Show Mobile Navigation
 
Music

Top 15 Beatles Songs

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



  • evan

    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 :)

    • yno

      if you like Led Zeppln then why are you here?

    • matt

      Let it be overrated! A DAY IN THE LIFE FTW! “i want to turnnnn youuuu onnnnnn….”

    • Clifford

      Hmm that’s a shame. I seem to have made it to the comments four years late. Damn you time travel!

  • Joe Skepsis

    Not enough George.

    ..Wait.

    There's NO George!!!

    Gah! *picks up hammer and hunts down contributor*

    • Exactly–looks like a Lennon fan to me.

    • matt

      OMG you’re so right. Taxman, Within you Without you, Gently Weeps, ALL OF THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED (and could easily replace #15)

  • torn and frayed

    Screw the Beatles, the Rolling Stones were/are superior in every way!

    • Go-Do

      yeah… you're alone on this one mister…

      • JamesD

        Wow. How silly…

      • JamesD

        I’m referring to ‘torn and frayed’ by the way.

    • yno

      not to mention that the first Rolling Stones hit is the Beatles song dumbass

  • bucslim

    Uh, dude, yer gonna have to start with ‘Yesterday’ and go from there methinks. . . .

  • Mike

    Blackbird!! Come on people! :D

  • RockChalk

    My favorite at the moment is While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

  • JOE ROSSON

    I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND!!!

  • JOE ROSSON: shouldn’t we get to know each other better first? :)

  • Randall

    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.

  • heavybison

    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

  • 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.

  • bucslim

    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!

  • deedee0323

    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”??

  • EAL

    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

  • TMo

    While my guitar gently weeps and Yesterday should be there. And every other song they have, oh well.

  • 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 :)

  • Aud

    Jamie you are a god!

  • JT

    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.

  • bucslim

    j – I’m your most humble list commenting bitch. Bring it on.

  • Randall

    “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.

    • Foxall

      Sweet Story -.-…Yesterday is a great song. could care less if its overplayed or underplayed! Paul’s lyrics are always legit

  • No Penny Lane? Aww….OR Hello Goodbye? I LOVE that one! And where would my life be without Twist and Shout?!

  • WearShades

    I was fine with this list, even though it’s not what I would have picked. But…

    WHY NO TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS?!?!?!?

  • WearShades

    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.

  • DarkJesus

    Are you all CRAZY!?

    I am the walrus.

  • 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. >=(

  • evan

    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.

    • A oo

      BOO. U SUCkk

  • evan

    for some reason i cannot edit my post, replace wearshades with Randall, my bad wearshades…

  • Carl

    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!

  • Randall

    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.

  • rp

    I guess Jamie should update his list on “Ways to seem smarter than you are” with – Bashing Led Zeppelin.

  • TMo

    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

  • JT

    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.

  • evan: done.

  • evan

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • Monkey

    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

  • Randall

    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…

  • evan

    “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…

  • Randall

    “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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • WearShades

    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.

  • evan

    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.

  • Borg

    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?

  • WearShades

    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?

  • evan

    lol in reference to post 40, hahaha no you’re just being pathetic, thanks for the laugh..

  • evan

    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?

  • WearShades

    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.

  • 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.

  • thatguy

    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.

  • bucslim

    Can’t we all just get along?

    • Jimmy

      Your avatar goes great with that statement. haha

  • 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.

    • peter the master debater

      Plural of Mary is Maries? …Not Mary’s …ok…

  • young’n

    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

  • evan

    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.

  • evan

    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.

  • rp

    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”.

  • rp

    Maybe it’s your browser, evan? I’m using firefox and have no problems.

  • Randall

    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.

  • evan

    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.

  • StewWriter

    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!

  • WearShades

    “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.

  • Randall

    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?

  • heavybison

    While on the subject of Beatles…check this out dudes..
    http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3674/pid.html

  • bucslim

    I guess the answer is no.

  • Randall

    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?

  • WearShades

    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.

  • Randall

    bucslim:

    “getting along” is boring, isn’t it?

  • heavybison: haha – I was going to include that on top 10 conspiracy theories :)

  • WearShades

    “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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • bucslim

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • 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.”

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • 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.”

    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.

  • bucslim: I am pleading the 5th :)

  • Randall

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • 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.”

    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.

  • 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.”

    Well if you understood the word you wouldn’t have thought I was really comparing this debate to chess.

  • Borg

    Who would have thought that THIS list would have contained the more heated debate of today’s lists? The internet sure is weird.

  • WearShades

    I’m sure jfrater doesn’t mind.

  • young’n

    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

  • bucslim

    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.

  • WearShades

    Blood On The Tracks was 1974, but it is a great album.

  • young’n

    which is after 1965 lol…dylan has quantity, quality, and time
    beatles had lsd and buddhism and still couldnt get along

  • Randall

    young’n… kiss your mother with that mouth, do you?

    Paul McFuckhead is the funniest thing I’ve seen all day.

  • WearShades

    Ah, I missed the “on.” My bad, you’re right.

  • WearShades

    “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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • WearShades

    I can honestly say I haven’t, the idea never crossed my mind. Apparently it’s on yours, however.

  • young’n

    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

  • Randall

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • evan

    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.

  • 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.”

    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.

  • young’n

    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

  • JMurf

    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

  • JMurf

    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

  • JMurf: I love I am the walrus – thanks for mentioning it

  • Randall

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • I think this list must get the record for most comments in a short time :)

  • WearShades

    “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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • tjgrs

    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

  • Randall

    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.

  • JMurf

    2/1 odds on it gettin 200 comments before midnight

  • JMurf – That would be the most comments on any list!

  • Randall

    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.

  • Randall

    “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.

  • rp

    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.

  • rp: haha – we are about to upgrade to a second dedicated server as it is! we couldn’t afford a third!

  • WearShades

    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.

  • bucslim

    I’m still laughing about Paul McFuckhead.

  • Randall

    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.

  • Mathilda

    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. :)

  • Randall

    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.

  • rafs

    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.

  • 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!

  • rp

    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.

  • 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.

  • WearShades

    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.

  • WearShades

    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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • Rey

    I love Here Comes the Sun for the sole reason that I love hearing it when my dad’s band plays it. :)

  • WearShades

    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.

  • Mathilda

    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.

  • WearShades

    “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.

  • Amanda

    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. :/

  • Monkey

    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.

  • Monkey

    Oh, and Paul McFuckhead was freakin’ hilarious!

  • jay

    Randall: You sound like a complete [email protected]#T. Piss off and masturbate your ego elsewhere.

  • Yarr

    It’s somehow probably a Bush/Cheney conspiracy that “I’ve Just Seen A Face” isn’t on here, but I digress…

  • Randall

    “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.

  • TMo

    Randall wins. Even though there is no “A)” in his “A)-B)-C)” structure.

  • Randall

    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.

  • Hobolad

    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.

  • jay

    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.

  • Monkey

    Jay – Oh snap! lol

  • jay

    Thanks Monkey, at least somebody thinks the same as I do!

  • Randall

    Jay, you know… it never seems to occur to assholes 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.

  • evan

    “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!

  • evan

    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

  • Randall

    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 “asshole” 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.

  • evan

    “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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • jay

    HAHAHAH!!!!

  • Randall

    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.

  • Pingback: Las 15 mejores canciones de los Beatles [VID] // menéame()

  • Hobolad

    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.

  • evan

    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.

  • evan

    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.

  • jay

    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 – piss off and masturbate your ego in private.

  • Randall

    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 “piss 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.

  • Randall

    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.

  • Hobolad

    “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?

  • TMo

    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”)

  • jay

    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..

  • Hobolad

    Could be, not got ’em at hand at the mo’ but it sounds likely.

    EAL- There’s your answer, courtesy of TMo!

  • Randall

    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.

  • jay

    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

  • jay

    Sorry Randall, that doesn’t cut it as a reply. I don’t buy it, and I’d be surprised if anyone else did..

  • jay

    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.

  • jay

    What, not enough time to do your research? Never heard of the Hacienda? Wikipedia, Quick!!!! Sorry Randall, all credibility lost…

  • Hobolad

    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.

  • amoondoo

    where is “i am the walrus” wtf?!?!?

    or “help!”

    i love the beatles….and the movie Across the Universe

  • jay

    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..

  • Hobolad

    “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 :)

  • jay

    Granted..

  • jay

    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…

  • jay

    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 :)

  • mix2323

    cool lets make it the most commented

  • JMurf

    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 :)

  • bucslim

    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 pissed, 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 McFuckhead)

  • dvhann

    i love a day in the life.

  • Point goes to bucslim and the game is over!

  • lando

    …………eh just for the heck of it

  • Yarr

    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.

  • WearShades

    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.

