isn't to say other bands didn't have good music either. Its just their ideas were already dated by the time they came out. They also benefited by the things the Beatles had done to the industry. They invented a new formula for pop/rock bands that remain to this day as simply the way things are done.

 

If you view the band from the here and now its tougher to judge how and why were considered the greatest pop band. Allot of bands have come and gone in 40 years. They had the luxury of having a blueprint already in place however. Few have really set new standards and broken new ground in the industry. The model was already pioneered.

 

The Beatles didn't necessarily invent allot of what they did in the industry, but they did it so well and had such a following, they made their path a standard in the industry because it was so successful. An album like Sargent Peppers was totally ground breaking. It was not only great musically, but the way the recording techniques were used just as creatively hadn't been attempted, or at least not successfully before.

 

It was what you call a perfect storm of Music Composition, Musical Talent and Recording Technology that rocked the music industry.

 

All the other bands attempted to copy that success. The stones came up with satanic majesties request, an album in my opinion didn't come close.

 

A cool story was told by Papa John Philips of the Mamas and the Papas. He had a producer come over when that Beatles album came out. He stuck a set of headphones on him and told John to make a hit album like that. John played that album for days then stopped and said he got it.

 

he went into the studio and recorded California Dreaming and Monday, Monday inspired by that album which became #1 hits.

 

Allot of other bands did this too, all following what was done before them. Wasn't just that album either, it was most of their albums.

 

The Beatles all had their own separate careers too. Bands rarely survived to continue making hits after they broke up. Today its common place for players to go solo and have successful careers. Back then it just didn't happen the way it did for them, Go from being a #1 hit band with hit singles to having solo albums with hit singles. Most bands were lucky if its members had a second shot at the brass ring and if they did, few knew their history.

[AlamoJoe]

:Long lived thread.

I doubt any band will ever have the Impact The Beatles had.

Musicians today, Young ones, are influenced by them without any knowledge whatsoever that they are.