Top 15 Beatles Songs
Published on November 6, 2007 - 257 Comments
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
Related ListsTop 10 Most Commented On ListsTop 10 Bestselling Albums Top 10 Most Depressing Rock Songs Top 10 British Comedy Songs |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post

1. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Uh, dude, yer gonna have to start with ‘Yesterday’ and go from there methinks. . . .
2. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 6:39 am
at the risk of being flamed, I just could never get into the beatles. I think their stuffs ok, but nothing too special. Just my thought.
Now Zeppelin, thats a different story
3. Joe Skepsis - November 6th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Not enough George.
..Wait.
There’s NO George!!!
Gah! *picks up hammer and hunts down contributor*
4. Mike - November 6th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Blackbird!! Come on people!
5. RockChalk - November 6th, 2007 at 7:42 am
My favorite at the moment is While My Guitar Gently Weeps.
6. JOE ROSSON - November 6th, 2007 at 7:48 am
I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND!!!
7. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 7:52 am
JOE ROSSON: shouldn’t we get to know each other better first?
8. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 8:10 am
A list like this comes down to just personal preference—there’s no way to argue with it or contradict it, because everyone who loves the Beatles makes of them what they will. There’s not a single Beatles song I actually “dislike,” merely those that are “less favorite” than others. I imagine that’s the way for most people who really listen to the Beatles and get them.
I remember—one of my oldest memories probabably—my sister’s copy of “Rubber Soul” on a table somewhere in our house (this would have been in 1967 maybe, when I was two years old… though maybe it was later… I’m not sure that my memories really could go back that far, to such a young age) and the record playing on our big console stereo (a huge piece of furniture in the living room–anyone born later than the 60s will probably have no idea what I mean). I remember staring at that slightly distorted, fisheye cover photo of the Beatles, hearing the music (so otherworldly, strangely enticing) and was from that moment intrigued. I’ve been a Beatles fan ever since, I think.
I would have put “Got to Get You Into My Life” on this list… and “The Night Before,” “Ticket to Ride,” “I Feel Fine”…. but then, again… it doesn’t matter. The Beatles are the Beatles.
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.
9. heavybison - November 6th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Too much to choose from, i’m afraid and too many left out..there should have been at least 10 more to this list..
She’s Leaving Home
Here comes the sun
Something
I’ll get you
Girl
Michelle
Piggies
Fixing a Hole
Ticket to Ride
I Need You
10. Jason - November 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Evan, consider yourself flamed
Why doesn’t anybody ever consider any of the early stuff, i.e. pre-Rubber Soul? Here’s some great early ones…
“A Hard Day’s Night”, for that opening chord alone, ought to be on the list.
“No Reply”, a fantastic melody
“Ticket To Ride” and “Help”, both from the “Help” film and album
“I’m Down” - rock out with your… well, y’know.
“I Saw Her Standing There” - ditto.
And some great vocals, harmonies and otherwise, on “This Boy”, “It Won’t Be Long” and “Twist And Shout”.
The stuff that gets played on Classic Rock stations is all well and good (”Hey Jude” is my fav song, btw) but overlooking the early stuff leaves out a lot of fantastic music. And it’s the foundation of songs that came later, anyway. A mistake, IMHO, to let it go by unremarked.
11. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I’m starting to think this site writes lists that intentionally leaves things out, making an impossible list, and creating an environment where it’s impossible for me to get any work done.
Suggestions for future controversy: Best college football program, Hottest female actress, Tastiest candy bar, Best beer, Funniest commedian, Most honest politician (short list), or Best TV show.
No George and no Yesterday isn’t a Best Beatles song list, it’s a do-over. Cmon people, wake up!
12. deedee0323 - November 6th, 2007 at 8:26 am
happiness is a warm gun, lucy in the sky with diamonds, and strawberry fields forever have to be my favorites. i’m much more of a fan of their “edgier” stuff rather than the pop.
no “yesterday” or “across the universe”??
13. EAL - November 6th, 2007 at 8:51 am
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
14. TMo - November 6th, 2007 at 8:53 am
While my guitar gently weeps and Yesterday should be there. And every other song they have, oh well.
15. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
bucslim: hey - at least you can add humor to your complaints
Thanks for that! Oh - and in about 30 minutes I will be posting a list that I think you will just love 
16. Aud - November 6th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Jamie you are a god!
17. JT - November 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am
My favourite Beatles song (and maybe favourite song of all time) is Maxwell’s Silver Hammer. For the longest time, I was obsessed with that song and would sing it everday. I even made a cartoon flipbook to go along with the song. I wrote the lyrics on my bedroom wall on indelible marker and would even talk to my friends using quotes from that song.
I’m much better now though.
18. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 9:33 am
j - I’m your most humble list commenting bitch. Bring it on.
19. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 9:38 am
“I Saw Her Standing There” is one of the greatest rock and roll songs that were ever written. It’s timeless. I remember (again with the memories) being in college, early 80s–and out at a dance club one weekend. Of course all the usual stuff was played, some crap, some good… we were all sweaty from dancing, a group of us, and had retired to the perimeter of the dance floor to cool off, have a beer… then for some reason, in the midst of one New Wave dance single after another, the DJ suddenly spun “I Saw Her Standing There.” This cute little blonde that I’d never seen before came up to me and asked me to dance, and out we went, swinging around wildly to the Beatles. One of my most favorite memories of my youth.
“Yesterday” is one my least favorite Beatles songs, though… don’t know how people can still sit through it, after all these years. Pretty melody, I suppose… but it’s the one Beatles song that I think really did get “overplayed” in successive years… and I never really did admire the lyrics, either. John Lennon voiced his dislike for the song in the famous interview with Playboy just before he was murdered… and I have to agree with him about it.
20. Kelsi - November 6th, 2007 at 10:24 am
No Penny Lane? Aww….OR Hello Goodbye? I LOVE that one! And where would my life be without Twist and Shout?!
21. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I was fine with this list, even though it’s not what I would have picked. But…
WHY NO TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS?!?!?!?
22. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Randall:
“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.”
While I love the Beatles, I don’t think you can criticize someone for not having an open mind because they don’t also like them. And also, there is a strong argument to be made that other bands, such as Led Zeppelin in this case, are superior to the Beatles. You don’t have to buy into it, but keep an open mind to it.
23. DarkJesus - November 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Are you all CRAZY!?
I am the walrus.
24. Kelsi - November 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Randall: Hey, hey, hey. Hey. I will take any Led Zeppelin song over ANY Beatles song any day, and I listen to them both a lot. Watch your step. Isn’t there any music that you never really got into? Don’t hate on someone just becuase they never found the Beatles music appealing. Also, you are being QUITE closed minded yourself in calling Led Zeppelin lacking in exposing oneself to the joys of beautiful music. >=(
25. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 11:13 am
RANDALL….
WTF are you talking about??? Because i dont care for the Beatles im suddenly silly, and of a mind not open to the glorious, beautiful, joyous things in life. That i seriosly need to grow up???