  • WearShades

    Evan:

    It’s fruitless to argue with this degenerate any longer, as he offers you none of the colloquials that he relies on to force his uneducated opinion down your throat. If you state something as an opinion, he’ll demand evidence. If he makes a claim as fact without evidence, he’ll claim it requires none. He also claims to have divine powers, like the ability to fully predict what would happen had the Beatles not broken through. He doesn’t know what would happen, but because he thinks he does any other argument does not pass through his mind. He has not considered one thing you, me, or anyone disagreeing with him has said, meaning he is truly closed minded. I believe that you are like me in that we have considered his conclusions, the problem is that they are not logical ones. I’m sure he’ll respond to this in predictable fashion; he’ll rant about “a lack of musical education” and some more garbage related to how he’s older than us and therefore understands the sixties, a decade in which he was no older than four years old during. And I think someone made a good point, as the argument went on his credibility sunk lower. I doubt he has even listened to half the stuff he claims he has, he probably just reads some critics “best of” list and adopts those opinions. A lot of people are like this, and it’s a shame one of them found their way onto a site that otherwise has been a home for constructive discussion and debate.

  • Just finished reading all these comments…

    Randall: You are a fool of the highest order.

    Which band is ‘best’ is entirely a matter of opinion, and just because someone prefers Zep to the Beatles shouldnt be any concern on yours. Just because you are older than other people doesnt make your opinions any more valid than theirs.

    I personally don’t like either band, but I don’t go on at other people who do like them about how much better Queen are.

    “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).”

    This is complete bullshit. I am into ‘Heavy Metal’, and I’m not an ‘arrested adolescent’. Who the fuck are you to make statements like that. I work with people in their late 30s and 40s (i.e. older than you, since that seems to matter so much)) who are into metal. They don’t have adolescent mindsets, as they have jobs, they look after their families etc.

    In your first post you stated: “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”. Your own arguments have contradicted this statement so much it’s laughable. Why don’t YOU keep an open mind and accept that people have different tastes from you.

  • Clues

    Bucslim: That was so funny it made me cry a little! Thanks.

  • Rey

    Bucslim: 1
    Hilarity: 1
    Flames: 0

    Way to detoxify the discussion mate. :D

  • bucslim

    Wheeeeee!

  • Another day, another battle!

  • aplspud

    We played “In My Life” at my mother’s memorial, though her truly favorite song was “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road”

  • evan

    Come on guys, I think we’re beating a dead horse here. Everyone’s stated their points and their comments stand for all to read. Randall has posted somewhat of an attempt to apologize for his “not get into them” comment. I don’t think Randall or wearshades will ever agree on their debate, so continuing it seems fruitless. Lets move on to the next heated top list :)

  • WearShades

    evan:

    Well why don’t you get us started by making a new list. :)

  • evan

    I’m working on one, though its not original (it was made by the history channel), I still have to write up the original descriptions each.

    Top 10 firearms that changed the world. I’m sure not only will people debate the ones listed, but I’m guessing it will turn into a pro/anti gun debate too :)

  • WearShades

    Make sure to include the “Chicago Typewriter.”

  • evan

    if you are referring to the Thompson Machinegun, nope not on the list, oh controversy already and it hasn’t even been posted yet! Remember its guns that changed the world, not best guns :)

    stay tuned, hopefully ill have it finished by Monday, though its my birfday weekend so who knows…

  • evan: I am looking forward to receiving your list!

  • Hobolad

    “Top 10 firearms that changed the world. I’m sure not only will people debate the ones listed, but I’m guessing it will turn into a pro/anti gun debate too :)”

    Yay! See you there :)

    EDIT: Happy birthday by the way!

  • WearShades

    I can’t say I’m disappointed until I see what did make the list. Just keep in mind, it made the Chicago mob scene of the 20s possible (and caused the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre).

  • Wow – five comments away from 200! Impressive guys :)

  • WearShades

    Was this the kind of attention you had in mind when you opened the site jfrater?

  • evan

    wearshades, i dont think the tommy gun made the mob scene possible, it did escalate the violence to a higher level though. it was one of many tools of the trade avaible like the .38 revolver, .45 1911 and my personal fav of the mob scene, the beast of a weapon, The B.A.R.

  • WearShades

    True, but it was a major player. It was a very light automatic and certainly made the violence that much worse.

  • WearShades

    200 messages, happy jfrater?

  • evan

    hoooray!

  • WearShades: YAY! Break out the champers! Luckily I have a vintage Moet and Chandon in the cupboard – time to pull it out!

  • Frater, Fluffums! You’ve done it! Whilst I was “hunting and pecking” away, WearShades and evan et al nipped in before me and triumphed, you rotters!
    Can I beg a mo, and comment about the Beatles thing, though?
    Alright, I know Randall has got a rather unfortunate way of insinuating himself up peoples’ snouts, but he really is correct about the state of UK entertainment in the sixties.
    OK, so we had some pastiche rock singers like Gene Vincent and Billy Fury, but the majority of the performers were feeble….girl singers with vast sequinned dresses singing chirpy songs; middle of the road performers like Shirley Bassey and Matt Munro,and of course Cliff Richard and The Shadows.
    Yes, the Shadows were Cliff Richards’ backing group, and their fans were the type of people who found Elvis a bit too sexy!
    It was all very yawn-inducing, except for the fact that Liverpool was across the river from the Wirral (where I lived) and everybody knew someone who went to America on the liners who could bring back records. This was the music we preferred to listen to, and it was the stuff that the Beatles played at the start of their careers.
    My cousin and me used to use our dinner-money to catch a bus from our(separate) high schools on the Wirral, catch the Seacombe and Woodside ferries over the river,race up to Matthew St to the Cavern just to spend 20 minutes ogling the groups before doing the whole thing in reverse!
    There was an almost tangible “crackle” in the air around this time,although there were still bomb-sites around Merseyside and the place still looked battered,there was a feeling that something good was coming. The Art Schools were a big part of this,and seemed to act as a channel for the out-pouring of art,fashion,textiles,graphics etc which combined with the music to make us feel hopeful and excited. Randall mentioned that Americans were reeling from the Kennedy assassination,and I can also remember the prayers at School Assembly during the Cuban Missile crisis
    when we were all extremely frightened. After all this, we were ready for the new, whether it was music, clothes, comedians etc.
    The Shadows were weedy copies of what America already had, but the Beatles were different; gutsier, more intelligent, and right for the time.
    Having said that, Hey Jude is my favourite Beatle’s song, but I also love cathedral organ, choral music, Eastern Orthodox church music, ELO, T Rex, Queen, Eric Clapton, Moby, Semisonic and on and on. Cheer-Up! I’m going to bed now.
    (I’m even older than Randall…..Woo!)

  • lando

    ……you people…..it’s the beatles

  • Uberplum: great comment – I felt like I was there!

  • Pingback: Top 15 Rock Riffs of All Time - The List Universe()

  • Randall

    Uberplum:

    Thank you for backing me up on this, at least to the extent you did.

    As to my way of getting up people’s snouts… Oh well. Somebody’s gotta do it. It’s more fun than sitting at home watching the news, I guess. Autumn’s here now and I can’t get outside as much as I used to to annoy the neighbors.

    By the way… somebody got irked about the “arrested adolescent” remark. Too bad. And yeah, somebody CAN be in their 30s or 40s (or older) and still be an “arrested adolescent.” That’s what “arrested adolescent” *means.*

  • JMurf

    What pisses me off most is why nobody is bitchin’ on about Pink Floyd, that and of course randall :P

  • aplspud

    Someone must have told a really funny joke before they started filming “We Can Work it Out” judging by how John mugs for the camera throughout. What a goof!

  • Pingback: A Month in Review - November - The List Universe()

  • Randall talks to much!

    Randall you talk to much!!!

  • JamesW

    really bad dude. not gonna lie. some good stuff..but c’mon.
    Yesterday.
    While My Guitar Gently Weeps.
    Here Comes the Sun.
    Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End.
    Plus, you’re little “I love this song” comments leads me to believe that this isnt the Beatles top 15…it’s your favorite top 15.
    Take your opinion, mix it with others, compile a list, and then show me what you got. I agree with some songs though

  • Crystal

    Okay, I don’t know if this has already been said (I’m too lazy to press Crtl+F), but Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is a drug referance to LSD.

  • Dana

    JamesW: Ask 15 different Beatles fans for their favorite song and you’ll get 20 different answers. No matter what, these lists are usually going to be matters of opinions.

    Crystal: John Lennon has said over and over again that the song referred to a drawing his son Julian made and the “LSD” initials were just a big coincidence.

  • JamesW

    You’re right Dana

  • jbjr

    Very entertaining reading! AS far as the list goes – Come together and Hey Jude are my favs. All the early hits are great also.

  • Rosa

    The Fool on the Hill!!!!! She’s Leaving Home!!!!! I at least expected to see The Fool on the Hill here…These are very sad and depressing songs…. yet somehow very real-life. Hasnt anyone else heard them?

