The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music. They are a cultural icon, and an inspiration to thousands of musicians who followed in their footsteps. This is a list of their 15 greatest songs.
15. Nowhere Man
This is a timeless classic that can still bring a chill to anyone. There is something about the harmonies on this song that was missing from most of the other British bands of the period. As great as the Rolling Stones were, they would never be able to honestly match the songwriting skill of Lennon and McCartney. When you combine that with the booth work of George Martin, musical magic happens.
14. With A Little Help From My Friends
This is a very strange song for The Beatles. It has a fine basic melody but a very boring chorus. Ringo’s vocals sheer bread and butter while the other band members go into stylish high notes on the backing track. It’s Ringo’s heartful vocal performance that make this big (yes, he can actually sing). And don’t forget to listen to his brilliant drum breaks too.
13. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
It is said that this was written because John’s son drew a picture of a cartoon named Lucy. I guess we’ll never really know, but the results of this song were outstanding. Many think that Lucy is a bit too strange even for The Beatles (right…listen to Revolution 9) but I enjoy every little weird thing about it.
12. We Can Work It Out
It’s easy to forget amid the shower of psychedelia that what The Beatles really did best were perfect, three minute pop songs. We Can Work It Out is short but sweet, but it’s compositionally exceptional too. That time change for “fussing and fighting,” that transforms the song into a brief waltz is an unexpected and sophisticated switch that alters the entire context of the tune.
11. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)
This was George’s first use of the sitar and Ravi Shankar cringed in jealousy. The sitar doubling the guitar works great with the song and the riff is very memorable. John wrote this one about an affair he had with a very peculiar woman, and he provides some great vocal work. In the end, Norwegian Wood is just a cool laid-back tune with amazing lyrics; it’s great poetry set to great music.
10. Day Tripper
Otis Redding inspired song; this one’s about sex and drugs, simple as that. The Beatles were producing great riffs at this time and this was certainly one of them. Unfortunately, this song is marred by dropouts in two places to cover up vocal errors. Still, the vocals in the chorus are fantastic (in my opinion, one of the best by Lennon).
9. Come Together
The Beatles do swamp music, and it turns out great. Yet I just don’t know why I love this. The lyrics are total nonsense and composition isn’t so great either, but it’s just so damn good. Perhaps it’s just the intro. I mean how did they do that weird ch-ch-ch noise? The song also features some great drum beats by Ringo, and a nice guitar solo by George.
8. Hey Jude
Yes, it has been a little overplayed, but there is a reason for that. The song, supposedly written as a ‘keep your chin up’ song for Julian Lennon after the break-up of his parents, contains some of McCartney’s best lyrics. The line “The movement you need is on your shoulder” was almost removed when McCartney thought people might think he was talking about a parrot, but Lennon insisted the lyrics be left in. Lennon felt it was one of the best songs Paul ever wrote and I thoroughly agree.
7. Revolution 1
Whether they’re rocking it or doo-wopping it, Lennon’s message is always crystal clear – anything for change except violence. It was during this period that Lennon was undergoing a revolution of his own. He was discovering that he enjoyed jamming with others outside the Beatles. This was the inevitable beginning of the end. Brian Epstein was dead and so were, in John’s mind, the Beatles. In less than two years, his thoughts would prove to be true.
6. Baby You’re A Rich Man
From the rumbling, accelerating-decelerating bassline upwards through Lennon’s falsetto questioning in the verses. “Baby You’re a Rich Man” isn’t The Beatles’ most renowned, popular, fun, or unusual song, but I love it. The arrangement features an array of instruments but still maintains a slight simplicity, reliant on the bass guitar and occasional abnormal stabbing hooks.
5. Eleanor Rigby
Beautifully written, beautifully sung, and especially beautiful instrumentals. This is one of those songs that just grew on me the more I heard. I originally was not a big fan of this particular song, but it has now become a favorite after listening to it more and realizing just how interesting this song really is. It was such a different feel for The Beatles, but in my opinion, it came out great.