Wow, you obviously are the closed mind immature one from somehow coming to that conclusion and making an irrational ignorant broad brush statement like that, simply because im not a big beatles fan.
26. torn and frayed - November 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Screw the Beatles, the Rolling Stones were/are superior in every way!
27. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am
for some reason i cannot edit my post, replace wearshades with Randall, my bad wearshades…
28. Carl - November 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
PAPERBACK WRITER…
HELP…
At least Elanor Rigby was there! That song means so much more when you stand at the grave of Elanor Rigby and see that Father Mcenzie is buried alongside…
Great list though, even without the aformentioned classics!
29. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
WearShades & Kelsi:
Led Zeppelin = Jock Rock. Occasionally engaging, hard-rocking… but Jock Rock nevertheless. I don’t care if you like them, I don’t care if they’re your favorite band. By all means, go ahead and love them. There’s no accounting for taste. The vulgar masses reveal themselves by their lack thereof.
But to dismiss the Beatles as inferior to Led Zeppelin is laughable. It shows a total lack of understanding of history, an inability to grasp historical and artistic context, and a poor set of ears.
Given the choice of listening to… oh, say, a violin concerto of Mozart’s or, oh… say, The Shins… I will probably pick the Shins in most instances. That doesn’t mean I think the Shins are greater than Mozart, of course. I acknowledge Mozart’s greatness, and do, in fact, occasionally prefer to listen to him—when the mood strikes me or when I’m looking to put myself *into* a particular mood.
I would never, however, dismiss Mozart as “inferior” to some modern pop group. That would be just plain silly.
Dismissing the Beatles is equally silly.
30. rp - November 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I guess Jamie should update his list on “Ways to seem smarter than you are” with - Bashing Led Zeppelin.
31. TMo - November 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Hello all! Just wanted to make everyone jealous by mentioning that I will be seeing Led Zeppelin live next month in London. Cheers! or something like that
32. JT - November 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Led Zeppelin = Jock rock? I think it’s you who has no understanding of history, an inability to grasp historical and artistic context and a poor set of ears.
33. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
evan: done.
34. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Ah elitists. I’ve noticed with people who think they are extremely smart is that they are well above the peons all around them. They think that their one brain is actually more powerful than all the other brains around them combined. Randall falls into this trap completely and shows their failings. Here’s a perfect example of an elites who thinks he is somehow superior to you and everyone else, his views and opinions somehow become fact, and all those who disagree with him are now “silly, and of a mind not open to the glorious, beautiful, joyous things in life, that seriously need to grow up”. Very interesting indeed, that speaks volumes on Randall.
35. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am
evan:
Calm yourself. Go sit down by the window. Look out at the trees and listen to the birds for a while. It’ll be all right.
I remind you, evan… you expected to be “flamed” and practically invited it. So come on now. Thin skins aren’t becoming this season.
Now… I do not demand that everyone need be “big Beatles fans.” I will, however, speak out against the kind of lumpen, low-brow taste of the sort I’ve encountered oh so many times in my long life (I’m probably a lot older than you—I was born the year after the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan) that evinces itself by statements such as “Led Zeppelin is superior to the Beatles.” (You didn’t say that, of course, but I gather you’d agree with the sentiment). I’ve been called “immature” by such people just now in this thread–surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black–and “closeminded.” Ha. I won’t even dignify such silly accusations with comment.
In point of fact in my youth I had all of Led Zeppelin’s albums, as well as all of the Stones and all of the Beatles, the Who, the Kinks, etc. etc. etc. My taste for one sound/group would wax and wane, ebb and flow… but I was (frankly) open-minded enough and wise enough to realize that all that I knew and listened to–even the Rolling Stones–that issued post-Beatles existed *because* of the Beatles. Do I stand behind every drekky sentimental mush-song that Paul McCartney ever coughed up? Of course not. If offered a choice between “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” (sorry JT) or “Obla Di Obla Da” and “Black Dog” or “Good Times Bad Times”… well, actually I’d probably switch the stereo off… but if forced to choose *in that particular instance*, I’d probably rather listen to the Zep songs over “Maxwell” and “Obla Di”. But that doesn’t mean I dimiss the Beatles or consider Zep to be superior.
The fact is that Heavy Metal appeals to an arrested adolescent mindset, the kind that I rejected when I was about 17 years old (because I wasn’t an arrested adolescent, but rather grew out of it). I don’t particularly care if you agree or disagree; experience showed me long ago that I’m right.
36. Monkey - November 6th, 2007 at 11:52 am
1. The Beatles kick major ass.
2. Led Zepplin also kicks ass, but in a totally different way.
3. Led Zepplin is hardly “jock rock.” I don’t think anyone could consider the majestic Jimmy Page a “jock.”
4. Random fact: I have Jimmy Page’s symbol tattooed on my forearm (yeah, I’m a dork) but I sure as hell am not a jock!
5. Why the hell are there no George Harrison songs on this list?!
I’m done now. Off to class :p
37. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Monkey:
Led Zeppelin is “jock rock” because it’s a major favorite OF jocks… of course Jimmy Page was not a jock himself.
Funny how these threads are never about the topic at hand. Someone presents a list of favorite Beatles tunes, and a bunch of Zeppelin-lovers feel they have to chime in and get their digs in. Sad, really, these insecure types…
38. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“experience showed me long ago that I’m right.” Thanks for proving my point.
Another entire post of why you’re “right” and everyone else is wrong, despite you making the earlier statement of “A list like this comes down to just personal preference—there’s no way to argue with it or contradict it…” apparently this only people who agree with you and Beatles tracks, you don’t hold such a “open mind” on that same subjectivenes on bands as a whole.
You say ” I won’t even dignify such silly accusations with comment” but you did and im sure you will continue to do so…
39. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“They think that their one brain is actually more powerful than all the other brains around them combined”…
evan, are you trying to tell me that there are more people in this world who think that Led Zeppelin are superior to the Beatles than vice versa? Where are you getting the stuff you’re smoking?
On the other hand, the NUMBER of people who believe something is no proof of its truth, pal.
40. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
evan, I’ve hurt your feelings… I see this now. So sorry. Go back and put your headphones on, and tune out reality. I’m an elitist (ah, guilty, so guilty) and Led Zeppelin–a group which I guarantee you will be utterly forgotten in a hundred years–is superior to the Beatles–who were acknowledged for the force in music that they were from the get-go. Yes yes, evan… there there. The sky is the color you choose it to be.
41. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Randall:
Do you think because you are older you have some divine right to critical supremacy? From what I’ve read you are simply a petty snob who would rather base their opinion on whatever p-fork would write rather than based on your own listens. Led Zeppelin is quite simply not jock rock. That notion is absurd, as is your assumption that the Beatles are intrinsically superior because they are the Beatles. They are great, and most of the people you are now arguing with agree with you on that, but Led Zeppelin have made a strong case for being the superior artist. I’m not telling you what to believe, but I am telling you that you’re wrong in your methodology. Age/assumptions about an audience don’t make an argument. You need evidence, for which you have none. You can say whatever you want about your opinion, but you should stop making factual claims when they are not backed up by anything empirical.
42. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
That statement has nothing to do with the Beatles but rather your mindset, that your views and opinions are somehow greater than anyone else’s. Which is all to apparent in your posts.
You immature level is once again showed with comments such as “? Where are you getting the stuff you’re smoking? “. Way to go, with each post you are making yourself look more and more like the elitists snobs I’ve described.
43. Borg - November 6th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I couldn’t even imagine trying to rank my top fifteen Beatles songs…way too hard. Just for fun though, some of favorites that I haven’t seen mentioned are “Don’t Let Me Down,” “I Feel Fine,” and “Rocky Racoon.”
Jfrater: Why is the contributor name at the bottom of the list? Is it possible to change this so that it’s the first thing we see?
44. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Randall:
“Led Zeppelin–a group which I guarantee you will be utterly forgotten in a hundred years”
Ah yes, another unsubstantiated claim. Well lets look at some numbers shall we?
From the RIAA: 4. LED ZEPPELIN - 109.5 (certified units in millions)
So they are the fourth biggest selling artist in US history, but they’ll be forgotten in 100 years?
45. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
lol in reference to post 40, hahaha no you’re just being pathetic, thanks for the laugh..
46. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
wearshades, its laughable I know, but because he believes it to be true, it must be right? Doesn’t he know better than all else?
47. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
He’s one of those people who try to force terrible arguments onto people, and when he is proven wrong (as he has here) he comes up with even more ridiculous claims. I have no problem with his tastes, it’s his opinion, but he just doesn’t realize that his claims are off and his argument style is weak.
48. JsinGood - November 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I usually don’t criticize “personal opinion” lists, but I’m more than a little surprised you put ‘With a Little Help From My Friends’ on list, not because of what I think (it’s mediocre), but based on what you yourself said about it. But while we’re on the subject, ‘Baby You’re a Rich Man’ is laaaame.
49. thatguy - November 6th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Led Zep VS. The Beatles aside (they’re both worthy pursuits), The Beatles music transcends measurement. You could release, say, Abbey Road today for the first time and it would still absolutely floor critics and consumers alike. The songs and the album as a whole would be considered revolutionary, fresh and timeless.
You may remeber rockin’ out to a particular Zeppelin tune at some point and have great memories associated with it, but mostly the music just inspires a certain mood. However, many people I know mark the passage of their lives with Beatles songs. By that I mean there’s a Beatles song that seems to perfectly suit one of their children and another for their wedding day and another that reminds them of their mum; as though the particular songs were written with that person or moment in mind. To hear such songs transports you instantly to that place/time/person as powerfully as if you had a time machine. I can’t think of another modern band with the ability to do that song after song, album after album.
50. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Can’t we all just get along?
51. Yohan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Excellent list! I would probably have Let It Be at the top too.
The Beatles are both objectively brilliant, and capable of touching their fans individually.
Also: Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene were two different Maries in the Bible.
52. young’n - November 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
a list with too many songs
should have been a top 2
eleanor rigby simply for the strings
and while my guitar gently weeps
those are the only two good songs from the most overrated group in music history
bob dylan and the rolling stones are much better and from the same period, more relevant deeper songs
bon jovi even wrote better songs then these drugged-out egotistical losers
53. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I dont have a problem with anyone liking the Beatles more, or having their opinion as them as being a better band. I believe it far too subjective for anyone to say in a complete matter of fact way, anyone band is better than any other. It’s a matter of tastes, beauty is in the eye, or in this case ear, of the beholder. It’s people like Randall he have the attitude of I’m wrong, you’re wrong, if you disagree your’re a moron, wah wah wah…” that make rational discussions impossible.
54. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
ugh, aweful spelling there. not being able to edit my posts is starting to get on my nerve jfrater, fix it
just kidding, im sure it’s caused by something on my end, damn company IT filters.
55. rp - November 6th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Put away delusions of grandeur, randall, and make up your mind on what you are even arguing about. First, it’s “Led Zeppelin is only for dumb jocks and adolescents.” Then when called on that, your response is “the Beatles are better”.
56. rp - November 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Maybe it’s your browser, evan? I’m using firefox and have no problems.
57. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
evan/wearshades:
In criticism, one doesn’t offer “proof.” Criticism isn’t a science. One offers opinions. I see no one offering “proof” for their opinion that Zep is superior to the Beatles, so your insistence that I offer “proof” for my opinions is disingenous (at best).
BTW… Numbers of record sales prove nothing, “wearshades,” in regards to quality. Popularity does NOT equal value.
I would ask both of *you* why you felt it necessary to pipe in with your opinions about LED ZEPPELIN on a thread that was totally devoted to THE BEATLES. Think about that one.
“thatguy” puts it succinctly. The Beatles are transcendant. “People mark the passage of their lives with Beatles songs” is an eloquent and elegant way of stating it. Zeppelin, on the other hand, is the fascination of males who are stuck in their teenage years. You don’t wanna buy that, I don’t care; I have better things to waste my time on. I frankly defy you to find a single MAJOR and IMPORTANT rock critic—any—who would support your statements that “Zeppelin has made a strong case to being the superior artist.” But then critics are all elitists, aren’t they?
As to my argument style, evan, come off it. Again I remind you, in your original post you practically invited flaming. Get off your high horse about it.
58. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
oh man, this is absurd. I never said that one band was better/superior to any other. I stated I liked Zeppelin. You not only said because of that, that I was “silly, and of a mind not open to the glorious, beautiful, joyous things in life. That I seriously need to grow up” and that I must be “smoking something”.
Please, please, please, point out to me where I’ve stated Zeppelin is a better band than the Beatles???? YOU CAN’T. I’ve never made such a comparison.
You again make a statement such as “I have better things to waste my time on” but apparently you don’t as you keep posting.
You’re an elitist snob who makes arrogant ignorant statements, I couldn’t care less which band you feel is the best.
So please, i believe it’s you who needs to get down off a high horse. I’m down here walking with the common peons.
59. StewWriter - November 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Sweet Marie! I took a Rock And Roll History class in college with fewer mud-slinging moments than in here! You have to know, opening up with a “Top Anything” List by the Beatles is just asking for trouble. I’m not even going to bother with including a favorite since the responses alone run the gamut. Fun to read, though!
60. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“BTW… Numbers of record sales prove nothing, “wearshades,” in regards to quality. Popularity does NOT equal value.”
No it doesn’t, but once again you’ve stumbled over your own words. This wasn’t to show they were better, but to show they wouldn’t be forgotten in 100 years as you so foolishly said.
“I would ask both of *you* why you felt it necessary to pipe in with your opinions about LED ZEPPELIN on a thread that was totally devoted to THE BEATLES. Think about that one.”
I for one didn’t bring up Zeppelin, I just responded to your comments about them.
“As to my argument style, evan, come off it. Again I remind you, in your original post you practically invited flaming. Get off your high horse about it.”
But if he does that you two won’t be on an even playing field.
61. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
rp: what do you want? A course in music theory? Go sign up for one at your local community college.