  • after reading on this site for a week and finally regestering..must say sorry about waiting to do so…i came acroos the blog reference about this listand how contreverseual it was. i think you might get the same response if there were lists of the 15 best dylan,stones ,zep etc. a top 15 of dr hook would have to include “freakin at the freakers ball’yes i love dr hook but im a real dylan nut so i wont even try on that one

  • Pingback: Top 10 Most Commented On Lists - The List Universe()

  • Bananas

    WHAT ABOUT REVOLUTION 9???!!! THAT IS ONE OF THE GREAT SONGS EVER RECORDED! HAVE YOU PLAYED IT BACKWARDS?

  • swampsnake: great ideas – thanks :)

    Bananas: I thought that the backwards playback of Beatles music was an urban legend – is it not?

  • brady

    WHERE THE FUCK IS SEARGENT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND

  • Slammerworm

    How can there be a ‘top 15’ when there’s essentially a ‘Beatles’ for everyone. Want ‘punk’? ‘Live At The Star Club 1962’. Schmaltz? Original version of ‘Let It Be’. Hard workin’ R’n’B band? ‘She’s A Woman’. Weirdo indie experimentation? ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’. This not to mention acoustic music, lovely noisy ‘Helter Skelter’, nasty rockers, soulful pop and so on. Personally, no list of a mere 15 would miss out ‘Please Please Me’ and ‘She Loves You’. That’s some kick-ass pop.

  • Sam

    Where’s Across the Universe?

  • delioglan

    Help!!
    I need somebody!!

    shouldn’t miss that one out guys ;)

  • Pingback: Top 10 Things I Have Learnt From This Site - The List Universe()

  • Hacbarton

    That’s the wonderful thing about the Beatles, to me, is that they can cover so much ground. Every listener has different priorities for the music they like, so everyone is going to like a different taste of the Beatles, and place different songs in a different preferential order. For me, “A Day In The Life” has to be #1 and “Norwegian Wood” follows a close second.

  • kingleum

    it seems as though i am a few months behind the bulk of this discussion, but i will put in my two cents regardless. i enjoy the beatles in small doses, and you cannot argue w/ their talent. however their early stuff catered almost exclusively to 13 year-old girls. i think its funny that kids now look at the beatles as being connected to the hippies/counterculture, when in reality they were about as counterculture as the backstreet boys. i havent read all comments, but i havent seen BOB DYLAN mentioned once. in terms of progression, at the same time the beatles were churning out sugary hits like “i wanna hold your hand”, dylan was recording “chimes of freedom”…

  • SocialButterfly

    Personall my favourite Beatles song (if I had to pick just one) would be When I’m Sixety-Four.

    I’m getting married in 8 months and that is our first dance.

  • JwJwBean

    I have to say my 11 yr old son loves the Beatles. Well my 13 yr old does too. The 13 yr old played Yellow Submarine on the piano last year in the talent show at school. Last night my 11 yr old played Get back on the piano at school. My 13 yr old is now in the middle school and tried out for the talent show playing Something (he should hear today if he gets in). My 11 yr old is debating about singing Eleanor Rigby or playing it on the piano. I said to start practicing now and he could do both.

  • Bananas

    J: Acually, people turn up their radios really loud and think they hear it. i do. In strawberry fields Forever you can hear I BURIED PAUL at the end

  • Emily

    All you need is love people. Any music is good music as long as someone likes it. No one’s band is superior to another’s, that isn’t the point. I love the Beatles, and modern music would not be what it is if it wasn’t for them, but everyone is entitled to their opnion. Just wondering though, if you’re not that into the Beatles why are you reading this?

  • Ruairi

    228 – he says “cranberry sauce”…which makes more sense than “i buried paul”…and cranberry sauce doesnt make that much sense…

  • Pingback: Latest Top 10 Most Commented on Lists - The List Universe()

  • J

    How ’bout ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE or ACROSS THE UNIVERSE

  • codman

    i never got into the beatles. some of their songs are alright but they’re just not that good. led zeppelin on the other hand is the greatest band ever.

  • Jess

    Lucy in the Sky with Diamond was written about LSD. The initials of the song title stand for LSD.

  • maria

    while my guitar gently weeps should definitely be on this list. wtf man

  • maria

    across the universe also,. and john lennon would agree with me because he believed that was the best song he ever wrote for the beatles.

  • maria

    and who made up this list anyway

  • SlickWilly

    Maria: Yes, but Paul would disagree with you. He absolutely hated that song, and has gone on record saying it was one of his least favorite songs in the entire catalogue. :)

  • Simons

    The long and winding road and yesterday, not to mention blackbird and across the universe.

  • Eric Gmeinder

    What is Hey Jude doing down at #8?

  • woody2327

    The Beatles main influences were Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly and The Crickets, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent, etc.
    Led Zeppelin’s main influences were Robert Johnson, Memphis Minnie, ‘Blind Lemon’ Jefferson, Sonny Boy Williams, Hubert ‘Leadbelly’ Ledbetter, etc. (These people were 1920’s-1930’s Amercian Blues artists)
    It’s interesting that those who influenced The Beatles were influenced by those who influenced Led Zeppelin. Influentially speaking.

    Revolution # 9

  • warningdontreadthis

    I’m saying this once.
    “While my guitar gently weeps.”

    It should so be here and you know it!!

  • warningdontreadthis

    Oh and where the hell is “Iam the walrus.”?

  • The beatles made rubbish songs for the millions of sheep that just jumped on the bandwagon. At least Led Zeppelin songs actually sounded different to each other.

  • hippie3

    Come on guys…

    where is:
    I am the walrus
    magical mystery tour
    ob-la-di, ob-la-da
    dear prudence

    hey atleast you got a day in the life right. =]

  • jaime to die for

    listen my friends. SHUT THE HELL UP!!!! This is nonsense cant we all just agree that the beatles are great and just move on. why try debating whos better its pointless and time consuming. believe me ive tried and failed. people are just so stubborn to lose.

  • jaime to die for

    is everyone prepared for the rapture? it might not happen to day but it will happen and when it does i hope you all have accepted jesus christ as youre savior! seriously it would be sad to not have a whole bunch of debaters go to hell and not to heaven

  • SlickWilly

    …ooookkaaayyy…

  • toolnut

    Wooooooow!! That was a little off topic.

  • alana

    i disagree with a lot of this list. i have been brought up with the beatles… by the time I was 2 I knew all their names and what instruments they played, and by the time I was 4 I was able to tell who wrote/sang each beatles song. my ipod contains over 800 beatles songs… every studio recording and a ton of shows and bootlegs. point is…. although i love most of the songs on here to death, this list kind of sucks, it’s basically just a collection of all their most famous songs.
    among many others it is missing

    while my guitar gently weeps
    golden slumbers/carry that weight/the end
    blackbird
    something
    oh! darling
    for no one
    here, there and everywhere
    cry baby cry
    here comes the sun
    because
    mother nature’s son
    tomorrow never knows
    the fool on the hill
    within you without you
    she’s leaving home
    dear prudence
    hey bulldog

    i do like that you added nowhere man, happiness is a warm gun, a day in the life, norwegian wood, elanor rigby, revolution 1, and baby you’re a rich man. those are also among my favorites.

    as for led zeppelin being better than the beatles??
    you’ve got to be out of touch with reality to even consider that.
    the beatles are the pioneers of rock music and the most influential… you can be pretty damn sure that most or all of your favorite bands had some amount of influence from the beatles.

    “And in the end, the love you make is equal to the love you take…”

  • alana

    haha by the way i agree, the rapture rules

    ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN IM FLOATING IN A CONSTANT HEAVEN

  • jaime to die for

    hey random is as random does. so shut up

    the beatles are the best eva cuz theyz rok so much yay!!!

  • R

    The ads you’ve decided to include on your page are disappointing. I understand there is money to be made with your business venture, but when I scroll down an interesting list and I am faced with an advert asking “Are You Dumb?, Take This Quiz” it bothers me. JFrater, you have something great here, don’t turn it into another shitty site.

  • travis

    In the description for “Let It Be,” you talk about “Mother Mary Magdalene.” There was no “Mother Mary Magdalene.” There was Jesus’ mother, Mary, and then there was Mary Magdalene, who was not a mother. I know I’m nit-picky, but that really bothered me. And how can one make a list of the “best” of anything? It’s just opinions. However, I did read the list and I’m commenting on it, so I must be at least intrigued.

  • CK2005

    The only Beatles song I don’t like is The Continuing Story of Bungalo Bill. Other than that, every Beatles song should be on this list. Since you’re working with 15, I’d say you did a fine job. I personally would’ve included Helter Skelter, but it’s not my list ;)

  • southparklover

    i am a HUGE beatles fan and all of those listed are good… and the ones people added are good… but the thing is, you can’t make a list like this when there are soooooo many absolutely great songs! every single they put out was chart topping. i guess we can say that every song is their top 15!!

