Sort of a weird list – but I think there are many bands better than the Beatles. On that list, Springsteen, the Replacements, the Clash, the Band, Velvet Underground, in my opinion.
I’m with cher. Even if you’re not the world’s biggest Beatles fan the quantity of diverse, quality music almost ensures that they blow away bands like the fucking Replacements or the VU, the latter who I love. Then again, I know a guy who doesn’t like pizza… Unfathomable.
I’m with you guys. I’m pretty ambivalent towards The Beatles, and I don’t think you can really quantify if one musical act is “better” than another, but by any means anyone has ever tried to apply to quantifying the “best” Rock band, The Beatles have easily been at the top of the yardstick. Popularity, critical acclaim, influence – no one else even comes close. Cher’s article is great. Besides, the guy that wrote the original article started with Led Zeppelin, and then mentioned sampling in hip hop. What could he possibly know?
I mean, c’mon. I hate to be put in a position where it looks like I’m dumping on performers I mostly like, but the Replacements, say, have, what, three good records? The Band has about three good records’ worth of material? Springsteen, as much as I do like some of his stuff, doesn’t belong in the discussion and comparing the Beatles and VU is like comparing, well, apples and bananas.
At the end of the day, it’s interesting and significant that the Beatles were so popular and influential, but what matters is that an insanely high percentage of their recordings are packed with such inventiveness, intelligence, beauty, energy, and sheer joy that most comparisons are rendered totally moot.
I’ll see your Beatles puppet show and raise you one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz6oJjmAM3g
Excellent!
I’ll see your Beatles puppet show and link to an XTC one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMIC_66l-YE
I can see Rush making this list, but I’m not so sure about the others: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/02/07/11-bands-better-than-beatles/
Sort of a weird list – but I think there are many bands better than the Beatles. On that list, Springsteen, the Replacements, the Clash, the Band, Velvet Underground, in my opinion.
I’d write a response, but it’s already been written for me:
http://noisey.vice.com/blog/shut-your-dumb-stupid-mouth-about-the-beatles-being-overrated
Zep? Springsteen? Replacements? Better than the Beatles? Surely you jest.
I’m with cher. Even if you’re not the world’s biggest Beatles fan the quantity of diverse, quality music almost ensures that they blow away bands like the fucking Replacements or the VU, the latter who I love. Then again, I know a guy who doesn’t like pizza… Unfathomable.
I’m with you guys. I’m pretty ambivalent towards The Beatles, and I don’t think you can really quantify if one musical act is “better” than another, but by any means anyone has ever tried to apply to quantifying the “best” Rock band, The Beatles have easily been at the top of the yardstick. Popularity, critical acclaim, influence – no one else even comes close. Cher’s article is great. Besides, the guy that wrote the original article started with Led Zeppelin, and then mentioned sampling in hip hop. What could he possibly know?
I mean, c’mon. I hate to be put in a position where it looks like I’m dumping on performers I mostly like, but the Replacements, say, have, what, three good records? The Band has about three good records’ worth of material? Springsteen, as much as I do like some of his stuff, doesn’t belong in the discussion and comparing the Beatles and VU is like comparing, well, apples and bananas.
At the end of the day, it’s interesting and significant that the Beatles were so popular and influential, but what matters is that an insanely high percentage of their recordings are packed with such inventiveness, intelligence, beauty, energy, and sheer joy that most comparisons are rendered totally moot.