|
|
Post by bluecheer on Aug 14, 2012 15:19:04 GMT -5
I know I know, they did things that no one else had ever done before them when it came to rock music. But if you compare them to the bands that came after them, are they the most talented band that ever lived?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 14, 2012 15:36:32 GMT -5
No, but talent alone does not make an artist great. Any one member of Dream Theater has more talent than the members of the Beatles and Rolling Stones combined.....but the Beatles and Stones have that "it" factor that Dream Theater and many bands of their talent level don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on Aug 14, 2012 15:52:06 GMT -5
So Jesse,
Are you admitting that popularity dictates the greatest acts of all time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equinox on Aug 14, 2012 19:01:57 GMT -5
So Jesse, Are you admitting that popularity dictates the greatest acts of all time? Two different questions. Were the Beatles the most talented musicians of all time? Not even close. Though Paul McCartney is a pretty talented all-around musician. Were they the greatest rock band of all time? Even those who would say no would say they are up near the top. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Aug 15, 2012 10:37:38 GMT -5
Most talented? Probably not. But thier influence on the music industry is vast. They changed forever what being in a band was all about. And they made writing your own songs okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 15, 2012 11:37:43 GMT -5
So Jesse, Are you admitting that popularity dictates the greatest acts of all time? I'm not sure what you are getting at. |
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on Aug 15, 2012 13:58:50 GMT -5
So Jesse, Are you admitting that popularity dictates the greatest acts of all time? I'm not sure what you are getting at. What I am getting at is that the Beatles are more popular than many bands that are more talented. Great bands should be judged on their musicianship, not how many people like them. |
|
|
|
Post by spacel0rd on Aug 15, 2012 14:38:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you are getting at. What I am getting at is that the Beatles are more popular than many bands that are more talented. Great bands should be judged on their musicianship, not how many people like them. Just say whats on your mind. You think Shout at the Devil blows away Abbey Road? And it makes you mad that more people don't agree? |
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on Aug 15, 2012 15:28:29 GMT -5
What I am getting at is that the Beatles are more popular than many bands that are more talented. Great bands should be judged on their musicianship, not how many people like them. Just say whats on your mind. You think Shout at the Devil blows away Abbey Road? And it makes you mad that more people don't agree? lol no I don't think that. But what I do think is that there are more talented bands out there that deserve to be respected for than the Beatles. |
|
|
|
Post by Equinox on Aug 15, 2012 19:18:04 GMT -5
Just say whats on your mind. You think Shout at the Devil blows away Abbey Road? And it makes you mad that more people don't agree? lol no I don't think that. But what I do think is that there are more talented bands out there that deserve to be respected for than the Beatles. That logic is ridiculous. Put Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Geezer Butler, and Cozy Powell together as a band. You'd have one of the most talented players ever put together. If they can't write and perform a great song together, then they aren't a great band. Great bands should be judged by how great the music they made was, and not by individula talent. And as far a popular goes, how the hell else can you judge music or bands? The best music is the stuff liked by YOU, moreso than the majority? I like alot of stuff that isn't popular, and I don't care. But for me to say they are better because I say so is silly. |
|
bucky
Garage Rocker
Posts: 177
|
Post by bucky on Aug 16, 2012 18:01:54 GMT -5
Are they the most talented band that ever lived? I can't really answer that but everyone has to look at the time frame & how Rock Music has progressed over the decades which led to better equipment, different styles, & different levels of talent. You have to look at it that almost every guitarist to come out of the 50's,60's, & 70's was influenced by the blues. Even your heavier acts to come into the light by the late 60's such as Sabbath,Blue Cheer,Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream...etc. were all blues influenced which went on to influence the playing & Metal sounds of the 70's & 80's. Basically what I'm saying is the talent kept getting handed down & improving throughout the years. Blues influenced Chuck Berry & Link wray who influenced The Yardbirds (Clapton,Beck,Page),the Beatles,The Stones, The Who,The Kinks,...etc who influenced the aforementioned bands. The talent just kept on improving through the decades which brings us to the talentless Beatles  First off I am not a Beatles freak & do not listen to them on a regular basis (I do enjoy them but I prefer the Stones) so...Let's take a look at the musicianship of the Beatles on their 'White Album' which has quite a variety of styles on it (some I don't care for but some I love) The Beatles George Harrison – lead, harmony and background vocals; lead and rhythm (electric and acoustic) guitars, four and six-string bass guitar; Hammond organ; drums and assorted percussion (tambourine, hand shake bell, handclaps and vocal percussion) and sound effects John Lennon – lead, harmony and background vocals; lead and rhythm (electric and acoustic) guitars, four and six-string bass guitar; pianos (electric and acoustic), Hammond organ, harmonium, mellotron; drums and assorted percussion (tambourine, maracas, thumping on the back of an acoustic guitar, handclaps and vocal percussion); harmonica, saxophone and whistling; tapes, tape loops and sound effects (electronic and home-made) Paul McCartney – lead, harmony and background vocals; lead and rhythm (electric and acoustic) guitars, four and six-string bass guitar; pianos (electric and acoustic); Hammond organ; timpani; tambourine; handclaps; vocal percussion; drums (on "Back in the U.S.S.R." and "Dear Prudence"); recorder; flugelhorn; sound effects Ringo Starr – drums and assorted percussion (tambourine, bongos, cymbals, maracas, vocal percussion); electric piano and sleigh bell (on "Don't Pass Me By") , lead vocals (on "Don't Pass Me By" and "Good Night") and backing vocals ("The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill") It sure sounds to me that they show talent |
