Is there any pop/rock band u respect morr than The Beatles

[Hollywood Jack]

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...ts-whos-the-best-the-finals-overtime.4186428/

Shit, I missed that one.

 

[BadJuJu707]

I don't like any of their music but can't deny the influence

Could not have said it better.

 

[gspieler]

greatness is not defined in the ts post so its a bit subjective.

personally i would not list any of the traits you listed as defining greatness though. it is neither talent nor influence that even would make my list in terms of greatness. and frankly a band being extremely popular counts as a soft negative in my mind.

So let me get this straight....if many flatout great musicians/songwriters cite you as one of their major influences, that doesn't speak AT ALL to your own greatness?

 

[GSP_37]

Never really thought of bands with respect, but appreciate.

 

[gspieler]

Led Zeppelin > Beatles.


Not even close.

Bonham ... 1st or 2nd greatest rock drummer ever
Page ... Top 5 of not greatest rock guitarist ever
JPJ ... top 10 bassist ever
Plant ... top 3 if not greatest rock vocalist ever

LZ is greatest rock band ever formed and likely none again will ever equal or be close.

LZ were superior musicians(by a decent margin). The Beatles were in another league from them, in songwriting, versatility, innovativeness, influence on musicians that came after them, and overall cultural impact.

 

[terrapin]

I like the Kinks better than The Beatles. A band that came up in england around the same time.

Beatles are'nt even on the level of bands like Led Zep, Pink Floyd, The Who, even ELO imo.

agree wholeheartedly. not on the same level at all.

 

[terrapin]

So let me get this straight....if many flatout great musicians/songwriters cite you as one of their major influences, that doesn't speak AT ALL to your own greatness?

it would not break the top 20 criteria that i think matter for greatness and without being pushed to consider it the thought would never cross my mind at all. i cant relate to measuring greatness by popularity and think that sometimes popularity is a soft negative for things.


as ive said the Beatles are like candy. its ok i guess but its not a meal and gets way too sweet way too quick. when i was 18 i got way into them but it only lasted a month or two and then i lost interest totally.

check out post 49 for my thoughts on what matters for greatness.

 

[rj144]

Jimmy Page was a better guitarist than anyone in the Beatles. Better riffs, better solos, better writing for the guitar. You can argue that the Beatles were a better band, better songwriters, better harmonies, better singing, lyrics, etc. but few if any would say their guitar parts were better than Page's/Zeppelin's.

George Harrison knew his shit though. I'm not so sure you could say Page was a better guitarist. They were just different.

I like Led Zeppelin and Page's riffs, but some of Page's solos were... interesting.

 

[AtomicPanther]

Very overrated band. They're just another boy band for me, insanely popular for the 'mania', not the music.

 

[SuperHoss]

Well greatness is a matter of opinion and influence does not even make it onto my list and skill only at a certain level.


My actual criteria is that greatness is measured by a musician or bands ability to transmit the sacred to people, to channel something larger than themselves that is spiritual, its ability to draw a person into altered states of awarness of the numinouse, of trancendent beauty. greatness for me is a bands ability to play the moment, to be one with the weather, the crowd, with one another, to lose themselves in the isness of the moment and adapt and bend to that so as to express it and find synchroniciry with it... to be played by god even.

But at this point we begin to leave the realm of popular music into deeper territory.

Still pink floyd, the doors, led zeppelin, dead can dance, talking heads could all do some of this but not all of it at a high level.

Oh and perfect music is boring.

That sounds like Joseph Campbell. I reject the idea that the Beatles did not tap into our sacred, our unconscious, the rhythm of the universe. The Beatles were actually very spiritual. Some of their early music was pop bubblegum stuff, but what they evolved to is not only what makes them special, it changed music, it changed the way people thought about music. It was a seismic shift.

You are kind of wandering into the performance, which has a place, but is not the only criteria people use. As importance as performance can be, it is eclipsed by the creation of the music. Great performance can raise art to another level, but it does not eclipse the base of the pillar upon which it was constructed.

 

[SuperHoss]

Very overrated band. They're just another boy band for me, insanely popular for the 'mania', not the music.

With all due respect my friend, I doubt you are even familiar with their music. You might be thinking of their very early stuff. Multiple generations of musicians across almost every genre have sited them as an influence.

That is the functional equivalent of looking at a cave mouth and deciding it is just a dark closet without plumbing its depths to find the treasure contained within.

 

[terrapin]

That sounds like Joseph Campbell. I reject the idea that the Beatles did not tap into our sacred, our unconscious, the rhythm of the universe. The Beatles were actually very spiritual. Some of their early music was pop bubblegum stuff, but what they evolved to is not only what makes them special, it changed music, it changed the way people thought about music. It was a seismic shift.