  • C-Girl17

    awesome list… i can safely say i’m a huge beatles girl. but wheres penny lane ?? =[

  • Jack

    Penny lane is in Liverpool, UK.

  • Cliff

    Where’s In My Life and Something?

  • Nova

    The super high note at the end of A Day in the Life – I can hear that. It starts at 5:06 and goes to 5:10. It’s right before it starts the – “never could be any other way”

  • Darya

    WUT? I miss “In My Life” and “Penny Lane”

    And not only dogs can hear that note – young people, too^^

  • alakdan13

    while my guitar gently weeps and blackbird are the best for me.
    and I think helter skelter was one of the first punk songs.

  • Personally, I like Helter Skelter.

  • alakdan13

    yah, me too maxwell..

  • Christian

    where is here comes the sun? something? In my life?

  • noeyelmel

    I think that a lot of people, especially guys who have never been in love and the guys who have had very few girls usually don’t like the beatles because they are essentually a romantic group.They are also wonderfully child like which turns a lot of people off, but guess what, that’s a great quality for a poet to have.
    I just always found it fascinating that so many hard core rockers couldn’t see the Beatles because they were looking too hard for that superficial macho thing rather than an ultra European group with its roots in classical tradition.
    They were definately the most educated of the 60s rockers and the most effective and successful group ever.

  • Cynthia

    Across the Universe? Lovely Rita?

  • adam

    I just lol’d at ‘Paul McFuckhead’. (#82)

    I’m still waiting for someone to off that Yoko bitch. She’s a bigger fuckhead than MR. McFuckhead.

    Oh, and the Beatles are shit. They were the the N’sync of their time. Until I read this I had forgotten them. Oh well, I’ll get back to listening to my Zeppelin now.

  • andubrutus

    look up “Mashup – The Beatles + Pantera” on youtube. It’s unbelievable how well the two songs go together.

  • bucslim

    Paul McFuckhead was probably the funniest thing I’ve read on this site. (other than my own comments)

  • Nor Yelmel

    I totally agree with Monkey, Zeplin and The Beatles both kick major butt in different ways.There´s no accounting for taste, what you like is good for you.As for me me , I´m proibably older than most of you and an admitted ex acid head rock fanatic but I love the music, especially, You can´t do that, rain, Maxwell´s silver hammer, Lovely Rita, I am the walrous, actually a lot of the stuff gets better throiugh the years.
    Don´t fight so much you guys, it makes you sound stupid!

  • Duality2000

    First of all, great list! Personally, I am hard pressed to choose only 15 Beatles songs, because I believe that they are all great in their own way. Some of their songs are better than others, but that is my opinion so there’s really no way to prove that. The facts are that some songs are more polished, while others are more raw. Some are lyrically more mature and inspired, while others are lyrically less interesting. Some songs have more elaborate arrangements and others are quite sparse. Some are extremely creative, or even innovative at times, while other songs are just pop songs with a good hook. Other songs are quite brilliant musically, and others are almost childlike in their simplicity.

    If you’re looking for a good analysis of the Beatles’ body of work musically, “Twilight Of the Gods” by Wilfrid Howard Mellers is an interesting read. Although much theory is presented, you don’t have to be a music major or scholar to understand the author’s explanations. There is a glossary that defines the musical terms used in the book, and the author explains his interpretations in a way that the average lay person can easily understand.

    As far as Zeppelin vs. the Beatles is concerned, this is a bit like deciding whether you like ice cream, or cake. I personally like them both, and while I prefer ice cream, sometimes I eat cake too. So what music is superior, country or blues? Without either genre, we wouldn’t have rock ‘n’ roll! Do you prefer Mozart, or Beethoven? Can it really be determined whose music is superior? Do you like Carl Perkins or Chuck Berry? I personally love them both. My opinion is that Chuck Berry is a better lyricist and story teller, and that Carl Perkins is a better guitarist and musician. The exact opposite of my opinion could be argued, but how can it be proved? It can’t anymore than I can prove my opinion. While I think that both groups were great, I’d cast my vote for the Beatles, based on personal preference.

  • Duality2000

    Travis, to answer your question about ‘mother Mary’ from the song “Let It Be”: For the record the ‘mother Mary’ refered to in “Let it Be”, is not Jesus’ mother from the bible. Although the song sounds very gospel influenced and has religous connotations, they were unintentional. The ‘mother Mary’ Paul is singing about coming to him in a dream is his own mother, whose name is Mary, coincidentally.

  • Duality2000

    …Or should I say was named Mary. Paul’s mother died when he was 14 years old.

  • Duality2000

    “The super high note at the end of A Day in the Life – I can hear that. It starts at 5:06 and goes to 5:10. It’s right before it starts the – “never could be any other way.”

    Nova, you are refering to two different things. The “Sgt. Pepper Inner Groove” (which was the runout groove on the orignal vinyl album) has a very high pitched note at the beginning which most people can hear. On the CD, this can be heard after silence a few minutes after “A Day In The Life” ends. This was done to preserve the feel of the original album.

    On “A Day In the Life” itself, there is in fact a Dog whistle that was recorded into the mix, and it is completely inaudible to the human ear. The dog whistle is allegedly blown during or at the end of the orchestral cresendo, just before the “Woke up, fell out of bed…” part of the song. It has been reported that some dogs will start barking during this part of the song for no apparent reason.

    For the record, the lyrics of the ‘inner groove’ are “Never could see any other one”. During the “Paul is dead hoax” of 1969 it was claimed that if you played the ‘inner groove’ backwards, it sounded like “We will f*** you like supermen”. It actually sounds more like “I will party like a superman” to my trained ears. Just thought I’d clear that up as well as throw some interesting factoids out there. Peace =)

  • JoyStar

    I don’t care how old this list is but i simply must comment! Only a madman or someone that doesn’t truly know all off The Beatles music would ever leave ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’ off a Top Beatles Songs list…it’s an outrage!
    Anyway i don’t care if people love other bands more – i’m sure we can all agree that The Beatles are awesome!

  • Mark

    All of these Beatles fans saying that someone who likes Led Zeppelin more is a moron or has a closed mind shouls probably think before they comment. No secrets, I hate the Beatles and love Zeppelin so I will admit that I am HUGELY biased, but saying that someon like evan has a closed mind…. What are you on? Do you know the meaning of the word hypocrite? Not wanting to offend anyone – but knowing I will – I finish this gloriously intelligent and Zeppelin-tilted comment with the completely unbiased opinion. Zeppelin rules!

  • nor yelmel

    Howdy:
    I love both the Beatles and Zeplin for different reasons.Your like for one group doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive and neither group would want to be pitted against the other. I’m sure that the remaining members of Zeplin love the Beatles and vice versa. In fact aren’t they actually good old friends? Almost every English rocker, no matter how rocky or ex- speed freakish (Jimmy Page)listens to a certain amount of Beatles stuff with a great degree of satisfaction,delight, nostalgia…etc.
    There’s no reason to fight over it.
    But I do have to say that if you don’t like the Beatles then you have no place in this blog except as a flame baiting anger filled hate monger with [email protected]#$% for brains.
    This is a Beatles blog,and obviously not for you.Go away!

  • Clarkeeee

    Unbelievable that there is any debate on Beatles v Led Zep. For one the Beatles openned the door for there to be a Led Zepplin. The Yardbirds are much more important than Zepplin within the context of progressing music to the next level. Zepp had some good riffs but really their influance does not expand more further than the confines of rock. The Beatles sphere of influeance reaches far further because they covered more bases and their impact on mordern popular culture was life changing for much of the worlds population who where shown by the Beatles that you don’t have to be like your parents if you didn’t want ot be. In one word the Beatles introduced “HIP” to the masses. I guess you could compare it as such the Beatles = Shakespear (i.e. creates and defines the language) and Zepplin = Dickens (Very good at manipulating the already defined language). Zepplin are a good band even if they are over indulgent but really they are not the innovators that the Beatles where or the Stones for that matter.

  • Mark

    What? Where to start :)

    nor yelmel: Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath had a HUGE falling out with the Beatles near the end of the 60’s I believe it was. Sabbath is most famous for not reconciling, but Zeppelin’s “apology” was Jimmy saying sorry at the end of one of their pre-Zep IV, no crowd to speak of, shows. It is also HUGELY unreasonable for someone to say that evan’s comment was illogical and subjectively wrong. It’s an opinion, how can it be wrong? That’s all I was saying, that was definitely not a flame bait. Your reply on the other hand was rather unreasonable, I didn’t say, ThEm BeAtLeS iS HOMOS!!!!1 I simply said that I don’t like them, which obviously offends you, a lot. I’m sorry but if you want to acuse me of being a “flame baiting anger filled hate monger with [email protected]#$% for brains” (nice one by the way), this blog probably isn’t the place. Or at least have a decent reason to do it.