4. Happiness Is A Warm Gun
This is probably the most analyzed Beatles song of all time. Deciphering the meaning can be a bit tough since there are so many different opinions about what it is that John is really talking about. Sometimes the tempo changes too quickly and there are minor flaws throughout the song, but this is a great tune besides those little things. But no one cares about those things anyway. It’s a great song, and that’s all you need to know. From the nonsensical lyrics about lizards and hobnail boots to the somber guitar solo, this is one of the most solid Beatles songs.
3. Strawberry Fields Forever
Another song that is a bit experimental but the end results are amazing. George Martin’s arrangement is full of brilliant effects. The vocal distortion and sad lyrics are great, but I also really like George’s little guitar bits here and there. This is another depressing yet uplifting song that never gets old.
2. A Day In The Life
There is so much accomplished in just this one little song (instrumentals, lyrics, vocals) that it still amazes me every time I listen to. The way John starts out slowly and Paul falls in (moving into a more upbeat rhythm), and both bringing their own lyrics from previous songs to combine it into this one song makes this piece just outstanding. A strange fact though: in the end there’s a super high note which only dogs can hear.
1. Let It Be
What a great hymn! This is such an absolutely perfect rock ballad. Touchy melody, fine chorus, somehow roughly sophisticated arrangement, and slightly weird and religious lyrics about “Mother Mary”. Is she Mother Mary Magdalene from The Bible or Paul’s mother (whose name is Mary too)? This is such a great song that even today, over 30 years after it was released; it can still lift anyone’s spirits. A great song with a great message: just let it be!
Contributor: dazednconfused
120 comments already? Wow.
Anyway, a lot of thought went into making this list. I kept in mind how much money each single made, as well as my personal opinion.
Randall:
There are too many things to say about your unsubstantiated arguments, so I’ll just respond to a few.
The Shadows were a major player, even if they didn’t have a hit in the US. To say they weren’t is ridiculous, that’s just as bad as saying the Velvet Underground were insignificant because they didn’t sell many records.
There were few times when British artists had success in America before the Beatles, this is true. However, they were getting progressively closer before the Beatles and eventually hit with them. The Rolling Stones were not signed because of the success of the Beatles, and would probably have found similar success in the US anyway. The Beatles were a great choice for the first export, but it didn’t HAVE to be that way. Put away your revisionist history.
At any rate, it’s apparent you want to be a music snob, but just don’t have the chops to do it. It’s fine to have opinions that are ‘out there,’ but you have to be willing to back them up instead of just declaring your supremacy due to age or whatever ridiculous reason you have. I’m sure you’re older than me, and I’m also sure you are far less able to effectively argue your ideas with many of the people here who are younger than you are. You just simply don’t have evidence. Hell, you don’t even try to use logic in your conclusions. Find a new hobby.
And while we’re on the subject, let’s just settle this Beatles thing.
We don’t have to agree on exactly their place, and it’s fruitless to argue what would happen in a hypothetical situation where they don’t exist. I believe someone would have filled the void and you don’t. I can provide possibilities of who’d fill it, but I can’t actually say anything without any doubt since, as stated, this is a hypothetical situation. You surely won’t let your ideas go, for pride or otherwise, so unless there’s something more worthwhile to argue, perhaps we should put this to bed. You’ve already begun to recycle your ideas, so clearly no new ground is going to be broken if this is continued.
REVISIONIST HISTORY? I’m quoting REAL history. You WANT to believe that the Stones or some other band could have broke America—you have NOTHING factual or historical to base that on!
The SHADOWS were a MAJOR PLAYER? HOW? GIVE EVIDENCE FOR THIS. State your case for it!
And are you now comparing THE SHADOWS to THE VELVET FREAKING UNDERGROUND?
Do you even KNOW what the Shadows were? Have you ever even HEARD their music?
I mean, the stuff you’re saying is so ludicrous as to be flat out MADE UP.
