Is there anybody out there who can be compared to the Beatles?

[J.B. Ganning]

In any form as long as it's not excessively dumb like saying someone was like them for having the same number of band mates.


Personally, I consider Sam Roberts to have a modern sound similar to the Beatles. Not exactly like them, and not as deep or influential, but the feel of it is kind of the same to me. ...except more Canadian.

There is one group that is being compared to the Beatles by a few, but I'd rather not say who as it would destroy your mind. If you decide to mention them, please spoiler it so you don't harm anyone's mind.



P.S. Let's wish a happy birthday to Paul McCartney!

[Jack Squat]

Sure, there's the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, The Animals, the Monkees...

Oh, you mean modern day?

In terms of making girls scream and a harshly divided fan base, I'd say Jonas Brothers win that, but I'm reluctant to even call them music.

But, no, not really. There isn't a new genre that's wildly gaining ground as being popular, where bands can influence how it's going to sound, at the moment. Anyone who's going to be compared to them will fall short because of this. The Beatles may not be the best, but they are the most influential, until a new revolution in music comes around, it's just not going to happen.

[Faulty]

of Montreal's first album (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7EOivMfkts) makes me think of The Beatles.

[Raistlin1040]

Let's not wish Paul a happy birthday, since he was the worst Beatle >>

Um, in terms of influence, I go with David Bowie, because he's dabbled in so many styles, and so well. His brief foray into R&B/Soul music? James Brown stole one of his songs from that period, effectively. He basically created Glam Rock, if not being the original inventor, then the one who popularized it. He has stayed relevant through the 2000s, going into electronic music. The man's done a LOT of styles, folk rock, glam rock, Soul, experimental, pop rock, new wave, hard rock, electronica. In the 70s, in particular, he was on the cutting edge of...everything really, and since then he's managed to keep up with the trends without sounding like he's blinding following the latest craze.

Also, he's an intellectual, as John was, and that intelligence really shows through in his work.

[snoopy13a]

The answer is simple:

Hanson :smallbiggrin:

[UltraDude]

Along the lines of Bowie's sort of influence, Bob Dylan was pretty big back in the day - Knockin' on Heaven's Door has been covered how many times, after all? All Along the Watchtower was Dylan. He was one of the head figures of the counterculture movement lyrically, and he's moved through a wide variety of styles - he started off folk and blues, and has moved through country, gospel, jazz, swing, and others.

Did I mention that his songs get covered all the freaking time?

Stylistically, I'll get back to you - I heard a band recently, but I forget the name, so I'll have to figure out how I found out about them again >_>

[Joran]

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/04/see-the-beatles-rock-band-cartoon-intro-in-high-quality/

Here's a good demonstration of the sheer diversity of the music of the Beatles and their cultural impact. The fact that they made such an impact in about 10 years is pretty amazing.

[factotum]

I always thought Oasis were channeling the spirit of the Beatles, only without the same ability to sing... :smallwink:

[Closet_Skeleton]

Let's not wish Paul a happy birthday, since he was the worst Beatle >>

Most of the people you meet in life will not be any sort of Beatle, so by that logic you should never wish anyone a happy birthday ever. Pointless Addendum: Nothing wrong with prefering other Beatles to Paul but that's no reason to desire him to have an unhappy birthday.

Since all his songs were co credited to Lennon, for all you know your favourite lennon song was actually 90% McCarthy (yeah, there are nerds/researchers that think they know which one wrote each song but I bet they don't all argee).

[Cthulu]

GOD I hope not. in terms of the beatles they sucked. took all their ideas from blues riffs and songs and then were "formed" and "Molded" by produicers, after that they got all druggy and looser. Without Blues their is no rock.....let alone three to four cord junk like the beatles.



"The blues had a baby, and they named it rock and roll"

[Finn Solomon]

Bob Dylan is more influential musically and culturally, but maybe not in terms of popularity. The Rolling Stones? Sure, they're awesome and immortal, but they don't seem to have the same widespread fame and adoration as the Fab Four. Still, they're probably the Beatles' closest challengers.