    Clarkeeee: Hmm… For someone who advocates for The Yardbirds over Zeppelin you seem to miss the fact that it wasn’t The Beatles that paved the way for Zeppelin but rather The Yardbirds and Jimmy’s vision were responsible. The Beatles music was hugely popular, but they didn’t create pop culture like you imply that they did. Ever heard of some wonderful things like: Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, James Dean. The list goes on, similarities, all pre-Beatles, hugely popular (especially among younger audiences) pop culture. I agree with you that the Stones also had a huge impact, but I would count on a Beatles fan to COMPLETELY miss Zeppelin’s huge influence to the world of heavy rock 9 out of 10 times. Congratulations, you’re one of the 9. Listen to some modern “hard” rock (Wolfmother would be a great start – I’m Australian, can you tell?), then some old Zeppelin, the influence is apparent in the first 4 bars, and it sounds nothing like The Yardbirds. I’m actually more of a Jimmy Page fan than a Zeppelin fan so believe it or not I love The Yardbirds as well. By the way, very gentle tip (not trying to embarrass you or attack you in any way, don’t over-react), look up zeppelin in a dictionary, your spelling’s a bit off.

  • nor yelmel

    Oh, I’m not saying that you’re wrong in any way.It’s not a matter of right or wrong.If you think that Zeplin is better then they are better FOR YOU. But you aren’t the center of the universe either.Our opinions are just as valid as yours like it or not.
    I personally like both groups and in fact love Zeplin, they totally rock! but that doesn’t imply any either or relationship between the two groups.I’m sure the groups themselves would laugh in your face. They’s appreciate the blind faith of your devotion but they would obviously think that the whole either/or argument is a an ignorant immature fluke.
    This is a Beatles blog! Who cares what a couple of vulgar opinionated self appointed rock pontificators think?
    No offense.You certainly aint as bad as that other bloke.
    Both of you should be given a dose of acid and locked in a room with loud Beatles music for an indeterminate amount of time or at least until you ran out of steam.
    I’m kidding!! If you like Zeplin, more power to you.They rock!and that’s no joke.

  • nor yelmel

    Actually regardless of your unbridled enthusasm perhaps spilling over into hateful ranting, both of our Beatle haters have one great thing in common and thats a love of Zeplin and other old school hard rock.
    I love the stuff and while I also love the Beatles, I do recognize the huge difference between the two.
    It’s kind of true what my Dad once said: the Beatles aren’t actually rock, they’ve invented their own genre.It’s a great exaggeration but often true. I just think that it is also true that if you can’t generally understand the words of other groups like the Stones, it’s basically because they have nothing to say.The Beatles are poets and many people don’t like or understand love poems any more than they like classical music or Shakespeare.I love both but I also like classic hard ass rock like Zeplin.

  • Mark

    Good to know you have some sense in you, Zeppelin owns. But don’t think that I like Zeppelin and other hard rock and that’s it. It’s true that I listen to a lot of metal – Slipknot, Fantomas (some weird songs). But I also listen to lighter stuff and the blues, I am a guitarist after all. Which is probably half the reason I’m not into the Beatles, no guitar = no interest. Jimmy Page on the other hand o.O

    I’ll gladly admit that I’m opitionated,(best southern accent) but I ain’t no vulgar rock something-or-other (end southern accent). That was a bit of an unfair shot at me, as I said I didn’t say The Beatles are FAGS!!!1 I’m obviously not vulgar and I’m definitely not immature

  • Clarkeeee

    Mark, I do not advocate the Yardbirds over Zepplin I merely stated that the Yardbirds are much more vital in western popular culture for their influence . As you have stated in your own post, Zepplin have an influence in Heavy Rock but I would say not in many other spheres of music of which there is many. 9 out of 10 Zepplin fans don’t realise that there is a whole different world out their besides “Hard Rock” (not a fact I’m just proving the point that statistics are generally a made up number just to give more weight to a flimsy arguement), congratulations your one of the 1?????? Bye teh weigh, thaks fro hte spilling tops it has convinced me that you are more intelligent and therefore more correct in your assumption that Zepeplinninn are in fact the main reason that popular music in it’s current form exists. The Beatles (of whom I’m not a big fan by the way) where merely a side note to the Zeeeeplliinnn (correct me if I’m not spolling it crrectly) who lets face it have redefined the way people dance (hold on a min’ that’s kroftwirk I’m thinking about, influenced by the Beatles just like Zepplliinnnddn and equally as influencial in their own genre).

  • Clarkeeee

    Mark, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, James Dean, wonderful though they are they haven’t stood the test of time but yes all of them are more influencial than zepelleion.

  • nor yelmel

    Sorry for confusing you with the other guy,who definately is a hate filled flame baiting son of a @#$%*! even though I still wonder what any of you anti- Beatle guys are doing on this blog. Are you trying convince us to change our tastes and reject the Beatles in favor of other groups?That’s kind of weird.It’s okay for us to disagree you know.If it’s just a discussion then I stand corrected, but some of these guys are really slamming the Beatles with all kinds of heavy trash.As for your assertion that you prefer hard rock guitar music, I totally hear you on that one.There are extended times(sometimes months) that I listen to anything but the Beatles because of that lack of heavy rock guitar stuff.It just depends on my mood.I’m still way into Hendrix and all kinds of Blues and Motown stuff.
    But I also agree with Joystar, why would they leave While my Guitar gentle Weeps, off the list. It’s one of the best songs they ever did.

  • Mark

    Elvis and Chuck maybe, but the teenage rebellion is no longer James Dean’s realm and isn’t really even affected by his life (and death) anymore. The Yardbirds were great, I love them. But your logic is obviously – “they had 3 famous guitarists, Led Zeppelin only had one, The Yardirds must be better” – Zeppelin had a much larger impact for the same reason you say The Beatles did, they were popular. The Yardbirds didn’t bring they’re achievements to nearly as much public recognition.

    No need to be a tool about the spelling, i wos only trieing to help.

    I’m trying to put it in perspective unlike you. Sure The Yardbirds or The Beatles might have had more of an influence back in the day, but by now Zeppelin has had by far the biggest influence. Especially where it counts, musically.

  • Mark

    nor yelmel: I’m not anti-Beatles I just said that I don’t like them, not that you shouldn’t. My tastes apart from Zep are VERY left field (some really heavy, weird stuff) so I would be the last one to tell someone to change tastes in music. And yes it is just a discussion, but you don’t need to stand corrected, it was just a misunderstanding.

    By the way, just because you like While My Guitar Gently Weeps (one of the few Beatles songs I can listen too without wanting to shoot myself in the foot) doesn’t mean that whoever wrote this list does. It might be called “Top 15…”, but as is very apparent once you read a couple of lists all that really means is “My Favourite 15…”

  • nor yelmel

    Quite right on both accounts. I was just offended by that one guy with all the fancy language. But… I do understand people’s objections to the Beatles, I share some of those feelings. I am occassionally into some of the poetry of them because I’m an English teacher but there are plenty of songs that I will turn off in favor of something harder rocking in heavy traffic.I’ve gone through phases of hating just about anything or exclusively listening to music that would curl most people’s toes:Captain Beefheart’s Trout Mask Replica, Prince Jazzbo, Erick Dolphy, Frank Zappa, High Tide, Big Youth, Howlin Wolf…I didn’t mean to step on anyones toes.We’ve all got one thing in common..it’s music, its just the definition of what constitutes musicality that we occassionally differ on.

  • Clarkeeee

    Mark, so many blinkered assumptions. Regarding the Yardbirds. No it’s not because of 3 famous guitarists that I mentioned the Yardbirds it’s because they have had an influence on Indie, Punk, Rock, Avant Garde, R&B, Garage and countless other guitar based genres. Led Zep influence covers???? Well one really and that’s the “hard Rock” you have mentioned. Now within your own little world (and I’m going to make my first assumption, that it doesn’t even cover “hard rock” from non english speaking countrys, which is the majority of the people in the world) zep have influenced “where it counts musically” can you please define that as I don’t know what you mean by “where it counts musically”. It seems such an objective statement, I would like it defined so there is a point of reference. Please explain.

    In regards to being a tool about spelling, I’d just like to thank you on drawing it out of me that I am in fact dyslexic so excuse me if I get alittle uptight about airing my disablility for all to see on the world wide web. I will in future spell check all so that my spelling does not offend.

  • Mark

    My brother’s dyslexic and all I can say to you is that if you spell that well despite it, you must be God. He has trouble typing “and” into a computer.

    The sentence was: Where it counts, musically. Read it with the comma. I meant that Zeppelin had a much larger influence on music than The Beatles or The Yardbirds, maybe not on life in general, but definitely muscially.