Be honest—you won’t buy anything I say in this regard, so why ask of it of me?
The Beatles were masters of subtle harmony, melody, time changes and lyrical subtlety. Historically they broke a downward spiralling trend in music that was killing rock and roll—whitewashing and bleaching it, sucking it dry of energy and vitality. They brought renewed optimism, strength, and force of quality to a musical form that up to then had been dismissed as “merely” throwaway teenybopper music. They created a political center in modern music WITHOUT WHICH such bands as Led Zeppelin would never have found THEIR place—let alone probably even existed.
Their lyrics, while of uneven quality, occasionally transcended to the truly poetic–not in sophomoric “Stairway to Heaven” terms (Stairway to Heaven is the classic over-the-top puerile anthem of youth… I much prefer Mott The Hoople’s “All the Young Dudes” myself–much more honest and forthright) but in terms of spareness and elegance: as in “Norwegian Wood” and “Julia,” or “Hey Jude” or a dozen other examples.
Their vocal stylings were ever-inventive and re-inventive–in fact this is true of their music overall–note the worlds of difference between “Love Me Do” and “Let it Be”—it’s a well-known fact that the Beatles are held up as the absolute *standard* in modern music of fresh re-invention. Whereas Robert Plant’s vocalizations never varied from his patented banshee-like squeal… neat and original yes, but staid and inane after a fashion.
How’s that? Enough words for you? But I highly doubt for a moment you buy any of it, so why ask me?
62. heavybison - November 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
While on the subject of Beatles…check this out dudes..
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3674/pid.html
63. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I guess the answer is no.
64. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
wearshades:
“This wasn’t to show they were better, but to show they wouldn’t be forgotten in 100 years as you so foolishly said.”
In fact it proves no such thing, and that was MY point. The power of a work of art to last, be it a song, a poem, a painting, whatever–is not based on how many of it has sold at a given time. I could point out to you countless musical artists and songs, poems, etc. from a hundred years ago (or not even that long ago) that were hugely popular in their day and are utterly forgotten today. So don’t quote record sales numbers to me. They mean little.
As for you not bringing up Zeppelin, come on… you stepped in to further the Zeppelin argument. That was your choice. Did you think evan couldn’t defend his opinions without your help?
65. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Randall:
Again you misunderstand. I for one am not saying the Beatles are without quality. Few artists in my opinion are in their league. However, because they came first does not mean they are superior. But, if you want to go down that route, then you should acknowledge that they weren’t lyrically savvy (and their lyrics are not so great, rarely are they truly poetic) before they heard Bob Dylan. Dylan was writing “mature” music before the Beatles had even released their first single. Led Zeppelin went through the same growth the Beatles did in terms of musical sophistication and lyrics. Plant mostly borrowed lines on the two albums, but by their third (only a year after the release of their first) he was writing beautiful lyrics like “That’s The Way.” “Stairway To Heaven” is not “sophomoric” as you put it, the lyrics work on many levels. Again, I’m not saying which one you have to like more, but provide evidence for your claims. When you don’t it makes it really easy to debunk them, as has been the trend so far.
66. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
bucslim:
“getting along” is boring, isn’t it?
67. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
heavybison: haha - I was going to include that on top 10 conspiracy theories
68. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“In fact it proves no such thing, and that was MY point. The power of a work of art to last, be it a song, a poem, a painting, whatever–is not based on how many of it has sold at a given time. I could point out to you countless musical artists and songs, poems, etc. from a hundred years ago (or not even that long ago) that were hugely popular in their day and are utterly forgotten today. So don’t quote record sales numbers to me. They mean little.”
It does prove exactly what you insist it doesn’t, that being that they are of lasting quality. In 2003 their live album How The West Was Won went to number one in the US and in many other countries; 23 years after their breakup. Clearly, there is an audience out there that continues to listen to their music. I can’t even begin to speculate as to how many classic rock radio stations have a “Get The Led Out” segment. Hell, “Stairway To Heaven” is even preserved in the Library of Congress. All evidence to the fact that Zeppelin will be remembered. Checkmate.
69. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
wearshades:
Again, I repeat to you, one does not provide “evidence” for critical opinion about art. One provides an argument, hopefully a persuasive one… but not “evidence.” You have debunked *nothing* that I’ve said–you’ve merely disagreed. Disagreement is not the same as debunking. One doesn’t “debunk” criticism.
I have never said that the Beatles were superior because “they came first.” So *you* are misunderstanding *me* as well.
Dylan’s influence on the Beatles is well-touted and one could argue forever how valid or invalid the belief in that influence is or was. Whatever it was, clearly the Beatles surpassed his vaunted influence very quickly and left Dylan behind. Or perhaps you don’t agree with that either, I don’t know. But John Lennon himself said as much–he stopped listening to Dylan after “Highway 61 Revisited”… so the influence was rapidly transcended.
70. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Oh I get it now.
JFrater is that kid with the gas can and he hands out matches to all the kids on the playground and tells them how cool it’s going to be when they hear the little pop go off when the matches are tossed into the opening. After the explosion while we’re all in the principals office or the hospital, he’s laughing his ass off in gym class.
I was wondering what Eddie Haskell’s doing these days, now I know.
71. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
wearshades:
“Checkmate”? That you view this discussion as a game that someone can “win” is silly in and of itself. These are opinions, not chess moves. You want to believe Zeppelin will last far into the future, and you feel the record sales of the last 30 years proves it. Good for you. I never once, however, leaned on the Beatles’ higher RIAA ranking (170) to support my belief that *they* will last into the far-flung future. Rather, I said to ignore record sales—even over a 30 year period, they prove little—and to artistic value they prove almost nothing.
There are novels and artists and poems and poets that, 50 years ago or 100 years ago, were best-sellers… most today are utterly forgotten.
I believe that the Beatles are transcendant of time and trend and that Led Zeppelin are not. A hundred years or so from now, I may be proved right… or wrong. Only time will tell on that one.
72. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“Again, I repeat to you, one does not provide “evidence” for critical opinion about art. One provides an argument, hopefully a persuasive one… but not “evidence.” You have debunked *nothing* that I’ve said–you’ve merely disagreed. Disagreement is not the same as debunking. One doesn’t “debunk” criticism.”
Then you are wrong in your assessment of yourself, because you are not providing critical opinion, you are trying to invent facts, such as your “100 year” claim. Liking the Beatles more than Zeppelin is fine, stick to that instead of playing prophet.
“I have never said that the Beatles were superior because “they came first.” So *you* are misunderstanding *me* as well.”
You didn’t say it, but you implied it with your “They created a political center in modern music WITHOUT WHICH such bands as Led Zeppelin would never have found THEIR place—let alone probably even existed.” statement.
“Dylan’s influence on the Beatles is well-touted and one could argue forever how valid or invalid the belief in that influence is or was. Whatever it was, clearly the Beatles surpassed his vaunted influence very quickly and left Dylan behind.”