[WitchSlayer]

GOD I hope not. in terms of the beatles they sucked. took all their ideas from blues riffs and songs and then were "formed" and "Molded" by produicers, after that they got all druggy and looser. Without Blues their is no rock.....let alone three to four cord junk like the beatles.



"The blues had a baby, and they named it rock and roll"

Do I have to drive a steamboat into you?

[Raistlin1040]

Most of the people you meet in life will not be any sort of Beatle, so by that logic you should never wish anyone a happy birthday ever. Pointless Addendum: Nothing wrong with prefering other Beatles to Paul but that's no reason to desire him to have an unhappy birthday.

Since all his songs were co credited to Lennon, for all you know your favourite lennon song was actually 90% McCarthy (yeah, there are nerds/researchers that think they know which one wrote each song but I bet they don't all argee).

Well, the general idea is that whoever sang did the majority of the writing. And it's VERY obvious, for multiple reasons, that my favorite Beatles songs were John songs (Or George songs, but that's beside the point). I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields, Help!, Across the Universe, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, I'm Only Sleeping, Tomorrow Never Knows, and In My Life. It's not really a researcher thing, it's mostly that the Beatles themselves have said who did most of what.

And Paul in the Beatles=Fine. Least favorite, but that's like saying least favorite cake out of the four best cakes in the world. Solo though, I don't like him or Wings, and he just...does things now that make me wanna smack him. He says stuff like "Oh, I was the political Beatle, not John." and "Oh, I was the avant-garde Beatle, not John." and he's tried to get some song credits made McCartney/Lennon after John died.

[Pronounceable]

GOD I hope not. in terms of the beatles they sucked. took all their ideas from blues riffs and songs and then were "formed" and "Molded" by produicers, after that they got all druggy and looser. Without Blues their is no rock.....let alone three to four cord junk like the beatles.



"The blues had a baby, and they named it rock and roll"

You shall be struck down by all gods of music and taste so hard you'll go deaf and never hear any music again...

[Mephibosheth]

I always think of the Beatles when I listen to Locksley (http://www.myspace.com/locksley). They obviously don't compare in terms of cultural impact, but they have a similar sound, imho.

[TengYt]

Alestorm :smallwink:

[rakkoon]

Alestorm is more Elvis Presley like. If he had been a pirate and a Scandinavian of cource.

Elvis is the only one that had such a major impact and is still regarded as an icon. I personally prefer the Beatles (all of them) but theoretically The King was more important.

Oh, and of the three only Alestorm is played in my car

[Winterwind]

Are we talking about bands that still exist only, or are bands that don't exist anymore but did so a lot less time ago then the Beatles permitted too?

Because in the latter case I would propose Queen.

[bosssmiley]

Sure, there's the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, The Animals, the Monkees...

Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, etc...

And then there's Wings. Who are Wings? Only the band the Beatles could have been.
/Alan Partridge

[SilentNight]

I've always thought of the Zombies as very similar to the Beatles, save the fact that they have more intricate lyrics.

[Krrth]

Are we talking about bands that still exist only, or are bands that don't exist anymore but did so a lot less time ago then the Beatles permitted too?

Because in the latter case I would propose Queen.

I'll second this one.

[Kaelaroth]

Pink Floyd, in my opinion.

[JaxGaret]

It's kind of a weird comparison, but I see a lot of the Beatles in Animal Collective.

[J.B. Ganning]

And Paul in the Beatles=Fine. Least favorite, but that's like saying least favorite cake out of the four best cakes in the world. Solo though, I don't like him or Wings, and he just...does things now that make me wanna smack him. He says stuff like "Oh, I was the political Beatle, not John." and "Oh, I was the avant-garde Beatle, not John." and he's tried to get some song credits made McCartney/Lennon after John died.

Considering how much Lennon overshadows McCartney, wouldn't you do the same if in his position? Everyone has an ego they need to stroke, and this is McCartney's way of doing so. I'm sure you'd feel a bit under if you'd worked on a song, and for the rest of your life no one cared about you, but instead, your co writer. He may not have been the best Beatle, but he still deserves our respect for aiding in the creation of one of the most influential bands in all of history. It could easily be argued that they WERE the most influential.