You are kind of wandering into the performance, which has a place, but is not the only criteria people use. As importance as performance can be, it is eclipsed by the creation of the music. Great performance can raise art to another level, but it does not eclipse the base of the pillar upon which it was constructed.

well you cant be wrong since we are having a subjective discussion about mostly intangibles.

but i will again say that this is all pretty subjective but the criteria i use to judge music is what i have listed (among a lot of other things that i did not list).

my experience is that the Beatles are sweet like candy but not a meal and they get old quick. i remember the white album (for instance) kind of blowing my mind but over a couple weeks it just was gone.

i also cannot agree that the performance matters less than the first creation. in fact i feel exactly the opposite about that. the performance is nearly everything and it is the performance that ought to create the music and not the other way around as a general rule.

but that's all subjective.


@SuperHoss

btw here is quote from campbell about a band that i think is leagues above any other but its not pop music so i have not brought it into this thread.

"The Deadheads are doing the dance of life and this I would say , is the answer to the atom bomb."

" I had a marvelous experience two nights ago. I was invited to a rock concert. ( laughter in the audience) I'd never seen one. This was a big hall in Berkeley and the rock group were the Grateful Dead, whose name, by the way, is from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. And these are very sophisticated boys. This was news to me.

Rock Music has never seemed that interesting to me. It's very simple and the beat is the same old thing. But when you see a room with 8000 young people for five hours going through it to the beat of these boys ... The genius of these musicians- these three guitars and two wild drummers in the back... The central guitar, Bob Weir, just controls this crowd and when you see 8000 kids all going up in the air together... Listen, this is powerful stuff ! And what is it ? The first thing I thought of was the Dionysian festivals, of course. This energy and these terrific instruments with electric things that zoom in... This is more than music. It turns something on in here (the heart?). And what it turns on is life energy. This is Dionysus talking through these kids. Now I' ve seen similar manifestations, but nothing as innocent as what I saw with this bunch. This was sheer innocence. And when the great beam of light would go over the crowd you' d see these marvelous young faces in sheer rapture- for five hours ! Packed together like sardines! Eight thousand of them ! Then there was an opening in the back with a series of panel windows and you look out and there's a whole bunch in another hall, dancing crazy. This is a wonderful fervent loss of self in the larger self of a homogeneous community. This is what it is all about !

It reminded me of Russian Easter. Down in New York we have a big Russian Cathedral. You go there on Russian Easter at midnight and you hear Kristos anesti ! Christ is Risen ! Christ is Risen ! It's almost as good as a rock concert. (laughter) It has the same kind of life feel. When I was in Mexico City at the Cathedral of the Virgin of Guadeloupe, there it was again. In India, in Puri, at the temple of the Jagannath- that means the lord of the Moving World- the same damn thing again. It doesn't matter what the name of the God is, or whether its a rock group or a clergy. It's somehow hitting that chord of realization of the unity of God in you all, that's a terrific thing and it just blows the rest away."

 

[terrapin]

With all due respect my friend, I doubt you are even familiar with their music. You might be thinking of their very early stuff. Multiple generations of musicians across almost every genre have sited them as an influence.

That is the functional equivalent of looking at a cave mouth and deciding it is just a dark closet without plumbing its depths to find the treasure contained within.

this is an unfair post. we are talking about each person subjective take on the Beatles. the ts asked which band you might respect more than them.

thats the criteria of the ts and you dont get to define that for anyone but yourself if you are saying its different. better just to share your perspective on it freind.

 

[SuperHoss]

this is an unfair post. we are talking about each person subjective take on the Beatles. the ts asked which band you might respect more than them.

thats the criteria of the ts and you dont get to define that for anyone but yourself if you are saying its different.

Its Mayberry, not a safe space.

Its absolutely fair to question someone's knowledge of the subject. Personal taste is one thing, but reducing their entire catalog of music and its influence to "boy band' is ridiculous and is not an opinion that can be taken seriously.

 

[terrapin]

Its Mayberry, not a safe space.

Its absolutely fair to question someone's knowledge of the subject. Personal taste is one thing, but reducing their entire catalog of music and its influence to "boy band' is ridiculous and is not an opinion that can be taken seriously.

isnt mayberry supposed to be light hearted discussion though friend? i mean i mostly agree with that take frankly. not a huge fan of the beatles. but its just subjective. nobody is wrong here.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Maybe not more but I think the Beach Boys should be as respected and revered as the Beatles are. The mainstream just sees them as the corny guys in stripped shirts that wrote surf songs but their late 60s and 70s catalogue is fascinating.

Plus, who sounds this good in their 70s?

 

[SuperHoss]

Maybe not more but I think the Beach Boys should be as respected and revered as the Beatles are. The mainstream just seems them as the corny guys in stripped shirts that wrote surf songs but their late 60s and 70s catalogue is fascinating.

Plus, who sounds this good in their 70s?

The Beach Boys were the Beatles favorite band, so they have to be pretty good right? Paul Mcartney also acknowledges this as his favorite song. Great song.



Beach Boys may sound simple to the uninitiated, but there is a depth to their music that other musicians recognize.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

George Harrison knew his shit though. I'm not so sure you could say Page was a better guitarist. They were just different.

I like Led Zeppelin and Page's riffs, but some of Page's solos were... interesting.