|
|
|
Post by kim on Aug 17, 2012 11:54:21 GMT -5
I know I know, they did things that no one else had ever done before them when it came to rock music. But if you compare them to the bands that came after them, are they the most talented band that ever lived? Geezus...NO! Sorry once again for the long winded response.  Thanks Kim |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 19, 2012 20:32:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you are getting at. What I am getting at is that the Beatles are more popular than many bands that are more talented. Great bands should be judged on their musicianship, not how many people like them. Well, if it's totally on musicianship, then maybe we have to just forget the whole genre of Rock'n Roll and go with Jazz ensembles, hyper-speed metal bands and backing bands for Broadway shows and Country acts.  . Again, the Beatles had the "it" factor; they played the right music and the right time under the right conditions and became legends for it. Were they collectively as talented as Dream Theater, Stratovarius, Rush, Deep Purple or even the Who? Maybe not, but they were talented enough and, again, in the right place at the right time. If we don't judge artists by their successes, how do we judge them? I don't like the Beatles. For the life of me, I don't understand why people my age and younger like them. I don't understand why ANYONE needs to hear a half-hour block of them every morning on the local Classic Rock Station's "Breakfast With The Beatles". But fuck me, if they float that many people's boat, they must've done something right. |
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on Aug 20, 2012 16:10:30 GMT -5
What I am getting at is that the Beatles are more popular than many bands that are more talented. Great bands should be judged on their musicianship, not how many people like them. Well, if it's totally on musicianship, then maybe we have to just forget the whole genre of Rock'n Roll and go with Jazz ensembles, hyper-speed metal bands and backing bands for Broadway shows and Country acts. . Again, the Beatles had the "it" factor; they played the right music and the right time under the right conditions and became legends for it. Were they collectively as talented as Dream Theater, Stratovarius, Rush, Deep Purple or even the Who? Maybe not, but they were talented enough and, again, in the right place at the right time. If we don't judge artists by their successes, how do we judge them? I don't like the Beatles. For the life of me, I don't understand why people my age and younger like them. I don't understand why ANYONE needs to hear a half-hour block of them every morning on the local Classic Rock Station's "Breakfast With The Beatles". But fuck me, if they float that many people's boat, they must've done something right. The music that they came out with was way much more marketable than what the bands with more talent had to offer to the public. It takes attention and thought to listen to Dream Theater or Deep Purple. The Beatles came out with songs that were very easy for the average person to comprehend. They left you with songs that would stay in your head and you would remember. Many of the songs that bands like Dream Theater put out are based on instrumentals and even though they are heads and above more talented , the average person can't listen to it fully. I for one judge bands on these things, and to me a band that can come up with stuff like Dream Theater, is a more talented band. For that I respect them much more. Even look at the Beatles most well thought out songs. The average person doesn't listen to them for that stuff. They listen to them to hear "I want to hold your hand." So simple even a 5th grader to enjoy them. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 20, 2012 17:54:17 GMT -5
And to do that, takes a certain amount of talent, does it not? Mick Jones from Foreigner once said that it is easy to jam out a long complex solo, but hard as hell to come up with something people will remember in just 4 short bars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 20, 2012 18:00:29 GMT -5
I would also like to add that chops alone doesn't define talent or even "good". I saw Joe Satriani in concert a few years ago and that guy has chops out the ass, but I was bored to tears during his show. I must've heard every note there was to play on the guitar in every possible pattern over 100 times......by the 3rd song! And not a single riff, lick, chord progression or drum beat stuck in my head the next day. To this day I have no desire whatsoever for Satriani's music in my collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trexx on Aug 24, 2012 15:44:40 GMT -5
Bluecheer has swerved into the kasim of the world of advertising and it's related science/art.
Popular appeal is not helped by complex, convoluted and intricated detail. To attract and motivate large numbers of folks you have to be clever, do more with less and break it down in bites sized pieces. That's precisely what the beatles did.
|
|
|
|
Post by duojett71 on Sept 17, 2012 15:06:00 GMT -5
I would say The Beatles are probably the greatest band of all time when it comes to songwriting and and just breaking down barriers. They were incredibly experimental and seemed to be a few steps ahead of everyone at the time. Probably the most creative band ever and I really don't ever see a band or artist being greater or doing what they did. Granted there were not nearly as many artists around back then and rock music was still very young.....but The Beatles set the bar very high and I don't think anyone will ever surpass it. I don't see how they could. They were incredibly talented.....yes, but non of them virtuosos. Paul McCartney is very talented on guitar, bass, piano and an amazing singer. Top that off with being an incredible songwriter and I don't think you can get a more well rounded musician.
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on Sept 28, 2012 17:16:40 GMT -5
I know I know, they did things that no one else had ever done before them when it came to rock music. But if you compare them to the bands that came after them, are they the most talented band that ever lived? Geezus...NO! Sorry once again for the long winded response. Thanks Kim That being said, I've yet to witness a band that has come as close to being the best, so yeah, yeah yeah...in my opinion, maybe they are. Any takers willing to challenge? Once again, Sorry for the long winded response. Thanks Kim |
|
.
