The Beatles

I don't bother defending points with people who are so rude and obnoxious that I can't stand to be in the same room with them.

But okay, I've got a few minutes to kill so I'll play this stupid game.

Defend my point.

Background:

Classically trained musician. Mother was a concert pianist and opera singer. I grew up with music and made my first vocal recording at age 3. That was in 1960 before the Beatles were even a thought.

Grew up listening to:

Classical:

Mozart
Chopin
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Beethoven
Brahms
Bach

Broadway

My Fair Lady
Sound Of Music
Carousel
Showboat

Rock/Pop

Beatles
Stones
Moody Blues (Early)
Who (Early)

I played piano, drums and guitar.

I got a music minor from college while I was majoring in business because I
couldn't let all my musical training go to waste. I aced the curriculum without
cracking a book.

In 35 years (I am now 55) I have composed over 1,000 songs. If you want to
hear real music, pick up a copy of my Modern Classics CD when it becomes
available. My father says it sounds like 19th century Romantic, which makes
sense since most of my favorite composers are from that era.

And you know what? None of this means jack shit because musical taste is
still musical taste. It's subjective.

So, you want to talk facts? Fine, let's talk facts.

The Beatles had more # 1 singles than any other rock band in history up to
that point in time when they finally broke up in 1969 - 70. Oh, by the way,
Let It Be was not their last LP. Abbey Road was.

The Beatles had more debut songs on the top 100 Billboard charts at
ridiculously high positions than any band in history.

The Beatles were, by definition of the word, a phenomenon. When John
Lennon commented that they were more popular than Jesus, which he did
in jest, he wasn't far from the truth. There was a reason it was called
Beatlemania. We've never seen anything like it since and probably never will.

But that has as much to do with the world we live in today as it does the
group itself. In short, we've seen and done too much. Songs that were fairly
big hits 50 years ago would never make the charts today. They are dated.
They are old. They are not interesting anymore. Early Beatles songs were
only as popular as they were because, quite honestly, music of the period
before it was rather sterile. 50s music progressions were essentially C-Am-F-G with almost no variation. Yeah, there were a few exceptions, but for the most
part, at least on a technical level, 50s music was more about a movement
than it was about music. Outside of "The Great Pretender" and "Smoke Gets
In Your Eyes", which by the way was originally recorded by Gertrude Niesen on October 13, 1933, I had very little use for 50s music. But again, that's
just my opinion and not a fact that 50s music sucked. I just didn't care for it.

Again, taste is subjective.

The Beatles, technically, went places that nobody had gone before. Sgt
Pepper was, for its time, a landmark album. There is no denying it. Today, I
can't listen to it anymore. It's become a cliche of itself. It's like Stairway To
Heaven. The first time you heard it, it was amazing. On the 10 thousandth
listen, not so much.

In fact, I think the Beatles may have been the catalyst for may early
underground bands such as 1965s 13th Floor Elevators. In fact, I think the
Beatles probably influenced a crap ton of bands, the list I won't bore you
with.

And as good as they were together, you really could see how talented they
were when they disbanded thanks to songs such as:

Isn't It A Pity
Imagine
What Is Life
Photograph
Pipes Of Peace

And that's just off the top of my head. Ringo, for me, was the biggest
surprise. But then again, HE made "With A Little Help From My Friends." Paul
or John singing it would have just been wrong.

And that's where these guys were also smart. They knew what to do and
when to do it. They knew when to let George start to shine with the band.
Something is still one of the best Beatles songs ever. Even I had to record
a cover of it and I don't do covers.

The 2nd side of Abbey Road was pure genius. They didn't have any complete
songs for it so they just said, screw it. We've got all these "hooks" so let's
just make an album out of it.

I don't know who was the real brains behind the band, John or Paul. If I had
to guess, I'd say John because he always seemed to be more about the image
and Paul seemed to be more about the music. I do believe Paul was the better
writer and this is evidenced by their later years and the fact, yes, fact,
that almost all their big hits were Paul compositions and almost all of John's
songs were relative failures. I am sure this had to bug the hell out of John
which had to affect an already deteriorating relationship thanks to Yoko.

I loved the Beatles. I never said I didn't. But I have heard way too much
music in my life to put them on the top of Mt Olympus. My yearly record
budget was close to $3,000. And this was during a time when albums cost
$3.99 and 45s were 79 cents a piece.

I could probably name more bands right here in this thread that I have
listened to in 55 years than you could even think of. And that doesn't
even touch my exposure to classical, broadway and even opera. At one time,
I knew the entire score to the opera Carmen because my mother had to play
it day after day for an opera company she worked for.

You are not talking to some wet behind the ear, doesn't know crap about
music kid here. My whole life from age 3 has been about music.

You want to knock prog rock? That's fine. You can knock it all you want. But
technically, you won't find better than some pieces written by Emerson,
McCarty, Dunford, Thatcher (you probably want to look up those last 3
names) and others.

I saw Renaissance in concert back in the 70s. They weren't much of a stage
presence, though Annie was nice to look at, but boy could they play and could
she sing.

Listen to Scheherazade when you get a chance, or Ashes Are Burning CD or
Ocean Gypsy.

Sorry, but the Beatles "music" has never come close to this stuff if you want
to talk about technical virtuosity.

If you want to talk about whose music is "better" to listen to, that's all
subjective shit and a matter of opinion.

My comment was simply that "musically" (and yes, in my opinion I guess)
the Beatles were not the greatest band that ever lived. They wrote a lot of
garbage, mostly in their later years. And in the early years, a lot of their
songs were generic and bland.

One thing they did have that no "trained" musician can deny is amazing
harmony. Do you know that there is a musical vocal machine that reproduces
harmonies. I am sure that one of the "sounds" has to be "Beatles" I do know
that Carpenters and Beach Boys were among them.

Anybody who says that the Beatles sucked obviously doesn't know much
about music. But to categorically proclaim them the greatest band that
ever strapped on an electric guitar is doing a great injustice to many other
bands out there, some of which you've probably never even heard of.

Yeah, there is a lot of great music in the world that will probably never be
heard.

So yeah, if you want to say that "technically" the Beatles had more impact
on rock/pop music than any other band in history, that can't be argued. That's
a fact.

But to say that because of that they are "musically" the greatest band
ever, sorry, but that's where I say that this is "arguable" at least.