[lokie]

I had a Beatles revelation a few years back. Like alot of people, I was a Stones, Who and Zep fan and thought the Beatles were a bunch of sissies.
Not quite that bad but at least  i thought they were a victim of their own success and was overplayed.

Then i saw a Beetles cover band and was completely blown away with their music. Hearing their catalog live changed my whole outlook on them. First of all, the band is " Abbey Road Live" out of Athens, Ga and they are terefic. They will play a Beatles album  and then just jam afterwards. Great band if you get a chance, go see them. Anyway, hearing the live dynamic and visceral punch of that music was really a game changer in my respect for them.

[Andre2]

I am  listening to Revolver right now.  One great music after another, lyrics that make sense and get you thinking about life, love, conflicts/wars, peace; three great singers, four great musicians.

Music that plays today and people born, say, in the 90s enjoy even 43 years after the band was no more.   

This is the greatest band of all time. 



*edit: deleted the double "the" in: "This is the greatest band of all time."

[Andre2]

okay, fine, Yellow Submarine in Revolver is kind of cheesy.  But hey, much better than the no-singing rap that my kids listen to these days.

Listening to Sgt. Pepper's now.  My daughter actually shed some tears the first time she heard "She's leaving home" some years ago when we drove from Houston to Orlando for Disney vacation.

[SteveFord]

The Beatles were simply THE best rock and roll band ever.
How much of that was due to George Martin is hard to say but nobody has ever come along that could match the Lennon/McCartney songwriting magic.
George's stuff was pretty much overlooked until Abbey Road and then he really let loose once they broke up.

I don't listen to them very often as I've heard the albums hundreds of times but I will buy a remastered vinyl box set before I croak.

[konut]

This is the the greatest band of all time. 

This sums it up. At a time when few bands could play the entire backing track of their albums, they were the real deal. Its hard for people to imagine what they did if one was not informed by the reality at the time. Even sophisticated musicologists recognized that there was more there than met the ear at the time. Aeolian cadence or pandiationic clusters  anyone?

 http://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/12/27/the-times-what-songs-the-beatles-sang-by-william-mann/

While everyone  kept expecting them to fail, they kept raising the bar with each succeeding album. Whats amusing, to me, is that at the time I heard them and thought "WOW, these guys are really great!" and why are those girls getting so emotional? And now I hear them and start crying like a teenage girl. Crazy!   

[Afterimage]

Love the Beatles.  Their stuff was ground breaking for it's time.  No other band will ever output so much quality stuff (1965 to 1970) in that short amount of time.  On top of that, they influenced so many other bands and artist. 

I thought they didn't let George loose enough.  He was a good guitarist, but they or maybe just Paul held him back some.  Paul's baselines were dominate over the guitars in most of their recordings.  Finally in Abbey Road they let George play.   

[North Star]

okay, fine, Yellow Submarine in Revolver is kind of cheesy.  But hey, much better than the no-singing rap that my kids listen to these days.

* Here, There and Everywhere
* Eleanor Rigby
* For No One
* Love You To
* Taxman
* Tomorrow Never Knows
* Good Day Sunshine

...Now we're talkin'! ...Singin' & 'amusicing'. 

[CactusBob]

This is the the greatest band of all time. 

Thank you Andre2

I can add nothing to this thread that hasn't been said before. They were the greatest band in rock history and will always will be! I absolutely love them after 50 years.

[Andre2]

You are welcome.

well, this thread led me to listen to their music again.  Right now I am on White Album 2, and...

... right after Paul jams the place in Helter Skelter, I am getting the goosebumps in "Long, long, long" !!!

crap, I am getting sentimental in my older age.

Fine, we can recover to light rock listening to Revolution 1 

[doorman]

"Within you without you" is as relevant now as it every was.
They occupy a special place in the musical universe---

[Mudslide]

Ignoring all the superlatives layed upon their memory, here...and also not to get too tied up in catergorization or labeling...I'd like to suggest that they were never a rock and roll band.  As I stated earlier, I was almost 20 when they came to the U.S.  They were then, and I consider them to still be an extremely popular pop band.  The rock moniker was reserved for the likes of the Stones, Zep, Doors, Steppenwolf,  Black Sabbath, etc.

