DS Forums

 
 

Are the Beatles still the biggest band in music history


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-12-2016, 18:55
Mr Dos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,570
Interviewer 'is Ringo the best drummer in the world ?'

John Lennon 'Ringo isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles'

The rooftop Don't Let Me Down takes some beating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1HVnK3ZmDA

note to anyone under 40 : it's real musicians, actually singing and playing guitars that are plugged in - no X Factor autotune, music video miming etc.
Mr Dos is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-12-2016, 21:12
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,185
You are all wrong.

The Beatles, The Stones, Pink Floyd, The Who, Queen etc etc were pretty good.

But there will only ever be one Black Lace.
Keyser_Soze1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 21:30
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
Since we're all throwing in our favourites I'll nominate the late, great Frank Zappa. He was far more prolific than The Beatles, releasing 62 albums in his lifetime compared to The Beatles' measly 12.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 21:36
seansnotmyname@
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,622
umm wasn't there an entire film made about Beatles live gigs this year, seems odd to say they were poor at it.

oh and this rather disproves the nonsense about Ringo being a bad drummer.
seansnotmyname@ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 22:37
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
umm wasn't there an entire film made about Beatles live gigs this year, seems odd to say they were poor at it.

oh and this rather disproves the nonsense about Ringo being a bad drummer.
I like this quote on that video:

Mark T4 months ago
I have a friend of mine who has been playing drums for about 25 years. When he first started learning, he said "I'm going to learn some Beatles songs first, they're easy!" When I asked him how it was going, he said "Damn they're a lot more complicated than I thought!" Now he has a lot of respect for Ringo's style, and if any of his students start talking smack about Ringo, he'll setup the drum kit the same way and say "Ok, now YOU play it". They all shut up after that.
Several people seem to have missed the point of the thread though, I won't reply to them separately but I'll just mention that it's about the biggest band (group) in music history, not necessarily the best, or your favourite. The band with the biggest impact on music and popular culture - both at the time and long lasting.

Most general and music historians accept that it is, and may always be, The Beatles. George Martin was indeed a genius as some have mentioned, but without The Beatles his talent would never have been fully realised - and that worked both ways. We shouldn't forget Brian Epstein either; they were all a product of their time, a time never to be repeated and some might call that luck, but really, all that matters is that everything came together at the right time and in the right places, to create musical history.

Many books and documentaries have been published on the subject and are available to anyone who is truly interested in learning why this is so. It's about much more than record sales or 'who's the best'.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 22:52
Grafenwalder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,979
The Beatles are certainly the biggest band in music history regarding record sales. Thats an undisputed fact. The Rolling Stones take the top slot as a group for longevity though as they are still touring and performing regularly as well as recording.

The Beatles were together for just 10 years but their combined sales are 22.1 million records. The Rolling Stones have less than half that at 10.1 million, but still rolling along 55 years after first forming.

http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-...vealed-__2515/
Grafenwalder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 23:09
seansnotmyname@
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,622
The Beatles are certainly the biggest band in music history regarding record sales. Thats an undisputed fact. The Rolling Stones take the top slot as a group for longevity though as they are still touring and performing regularly as well as recording.

The Beatles were together for just 10 years but their combined sales are 22.1 million records. The Rolling Stones have less than half that at 10.1 million, but still rolling along 55 years after first forming.

http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-...vealed-__2515/
Nice graph, but that is just UK singles.

the thing I find odd about the two greatest sales artists in pop history, is that the Beatles have the most number1's in usa, but presley has the most in the UK. oddly non-parochial.
seansnotmyname@ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 23:26
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
Nice graph, but that is just UK singles.

the thing I find odd about the two greatest sales artists in pop history, is that the Beatles have the most number1's in usa, but presley has the most in the UK. oddly non-parochial.
I've never heard that before. Interesting.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:05
Grafenwalder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,979
Nice graph, but that is just UK singles.

the thing I find odd about the two greatest sales artists in pop history, is that the Beatles have the most number1's in usa, but presley has the most in the UK. oddly non-parochial.
Yes i forgot to state that and should have made it more clear. There are many different sites and figures do vary, but this one shows albums only.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/the-be...l-album-sales/

Regards Presley you might find this an interesting read. His big mistake of course was not touring outside US.

https://daytrippin.com/2015/12/01/wh...r-the-beatles/
Grafenwalder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:20
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
EXACTLY! my word, we agree on something!

yes they were 'pop groups'.... 'bands' were (proper) bands, large multi-instrumental conglomerates.
Exactly.