If by surpassed you mean moved onto different kinds of musical territory than perhaps, but if you mean surpassed him in terms of quality, well then we’d have to get a whole different argument started. But at least this time you’re sticking to merely opinions and not manufacturing facts. A big step indeed.
73. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
bucslim:
Clearly he’s found for himself a fun little hobby that brings a smile to his troublemaking little face. We can but admire and envy him for it.
74. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
““Checkmate”? That you view this discussion as a game that someone can “win” is silly in and of itself. These are opinions, not chess moves. You want to believe Zeppelin will last far into the future, and you feel the record sales of the last 30 years proves it. Good for you. I never once, however, leaned on the Beatles’ higher RIAA ranking (170) to support my belief that *they* will last into the far-flung future. Rather, I said to ignore record sales—even over a 30 year period, they prove little—and to artistic value they prove almost nothing.
There are novels and artists and poems and poets that, 50 years ago or 100 years ago, were best-sellers… most today are utterly forgotten.
I believe that the Beatles are transcendant of time and trend and that Led Zeppelin are not. A hundred years or so from now, I may be proved right… or wrong. Only time will tell on that one.”
Apparently you’ve never heard of the term “metaphor.” At any rate, I didn’t say that either band would outlast the other. I just provided evidence that Zeppelin had sustained a following. You can believe that the Beatles will outlast Zeppelin, that’s perfectly fine. But since you don’t know, and certainly haven’t come up with evidence to support it, don’t state it as fact.
75. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
bucslim: I am pleading the 5th
76. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
wearshades:
This isn’t politics or economics… accusations of “inventing facts” belongs in such circles, not in discussions of music. Sure, I offered the opinion that a hundred years from now, Zep will be forgotten. You can’t *prove* me wrong and I can’t *prove* myself right. So leave it. Disagree with it, sure… but don’t try to act like you can out-logic it as a statement.
As for the “Beatles first” thing–if you have some argument that can “prove” that Zeppelin would have existed regardless of the Beatles, I invite you to offer it up. In fact, you’d best get it typed and sent out post haste to an accredited music theory journal.
I would hazard a guess that Jimmy Page and Robert Plant themselves wouldn’t agree with you on that one. Most of the great figures in the post-Beatles rock world have acknowledged either their influence or importance as historical figures. Probably you are not old enough to understand what things were like not just in America but in Britain as well before the Beatles existed. They were a linch pin for the times, and it wasn’t UNTIL the Beatles hit and hit big that groups like the Yardbirds (precursor to Zep as you probably well know) could even think of making it and getting record contracts. This is the way historical movements work, wearshades—someone comes along to create a center, and then others follow to create right and left wings. I am by no means the only one to acknowledge that the Beatles created that center. You want to argue with it, be my guest.
Yes, I DO mean the Beatles surpassed Dylan in quality. And I was *quoting* John Lennon on how his influence (over Lennon at least) had markedly waned by late 1965.
77. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
wearshades:
You have the audacity to accuse me of not understanding the word “metaphor” when YOU are mistaking a throway prophecy about the state of affairs in regards to music 100 years from now for a FACTUAL statement? Come now.
78. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“This isn’t politics or economics… accusations of “inventing facts” belongs in such circles, not in discussions of music. Sure, I offered the opinion that a hundred years from now, Zep will be forgotten. You can’t *prove* me wrong and I can’t *prove* myself right. So leave it. Disagree with it, sure… but don’t try to act like you can out-logic it as a statement.”
So then you’ve backed off your original claim that they won’t be remembered and are now sticking with a “I don’t think they will be remembered” opinion in its place? If so, then fine. In case you didn’t read my statements correctly, I had issue with your habit of claiming things as fact, not your opinions. This has been the case for the entirety of this debate.
I think that Zeppelin would have existed without the Beatles, Elvis and Robert Johnson were the catalysts for Zeppelin, but I won’t dare claim that the Beatles had no influence on them. The Beatles have influenced every band directly or indirectly since their breakthrough. I do disagree with your assessment that the Beatles surpassed Dylan, but I’m perfectly OK with that disagreement. They’re both great in my mind, and this is purely a subjective matter.
79. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“You have the audacity to accuse me of not understanding the word “metaphor” when YOU are mistaking a throway prophecy about the state of affairs in regards to music 100 years from now for a FACTUAL statement? Come now.”
Well if you understood the word you wouldn’t have thought I was really comparing this debate to chess.
80. Borg - November 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Who would have thought that THIS list would have contained the more heated debate of today’s lists? The internet sure is weird.
81. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I’m sure jfrater doesn’t mind.
82. young’n - November 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
how did the beatles surpass dylan in quality?
1965 on the beatles put out yellow submarine which is basically a children’s story and music on lsd along with sgt. peppers lonely hearts club shit fuck ass band…which was a giant turd
1965 on dylan released hurricane blood on the tracks all along the watchtower…classic after classic while the beatles released overrated pieces of shit on vinyl and he remains relevant today while the beatles either are dead or fucking jokes like ringo starr and paul mcfuckhead
83. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
WOW, - Paul McFuckhead?
I’m laughing so hard now my boss has taken notice. Now I’m in trouble after I sprayed Coke all over my keyboard. Thanks guys.
84. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Blood On The Tracks was 1974, but it is a great album.
85. young’n - November 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
which is after 1965 lol…dylan has quantity, quality, and time
beatles had lsd and buddhism and still couldnt get along
86. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
young’n… kiss your mother with that mouth, do you?
Paul McFuckhead is the funniest thing I’ve seen all day.
87. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Ah, I missed the “on.” My bad, you’re right.
88. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“Paul McFuckhead is the funniest thing I’ve seen all day.”
Agreed, makes me wonder if Heather Mills is making an appearance on this board.
89. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
wearshades:
“Well if you understood the word you wouldn’t have thought I was really comparing this debate to chess.”
Your near-childish disingenousness is almost laughable. You closed your statment with a cutesy, smug “checkmate.” I could almost *see* your snarky little grin across the computer screen.
So don’t try to worm out of it now and say you weren’t viewing this entire discussion as some kind of “game” you can make “points” on.
Please.
90. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I can honestly say I haven’t, the idea never crossed my mind. Apparently it’s on yours, however.
91. young’n - November 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
randall:
you still havent answered how the beatles surpassed dylan in quality…no facts to back up an opinion makes for bullshit
and no i dont kiss my mother…im not some weird incest freak who enjoys mouth kissing my family
92. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
wearshades:
I’ve backed off nothing. Zeppelin won’t be remembered, a hundred years from now. The Beatles almost certainly will be (if anyone’s still here to remember things). Argue with it all you want, I don’t care. You accuse me of making a statement of “fact” by saying this. It’s *there* that you’re wrong. I never once claimed to be making factual statements—and a bit odd of you just NOW to realize this, when I kept telling you that one doesn’t factually “prove” artistic criticism wrong. One argues with it, but “proof” is largely irrelevant.
If you want to believe that Zeppelin could have existed if the Beatles never had… well, you ought to back up that statement with SOME kind of argument. Listing Zep’s non-Beatles influences is hardly that.