[Andre2]

Ignoring all the superlatives layed upon their memory, here...and also not to get too tied up in catergorization or labeling...I'd like to suggest that they were never a rock and roll band.  As I stated earlier, I was almost 20 when they came to the U.S.  They were then, and I consider them to still be an extremely popular pop band.  The rock moniker was reserved for the likes of the Stones, Zep, Doors, Steppenwolf,  Black Sabbath, etc.

I agree with you in general terms mudslide.  Rock and Roll is for the likes of Led Zepellin (which, imho, is the second greatest band of all time), but then again, in the body of work of Zep, you can listen to "The Rain Song" which has been recorded on DVD with violins... 
and say the light rock "10 years gone" (which can be compared at a high level to  "Long, long, long").   

So, does this mean that The Beatles is a more complete band ?

[konut]

   The rock moniker was reserved for the likes of the Stones, Zep, Doors, Steppenwolf,  Black Sabbath, etc.

Who was rock before them? They preceded all the bands you mention, it could be argued, and made them possible. Its easy to forget, in hindsight, that they were as rock as rock could be at the time.

[WireNut]

 The Beatles are obviously one of the greatest bands of all time and I enjoy listening to them today on the radio. However, The Beatles have never made my hairs rise or giving me goose bumps enough to go out and purchase any of their recordings. Perhaps it’s because they were approx a decade before my time.

But if I had an opportunity to go see the Beatles cover band “Rain” I’d go see them in a minute.

[Mudslide]

Who was rock before them? They preceded all the bands you mention, it could be argued, and made them possible. Its easy to forget, in hindsight, that they were as rock as rock could be at the time.

Before them?  Chuck Berry, Beach Boys, Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Fats Domino, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis ... ..... ......

Rock as rock could be?  No.  Sorry.  Pop.  But then who really cares how you label 'em?

[Russell Dawkins]

Ignoring all the superlatives layed upon their memory, here...and also not to get too tied up in catergorization or labeling...I'd like to suggest that they were never a rock and roll band.  As I stated earlier, I was almost 20 when they came to the U.S.  They were then, and I consider them to still be an extremely popular pop band.  The rock moniker was reserved for the likes of the Stones, Zep, Doors, Steppenwolf,  Black Sabbath, etc.

...and justifiably so, but to call them "pop" is to trivialize them, as you seem determined to do. Popular, yes.

John used to say, proudly, that they were the best F***ing pub band in England, in the early days.

Yesterday I heard a radio show where they played Kansas City by the original artist and three copyists. As usual, the original was best, but the Beatles version totally blew the other two covers away, with Paul doing a very credible screaming lead vocal. They were able to rock, but didn't need to, to make their musical point.

By the way, you cite Steppenwolf. Did you ever see them live? Ouch.

[Andre2]

Well, as far as rock n roll music, remember that  The Beatles came up with Helter Skelter, Revolution, Cry baby Cry, etc...  Now, they are much beyond rock n roll, as in Blackbird, While my Guitar Gently Weeps.

In inspiration and quality and total enjoyment of music as a whole looking at their entire album collection, I believe only Led Zeppelin, Queen, and Yes comes close when we look at the total body of work; but still The Beatles is superior to all of these.      

imho, of course 

[Mudslide]

...and justifiably so, but to call them "pop" is to trivialize them, as you seem determined to do. Popular, yes.

John used to say, proudly, that they were the best F***ing pub band in England, in the early days.

Yesterday I heard a radio show where they played Kansas City by the original artist and three copyists. As usual, the original was best, but the Beatles version totally blew the other two covers away, with Paul doing a very credible screaming lead vocal. They were able to rock, but didn't need to, to make their musical point.

By the way, you cite Steppenwolf. Did you ever see them live? Ouch.

I never saw Step in person.  A lot of bands back then had ... uh ... excellent studio music.   

I don't understand why everyone who likes the Beatles is so unnerved by the "pop" label.  It's okay to like pop music.  It was just a different genre at the time than what was considered "rock".  I will agree that they had a few of songs I would consider rock 'n roll.

[jarcher]

If by "pop" you mean "popular", well then what band could be considered more popular than the Beatles......?

And agreed : just cuz something's called "pop" doesn't' mean it isnt' great and deserving of respect.   

[wushuliu]

Overrated in that much of their catalogue isn't aging as well as some other bands of the era. Some of their lyrics and themes sound downright quaint and old-timey.

You never fail. Kind of gives me a warm feeling now, like leaves turning for the fall or shrooms blooming from a patty.