THEY WERE NOT A BAND !!!!!!!!!!!!
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:21
razorback Tony
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: London
Posts: 229
They probably are, and will be for a long time, there's no denying that they were great, but as much as I liked their music, there were other bands that I often preferred.
The Allman Brothers, Lynyrd Skynrd, Hootie and the Blowfish.
I think that The Beatles, for music, song writing and talent were unequalled, but I could listen to The Eagles for hours, it's just how the sound takes you at certain times.
razorback Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:31
Grafenwalder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,979
Grafenwalder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:34
SaddlerSteve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,116
In the late 60's and early 70's touring the world became a lot more common for the big bands and that's when the gaps between albums started to get bigger.

A lot of modern bands spend 1-2 years touring an album round the world before even thinking about writing and then recording a follow up.

The Beatles really benefitted from all 4 of them really gelling and bringing different things to the group.
SaddlerSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 03:04
Union Jock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,403
deleted
Union Jock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 07:13
himerus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,924
The Beatles were unique and totally changed the direction of popular music.
himerus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 09:36
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
The Beatles were,in my opinion,a very mediocre group that got lucky in meeting the genius who was Gerge Martin.
You have only got to watch their appaling 'live' performances (song and instrumental) and then compare them with their studio ones to see that without George Martin they were nothing special!
There were far,far better groups around at the time-The superb Hollies spring to mind.
They were as good live as in the studio and infinitely superior singers and musicians.
ABBA were and still are the best group the world has seen!
The sheer beauty and astounding vocals of Agnetha and Anni-Frid will never be bettered plus the sheer bloody genius of Bjorn and Benny.
The group set standards that will never be surpassed by any one else.
As I said-the Beatles got lucky but it was not talent that made them so famous!
i was going to reply to this but .....


Several people seem to have missed the point of the thread though, I won't reply to them separately but I'll just mention that it's about the biggest band (group) in music history, not necessarily the best, or your favourite. The band with the biggest impact on music and popular culture - both at the time and long lasting.

Most general and music historians accept that it is, and may always be, The Beatles. George Martin was indeed a genius as some have mentioned, but without The Beatles his talent would never have been fully realised - and that worked both ways. We shouldn't forget Brian Epstein either; they were all a product of their time, a time never to be repeated and some might call that luck, but really, all that matters is that everything came together at the right time and in the right places, to create musical history.

Many books and documentaries have been published on the subject and are available to anyone who is truly interested in learning why this is so. It's about much more than record sales or 'who's the best'.
........ really gave a far better response then i would have done.

and to describe a group that went from 'she loves you' to 'tomorrow never knows' in 3 years as 'mediocre' is about as wrong as you can get.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 10:06
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,190
The Beatles were,in my opinion,a very mediocre group that got lucky in meeting the genius who was Gerge Martin.
You have only got to watch their appaling 'live' performances (song and instrumental) and then compare them with their studio ones to see that without George Martin they were nothing special!
There were far,far better groups around at the time-The superb Hollies spring to mind.
They were as good live as in the studio and infinitely superior singers and musicians.
ABBA were and still are the best group the world has seen!
The sheer beauty and astounding vocals of Agnetha and Anni-Frid will never be bettered plus the sheer bloody genius of Bjorn and Benny.
The group set standards that will never be surpassed by any one else.
As I said-the Beatles got lucky but it was not talent that made them so famous!
Hardly a fair comparison to make to any 60's group. When they could be heard live they certainly weren't appalling. Brian Epstein and George Martin didn't invest in talentless performers.
ABBA are a different generation. If they'd been around in the 60's they too wouldn't have benefitted from far more advanced equipment and sound reproduction on stage which they heavily relied on.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 10:33
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,280
No one will ever have a bigger impact than The Beatles.

You really had to be there to appreciate what they did, although the fact so many still love them shows huge numbers can still see that without having lived through it.