Getting back to the matter at hand, one or two of Venus Hum's songs have moments where it sounds like the later Beatles. Probably around Revolver or Sgt. Pepper. Wait, that's mid Beatles. I think. I don't remember.

[Cthulu]

although in the interest of things. the idea is to move forward. why is it people always want the "good ol days" when they were never soo good to begin with. let go of them. this is just another case of L.S.D. gone bad... in this case more than one had it and then they got egos and continued on their way down that pivotal slope to sucksville

L.S.D. = Lead singer disease

[Klose_the_Sith]

I have to agree with the Beatles hate here, while to say that they weren't influential/good is utterly retarded the fact remains that you they couldn't be more overrated if every member was Chuck Norris. The same thing applies to Queen - yes, they were alright, now shut the **** up about your moderately interesting pop rock.

The only reason I don't mind the Beatles (as opposed to the ****-terrible Queen who I hate) is due to the fact that they weren't anywhere near as bad. Live with it, the Beatles weren't the pioneers that they're made out to be in as many ways as you might think (also keep in mind that they were basically an older, better, Dragonfarce due to the whole studio band thing).

[UltraDude]

Ignoring the above Sith for my own sake...

Has anyone here heard Augie March?

[RabbitHoleLost]

No.Ferocious fangirl go.
And the article you linked me to claiming that the Jonas Brother's were the new Beatles made me cry, J.B.

[SurlySeraph]

I have to agree with the Beatles hate here, while to say that they weren't influential/good is utterly retarded the fact remains that you they couldn't be more overrated if every member was Chuck Norris. The same thing applies to Queen - yes, they were alright, now shut the **** up about your moderately interesting pop rock.

The only reason I don't mind the Beatles (as opposed to the ****-terrible Queen who I hate) is due to the fact that they weren't anywhere near as bad. Live with it, the Beatles weren't the pioneers that they're made out to be in as many ways as you might think (also keep in mind that they were basically an older, better, Dragonfarce due to the whole studio band thing).

I do not see how the Beatles were remotely similar to Dragonforce. One is an insanely popular band known for playing a wide variety of cheerful, fun, simple songs. The other is a moderately popular band known for playing songs that all sound the same because they are all played as fast as humanly possible and always have lyrics involving fire, flames, swords, pain, burning, and swords.

And, while I agree that Queen is overrated, I will Internet-fight anyone who denies that We Are The Champions is a good song.

[Partof1]

I think Neil Young. He explored many different styles of rock, addressed important issues with his work, and his stayed very popular for over fourty years. Not to mention he actually had writing talent when he wasn't baked.

[Jinura]

Now I wouldn't agree that Queen is overrated, but that's not what this topic is about..

Influential then well Bowie, Queen and the Stones all have a lot of influence on different areas. But I dunno if there is a band like Beatles. Wings sound like them but i guess that dosen't count. For some reason I get reminded of Beatles when hearing some of the stuff U2 made.

[J.B. Ganning]

No.Ferocious fangirl go.
And the article you linked me to claiming that the Jonas Brother's were the new Beatles made me cry, J.B.

Let me count the ways I'm sorry... Actually, don't. There are too many. Just let me say that if I could turn back time for any reason, it would be to not show you that article. That, and to rewrite a number of bad movies; namely "North".


Partof1 has a good one there. Neil Young, though not as widely known or popular, has had a long running career with a good variety of music with a number of messages.

Off topic, I've noticed that a number of better known Canadian artists that still work mainly in Canada sometimes work together on things. Namely K-OS and Sam Roberts. Two excellent singer/songwriters. They're not the best, but I like'm.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I can't think of anyone else. My musical knowledge isn't as refined as many people posting in this thread.

Speaking to Jinura: Sounding similar to the Beatles is one way of comparison. Influence is another, as well as a general message brought by them. As long as you don't say a band is similar to them because they both did the same drugs.

[The_JJ]

GOD I hope not. in terms of the beatles they sucked. took all their ideas from blues riffs and songs and then were "formed" and "Molded" by produicers, after that they got all druggy and looser. Without Blues their is no rock.....let alone three to four cord junk like the beatles.