NO, wearshades, British artists were NOT getting “progressively closer” to breaking America ANYWAY without the Beatles. Saying something like THAT is “revisionist history.”
Go away and read some music history, and stop pretending like you know for a moment what you’re talking about. For chrissakes, I’m probably arguing with some 20 year old acne-ridden punk here who thinks he knows what the 60s were like. It’s unbelievable!
I HAVE the evidence pal! It’s all over the place, in EVERY SINGLE FREAKING book ever WRITTEN about the Beatles, their times, the British Invasion, and the 60s in general! I AM a lot older than you and I assure you I am OBVIOUSLY a great deal more well-read on this subject.
How about YOU provide some clear, ACTUAL evidence for the nonsense YOU’VE spewed out? I challenge you to do that NOW.
I love Here Comes the Sun for the sole reason that I love hearing it when my dad’s band plays it.
I can’t prove that another band would have taken the Beatles place since doing so would require abilities that no one on this earth has. I can speculate, and I’ve made this clear this is speculation. But this isn’t purely guesswork. It’s a fact that several bands now revered were signed and began their quest to break America before the Beatles had. The Beatles broke America due to elements beyond their control, such as the support of people like Murray the K and other DJs. Had those DJ’s done the same with the Stones first (something that did happen, just later) they would have been the ones to break America. You assume that the Beatles and only the Beatles were capable of finding an audience in America, for which you are wrong since clearly many others did. Just because the Beatles did first does not mean it had to be that way. Again, find a new hobby.
dazednconfused – Why don’t you do another list of the greatest musicians of all time? Make sure that you put Elvis, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Bob Dylan towards the bottom of it, and, oh, say, Bon Jovi as number one. Then we can all sit back and watch the fun.
Nice list, by the way.
“dazednconfused – Why don’t you do another list of the greatest musicians of all time? Make sure that you put Elvis, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Bob Dylan towards the bottom of it, and, oh, say, Bon Jovi as number one. Then we can all sit back and watch the fun.
”
Ha, I’m glad someone is trying to bring some fresh air into here.
This list was awesome, thank you so much. I love the Beatles! They have so many great songs it’s hard to narrow them down to 15, so I won’t mention some favourites that I was surprised weren’t on there. I especially love Hey Jude, I’m completely powerless to keep myself from singing along when they start the Na Na Na part. Hope it never comes over the speaker at the supermarket. :/
Man… I LOVE the Beatles and Led Zepplin (and classic rock in general) but even I’m getting a little bored with the Led Zepplin-Beatles argument.
Young’n – “bon jovi even wrote better songs then these drugged-out egotistical losers”?! Crap, I think I just had a hemorrhage. Thanks for mentioning “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” though
And Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones are also awesome.
Oh, and Paul Mc*****head was freakin’ hilarious!
Randall: You sound like a complete C@#T. ***** off and masturbate your ego elsewhere.
It’s somehow probably a Bush/Cheney conspiracy that “I’ve Just Seen A Face” isn’t on here, but I digress…
“It’s a fact that several bands now revered were signed and began their quest to break America before the Beatles had.”
Support this statement NOW with evidence, wearshades. You can’t, because you HAVE NONE. You WANT to believe this is the way things were, clearly because if you acknowledge otherwise, then it leaves your arguments swinging and strengthens mine.
The Beatles were able to mount the breakthrough in America not merely because they were a good pop group with good songs. If that were so, then your belief that practically *anybody* could have done it would be vindicated… BUT THIS WAS NOT THE CASE.
If you’re correct, then why DIDN’T someone else do it BEFORE the Beatles?
The fact is that it was a combination of unique factors–factors unique to the Beatles—that made it possible for them to break the American barrier. A) Beatlemania. No other band in the UK—NONE—had that manic level of popularity supporting them. Other bands *became* wildly popular AFTER the Beatles *established* the idea of a strong British music scene, but not before. We do not, today, speak of “Rolling Stonesmania” or “Whomania” or “Kinksmania”. There was ONLY Beatlemania. Sure, to a large degree it was hype; but sometimes hype IS based on something, and in this case it was. 45 years of history have not put the lie to this, and in this you are going against widely accepted *experience* of people who were THERE and *established historical evidence* for a phenomena that was *unique* and has been *recognized* as such. Even *Elvis* didn’t have that intense wave of popular energy behind him, though he certainly had the closest thing to it—but then even with Elvis no one ever spoke of “Elvismania.”
