Are The Beatles the greatest band of all time?

[DavidinSouthampton]

I am sorry but just because radio stations only played tedious or tame music does not mean that bands and music available was bland or boring. If anything I think because the Beatles had the right management and they had the right connections it reaffirms my stance that the Beatles were the first truly manufactured British boy band. As we all know from day one radio stations played safe music that did not offend anyone, and with songs like love love me do..... bingo, this does not mean they are the best or worst band ever.

As I said, I was only 10 in 1963, so was not aware of the wider music scene. But am aware from reading about stuff later on that there was an awful lot going on before the Beatles broke through. People like the Graham Bond organisation and Alexis Korner are two that I am aware of.

But I think it was significant that the chart programme was on the "light" programme of the BBC. Radio 1 and radio 2 did not come in to being until 1968, to reflect the need that had at long last been realised for a greater degree of catering for the tastes of young people. In these days of wall to wall MTV and God knows how many radio stations all over the place, there were probably only about two programmes a week on the radio then that catered for young people.

And I am aware that the Beatles changed their drummer and brought in Ringo Starr, but I think it is an enormous exaggeration to say they were a manufactured boy band. They had been around for a while, as the Quarrymen and then the Silver Beatles, and were famously turned down by Decca before they signed for EMI. Hardly a Simon Cowell type rise to instant fame.

 

[Icy Gull]

I think that Pirate Radio played a very big part in the explosion of music genres that burst on the scene in the mid to late sixties. I know that virtually all young people I knew tuned into them in those days eventually forcing Radio One into being.

 

[5Ways Gull]

For what they achieved in terms of pure songwriting, and the diverse styles of music they attempted and succeeded with, are The Beatles the greatest band of all time?

If not, who is?

At the end of the day there is no such thing as "the greatest band in the world" because it isn't actually measurable. Everyone has their own opinion so it will always be subjective. However the Beatles existed at a time when modern culture as we know it was pretty much invented, and I think they had a big part in shaping that. I love their music and I love the way you can map their progression and maturity from album to album.

IMHO the only artist anywhere who comes close is Bowie. But that is only my opinion and I respect any differing opinions

 

[BadFish]

At the end of the day there is no such thing as "the greatest band in the world" because it isn't actually measurable. Everyone has their own opinion so it will always be subjective. However the Beatles existed at a time when modern culture as we know it was pretty much invented, and I think they had a big part in shaping that. I love their music and I love the way you can map their progression and maturity from album to album.

IMHO the only artist anywhere who comes close is Bowie. But that is only my opinion and I respect any differing opinions

It is interesting though that although many have disagreed with the first part of the question no-one else has put up any suggestion of an alternative.

 

[Mellotron]

At the end of the day there is no such thing as "the greatest band in the world" because it isn't actually measurable. Everyone has their own opinion so it will always be subjective. However the Beatles existed at a time when modern culture as we know it was pretty much invented, and I think they had a big part in shaping that. I love their music and I love the way you can map their progression and maturity from album to album.

IMHO the only artist anywhere who comes close is Bowie. But that is only my opinion and I respect any differing opinions

All I'm asking for is peoples opinions. I'm not suggesting it's a scientific fact at all.

And if you look to the left you can probably guess my views on The Thin White Duke.

 

[5Ways Gull]

All I'm asking for is peoples opinions. I'm not suggesting it's a scientific fact at all.

And if you look to the left you can probably guess my views on The Thin White Duke.

Fair enough - it's made for a very interesting thread! I'm actually pleasantly surprised that out of a sample of nearly 170 so far, the majority say yes.

 

[BadFish]

Fair enough - it's made for a very interesting thread! I'm actually pleasantly surprised that out of a sample of nearly 170 so far, the majority say yes.

I think by most reasonable measures there can only really be one winner.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

Sparks 1969- the present day, 24 Albums in 44 years

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think 55% vote for The Beatles, against the No vote which includes every other band that has ever been, is pretty conclusive from NSC.

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. As proven by NSC©.

 

[Mellotron]

 

[Stato]

I think 55% vote for The Beatles, against the No vote which includes every other band that has ever been, is pretty conclusive from NSC.

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. As proven by NSC©.

This could only prove that The Beatles are the most popular group of all time. Something which we all knew before the thread started.

Although musos seem to be split about their value, with valid arguments on both sides, their enormous popularity is bolstered by their status as the favourite pop group of people who don't really like pop music.

 

[teaboy]

It is interesting though that although many have disagreed with the first part of the question no-one else has put up any suggestion of an alternative.

Many people have said that there probably isn't one, and others have said you need to define what is meant by 'greatest' before you can start 'measuring'.

As an alternative I'll offer the E Street Band based on longevity, technical proficiency and funkiness. They aren't the greatest band of all time though - there isn't one, it's too subjective.

 

[BadFish]

Many people have said that there probably isn't one, and others have said you need to define what is meant by 'greatest' before you can start 'measuring'.

As an alternative I'll offer the E Street Band based on longevity, technical proficiency and funkiness. They aren't the greatest band of all time though - there isn't one, it's too subjective.

My point is that by many measures of 'greatest' the Beatles are going to be right up there. Records sold, Hit albums released, songs written for other people, influence, breaking new ground. Many of these measures are not subjective, they are countable and measurable.And the Beatles will top the charts of many of them.