No other major English band had been signed to a record contract until the Beatles got theirs AND began turning out hits on the radio. Up until then, America had been the overwhelming influence, and historically it makes perfect sense to assume that this would have continued in a world sans Beatles. A few of the English bands of the day might have still gotten together (though many of them did this precisely because the Beatles showed them it *could* be done, whether they felt influenced *musically* by the Beatles or not) but an English music scene without the Beatles is unthinkable. America would have continued to dominate and the Yardbirds, for example, had they even formed or stayed together, would have ended life as some English curio that Americans probably never even would have heard of. Zeppelin probably would never have even formed, because the musical stylings they fell into were in large part a REACTION to other stylings that were set in motion BY the Beatles.
93. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
young’n, the type who demands facts to “back up” someone else’s opinions about art and music is the type who shows himself to be insecure, worried that unless he circles the wagons and fends off all hostile forces, his worldview will fall apart.
I don’t denigrate Bob Dylan (in fact, I’m not a big fan of his though, I think he’s overrated, actually) but to offer “facts” about why I think the Beatles were superior artists? What do you want, a thesis paper? Look up at the world around you. Dylan is listened to by aging hippies who cling desperately to a past that is rapidly fading in memory, and by a relatively small number of younger people who view him as some kind of iconic figure, thinking they find depth and character in his music. I’m not saying the depth and character isn’t there; I merely observe that his following certainly isn’t what it was in the mid-60s. But to the world as a whole he is… only an iconic figure. His relevance today is slim, at best. Of course, you probably won’t agree. Well, all I can do is invite you to go around and investigate this.
The Beatles, on the other hand, are known the world over, are a genuine standard in a multiplicity of ways, and are still actually as influential and powerful as they ever were. They are… as been said many times here already… transcendant.
And I never said anything about “mouth kissing”… hmmmmm.
94. evan - November 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I love wild and unfounded claims passed as fact.
Ok, well then, there’s a giant spaghetti monster out in space that moves around eating planets. Luckily he’s not anywhere near our solar system. Disprove that.
95. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
“I’ve backed off nothing. Zeppelin won’t be remembered, a hundred years from now. The Beatles almost certainly will be (if anyone’s still here to remember things). Argue with it all you want, I don’t care. You accuse me of making a statement of “fact” by saying this. It’s *there* that you’re wrong. I never once claimed to be making factual statements—and a bit odd of you just NOW to realize this, when I kept telling you that one doesn’t factually “prove” artistic criticism wrong. One argues with it, but “proof” is largely irrelevant.”
You can say you weren’t claiming to make factual statements, but you were trying to. If you were just making your opinion known you would have made it clear, which you didn’t.
“If you want to believe that Zeppelin could have existed if the Beatles never had… well, you ought to back up that statement with SOME kind of argument. Listing Zep’s non-Beatles influences is hardly that.”
You want more, fine. Jimmy Page has gone on record saying the single biggest musical influence on him is Elvis’ “Let’s Play House.” That was the catalyst for him picking up the guitar. He was surely influenced by the Beatles, but they weren’t a make or break influence on him or Zeppelin.
“No other major English band had been signed to a record contract until the Beatles got theirs AND began turning out hits on the radio.”
Well that’s just incorrect altogether. Read SHOUT, the definite story of the Beatles if you want to know more about their history and the condition of rock music before it. They go on about a certain British band you might have heard of that predates the Beatles, the Shadows.
“Zeppelin probably would never have even formed, because the musical stylings they fell into were in large part a REACTION to other stylings that were set in motion BY the Beatles.”
They weren’t a reaction to anything British. Their first album is mostly blues updates. Go back to your LPs and have a listen.
96. young’n - November 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
after this im done…who will be remembered more from the late 90’s-early 2000’s n sync or a far superior artist like say elliot smith?
popularity and POP CULTURE influence have nothing to do with musical talent
dylan was a better musician then the beatles could ever dream of being…and its a shame that POP CULTURE does not reflect that
97. JMurf - November 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Well the reason i listen to a beatles album is they don’t have distinct sound, but many and it’s like listening to a classic in every genre.
They hit the nail on the head with everything they tried, and i’ve yet to hear another band that has done that or made me not skip songs on an album
What about Dear Prudence, I Am The Walrus and Blackbird? They’re underground classics
98. JMurf - November 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
sorry cant edit, thats ment to say ‘not skip songs on album’, and looking back maybe the beatles and pink floyd are the only ones i wudnt skip a song
99. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
JMurf: I love I am the walrus - thanks for mentioning it
100. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
wearshades, I probably read “Shout” before you were born. I had a copy in 1980 or thereabouts and wore it out. The Shadows are not an example to fall on. What you don’t realize (because, I assume, you just aren’t old enough to understand how HUGELY different the world is today from what it was then) is that Shadows, while a fairly big success in Britain, were UTTERLY unknown in America. They made a stab at coming over here and failed miserably. In fact, it’s stated quite clearly in “Shout” how the Beatles were skeptical about conquering in America, for that very reason—”if the Shadows couldn’t do it, how could we?”
What I’m saying is that without the Beatles, the British music scene was at best a weak and transparent sideline to the dominant American scene. American records and recording artists consistenly outsold, in enormous numbers, any homegrown group or artist in Britain. In fact “groups” per se were, until the Beatles, considered something of a pointless exercise. Much is made of the famous statement by the Decca A&R man who rejected the Beatles, telling Brian Epstein that “groups with guitars were on their way out,” but as non-prescient as that statement was, it was based in fact to a great extent. The dominant artists of the day–remember, this was 1962–were individual singers who didn’t write their own music, and this was true of the US as well as Britain, but particularly true in the latter. Few other British groups would have stood a chance, probably, in gaining a record contract (and thus would have gone unheard) until the Beatles made the breakthrough. Indeed, when George Martin signed on the Beatles, he has clearly stated that he was looking for a standout figure in the group to make the “big star”—and in fact, remember, The Shadows were just that to Cliff Richard—more his backing group than an actual cohesive whole, like the Beatles. Fortunately Martin realized that this was the wrong approach… and everything was changed in the world.
But take away the Beatles, and there is simply no condition or linchpin for changing the scene of the day—certainly in Britain, and possibly even America. Britain would have continued in America’s musical shadow, we can be assured of that.
101. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
wearshades, I’m well aware Zep was based on blues updates. Again, unless I’m mistaking you for someone else in this thread, (in which case, forgive my presumption) my understanding is that I’m much older than you. I learned all this stuff before you were probably old enough to hold your bottle.
There were umpteen “blues revivals” in Britain in the post-Beatles era. Zep was a part of one of these (though to be accurate, it was the Yardbirds that fed into this, and Zep merely grew out of that group). The Blues scene in Britain WAS a reaction to a “pop center” that had been created by the Beatles out of whole cloth but was afterwards sustained by out-and-out pop groups that followed in their wake… the Mersey groups, for example, but more pointedly groups like The Dave Clark Five and Herman’s Hermits, etc. —the groups we think of when we think of “British Invasion.” This started even at the height of the invasion—the Animals were there at the start of it, beginning the formation of a “left” reply to the pop middle ground of the day. The Yardbirds followed in that. And Zep follows from there.