You can say Page got a bit sloppy from the drugs. But I think he had more memorable solos than the Beatles. Arguably the best solo from the Beatles was on Taxman, which wasn't George Harrison, it was Paul McCartney. I think Paul was the most talented musician in the band. Might have been the best on any of the instruments that they played.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

1971 - I'll put this up against anything the Beatles did on Let It Be.



Unfortunately, I think the Beach Boys were pigeonholed into the surfer image and a lot of people just didn't pay attention or respect them in the 70s. Brian at one pointed wanted to rename the band as "The Beach". Mike Love was vehemently opposed to changing the formula of the band and just wanted to write radio friendly pop songs.

Pet Sounds and onward probably should have just been a Brian Wilson solo album but you really needed those harmonies of Al, Mike and Carl to bring it all together.

 

[SuperHoss]

well you cant be wrong since we are having a subjective discussion about mostly intangibles.

but i will again say that this is all pretty subjective but the criteria i use to judge music is what i have listed (among a lot of other things that i did not list).

my experience is that the Beatles are sweet like candy but not a meal and they get old quick. i remember the white album (for instance) kind of blowing my mind but over a couple weeks it just was gone.

i also cannot agree that the performance matters less than the first creation. in fact i feel exactly the opposite about that. the performance is nearly everything and it is the performance that ought to create the music and not the other way around as a general rule.

but that's all subjective.


@SuperHoss

btw here is quote from campbell about a band that i think is leagues above any other but its not pop music so i have not brought it into this thread.

"The Deadheads are doing the dance of life and this I would say , is the answer to the atom bomb."

" I had a marvelous experience two nights ago. I was invited to a rock concert. ( laughter in the audience) I'd never seen one. This was a big hall in Berkeley and the rock group were the Grateful Dead, whose name, by the way, is from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. And these are very sophisticated boys. This was news to me.

Rock Music has never seemed that interesting to me. It's very simple and the beat is the same old thing. But when you see a room with 8000 young people for five hours going through it to the beat of these boys ... The genius of these musicians- these three guitars and two wild drummers in the back... The central guitar, Bob Weir, just controls this crowd and when you see 8000 kids all going up in the air together... Listen, this is powerful stuff ! And what is it ? The first thing I thought of was the Dionysian festivals, of course. This energy and these terrific instruments with electric things that zoom in... This is more than music. It turns something on in here (the heart?). And what it turns on is life energy. This is Dionysus talking through these kids. Now I' ve seen similar manifestations, but nothing as innocent as what I saw with this bunch. This was sheer innocence. And when the great beam of light would go over the crowd you' d see these marvelous young faces in sheer rapture- for five hours ! Packed together like sardines! Eight thousand of them ! Then there was an opening in the back with a series of panel windows and you look out and there's a whole bunch in another hall, dancing crazy. This is a wonderful fervent loss of self in the larger self of a homogeneous community. This is what it is all about !

It reminded me of Russian Easter. Down in New York we have a big Russian Cathedral. You go there on Russian Easter at midnight and you hear Kristos anesti ! Christ is Risen ! Christ is Risen ! It's almost as good as a rock concert. (laughter) It has the same kind of life feel. When I was in Mexico City at the Cathedral of the Virgin of Guadeloupe, there it was again. In India, in Puri, at the temple of the Jagannath- that means the lord of the Moving World- the same damn thing again. It doesn't matter what the name of the God is, or whether its a rock group or a clergy. It's somehow hitting that chord of realization of the unity of God in you all, that's a terrific thing and it just blows the rest away."

Now that is a novel. Dionysus is a good comp for modern concerts. I had to read the Bacchae by Euripides in college. Crazy stuff.

For the energy of a live show, performance is everything. Appreciating the art, I would almost always give more credit to the creator of the content. In certain cases, the performer lifts the piece to incredible heights the author could not imagine. Like Jimmy Hendrix, Along the Watchtower. Dylan was a great songwriter, but the electricity of Hendrix's performance transforms it.

Campbell was right about the Grateful Dead. That was a following. Never saw them live myself, but heard some of their performances from the live tapes my friends brought with them from concerts. Collecting tapes of different Dead concerts was a thing. Same tour, similar set, didn't matter. Kind of like Jazz musicians, no two performances were the same.

As far as the Beatles go, so much of their music still inspires and moves me.
Hey Jude is one of the most uplifting songs I have ever heard. In My Life can bring on melancholy of time passed no matter what mood I am in prior to it playing. I have played Norwegian wood probably hundreds of time and never tire of it. I could go on and on. Obviously, I am a fan.

With most bands, you can hear a song and immediately know the performer. With the Beatles their catalog is so diverse and so different, if you were not familiar with a piece, you could easily be confused about the performer.

I get that not everybody will like their music. We all have our own tastes. Dismissing it and its influence, like it or not seems absurd and kind of ignorant.

EDIT : Holy Sh*t, I wonder if Campbell was talking about the big Ukrainian church down in the East Village. Used to live right around the corner from it. lol

Love Campbell