 

[Stato]

My point is that by many measures of 'greatest' the Beatles are going to be right up there. Records sold, Hit albums released, songs written for other people, influence, breaking new ground. Many of these measures are not subjective, they are countable and measurable.And the Beatles will top the charts of many of them.

A lot of your factors are about popularity rather than greatness. They are not the same thing. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. In the other factors around innovation they were never first at anything.
Pop musicians writing their own songs: Dylan was ahead of them.
Pop songs about subjects other than love: Dylan again.
Studio effects: Spector and Wilson,
Songs about the British Experience: Davies,
The concept album: Davies and Wilson,
Commenting on politics in song: Dylan.

The list goes on. Their importance is not about the value of their art. Their importance lies in their cultural significance. Boundaries were being pushed in popular music before them, but often, The Beatles picking up on an innovation brought it to the attention of the masses. Basically the Beatles were the Sex Pistols on Bill Grundy. Their worth should be measured in terms of their impact. To put it in business speak, they were not about product development, they were in advertising.

 

[BadFish]

A lot of your factors are about popularity rather than greatness. They are not the same thing. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. In the other factors around innovation they were never first at anything.
Pop musicians writing their own songs: Dylan was ahead of them.
Pop songs about subjects other than love: Dylan again.
Studio effects: Spector and Wilson,
Songs about the British Experience: Davies,
The concept album: Davies and Wilson,
Commenting on politics in song: Dylan.

The list goes on. Their importance is not about the value of their art. Their importance lies in their cultural significance. Boundaries were being pushed in popular music before them, but often, The Beatles picking up on an innovation brought it to the attention of the masses. Basically the Beatles were the Sex Pistols on Bill Grundy. Their worth should be measured in terms of their impact. To put it in business speak, they were not about product development, they were in advertising.

In many of the measures you mention the Beatles would still be in the top five.

To suggest that they were not in product development (if i understand you correctly) is also to suggest that they did not develop music in anyway which is just not true. As a band they constantly broke new ground and pushed the boundaries of what music was about.

You can measure their impact by looking at the amount of bands, across genres who namecheck them as influences.

 

[teaboy]

My point is that by many measures of 'greatest' the Beatles are going to be right up there. Records sold, Hit albums released, songs written for other people, influence, breaking new ground. Many of these measures are not subjective, they are countable and measurable.And the Beatles will top the charts of many of them.

Sales figures are measurable, but only in terms of popularity. Number of songs written is measurable, but the quality of said songs is not. Influence and new ground broken is subjective.

Having a quick look on Wikipedia the Beatles have the highest overall sales figures. For individual albums their best seller (St Pepper) is beaten by Alanis Morrissette's Jagged Little Pill. Now, I like Alanis Morrissette but wouldn't put her that close to "greatest of all time".

 

[BadFish]

Sales figures are measurable, but only in terms of popularity. Number of songs written is measurable, but the quality of said songs is not. Influence and new ground broken is subjective.

Having a quick look on Wikipedia the Beatles have the highest overall sales figures. For individual albums their best seller (St Pepper) is beaten by Alanis Morrissette's Jagged Little Pill. Now, I like Alanis Morrissette but wouldn't put her that close to "greatest of all time".

But this is one album. Surely to talk about the greatest band we need to look at sales figures of their entire catalog

http://www.therichest.com/entertainment/the-top-10-best-selling-artists-of-all-time/

Much is written about innovations made by The Beatles but

http://www.popmatters.com/feature/115697-the-beatles-a-legacy-of-innovation-and-elusiveness/

No lesser authority than Ian MacDonald notes that “treating the Beatles as icons can only be fruitful for young pop musicians because they coin(ed) almost every trend which has succeeded them”.

As i said before though the most telling argument i can make is the fact that those who deny the greatness of The Beatles continue to fail in offering an alternative suggestion. I appreciate you have suggested The E street band but not having listened to much I am not in a position to comment.

 

[teaboy]

In many of the measures you mention the Beatles would still be in the top five.

To suggest that they were not in product development (if i understand you correctly) is also to suggest that they did not develop music in anyway which is just not true. As a band they constantly broke new ground and pushed the boundaries of what music was about.

You can measure their impact by looking at the amount of bands, across genres who namecheck them as influences.

Just because something is claimed doesn't make it true. I'm certainly not saying the Beatles had no influence; just that it's the done thing to name-check certain things rather than others. It's also difficult NOT to be influenced by musical culture (however good or bad it is).

 

[Buzzer]

Surely to talk about the greatest band we need to look at sales figures of their entire catalog

Really? In which case Jive Bunny and Robson and Jerome were respectively two of the greatest bands from the 80s and 90s.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sales figures are measurable, but only in terms of popularity. Number of songs written is measurable, but the quality of said songs is not. Influence and new ground broken is subjective.

Having a quick look on Wikipedia the Beatles have the highest overall sales figures. For individual albums their best seller (St Pepper) is beaten by Alanis Morrissette's Jagged Little Pill. Now, I like Alanis Morrissette but wouldn't put her that close to "greatest of all time".

The interesting thing to note about that, is that out of all the wonderful artists mentioned, The Kinks, Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, Dylon, Elvis etc. - they are no where on that list. In fact, no album pre-1973 is in that top list, other than Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road. The Beatles are the only band from the '60s that feature in those lists. Buying habits and music consumption obviously changed, but it's remarkable that they feature up so high.