When word of the intense popular upswell surrounding the Beatles got out to American promoters, *that* is when interest began to take shape in the US. Ed Sullivan heard about them on a trip to the UK, and signed them on to appear on his show. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that this would have happened with ANY other English group of the day, including the Stones. They had no great upswell of popularity around them at the time, and while I certainly acknowledge the greatness of the Stones, they were, in their early incarnation, a rough-edged R&B group with a distinctly British edge. How would THEY have gotten the notice or approval of people like Ed Sullivan? (True, they appeared on his show later–AFTER the Beatles–but only as part of the British Invasion wave that came in the Beatles’ wake).
B) The Beatles, in the period around 1963/64, had morphed from the rough-edged pub band they had been earlier in the 60s into a highly-accessible, out-and-out pop group. This was largely the doing of Brian Epstein, with Paul McCartney’s enthusiastic support and John Lennon’s acquiescence. Some would say they had watered their sound down and made it “safe,” and that may be true—but the fact is that it WAS “safe” enough for them to break America. America was FAR MORE artistically and musically conservative then than it is now—someone who wasn’t alive at the time cannot imagine it or understand it. To American promoters and DJs, the Beatles sounded “fun,” safe, amusing, witty, and inventive. They had an ideal combination going for them. In interviews the Beatles were smart and funny, which endeared them to the press and the entertainment industry, as well as to the audience. NO ONE in British music had that personable side–the Stones came off as threatening and hostile, the Who as aloof, and so on. This is very important—in conservative America, it gave the Beatles the edge a British group needed to get their foot in the door. They had the air of a funny novelty act to some, while others realized that while fun, they had real quality and talent behind them, and knew that by playing up the “fun” side of the Beatles, they could get their music in the door. Murray the K promoted them fanatically in part because he was a huckster who liked to jump on bandwagons, but also in part because he saw them as the fresh new thing that American music needed.
The simple fact is that a rough-edged, vaguely threatening, aloof band like the Stones or the Who or the Kinks could not have opened doors in people’s hearts the way the Beatles did. It may have all been phony, but that doesn’t matter–it’s what it took to help get the Beatles in.
C) The Kennedy Assasination. There were just over 2 months between JFK’s assassination and the Beatles’ first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show. Clearly the mood of the times played a factor, therefore. America had just lost it’s most beloved president in at least a generation, and was in a national state of depression people today would have a hard time imagining. The Beatles at this point were a pure diversionary, refreshing breath of fun air for people who needed something else to think about. Someone might think that ANY popular group would have fit the bill, but again, see above. It wasn’t merely the music, it was the collective persona of the Beatles. It was the whacky, fun, moptop image so well-cultivated around them that filled this need in an American society that was still reeling with loss and grief. AGAIN, there is NO OTHER British group of the day that had anything LIKE that persona COMBINED with the Beatles popularity and pop songwriting craftsmanship. The Stones wouldn’t have made people in grief feel happy in that way, certainly.
If you want documented proof for all these statements, I’d only be too glad to start citing texts.
Yes, wearshades, age DOES have something to do with this. You’re younger than I am, probably a great deal younger—and so you are UTTERLY CLUELESS about what that period of history was like. You’ve gotten the mistaken impression that, “oh sure, the Beatles did it, but anybody could have done it” which is just dead wrong. The reason you’ve gotten that impression is because someone your age, so used to the mixed culture in the West now, cannot possibly imagine a time when there was a real and intensely intransigent barrier in the US keeping British music and pop culture in general out. It’s a phenomena I’ve encountered elsewhere—people in their 20s now, who have no grasp whatsoever of what it was like to live during the Cold War, and so are *completely incapable* of imagining what it was like to live in an atmosphere of constant underlying fear and tension *with no relief.* They think it’s all exaggerated, that it couldn’t have been that bad–they simply cannot get their heads around it—because some things require direct experience in order to fully understand them. I’ve seen this kind of thing from otherwise *very* intelligent younger people–who are able to READ what it was like in books, but still can’t GET it.