The mere fact that Page lists Elvis as his primary influence means nothing; practically EVERY musical artist of the day did the same. (Including the Beatles). As I said, it isn’t the non-Beatles influences on Zeppelin that prove anything–it’s what matters historically. Historically, there was NO separate, strong, cohesive British musical scene until the Beatles put it there. It was dominated by America, not just in terms of influence but in terms of sale… simple commercial power. Without the Beatles having created it, there is no reason for all the other groups of the day to have existed, or at least to have “made it” to the point of getting record contracts. And there is little reason to think they would have ever been heard of in the US.
102. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I think this list must get the record for most comments in a short time
103. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“What you don’t realize (because, I assume, you just aren’t old enough to understand how HUGELY different the world is today from what it was then) is that Shadows, while a fairly big success in Britain, were UTTERLY unknown in America.”
I was just disproving your claim that no other british band was signed. “No other major English band had been signed to a record contract until the Beatles got theirs AND began turning out hits on the radio.” Shadows were pretty ‘Major.’
“The mere fact that Page lists Elvis as his primary influence means nothing; practically EVERY musical artist of the day did the same. (Including the Beatles). As I said, it isn’t the non-Beatles influences on Zeppelin that prove anything–it’s what matters historically. Historically, there was NO separate, strong, cohesive British musical scene until the Beatles put it there. It was dominated by America, not just in terms of influence but in terms of sale… simple commercial power. Without the Beatles having created it, there is no reason for all the other groups of the day to have existed, or at least to have “made it” to the point of getting record contracts. And there is little reason to think they would have ever been heard of in the US.”
I think it’s fair to say that based on what Page has said about his influences, as well as Plant’s constant nods to San Fransisco/west coast music and JPJ/Bonzo’s jazz influences, they were the way they were in no part to the Beatles. It’s not definitive, but it certainly seems logical. Also, many of those groups you listed existed before the Beatles broke through. The Yardbirds, the Stones, the Kinks, Alexis Korner’s Blues Co., etc. all had formed before the breakthrough of the Beatles. You can even throw the Who in there, but they were a much bluesier/R&B band before the mid-60s Beatles material.
104. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
young’n:
“…who will be remembered more from the late 90’s-early 2000’s n sync or a far superior artist like say elliot smith?”
The answer is probably neither. The beauty of Art is that hacks like n sync are eventually forgotten; this is a certainty, unless they edge close enough to artistic acceptance to gain some foothold in the collective imagination. But that takes SOME measure of talent, even if the talent is middling. It’s why we still remember H.G. Wells to this day—he had enormous failings as a writer, and was really nothing but a middlebrow… but he managed certain powerful statements that are hard to forget (”War of the Worlds”). His intellectual musings, though, his philosophy—so touted in his day—are today discarded and forgotten. n sync, I’m confident, will certainly be discarded entirely.
As for Elliot Smith, as talented as he may have been, small, limited artists are also often forgotten… and that’s the tragedy of Art. Popularity isn’t necessarily what’s called for… but a certain amount of wide acceptance seems to be a key ingredient. I doubt Elliot really got to that stage in full before he died.
“popularity and POP CULTURE influence have nothing to do with musical talent”
I totally agree.
“dylan was a better musician then the beatles could ever dream of being…”
That’s a statement of opinion and one I don’t think is borne out by listenings to their music.
105. tjgrs - November 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
seriously, your missing the early years pretty bad, and the placement of different songs is jsut not good, but if it were to say in no particular order that would be better…no one will ever find the “best” beatles song, it’s impossible…i dont even have a favorite, just ones i like a lot one day and another i think is better the next
106. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
wearshades:
“I was just disproving your claim that no other british band was signed. “No other major English band had been signed to a record contract until the Beatles got theirs AND began turning out hits on the radio.” Shadows were pretty ‘Major.’”
No, they were not, wearshades. MAJOR is a term that we need to define. I think you very well know what I meant by it and are choosing again to merely gainsay me as a desperate attempt to support your overall argument. The Shadows are totally forgotten today—as ANYONE around you who they were. They were UTTERLY unknown in America. When I say MAJOR I mean artists of major standing be it artistic or popularity wise. Yes, The Shadows had a big following in Britain–but they were NOTHING compared to far better known and loved American artists that *dominated* the British musical scene.
You’re trying to grab at this one example you’ve heard of as a way of stabbing at my argument, but it simply won’t work. I never said there was NO British music scene before the Beatles. I said there was no MAJOR artist with a record contract in Britain before them. The Shadows simply don’t count, no matter what their following in Britain of the day. They weren’t even really a true group, and even Cliff Richard today is almost totally forgotten, and was even by mid decade, in the 60s. He made a comeback in the 70s though.
What you’re showing is that you don’t have a grasp on the historical context of the Beatles. You claim to have read “Shout” but apparently don’t understand what a different world it was then. This is a common error.
107. JMurf - November 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
2/1 odds on it gettin 200 comments before midnight
108. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
JMurf - That would be the most comments on any list!
109. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
wearshades:
AGAIN… the mere fact that SOME British bands EXISTED before the Beatles (and actually, probably not true—re-read “Shout” again—the Beatles, in a more or less central form, existed in the late 50s… but we’ll leave that nit aside to be picked later) means NOTHING. The vast majority of them had no HOPE of a recording contract before the Beatles… or if they got one, they would have been confined to Britain. You keep ignoring the fact that it was the Beatles who broke America for the FIRST TIME. No other British group or artist had made more than the merest dent in the US before them. And even before they got to the US, the Beatles had overwhelmed American influence in Britain by taking over the British musical scene. THAT is why other British groups began getting record contracts at home, and became popular. The Beatles lit a fire that they basked in.
This is a simple fact, and yes–that IS a fact. It’s history for god’s sake—history you can’t ignore.
Without the Beatles, the British musical scene almost certainly remains in the weak, shadowy state it was in before them. It existed, but only in the shadow of far more powerful American influences.
110. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“2/1 odds on it gettin 200 comments before midnight”
well it won’t be ME putting us there… I’m outta here soon. I’ve got stuff to do.
111. rp - November 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I think someone should create a list entitled “top ten reasons why George Bush is better than The Beatles. The site would need a new server for sure.
112. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
rp: haha - we are about to upgrade to a second dedicated server as it is! we couldn’t afford a third!
113. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Randall:
Well they apparently aren’t forgotten in America since I’m in America and I know of them. You should start working with the facts as they are rather than try to change them to suit your flawed argument. The Shadows were a major artist, several of the big groups would have existed without the Beatles as well. No one here is debating that the Beatles were not an influence on them, but they were not what caused them to exist. Chances are, albeit something unpopular with Beatles fanatics, some artist from Britain would have had the breakthrough to the US if the Beatles didn’t. Popular music has operated like this for years. During the 50s to early 60s the US dominated the music scene, then in the mid 60s to the late 70s the UK did, then in the 80s it went back to the US and stayed that way until about the mid 90s when it went back to the UK. Someone would have made the breakthrough, it just happened to be the Beatles. Now, I’m not trying to put the Beatles down, they were great. But they’ve been romanticized into this kind of godly role that while they are good, no one including them is really deserving of.
