Bands Better than the Beatles?

[westen44]

I've just got to say that this guy has a taste in music which differs radically from mine.  I've heard of the Replacements, but I haven't heard any of their songs.  Not exactly a band I'd be listing as better than the Beatles.  Are they really that great?  I guess I need to listen to them.  Plus, he lists three of my least favorite bands, while leaving out ALL my favorite bands. 


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/02/07/11-bands-better-than-beatles/

[gweimer]

The Replacements?  I like most anything, but they don't make even that list.

The problem with his list is that the other bands might not have done what they did if not for The Beatles.  One of the significant things about The Beatles was that they set the stage for popular rock music to come.

Radiohead's "Karma Head"  is pretty much just The Beatles' "Sexy Sadie" played really slow.   

[Pilgrim]

Sounds like another GenX type who can't believe the Beatles were really important.

[Blackbird]

No such thing as "best band" to me.  One could argue that RUSH is better than the Beatles, but what would it matter?

[Hörnisse]

I can't think of any band that had the same type of output as The Beatles.  I like a quote I read the other day about bands trying to cram so much music in their new records. 

"If you've got The White Album in you go for it, but I'd like to hear your Rubber Soul."

[Dave W]

Eh. Better by what standard?

Matter of taste. And if you have U2, Velvet Underground, Radiohead and Springsteen on your "better" list, then your taste is vastly different from mine.

[westen44]

Eh. Better by what standard?

Matter of taste. And if you have U2, Velvet Underground, Radiohead and Springsteen on your "better" list, then your taste is vastly different from mine.

U2, Radiohead, and Springsteen/E Street band=my least favorite bands on that list. 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I read this thread as I'm revisiting Radiohead's 2nd album, which is pure genius for me right now: nothing like some good old proper cathartic depression; not that I think they're better than the Beatles, but for me, the Beatles were sort of the launch pad which took pop music and turned into something with potentially more meaning. I personally like the individual solo "Beatle" output more than most of the group's "proper" songs, but even as a die hard metalhead snob, there's Elvis bringing in country and gospel, the Stones who brought white boy awkwardness to the blues (in a GOOD way), all the country greats from the 50's and 60's, the Beatles who made pop intelligent, Black Sabbath who sealed the deal with the devil, and other bands to varying degrees. Much as I respect the Who and Zep, they just don't connect with me the same way. I'll say that without the Beatles, Elvis would have turned into a straight country act and had no huge fan surge other than his originals in the 50's. Props to the lads. They made the world a better place, for better or worse.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

BTW, why all the U2 hate? They're OK, and I can think of a host of popular bands much lower on my list of "likes." Good grief, they've had a couple of self-indulgent concept albums, not destroyed music as we know it!

[westen44]

BTW, why all the U2 hate? They're OK, and I can think of a host of popular bands much lower on my list of "likes." Good grief, they've had a couple of self-indulgent concept albums, not destroyed music as we know it!

U2's music has never appealed to me.  In general, I find their songs pretty boring.  I've tried liking them to no avail.  It is definitely not hate at all, though.  I've been baffled, however, by their success and why people still stay interested in them.

[ack1961]

I thoroughly dislike the Beatles music, but I still would have ranked them higher than 8 other bands on his list.

[Highlander]

One room... random ten people... ten lists of ten artists...

I wonder how many different people on that list of one hundred names...?

Multiply that by every musician you know and you find balance...

Pretty boring, that balance stuff, huh...?

U2 and Radiohead and Cash and Zeppelin, and the Beatles, and so on, are in my collection, but not on my list...

[nofi]

this list is typically dumb. for my taste none of these bands come close to being better than the beatles. what confounds me is the "the world's greatest rock band" label attached to the stones for all these years .

[Highlander]

Not a Stones fan...

The Beatles are arguably one of the most significant bands of all time, mind you...

[Dave W]

BTW, why all the U2 hate? They're OK, and I can think of a host of popular bands much lower on my list of "likes." Good grief, they've had a couple of self-indulgent concept albums, not destroyed music as we know it!

I don't hate U2 or any of the other bands I mentioned. Their music just doesn't particularly appeal to me, so they wouldn't be anywhere on my list of favorite bands.

Anyway... it's hard to explain if you weren't there, but the early energy of rock 'n' roll had been replaced by slick pop production (including Motown). The Beatles came here with that early energy and blew away most of what was currently popular. And as their music changed over the next few years, their popularity made it safe for other artists to experiment with changes.

They had plenty of detractors back in the day, and not just from my parents' generation. That doesn't change the fact that their influence was amazingly broad.