You are making the same mistake about this, although, of course, this is a far more trivial point. But the problem is the same. You think the world was always as it was when you were born and became aware of it. It was NOT.
And no more “advice” from you about finding another hobby, thank you. Again, I was THERE, kid. I was listening to this music—the Beatles AND Led Zeppelin AND the Who, the Kinks, etc. etc. etc. BEFORE YOU WERE BORN.
Randall wins. Even though there is no “A)” in his “A)-B)-C)” structure.
Tmo:
There *is* no excuse for improper indexing. However, the “A” was there… embedded within the paragraph. Nevertheless, a shameful error for which I humbly seek forgiveness.
Thanks for your comment though.
Nice list, the Beatles rock so hard I would never be able to narrow it down to 15! Best band ever? I would say so. Second only to Bob Dylan in my book.
Randall: You sound like a teacher/preacher weirdo. Why bother? Who are you trying to impress? You are a classic case of a sad and lonely bloke with Napoleon complex. Stop showing yourself to be such a loner with the nonsensical babble you insist on subjecting us to.
In case you haven’t noticed the subject is entirely subjective, so why argue? As a man of such self-proclaimed insight and wisdom you seem to miss this point entirely. The more you argue, the less credibility you have.
You seem to me like you have something to prove, to nobody in particular. The exact antithesis to that which you claim to be. If you are really above us all then why get into it in the first place?
It’s very easy to argue with a keyboard, dictionary and an unlimited time-frame.
Really, who are you kidding? Go back to the books and come back when you have found either a personality or a brain.
Jay – Oh snap! lol
Thanks Monkey, at least somebody thinks the same as I do!
Jay, you know… it never seems to occur to *****s such as yourself to what degree you are playing at transference when you chime in with comments like this, as well as your earlier little unasked-for tirade. Because I can turn this around and point a similar finger your way; namely, why does it bother you so much? And why do you feel the need to spew out not only unasked-for but completely illegitmate, invalid, and illogical judgements about a person you don’t even know? Don’t you just find that… a *tad* weird? I do.
Sure, you might also make the case that it’s a trifle “weird” to carry on an argument in a long online thread about the Beatles. I’ll grant that, but then what the hell is discourse all about anyway? What do human beings argue about that’s really worth arguing over? Politics, sure… economics… history… and art. This is a small subset of art. So I take umbrage at the suggestion that there’s something really very wrong with carrying on a lengthy debate on such a subject.
And who are you to judge any of this anyway? Again—*what’s it to YOU?* Why do you care? None of this was addressed to you, so why not just skip over it and go to the next page? Why do you care?
But moreover, where do you get off making judgement calls about ME as a person JUST from what you’ve read here? Does it not occur to you that people wear “faces” of a utilitarian nature? That in a debate one may seem to exhibit characteristics that are little related to who they *really* are? Certainly in the heat of an argument, with my ire up a bit, I may sometimes slip and say a nasty thing here and there TO the person who’s irked me—I’m human. But in point of fact, I go out of my way to try to AVOID making TRULY personal jabs at a person I’m debating. For all I know, “wearshades” is a very nice guy that I might like very much in person. But this is irrelevant. But so it is also irrelevant what thoughts may cross my mind about him as a person—and I try to keep them out of the discussion. It isn’t about that.
YOUR stake in this is even less; you seem to feel some need to pop in and make a judgement call about a person YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW, and with whom you’ve never had the slightest real-life interaction. *That’s* carrying the virtual-world a little too far, Jay. If I were you, I’d be asking myself why I care so much, and why I think I have the gall and the “insight” to decide that a person I’ve never even seen or talked to is “brainless” or has no personality. (and come on—I frankly resent the jibe about “getting a brain”—not terribly clever, Jay, and in fact quite childish and stupid).