    “…It’s because they have had an influence on Indie, Punk, Rock, Avant Garde, R&B, Garage and countless other guitar based genres…” I know I’m paraphrasing but I’m a guitarist I can play a LOT of Zeppelin songs and many Yardbird ones as well. I’m telling you now that Jimmy’s days in Zeppelin did more for guitar than all of the Big Threes’ in The Yardbirds. If my assumption was wrong, then why throw one back, and a stupid one at that. I have about ten thousand songs on my iPod, still think my world is small?

    On the genres influenced – I don’t pay much attention to genres anyway. Avant Garde isn’t a genre, specifically it is the lack of a genre. R&B, what? Zeppelin and The Yardbirds were influenced by original R&B and neither of them furthered the genre. I’ll give it to you that the Yardbirds influenced punk more, but rock and indie? You’re dreaming, and Zeppelin definitely influenced garage more. And then we move into my domain, hard/heavy rock and metal. Wanna bet which one is more influential in there?

    We’re not even arguing about The Beatles anymore. I mean we shouldn’t really be arguing at all, but why about Zeppelin and the Yardbirds on a Beatles list.

    Zeppelin were more famous and brought their music to so many more people than the Yardbirds did, that’s why they’re more iunfluential. The material from both bands is just as important, but more people bought and listened to Zeppelin. There’s no arguing with that.

  • Markie

    It’s a Beatles list. If you like the Beatles, you could come up with a new list every day. Cut the Yardbirds vs. Zeppelin stuff. Mr. Moonlight, my vote for worst Beatles song. Could be a new list.

  • nor yelmel

    True enough. My favorite Beatles song is Rain, which is supposedly about acid which I used to be really into.
    There are several songs that I don’t really like on a relative scale(Wild Honey Pie, Please Don’t Be Long) but if it’s Beatles, it’s generally better than most mediocre music just be vertue of being written and performed by genuine soul brothas.
    They tried to share something with the world and it was something friendlier and more innocent than some people can appreciate.I think their music is child-like, nonsensical and great in a very classic British way.

  • Good Nads

    Well done, but where is Across the Universe?

  • Francis V

    In my opinion I think the song “baby you’re a rich man” should not be included into the list of beatles best songs because there’s nothing exceptional in it, I think the author forgots the songs: In my life,Here there and everywhere, I will,girl, Michelle and Julia which for me are the best songs of the beatles because of range and quality.

  • Victoria

    Great list. i liked the videos and comments with each and i totally agree with what you wrote.
    my list is a little different though.=)

    15.Revolution (not the “number nine, number nine” thing.)
    14.Eleanor Rigby
    13.Nowhere Man
    12.Help!
    11.Lucy in the sky with Diamonds
    10.Blackbird
    9. Octopus’s Garden. (This song is amazing despite it’s randomness.)
    8. I Wanna hold your hand
    7. A day in the Life
    6. Day Tripper
    5. Let it Be
    4. I’ve Just Seen a Face
    3. Get Back (I really just love this song, don’t know why.)
    2. Hey Jude
    1. Strawberry Fields Forever

  • Michial

    This was a pretty great read. Bucslim got me with the yesterday spoof. Paul Mcfuckhead was also hysterical. Nice Thanks for all the great Beatles v. Zepp madness

    Eleanor Rigby = Excellent

  • Mark

    292. Markie : Who cares? If we go off topic we have a good conversation, as long as it remains flame free of course. Isn’t that what we do on LV?

  • Mr_LoCo

    jus thought i’d stick in that LED-ZEP ROCK, they show themselves as sorcerers and masters of musical instruments and despite all the dangerous drug abuse and looney, insane and at times dangerous partying sumhow have a better survival rate than the beatles…
    AAAANNNNNNNDDDD everybody has different tastes, music isnt better or worse than other music, only less or more popular.
    whoever comments below this smells…

  • Mark

    299. Mr_LoCo : Aww, I was just going to say that Led Zeppelin is awesome, but if I smell too much I’ll leave…

  • nor yelmel

    That’s okay I guess, I just wonder what place people who don’t like the Beatles have on this blog, so you really can’t blame anyone for sayin that yer flamin dude!
    I mean, get real!

    My personal favorite is “You can’t do that”, it disproves all of the lame theories that people have about the Beatles being a soft rock or pop band by banging out a genuine classic hit that any rocker can dig.

  • Mark

    301. nor yelmel : I’m not flaming though… Do you know the definition of flaming? I’m giving an opinion and pointing out how stupid Mr_LoCo is, all at the same time. Not to mention that I did it politely, so maybe not flaming?

  • noryelmel

    I agree. Opinions aside,my only question has to do with the nature of the anti-Beatles comments on what is….a Beatles site.
    One would perhaps expect to see comments on, the |Beatles, not people challenging everyone who ikes them to a “my band is better than yours” contest.That is what makes it so flamey man, don’t you get it? provokin us dude!, you have to expect some negative resoponses.The flame baiters know this and set out to specifically generate negative reactions.
    It doesn’t matter, your comments are un offensive enough.Forget I said anything.
    I’m in China right now and trying to manipulate a Chinese character keyboard is driving me crazy!

  • Mark

    303. noryelmel : Lol, fair enough. No hard feelings then :)

  • nor yelmel

    You’re also entitled to your opnions and there is nroom here for a little static just so it doesn’t bog nown the rap track. Its actually good for us to have a few non believers in the ranks, its just fun to rag on em once in a while.
    I go through phases of only listening to relatively new stuff including a whole bunch of guitar stuff that technically blows the Beatles outa da wada although I don’t think the Beatles were just about that raw rockin stuff. They had genuine poetry.But I can understand the Beatles falling short of genuine rockoutedness in some ways.
    I mean you don’t have to be a Hendrix to realize that.
    I just think that they embodied rocks sensative side, I know, YUCK, but hey what can I say? I’m ancient. I’ve been married to the same woman for the past 25 years!My days of naked moonlight acid surfing are pretty much over.But there are some pretty good Taiwanese chics over here.

  • Mark

    305. nor yelmel : Oh no, another ancient on LV. Great, now I have to respect another elder – apart from Anon. I’ll let you in on something, I’m only 16. So my “days of naked moonlight acid surfing” are soon to begin. In a very different fashion to yours I can safely say. I’m a bit of a metalhead – still love Zeppelin – but I like heavier stuff a lot more, no Beatles for me unfortunatly.

    Good to see someone else on here that can keep a friendly tone though, even when we’re arguing :)

  • nor yelmel

    Yeah thats cool actually. Hey dont stop being crazy on my account, I’d still do all that stuff if my wife let me.I’m kidding, sort of.Part of me is still in Huautla de Jimenez with a huge bag of choclate and a head full of derrumbes.
    I think the only thing that keeps me relatively sane in my old age is the fact that I did once break the worlds record for the most peyote buttons eaten by a half white person.
    I am especially tolerant of the wildness of my students when I remember the green mile of the ghanja trail. Yes some of us still breath a sigh of nostalgia remebering actual hip chics and real bonified Acapulco Gold.No kidding.

  • Mark

    307. nor yelmel : My God… Soon you’re going to start writing 10 paragraph essays to get across an insanely well though out and articulated – if not all that eloquant – thought. And don’t worry, nothing’s going to stop me going crazy in another couple of years :)

  • nor yelmel

    Be careful what you wish for, you may actually find it. I was one of the lucky ones.Of course I don’t claim to be articulate or even legible after a long teaching day, but hey, gimme a break I’m in Keelung and I live in Peru.
    If English once was my native language, its given way to a combination of Mandarin and Spanglish.You’re actually the first American I’ve talked to in a while.

  • Mark

    309. nor yelmel : Wow, am I that good? I’m Australian, I’ll prove it:

    Crikey!

    Believe me now? Lol, but seriously what do you teach?

  • nor yelmel

    I teach English reading and grammar to Chinese kids at The Sacred Heart High School in Keelung, Taiwan.
    Its a strange place but it pays the bills. I have one house in California and one in Lima Peru.

  • Mark

    311. nor yelmel : God, that must be hard. English is a very intricate language indeed. Mind if I ask why there in particular? I mean they’re like China Lite, but more “screwed up” – that was my perception anyway – Taiwan’s the remnants of the Nationalists right?

    Also, why Peru, did you used to teach there too?

  • nor yelmel

    No essentially its just for the money. China is more rigid but less screwed up as you say, but they don’t pay well.
    I live in Peru for the same reason it’s cheap and we teach English.My wife is Peruvian/Taiwanese.
    They have some pretty funny Beatles cover bands here.

  • Mark

    313. nor yelmel : No offense meant to you or your wife, but Peruvian/Taiwanese is one hell of a racial mixture – if I may so myself – I’ve never heard that one before :)

    I figured China would be more rigid – being commie was a little hint – but I guess as long as you enjoy what you do, how important is the money?

