Bands Better than the Beatles?

[Dave W]

Anyone remember Allan Sherman? He was a "humorist" (and I use the term loosely) who did parody songs. Here he is at his off-key worst. This is the kind of ignorant tripe that passed for humor with some in the older generation back then.

[gweimer]

Hello, muddah, hello, faddah.   

[westen44]

Anyone remember Allan Sherman? He was a "humorist" (and I use the term loosely) who did parody songs. Here he is at his off-key worst. This is the kind of ignorant tripe that passed for humor with some in the older generation back then.

What a moron.  That's about as funny as a flu epidemic. 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Obviously the Beatles have a right to the acclaim they receive. They literally made the mold for every kid's rock and roll dream that followed. I just wanted to make it clear that I do not agree that there are other "better" bands.  I'm too young to have had 'the Ed Sullivan moment,' but my 'ah-ha moment' with music was as likewise profound, just not isolated to a singular event. The fact that such an otherwise childish topic can be discussed so seriously is a testament to the power of the cultural influence the Beatles exert over an entire civilization. Of course authority figures don't like to see something like the Beatles 'happen;' giving people a new kind of hope or dream makes them that much harder to control. The lengths to which the mass media, religion, and government STILL attack them is nothing but a sign of just how good they really were.

[Dave W]

I watched most of the show tonight and was surprised at how Ringo and Paul's performances really stirred my emotions after all this time. Maybe because we aren't getting any younger. It was great to see them, especially together. Since it was sponsored by the Grammys, I was afraid it might turn out to be a maudlin self-congratulatory mess, but it was nice enough.

Most of the other performers did a good job too. Especially Jeff Lynne, IMHO. The only real bad spot was Katy Perry. Even autotune couldn't save her out-of-breath mangling of Yesterday.

[lowend1]

Annie Lennox was f'ing awful, too.
FWIW, I think that closing the show with "Hey Jude" and not having Julian Lennon there was rather unfortunate.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Most of the other performers did a good job too. Especially Jeff Lynne, IMHO. The only real bad spot was Katy Perry. Even autotune couldn't save her out-of-breath mangling of Yesterday.

She was TERRIBLY off key until she made it to the first refrain because she kept trying to impart her strained vocal "signature" on it. On a personal note, I think that somewhere during that performance while she was tanking, Russell Brand was having a bit of schadenfreude. If you ever got to see his short-lived talk show on FX, it was pretty clear he felt utterly betrayed by her in their divorce. "Yesterday" is NOT a song you can sing until you've lived it. I've heard too many people just clam it utterly, and that was a prime example.

Annie Lennox was f'ing awful, too.

Really? I thought that what she lacked in technical proficiency (age has clearly been hard on her voice), she more than made up in performance, and even though I'm not a huge fan, there's something about seeing her perform on TV that has always made me like her. I would rate her performance as one of the best and judging by by Paul and Ringo's singing along, they were likewise impressed.

My only complaints were a few missed guitar cues and not being able to hear that guy in the weird hat who sang with Brad Paisley, who BTW, seems to have lost his ability to make a Tele spank anymore, (but that's something I've been noticing from him consistently in live situations for the past few years). What did you think of the shot when Joe Walsh's vocal mic was muted, but another mic was picking up enough monitor wash that he was still audible and just a hair off-time due to the a/d latency lag in the digital PA system? Six analog and digital conversions were involved in that process I just mentioned, NOT counting the chain after the feed to the broadcast mix. Even at just a few milliseconds each, it adds up.

I did think it was ironic that in a song called "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," half the song, the signature leads were mixed nearly inaudible. The bass for everybody sounded great with whatever Gibson (there were no closeups, but it looked and sounded like a vintage EB-2) was being playing during the Eurythmics covering "The Fool on the Hill" being my favorite. Dave Grohl had a ball and I applaud him for having his kids there wearing hearing protection. Ringo's shout-out to his daughter during "Yellow Submarine" was just precious. That man LIVES for music, and I'm glad there are people like him in this world. He is as close to a "modern Beatle" as exists.

And even though I never have been a huge fan, I thought that Paul and Ringo were outstanding, not so uptight as to be self-parody, but not so loose that they just slobber around onstage like the Stones do nowadays. Paul's bass playing was downright awesome. He wove his melodies just like old times with grace and killer tone. A guy I used to work with LOVES the Beatles; I'd wager he probably enjoyed most of that show.

[uwe]

Significance sums it up. The Beatles were significant on a cultural, sociological, political and musical level. And took in a comparatively short time a huge leap in development dragging a whole era with them in the process.

Against that, none of the other bands (none of which I find abysmal) qualify:

Led Zep: A pivotal hard rock band with influential riffs, but hardly any cultural impact unless Hammer of the Gods seventies rock star excess is important to you. Or if you're still a Viking, long may you row in the land of the ice and snow. By that time John Lennon has/had already discovered the joy of baking bread for his son. He was way ahead of Led Zep.

Rolling Stones: Perhaps the world's greatest Rhythm'n'Blues band, but the Stones never pushed the envelope of anything. "Blacker" in their music than the Liverpudlians, but also - by design and intent - more limited. It's only rock'n'roll, but we like it.

Velvet Underground: A cult band, very much restricted to urban circles. Ask your Granny to hum you a song from them. She might have been around, but she won't remember a tune. (I'm not sure how the fact that the Velvets had no tunes to speak of plays into that argument though.)