I can assure you “sad and lonely” I am not, (though I think it would be in poor taste to offer up statements to “prove” this) and that I’m free of any “Napolean complexes”. I have nothing to prove, I simply felt it important to defend a point which I considered to be a matter of self-experience and history.
You don’t like it, too f**king bad, frankly.
“And why do you feel the need to spew out not only unasked-for but completely illegitmate, invalid, and illogical judgements about a person you don’t even know? Don’t you just find that… a *tad* weird? I do. ”
hahaha, Hilarious coming from you!
and wow even continued with…
“But moreover, where do you get off making judgement calls about ME as a person JUST from what you’ve read here? Does it not occur to you that people wear “faces” of a utilitarian nature? That in a debate one may seem to exhibit characteristics that are little related to who they *really* are? Certainly in the heat of an argument, with my ire up a bit, I may sometimes slip and say a nasty thing here and there TO the person who’s irked me—I’m human. But in point of fact, I go out of my way to try to AVOID making TRULY personal jabs at a person I’m debating. For all I know, “wearshades” is a very nice guy that I might like very much in person. But this is irrelevant. But so it is also irrelevant what thoughts may cross my mind about him as a person—and I try to keep them out of the discussion. It isn’t about that.”
yet you, after after reading one small comment by me of not being into the beatles could make this assumption about a person YOU do not know!
“To “not get into them” (or prefer Led Zeppelin over them) is silly, and to me speaks of a mind not open to the glorious, beautiful, joyous things in life. So I suggest (seriously) that you grow up, “evan.” Not a flame, just an honest observation–it’s like saying you prefer a bag of Cheetos over a decent, good, hearty meal.”
WOW! lol. Once again, Hilarious
evan:
How so? What PERSONAL judgement did I make of YOU? If I made one, point it out to me, and I’ll gladly consider taking it back, if justified.
And before you or anyone else tries the smart-alecky routine of pointing this out to me, I’m quite aware that referring to “jay” as an “*****” was personal. Yes, I gave myself that little liberty. I felt it was deserved because I *was* personally attacked in his statements. I ignored his first one for the ignorant rant it was, but the second demanded SOME reply in kind I felt.
“To “not get into them” (or prefer Led Zeppelin over them) is silly, and to me speaks of a mind not open to the glorious, beautiful, joyous things in life. So I suggest (seriously) that you grow up, “evan.”
TADA! there you go.
evan, there’s a clear difference between PERSONAL assumptions about someone and POLEMICAL statements made about the argument they’ve made. I made NO personal statements about you that I’m aware of, with the exception I note below. So get off of it.
Now… I’ll freely admit, I took a nasty jibe at you for what you said when you first posted on this thread, and I’ll admit that it was a bit uncalled-for. You want an “I’m sorry” for that, you’ve got it.
HAHAHAH!!!!
evan: our messages crossed.
One little point I’d wish to make about this, however… not so much in “defense” of what I said to you, but in a sort of way of *explaining* it.
A list is posted enumerating someone’s choice of the “Top 15 Beatles Songs.” Not “Top 15 Songs of All Time,” not “Top 15 Rock Songs,” not “Top 15 Groups of All Time”… just *The Top 15 Beatles Songs.”
YOU felt it necessary to chime in with your “eh, I don’t care for the Beatles that much… but Led Zeppelin, now…” and you prefaced this little missive with the “at the risk of being flamed” thing.
CLEARLY you knew what you were doing and expected you’d get some argument, to the point of being “flamed.” The question remains though… why did you feel the need to offer the post in the first place? Why did you think it was appropriate to dangle out there your little match whose only purpose was clearly meant to light the fire of an argument with someone? Then when you got that argument, you quickly turned defensive and cried foul.