They changed everything in the 60's in a way no one else has, or will.

Their music developed incredibly over the seven years they were famous, and their output was phenomenal.

The only downside was they were never able to properly perform live, as the equipment they had when they were touring was hopeless.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 13:07
SaddlerSteve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,116
i was going to reply to this but .....



........ really gave a far better response then i would have done.

and to describe a group that went from 'she loves you' to 'tomorrow never knows' in 3 years as 'mediocre' is about as wrong as you can get.
I notice that poster completely neglects to mention their songwriting. George Martin may have produced but he didn't write the songs.
SaddlerSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 13:38
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,280
The Beatles were,in my opinion,a very mediocre group that got lucky in meeting the genius who was Gerge Martin.
You have only got to watch their appaling 'live' performances (song and instrumental) and then compare them with their studio ones to see that without George Martin they were nothing special!
There were far,far better groups around at the time-The superb Hollies spring to mind.
They were as good live as in the studio and infinitely superior singers and musicians.
ABBA were and still are the best group the world has seen!
The sheer beauty and astounding vocals of Agnetha and Anni-Frid will never be bettered plus the sheer bloody genius of Bjorn and Benny.
The group set standards that will never be surpassed by any one else.
As I said-the Beatles got lucky but it was not talent that made them so famous!
I think the members of The Hollies would be extremely embarrassed if they read this

To suggest they had no talent is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen.

The live performances they made were all in their early years when even they couldn't hear what they were playing, so you cant read anything into that. They quit touring in 1966, so they never had the benefit of the better sound systems that followed.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 15:58
Grafenwalder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,979
I notice that poster completely neglects to mention their songwriting. George Martin may have produced but he didn't write the songs.
Songwriting was where the Lennon/McCartney partnership truly broke the mould. Prior to them arriving on the scene the vast majority of groups and solo artistes had songs written for them and many 60's groups used songwriters.

An album was released in 1979 "The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away" of songs by the original artist.
Grafenwalder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 03:50
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
I think the members of The Hollies would be extremely embarrassed if they read this
Maybe so, but the Hollies were excellent.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 04:27
Chickens hit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,309
The Beatles were,in my opinion,a very mediocre group that got lucky in meeting the genius who was Gerge Martin.
You have only got to watch their appaling 'live' performances (song and instrumental) and then compare them with their studio ones to see that without George Martin they were nothing special!
There were far,far better groups around at the time-The superb Hollies spring to mind.
They were as good live as in the studio and infinitely superior singers and musicians.
ABBA were and still are the best group the world has seen!
The sheer beauty and astounding vocals of Agnetha and Anni-Frid will never be bettered plus the sheer bloody genius of Bjorn and Benny.
The group set standards that will never be surpassed by any one else.
As I said-the Beatles got lucky but it was not talent that made them so famous!
ABBA were, and are, my go to group for pretty much everything as I grew up with them, but even I know that they wouldn't exist without the trail that the Beatles blazed. I still hear new things within the work of Bjorn and Benny when I listen to songs that I know inside and out from their heyday, but every group that came after the Fab Four owes them an immense debt even if they don't acknowledge them as their inspiration as B & B don't, rather celebrating the Beach Boys as their touchstone.

Totally anecdotal, but I was in a Stone Roses Bar with a friend a few years ago with the usual indie music being played when all of a sudden the Beatles "I Saw Her Standing There" came through the speakers...we both pretty much said at the same time how much it fitted in with what was playing. They really were so far ahead of their time that it was scary and timeless.

Having said all that, "Knowing Me, Knowing You" is still, for me, the greatest break up song ever written.
Chickens hit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 10:10
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,280
Maybe so, but the Hollies were excellent.
I agree. A great pop band, but not in the same league as The Beatles, and they wouldn't pretend they were.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 10:13
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,280
Songwriting was where the Lennon/McCartney partnership truly broke the mould. Prior to them arriving on the scene the vast majority of groups and solo artistes had songs written for them and many 60's groups used songwriters.

An album was released in 1979 "The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away" of songs by the original artist.
And as time passed Harrison reached their level in terms of quality, if not quantity. Remarkable for one group to have three songwriters of that calibre.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:55.