U2: I won't slam U2 or Bono's engagement for rock- or pop-ulterior causes, but by the time U2 arrived on the scene, the Beatles had not set just one mold, but dozens of them. Bono & Co sometimes attempted to break their own mold, but then generally returned to what is expected of them (to be fair: the rock/pop audiences today being also much more segmented and set in their hearing habits than in the sixties). Plus: Living on the right side of the Irish Sea is what it's all about, obviously.

Radiohead: We'll talk again once they have written one happy song in their ouevre, ok? Life isn't always happy, but it's not always miserable either, except in Radiohead songs. The Beatles were emotionally varied in their music, Radiohead just raises a need for varied anti-depressants. All of Radiohead should be force-fed with "Good Day Sunshine!" for a year or so. The trouble with Thom Yorke is that he likes to be submerged under the sea, but forgets the Octopus' Garden fun part of it. Lighten up, Thom!

Tom (not Thom!) Petty & the Heartbreakers: The only thing that is not conservative about Tom Petty is probably how he votes. His music is an Americana almanac. A very good one, but you tell me when you were last surprised by a Tom Petty song. (Hey, Last Dance with Mary Jane surprised me, it was such a weak chorus melody for his standards!)

Rush: The Beatles not only sang about girls (but not only), they were also liked by them (but not only). No girl ever liked Rush (transgender Rush fans don't count, they sell their Rush collections once they grow breasts), Ayn Rand excepted of course. Bands that only cater to one half of the world population - Eight Days a Week in weird time signatures you can't even twist and shout to! - don't qualify. BTW: Allan Holdsworth ain't as important to music and youth culture as Jimi Hendrix either. He dresses worse too.

The Band: Great group but again purveyors of Americana. Too rural. If Bob Dylan is Cliff Richard, then they are The Shadows, they even have an Apache (or something close) among them! 

The Clash: Do not mistake attitude for influence. Even Green Day owes more to The Beatles than to The Clash.

Bruce Springsteen: For all his merits lyrically, there is hardly any musical progression in the Boss' work. Another Americana merchant. If you rerecorded his first album today with a better sound and released it, no one would notice a difference, and if you shipped his newest album back in time, circa 1972, people would only be surprised at the sound quality. Ronnie Montrose once said: "Musically, Springsteen's sound is as constrained as AC/DC's. As are the expectations of his audience as regards his music." That said, people from New Jersey shouldn't be allowed to be contestants anyway, some decorum please! You can't allow everyone in.

The Replacements: The Re-who?  I've never seen rip-off copies of their releases on Third World markets in Bali and Marakesh.

[gweimer]

I love this place!

[Denis]

Haha!

I love the Beatles and always have so everyone will probably know what I'd add so I'll say nothing.

The only song from The Clash that I've ever liked is the live version of "Armagideon Time". I almost liked U2 when they were new but that went nowhere.

Growing up as a big Beatles fan, it took me years to appreciate The Rolling Stones. Always liked Led Zeppelin and learned to like Rush after seeing them on Don Kirschner's Rock Concert.

I find The Band's music really moving, especially the songs Rick sang. There's something incredibly moving about those songs.

I've tried for years to like Bruce Springsteen and have failed though somehow I manage to understand WHY people like him and his music so much. Figure that one out...

[lowend1]

I'm sure Uwe would have felt more comfortable with the list if it included Status Quo...
...and as a native New Jerseyan who idolizes neither Springsteen nor Bon Jovi (insert bilabial fricative here)

[nofi]

notice most of the recommended albums were the early stuff, but that is usually the case with most bands. "best rhythm and blues band", uwe? you gotta be kidding! what a slap in the face to all the great stax and motown bands! imo the stones aren't best at anything except hanging around well past their due date.

[westen44]

I only was able to see the last part.  But I got to see Ringo do his songs and Paul do his.  Both did very well.  Paul's bass playing and singing were right on target.  Those were heartfelt, enjoyable performances.  To all the people through the years who've said Paul McCartney should stop singing and playing, you have been proven wrong.  I also thought that was pretty amusing when he said he was at first hesitant to participate in a tribute to himself.  It's rare to see something on TV this good anymore. 

[uwe]

For the avoidance of doubt:

- I do not rank Status Quo with The Beatles.  Not even Deep Purple.  Songwriting-wise The Beatles can run circles around Deep Purple, Purple's prowess was its instrumental strength and the abandon for improvisation.

- I have nothing AT ALL against New Joisie - it's where Joe Lynn Turner comes from after all, a Deep Purple alumni no less. I was jesting, dear Garden State inhabitants!

- Nofi, may I revamp my statement re the Stones somewhat? I meant best "Rhythm & Blues band with British invasion roots" (sorry, you Yardbirds fans, Keith Relf could not touch a young Mick Jagger's "black elasticity of voice"), i.e. white kids playing black music (and still doing that today). I did not think of the black people and bands who invented that music as being contestants with The Beatles for the purpose of this thread's subject. That said, when it comes to white guys playing Rhythm & Blues, my favorite is probably Peter Wolf and his outfit before Centerfold became the millstone round their neck.

- And speaking of the Stones: Bill Wyman is idiosyncratic as a bass player in his choice of where and where not to play. His approach is different to the majority of bassists and constituted a vital "Stones sound" component. Darryl Jones can play circles around Wyman technically, but has - when he is not aping Wyman's style - a much more conventional style that wouldn't hurt with, say, Journey, but takes something away from the Stones. IMHO of course.

[Dave W]

I missed Annie Lennox. Sure, there were artists I don't like (e.g. Alicia Keys and her way overdone melisma) but to be fair, they were only doing what they always do. Can't fault them for that. Katy Perry, OTOH, was just plain untalented and incompetent.