It would have been one thing if you’d ACTUALLY commented on the list—if you’d said *anything* that really offered some sort of commentary on it. But you didn’t. In point of fact, all you did was try to stir up the pot and start a little arguing… you wanted to poke your head in go “nah nah nah nah… I think Zep is better than the Beatles.”
Clearly it was MEANT to be a point to stick in someone’s craw—anyone’s—otherwise you wouldn’t have said it, and certainly not in the manner in which you put it.
I think it’s time you cop to that.
Ah, music’s subjective. Who cares?
For the record I can’t stand Zep- they ripped off Bert Jansch and he rocks!
EDIT: May I add I don’t have a problem with people liking them over the Beatles- different strokes for different folks and all that.
right……there is a clear difference, your comment was a personal attack, dont play it off.
directed to me by name at my mental state and told to “grow up” with the added emphasis of “(seriously)” thrown in there…come on now.
POLEMICAL statements made about the argument, at that, nor threw the entire thread, have a made an argument for why zeppelin is better, in fact ive never said anything close to that, especially not a ““nah nah nah nah… I think Zep is better than the Beatles.” .
comment postings are here to leave a comment, seems self explanatory to me and everyone else.
let me make this is clear as possible
I HAVE NEVER SAID ZEPPELIN IS BETTER, ALL I SAID WAS I LIKE LED ZEPPELING BETTER PERIOD
why is that so hard for you to let be????
You took it upon yourself to make an assumption and then proceeded to belittle someone for having a different taste in music. END OF STORY. GOOD DAY MATE.
why i said the risk of being flamed part is simple, because odds are someone like you would show up and go off about it, which of course you did.
Randall, you are the worst offender here for personal insults and patronising, condescending comments.
I would like to say I can rise above it and be the bigger man, but you are such an easy target..
I don’t know which university failed you at basic psychology and I don’t know why you are so bitter, but please stop practicing you ill-informed, pathetic twoddle. You clearly have no concept of human interaction if you class this as true communication.
You are using the Beatles as a medium for discourse, basically telling people they are wrong. Two words: SHUT UP
Nobody cares. Like I said before – ***** off and masturbate your ego in private.
And like I said Jay, you don’t like it, too bad. You don’t have to read it, and again—none of it was directed at you. Why you feel you need to take it upon yourself to come and “correct” me is what I wonder.
I mean, what do you think, by telling me to “***** off” and “masturbate my ego,” that this is going to hurt my feelings and make me go cry in the corner?
Your statements aren’t addressing the issue at hand (i.e. what I was debating wearshades about) rather, they’re personal attacks on me, and nothing more.
If you have something to say IN REGARDS to that debate, go ahead, otherwise, go the hell away.
evan: I’m perfectly happy to leave it; I remind you that YOU were the one who came back again today and *addressed* me. You’ve got this habit of provoking and then ducking what you’ve done and crying foul. I did feel your original post was meant to be provocative. But fine, I’ve said I overstepped by swinging wildly at you, so by all means let’s shut up about it. I’m not interested in going on with this further.
“I found a strange version of “A Day in The Life” that has a part after the end of the version you posted where it sounds like they’re saying “never could be any other way” over and over again”
Isn’t that part of the gibberish in one of their songs? Either White Album/MMT/Sgt. Pepper stuff. Maybe… was it the “Love” remix that had it at the end?
Hobolad: That’s the album version… I think you’re thinking of Strawberry Fields Forever… they both have cracked-out stuff at the end. Or maybe I am the Walrus (“smoke pot smoke pot everybody smoke pot”)
My statements are defending basic logic – ie yours are opinion and nothing more.
With regard to the subject; Led Zep are awesome, possibly boasting the best drummer ever, and the Beatles are also great.
What you failed to pick up on, which I clearly stated in my previous response, was this is totally subjective, therefor all arguments are baseless and defunct.
But I’m sure that wouldn’t satisfy you..
Could be, not got ‘em at hand at the mo’ but it sounds likely.