    Anyway I’ve got school so I’ll have to be off to bed soon, maybe a couple more comments. But if I disappear you know why :)

  • nor yelmel

    No the Peruvian Taiwanese thing is actually quite common.
    Theres a bunch of em over there!
    I know, I might as well stay in Peru for the work, but this way we’ll go to Japan, China, maybe a few more places before we go home.
    The other “westerners” here are all Afrinans speaking South Africans.

  • Mark

    315. nor yelmel : Oh noes, we have enough ex-pat South Africans around here, I know what they can be like. But I guess most of the problems I have with them are their racist under-currents, so if they picked when fleeing South Africa to settle in Taiwan I probably wouldn’t have much of a problem with them. What do you think of the ones you’ve met?

    By the way, how many languages do you speak? You’re thinking of going to Japan as well???

  • marjory stewart baxter

    “Yellow Submarine”????

    where is it?!?!?!?!?

  • Bloody Glasses

    #2 contains factually incorrect information. After the song ends on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, there is a high pitched note before the looping sound.

    The reason for the high pitched sound and loop were two “tricks” that John Lennon wanted to employ. First, Lennon was not fond of dogs, so he wanted to surprise the furry friends with a blasting high pitched note to make them “freak out” at the end of the album.

    The looping sounds were because if the album was played on vinyl and left on, that sound would repeat endlessly.

    Classic John.

    By the way, I can hear the high pitch, and I am not a canine.
    -wtk

  • APR

    this is just impossible. you cant list the ton ten beatle songs. it ends up leaving out so many of the lesser known songs and there are just too many to put in a top ten list

  • oouchan

    Good start.
    Methinks we need another list of these. hmmmm…..

  • Jayhawk

    ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    this is too funny,. listen to the beatles and Zeppelin fans spazzing out lol.

    im def on the Zep side but this is just too funny!!!

  • apepper

    There’s pretty strong evidence about Lucy in the Sky and Let It Be; Lennon said in interview that the song was based on a painting that Julian brought home and that the LSD connection was coincidence – in fact he started looking through other song titles after that looking for other controversial abbreviations.

    Paul has said in interview that during the difficult recording sessions for Let It Be (at that time, it was untitled) he had a dream where he saw his mother – who had died when Paul was quite young and Let It Be was based on that.

    -Andrew

  • Dazz

    All the arguments seem moot to me.The Beatles opened the door for countless other acts the same way as Elvis,The Stones,Zep did..by taking the southern blues played by unknown’s and make it their own.Comparing such different forms of music is like comparing apples and oranges..all have merit and should be respected and enjoyed and not pit vs each other.For your listening pleasure I recommend listening to very early Elvis,blue moon of kentucky,The Beatles While my Guitar Gently Weeps,Led Zepplin,personal fav,How many times..all great,all dusted off guitar riffs from the Mississippi Delta..listen to some Robert Johnson Zep fans might be shocked to hear Killing Floor etc being performed in the 20’s..cheers

  • Hal

    Ahh, look at all the loney people spamming the comments section.

  • John Lennon

    PLEASE HELP!!!!! I AM NOT DEAD!!!! …just dont tell YOko…she is gross

  • TopTenners

    I think it’s time to TopTenize The Beatles! It’s a different list, pure nostalgy!

  • Norman

    I’m a massive Beatles fan, but I find Let it be very overrated. A day in the life should have been numbwer one and Let it be not even on the list.

  • selia

    great list but where is I am a walrus?

  • Trekkerette

    All Led Zeppelin? I’ll top that…

    I don’t know any Beatles songs. But I LOVE MICHAEL JACKSON!!

  • sartor

    List is pathetic. What about:

    Happy Just to Dance With You
    All My Loving
    Don’t Let Me Down
    In My Life
    And I Love Her

    I’m just getting started. The Abbey Road B-side medley?

  • hinkle von dinkle

    i can hear the note at the end of a day in the life

  • Stevie C

    I’m listening to Norwegian Wood now, it’s great. My favorite Beatles songs are from the brilliant Revolver album like ‘She Said, She, Said’ and ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’

  • Quick23

    Here’s my point about the Beatles versus the Rolling Stones versus Led Zeppelin. First, I rate them 1-2-3 in that order as the three greatest musical groups in rock history. Each of them could do a set of 25-30 songs and it would be better than any other set from any group. What differentiates the Stones from Led Zep is that they could two more sets using entirely different material,and they’d still be great concerts. And what differentiates the Beatles from the Stones is that they could do a fourth and maybe even a fifth (i.e., 125-150 songs), and they’d still be excellent. BTW, I’m approximately the same age as most of the Beatles and Stones members.

  • Mark

    @Quick23 (332): Wow… both the Beatles and the Stones had (have?) much more homogenous sounding music than Zeppelin. The reason I say that is that the Stones all sounds the same, it does, seriously. The music’s good, which is great, but it’s the same thing over and over and over…

    The Beatles, sure, they were tripping. They were different, maybe even amazing. But Zeppelin, so many different musical styles. Not only did they combine a more world music feel with contemporary popular music (at the time), but they also had a heavier side than the Beatles.

    Seriously, pick up a copy of Zep III and In Through the Out Door and hear it for yourself.

    Zeppelin’s only shortcoming was Bonham’s death and their refusal to compromise, on either another drummer or inferior quality music. The Beatles and the Stones may have more music at the end of the day, but I’m sure Zeppelin will settle for the title of “Least Filler.” Doesn’t matter how long the set is, it matters how good the set is.

  • Josh5687

    Where is Helter Skelter on this list…or I am the Walrus?

  • CastingCrowns

    Honorable mentions:
    I’m Down
    Birthday
    Paperback Writer
    You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away
    Baby You Can Drive My Car
    Get Back
    One After 909
    From Me To You
    Dizzy Miss Lizzy
    Taxman

  • Everybody’s so toopid!

    Musical taste is incredibly subjective, everybody has their own opinion.. blahblahblah.
    I know its been said already, but it never stops being true. ANyways, I think both Zep and the Beatles are awesome bands in their own right, but I have a love for Zeppelin that I just can’t explain. But the Beatles are amazing too, and they provided the foundation allowing a band like Zeppelin to emerge, and I thank them for that. But really, The Beatles were a more creatively talented band, with John and Paul being musical geniuses, and occassionally George. Ringo… well, he’s there. :P

  • jonny

    Madness this riles people so much,
    Music’s not a football team that fans must argue about and defend, its all personal opinions. I’d list my view of whos better but i feel little need to, as it would fall on def ears and rightly so, who cares what band i thinks better, if we were all the same and liked the same things life would be a right bore. Anywho think mayb more peace and if posts are to be made they should stick to the point of the article….. what are the best beatles songs.
    There is so many, havn’t seen Mother Natures Sun, Cry Baby Cry or For No One!? Ace songs!!
    Martha My Dear Deserves a shout, think this was one of their finest, uplifting engligh song.
    Amazing though 40+ years later their music still touches so many people, think that alone says it all
    Much Love.xx

  • Audrey

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUXVH7qL8aw&hl=en&fs=1&]

    ‘Nuff said.

  • natapillar

    excellent list! i dont think there is one Beatles song i dislike.
    my faves are Lucy In The Sky, Strawberry Fields and All You Need Is Love.

  • Roo

    Beatles = cous cous
    Led Zeppelin = Green Peppers
    Rolling Stones = Caramelised onion.

    Jonas Brothers = 3 day old turd.

  • Motorheadache

    Personally i think the argument from randall and evan is more interesting than the beatles and in my OPINION zep is better

  • JacobSenn

    There is NO SUCH THING as a “greatest Beatles song”!! Every song they composed themselves [and hell, even their cover songs] are the greatest music put on vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD, anything. I’m only 18 and I’m a huge huge fan of The Fab Four, and this should actually be a top 214 songs list, with all of them at #1. Beatles Forever.

  • Frazer117

    BEATLES ARE FOREVER THE BEST WTF IS THE POINT PUTTING TOP 15 WHEN OBVIOUSLY IT SHOULD BE EVERY BEATLES SONG IN THE WORLD ON HERE – AND TO EVEN COMPARE ZEPPELIN TO THE BEATLES IS APPALING – THE BEATLES ARE LIKE A FINE PAIR OF NIKE HIGH TOPS TREADING THE WORLD AND MAKING IT THEIR OWN AND LED ZEPPELIN IS AN ANNOYING PIECE OF GUM STUCK TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THEIR SOLE

    GO BEATLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Lemmonisque

    I AM SO WITH YOU, Frazer117! The Beatles are truly the best band to have ever existed. They’re a bunch of musical geniuses that are so immensely talented, and to look at how they grew up as a band – wow, it’s like watching a flower bloom. Ah yes, The Beatles cannot be compared to a band because they’re too dynamic to be compared with any band. The Beatles are their own genre! (I’ve always thought Rolling Stones lick off the Beatles’ footsteps)

    It truly is appaling (and it hurts too) when people compare The Beatles to bands that are clearly not in their calibre :(

  • Double E

    You went into this list setting yourself up for failure. The beatles have at least 150 brilliant songs. I respect your opionions, but ‘In My Life’ deserves to be in there as much as any Beatles song.