114. bucslim - November 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I’m still laughing about Paul McFuckhead.
115. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
wearshades:
Practically by your own admission, you had only heard of the Shadows because you read about them in “Shout.” No, you didn’t actually say that, but it’s the impression I certainly got. I don’t know you could have heard of them otherwise. They never had so much as a hit in the US even AFTER the Beatles got over here. NOW COME ON. I changed nothing to “suit my flawed argument.” The Shadows were NOT a “major” artist and by trying to claim they were you are now being worse than disingenous, you’ve descended into the pathetic.
The Shadows made NO INROAD into America. In Britain they were big, for a time–BY BRITISH STANDARDS OF THE DAY (i.e. pre-Beatles)—but by the mid-60s they were forgotten, and deservedly so. To call them a “major” artist is LAUGHABLE. Are you comparing them to the Beatles now, saying that the Shadows COULD have made the American breakthrough? COME OFF IT. Enough is enough.
“Chances are, albeit something unpopular with Beatles fanatics, some artist from Britain would have had the breakthrough to the US if the Beatles didn’t.”
On WHAT do you base this utterly insupportable, ludicrous statement? How OLD are you? Do you have ANY idea what the world was like then? Or do you assume it was just “a little” different from the way it’s been in your lifetime? I assure you it was an entirely different world, not simply “a little” different. Do you not understand that it was NOT common–that it was in fact UNHEARD of–for a British musical artist to make ANY kind of an impact in the US? When the Beatles made it, the vast majority of Americans didn’t even realize they HAD rock and roll in the UK.
“Popular music has operated like this for years.”
NO IT HASN’T, wearshades. That’s just it. You’re showing a clear lack of understanding of the difference between the world as it was then and the world you grew up with. There was no easy come and go between western pop cultures back then… NOTHING like it became after the Beatles.
“During the 50s to early 60s the US dominated the music scene, then in the mid 60s to the late 70s the UK did, then in the 80s it went back to the US and stayed that way until about the mid 90s when it went back to the UK.”
THAT’S WHERE YOU MAKE YOUR MISTAKE. You are not informed by history and not informed by direct experience of the times. Your statement her assumes a natural, totally expected cycle between American/UK dominance in pop culture or at least music. This in turn implies a British music scene of vitality and force that was just waiting for its turn to takeover from America. THIS IS WRONG. That cycle did NOT EXIST before the Beatles, and the British music scene was vapid and weak before the Beatles.
“Someone would have made the breakthrough, it just happened to be the Beatles.”
WRONG. This not only diminishes the Beatles with no supporting historical evidence… it’s simply dead wrong. There would have been NO earthly reason for any other British group of the day to have made an inroad into America. They didn’t have the popularity and sales at home to prove they were ‘different’ and no surrounding air of an unworldly “moment” that the Beatles had around them with Beatlemania. No other British group had that. Only the Beatles. It took that AND their sales in the UK, and their dominance in the UK, to finally make the breakthrough in the US. And even then it was an uphill battle. To think that any other British group of the day had that kind of power and associated popularity is just wrong, silly, and displays an ignorance of history.
This has NOTHING to do with “romanticizing” them into some “godly role.” It is a simple statement of historical fact and historical experience, the denial of which you CANNOT back up with even a shred of fact.
116. Mathilda - November 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
At the risk of being attacked, does anyone think that perhaps one of the main reasons for Beatles versus Led Zeppelin (or any other band) preference is the age and life circumstances of the listener when s/he first heard their music? So many people (including myself) really like particular artists that they first heard in their teenage years, when people usually have more time to listen to music, and certain songs become entwined with memories of first dates, first kisses, etc.
I’d bet most of us, upon hearing a few songs from our teenage years or early 20’s, can recall exact details of particular instances when we heard them. It seems much rarer to have that total recall when hearing a song that your first heard in your later years, no matter how much you may like it. Obviously a song playing during your first kiss will make you feel much more emotional than a song that you first heard on a random day when your boss yelled at you for being late on a project!
Having said that, Randall, I think your comment about people who do not “get into” the Beatles not having open minds was poorly worded. I would rather listen to Bach than either the Beatles or Led Zeppelin; I don’t feel that that indicates anything at all about me other than that I like baroque music. So you can all fight about whether Led Zeppelin or the Beatles will be remembered in 100 years; I’ll be listening to music that is still played almost 300 years later.
117. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Well Mathilda, of course, again, you make a good point. But I was speaking of the Beatles in context, really. There’s popular modern music as a form, and then there’s other forms—one of which is Baroque (which I too love). What I really meant was, for someone speaking in the *context* of modern, popular music, to deny the importance of the Beatles or downplay it, etc.—that’s what I was saying was “wrong.”
Your other point, about what music hits us at what point in our lives—is a good one… and surely has some validity. But the Beatles were a sort of strange background influence on me in my childhood—I didn’t really understand them or “know” them as such—I was much more enamored of the Bubblegum music of the day (late 60s/early 70s) when I was a child. I sort of “rediscovered” the Beatles later on… but maybe that doesn’t make any difference.
Having said that, the music of my youth/early adulthood that is associated with pleasant and/or powerful memories is Punk and New Wave from the late 70s and early 80s, when I was in high school and college. And as a result, of course, that music still forms a central point of my memories.
118. rafs - November 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
this is a hard list to make with so many possibilities but nice job. i wouldn’t have thought to put baby you’re a rich man, good choice!. the 2 that come to mind that i would’ve put are penny lane and here comes the sun in place of day tripper and maybe lucy.
119. Dana - November 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
You opened a can of worms here as everyone has their favorite Beatles songs…and I see 116 comments so far! Overall, I think it’s a wonderful list and I think you picked the creme de la Beatles!
120. rp - November 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Dana, I think the said can of worms being opened had less to do with the topic and more to do with the the evil triumvirate of Lester Bungs, a club, and one very dead horse.
121. dazednconfused - November 6th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
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.
122. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
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.
123. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
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.
124. Randall - November 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
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.
125. Rey - November 6th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I love Here Comes the Sun for the sole reason that I love hearing it when my dad’s band plays it.
126. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
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.
127. Mathilda - November 6th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
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.
128. WearShades - November 6th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
“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.
129. Amanda - November 6th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
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. :/
130. Monkey - November 6th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
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.
131. Monkey - November 6th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Oh, and Paul McFuckhead was freakin’ hilarious!
132. jay - November 7th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Randall: You sound like a complete C@#T. Piss off and masturbate your ego elsewhere.
133. Yarr - November 7th, 2007 at 7:10 am
It’s somehow probably a Bush/Cheney conspiracy that “I’ve Just Seen A Face” isn’t on here, but I digress…
134. Randall - November 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“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 *