EAL- There’s your answer, courtesy of TMo!
Jay, from the get-go you were personally insulting. Your statements have had nothing whatosever to do with “basic logic.”
The debate I was carrying on with wearshades–if you had read any of it—was about historical matters at the time the Beatles broke into America–it had gone way beyond Zeppelin vs. the Beatles. The debate WAS dealing in facts, there was little subjective about it.
And why, every time I have raised a point that questions what you say, you conveniently sidestep it? For someone so well informed you have very little to say of import
Sorry Randall, that doesn’t cut it as a reply. I don’t buy it, and I’d be surprised if anyone else did..
And if we are talking about musical influences, why not mention the Hacienda? You are so obsessed with the Beatles you forget the rest or the world. Not everyone agrees with you. Deal with it.
What, not enough time to do your research? Never heard of the Hacienda? Wikipedia, Quick!!!! Sorry Randall, all credibility lost…
http://therecord.blogs.com/blogovich/2007/09/led-zeppelin-as.html
Wow, I didn’t think they were that bad for the whole plagiarism thing. Quite startling.
where is “i am the walrus” wtf?!?!?
or “help!”
i love the beatles….and the movie Across the Universe
Yeah, got to say pretty interesting.. but mostly UNCREDITED as pretty much every piece of the so called evidence says..
They were leaders in their own right, just like Elvis, who was just if not more guilty of stealing music..
“They were leaders in their own right, just like Elvis, who was just if not more guilty of stealing music..”
Yeah, I guess the line’s a bit blurry. Blues and folk is/was pretty much based on tweaking past songs and using arrangements for new songs.
Just ripping off obscure bands note for note though? Uncredited covers aren’t so bad when they’re obviously covers. I dunno, I guess if I heard Zep’s unauthorised covers and enjoyed listening to ‘em it would be easy to forgive.
All subjective
Granted..
BTW, just thought I’d leave with a couple of obscure bands totally unrelated: New Model Army and The Levellers. Two of my favourites and I’d feel guilty if I didn’t give them the heads-up. Nothing to do with Zep or Beatles…
And as a parting shot – Ray Charles! A King of Southern Blues, all borrowed or inspired by gospel music. And a smack addict to boot! What a guy!
I just thought you might all like to know that this list is one comment away from being the most commented on list on the site – the next most commented is the Top 10 Worst Living Dictators which has taken 4 months to achieve what this one has achieved in one and a half days
cool lets make it the most commented
I suggest jfrater you make the comments into pages ala youtube? if i printed this off i could turn it into bog roll
mix2323: You have the honor of taking us to our new record
JMurf: I suggested that on one of the earlier administration posts – I agree with you personally but a lot of people didn’t like the idea. Once I am able to get profiles improved I will seriously consider making it an option so you can all choose how you want your comments served
What do I get for being the 175th to comment on this site?
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it seems Led Zep is here to stay
or some would say, from yesterday.
Suddenly, the Beatles aren’t half the band they used to be
evan likes Led Zep more than you you see,
Oh I believe I read it yesterday
Why he had to post, I don’t know
he wouldn’t agree.
Randall said something wrong, now I long
to go back to work
Yesterday, posting was such an easy game to play
now I need a place to hide away
the boss is *****ed, he took my keyboard away
Why Randall had to post, I don’t know
he had to say
Wearshades said something wrong, now my hair is turning grey
(EVERYBODY!!)
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it seems Led Zep is here to stay
or some would say, from yesterday.
(lyrics by Paul Mc*****head)
i love a day in the life.
Point goes to bucslim and the game is over!
…………eh just for the heck of it
No kidding. I think I would have liked to have gotten in on this, but it took too long to read through all the comments. I’m tired now.
I think Randall has channeled his frustrations from his personal life into this discussion, and because he isn’t thinking clearly he has come up with these ridiculous arguments. He still hasn’t proven any of his points, not that he’ll let you know that when you talk to him; he reacts like a child at a playground. He’s like a puppet on strings; you move them and he dances.