  • liliana

    woohoo go beatles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aw everyone hates randall!! i like him, he sounds like an educated man who obviously knows his music history! go randall!!!!!!

  • ned

    Mother Nature’s Son

  • andmybirdcansing

    @Joe Skepsis:
    Can I help?

    @listmaker E-RAGE!!! why anyone would try to make a list of best Beatles songs without including all of them is beyond me. Especially if you think there wouldn’t be repercussions.

  • Sarah

    You left out Across the Universe and for that you cannot be forgiven. Grr.

  • ulyssesmsu

    Well, listmaking is fun, and everyone has a different idea, but having stated that disclaimer, this list is absolute nonsense.

    15 spots, and there is no mention of . . .
    –You Can’t Do That
    –I Saw Her Standing There
    –Ticket To Ride
    –A Hard Day’s Night
    –Please Please Me
    –and so, so many more . . . ?

    Instead of “Top 15 Beatles Songs,” this list should be called “My Favorite 15 Beatles Songs, Even Though Most of Them Aren’t By Any Means the Beatles’ Best Songs.”

    Truth in advertising.

  • rahl

    wow, can’t believe this list is 2 and 1/2 years old and the comments just keep on coming.. now that’s classic!

  • SmurfinLennon

    In My Life is #1, no question.

  • hi2uok

    Some of the less popular singles were released before the actual album was released. Therefore selling more than a popular song which was available on the album. For me there are too many great songs to list in any particular order. But if I had to pick just one , It would be "Here Comes the Sun".

  • lulztrooper

    let it be could be about marijuana :)

  • NatG

    -across the universe
    -i want you (she's so heavy)
    -strawberry fields forever
    -something
    -while my guitar gently weeps
    …just my two cents… :)

  • Jay

    I do love the Beatles. While other bands were making every song the same, the Beatles were progressing and learning and experimenting. You can see some of this in even their early work. "Do You Want To Know a Secret" is never mentioned in lists like this, but it's actually quite sophisticated musically. "Got to Get You Into My Life" is beautiful with its French horns. Eleanor Rigby's string quartet. George's sitar work. The wonderful guitar solo on "And Your Bird Can Sing." That amazing guitar solo on"Blackbird." Paul McCartney's bass work just got better and better.

    In truth, there can be no list of the Beatles' BEST songs because their songs are so varied and surprising you can't compare one with another.

  • Wade

    Anybody else ever realize how underrated the Kinks are

  • David

    I'm 13, and my brother really got me into liking classic rock.
    Personally, my favorites (at this time, anyway) are Lady Madonna, Eleanor Rigby, A Day in the Life, Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, You Never Give Me Your Money, Back in the USSR, Yesterday… Not that I like every single one of their songs. Just a lot of them. Hmmm….. Penny Lane… Her Majesty…. well, let's go with all of them.

  • bansey

    Am I the only Beatles fan that can't hear I want you (she's sho heavy) enough. It is easily the best beatles song.

  • toratoratora1942

    we sung Let It Be at my dad's funeral. I love that song

  • gollumizer

    having caught the bug from my mom, who was an avid fan, i was a beatles’ fan all the way. lots of comments here protesting, why didn’t you include this one or that one. but i think that is the prerogative of the list compiler/maker/put togetherer. some of my favorites are: let it be (because mary is similar to my mom’s name), strawberry field, and as i get *ahem* older my favorite is nowhere man, although there are many more that i also like.

    doesn’t have a point of view, knows not where he’s going to, isn’t he a bit like you and me…(brought existential tears to my eyes each time)

  • PennyLane

    It’s Paul’s mother. The Beatles’s were atheists.

  • tanya

    helter skelter? the first metal song? anybody?

  • zoyelque

    The Beatles were the point of the lance of the british invation,without their music music would had not be the same,even Keith Reichard said that he take his hat off to them,because they really open the doors,and they keep evolving until the end,braking several barriers.

  • Otaku Jhe

    The best song in artistic point of view is… (drum roll please)
    …Why Don’t We Do It In The Road and Revolution No.9. Reason is the two musical gods (John and Paul) thinks that this was the best song the ever wrote individually. Complimenting to each other. John loves Paul’s Why Don’t We Do It In The Road for it’s jamming, real mood. Paul loves John’s Revolution #9 for what he calls sound painting (abstract) :)

  • Rouge

    Most of there are “claimed copyright by EMI Music”.

    This is why I hate these companies.

    • Omar Bongo

      Paul has said that early on he and John didn’t really understand the idea that music could be owned or that there could be so much money involved after the song was out there. He described himself and John as “Sitting Ducks” for the music barons of the day and they gladly signed away a lot of rights for almost nothing. It would be a Herculean task to count up how many millions this has cost the Beatles over the years.

      Zep went in the opposite direction. Knowing that songwriters get money for every song they contribute to on an album, they started putting their names as writers on everything they recorded, making additional millions and depriving the original writers of huge amounts in royalties. There were still some plagiarism suits pending last time I checked.

  • Lovely Rita

    Abbey Road Medley. Come on, guys. This one is..

  • Do you guys have a facebook fan page for Top 15 Beatles Songs? I looked for for 1 on the internet but could not find it, I would love to become a fan!

  • daoud_20

    For me ‘I’m only sleeping’ will always be my favorite beatles track. It perfectly captures the beauty/frustration of being woken early and smilingly pleading for more dreamtime

  • crystal

    Lady Madonna something and paperback writer are my
    personal favorites????

  • Devon

    Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene are different people, actually.

  • Grace

    I think this is a really great list. I saw a couple on here that I really love but haven’t seen on anybody else’s list like Baby Your a Rich Man. :)

  • JPage

    Zeppelin are better.

  • Grespelompelt

    Name

  • Estela

    The is a list I can agree with.
    I love The Beatles.

  • Listverse commentor

    Omg the beatles! :D love all their songs like they’re my very own little adopted puppies
    But Y U NO ADD BLACKBIRD AND YESTERDAY? I’m gonna start singing until you put it but wait you can’t so hmmm, what song, what song, oooh I know

    “hey jude don’t make it bad, take a sad song and make it better… Oh screw this you win this time contributor… I love The Beatles! *then screams like little girl*

  • peter8172

    “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” lets very carefully look at 3 words from that song, and you realize something. Lucy, Sky, Diamonds = LSD. I read a biography of Paul McCartney. And in it, the Beatles claimed that te song was not about taken LSD…….Yeah Right, Here’s a lyric from the song : “Newspaper taxis appear on the shore, waiting to take you away, Look for the girl with kaleidoscope eyes and she’s gone”. To me, that is the quintessential song about dropping Acid

  • peter8172

    No “Helter Skelter” ???

  • bro

    the beatles changed the landscape of music when they came out

  • zoyelque

    People even Led Zeppelin members had Beatles records on their homes,that’s a fact,even Jeff Beck admited that everyone of them just wanted to be a band like The Beatles. Randall you clearly Won this argument.

  • zoyelque

    People even Led Zeppelin members had Beatles records on their homes,that’s a fact,even Jeff Beck admited that everyone of them just wanted to be a band like The Beatles. Randall you clearly Won this argument

  • ThatGuy

    LED ZEPPILIN RULES! Now where’s WWIII?

  • JP

    Haha, I was taught at school Lucy In The Sky was purposefully written to reference the effects of taking ecstasy.

  • @ JP. I read an autobiography written by Paul McCartney about 10 years ago and John & Paul swore that song “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds”, had nothing to do with dropping LSD. How brutally inept that is. Just look at the letters LSD. My favorite one was when I was in the 1st or 2nd grade, my class would always have sing alongs. One of the songs that I vividly remember sing was “Puff, The Magic Dragon” by Peter, Paul and Mary. The word “Puff” should be a give away right there. Remember, these songs came out in the 60’s at the height of pill popping, smoking pot, reds, barbies, uppers, downers. I was only age 6 to 8, but I had no idea about the relationship with drugs

  • PINK FLOYD TRANSCENDS ALL

  • Alicia

    I had the chance to listen to Hey Jude, Eleanor Rigby, A Day In The Life and Let It Be live with Paul singing them. What a great experience.

  • Beatles Fanboy

    Beatles have more fantastic songs like : Magical Mystery Tour or Ballad of the John and Yoko. They were the youth icon of the time.
    Here is a list of top 75 songs of Beatles:
    http://pinappu.hubpages.com/hub/Top-75-Beatles-Songs-List

  • Pingback: Top 15 Beatles Songs | Syria()

  • Pingback: Top 15 Beatles Songs | Fun Time Viral()

  • Pingback: Top 15 músicas dos Beatles - Pensar Acreditar()