"The blues had a baby, and they named it rock and roll"

Bad Cthulu.
:smallamused: Yes, rock came from blues, what came from spirtuals what came from hyms, traditional African music, and oppression. It's okay.

That said, a. producers are a legitimatepart of the musical process, and b. whatever 'molding' might have happened failed to elimiate even the individual styles within the group. You can tell when a song is George's, Lennon's, or Paul's.

Alright, I'll grant most of their early crap was junk, and that 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' might not be the best piece out there, but 'With a Little Help from My Friends,' 'Day in the Life,' 'Blackbird,' 'Back in the USSR...' yeah, not just 4 chords.

[Lord of the Helms]

Alestorm is more Elvis Presley like. If he had been a pirate and a Scandinavian of cource.


Wait, Scotland is in Scandinavia now? :smalltongue:


Are we talking about bands that still exist only, or are bands that don't exist anymore but did so a lot less time ago then the Beatles permitted too?

Because in the latter case I would propose Queen.

That would have been my very first thought as well. In terms of awesomeness and diversity both, they're way up there, and as for pure coolness - total win. And influence - well, I'm a metalhead, I can't even listen to Queen without thinking of what bands and styles they blatantly influenced during half their songs.

Then again, I probably enjoy Queen more than the Beatles, and I already like the beatles a fair bit.

[Doran_Liadon]

The Beatles is definitley one of my alltime favorite bands. I know their history, John's murder and the backstory's of many a song. Nirvana's musical talent could be compared but they didn't write their own music. The Who is another one but still not quite their. I guess the Beatles are too unique to be compared to any other bands.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Nirvana's musical talent could be compared but they didn't write their own music.

You didn't really just say that, did you?
Because, while I like Nirvana and I will concede early Beatles was much the same in terms of complexity, you cannot compare Smells Like Teen Spirit or anything else Nirvana may have done to the Sgt Pepper's album, or the Revolver Album, or...well, most of the Beatles, when it comes to complexity.
The Beatles are often ticketed as the kick-start of Prog Rock, and many of the songs were deemed revolutionary.
Kurt Cobain could play three chords, if I recall.

[Avilan the Grey]

Nirvana is probably the most overrated band in the history of music... IMHO, of course. Second would be Guns n' Roses.

...As for sounding like Beatles? What Beatles? White Album beatles or "She loves you Yeah Yeah Yeah" Beatles?

[J.B. Ganning]

Any decade, any year, any album, any song.

[Hawriel]

No Black Sabbath?

Like the Beatles, Sabbath where inspired as kids by listining to American blues, Jazz, and the rock and roll it spawned in the 50s. They also are the standared to which their style of rock is based on. That style later named as heavy metal. Even befor they where Black Sabbath, the band went by the name of Earth. Which was an English blues band.

The beatles are not the most intelligent/artful/origional/best band ever. There is no number one best. If you where to ask the leading artists who is the best today. They would always pick a handful of other peaple. Some names would be repeated. If asked about peaple or groups in the past be Beatles come up alot. Even rap and R&B artists sight them as eather an influence or some one they enjoy. As artists the Beatles are/where very smart and driven. Both Paul and John. Ringo and George are not exactly dead wait eather.

I agree that alot of the Beatle's early work is just corporate pop. Hell almost every one starts out that way. It's called paying your dues. So to speak. Basicly the Beatles played whithin the system untill they got populare enough that they could use that popularity to do what they wanted. They had room to experiment and grow as artists. You can see that today with guys like Justin Timberlake. He started off in a corporate formula boy band. Justin is smart and talinted enough to have use what fame it game him and go out on his own. Im not really a fan of his, but I know an intelligent artest when I see one.

[valadil]

How about Led Zepellin? They're pretty damn popular and influential. And haven't done anything since the death of one of their band members.

[Ebonsword]

Kraftwerk.

They may have actually influenced even more bands than the Beatles, since just about every synth-pop, industrial, EBM, trance, house, and rap act was influenced by them.


Then there's the Smiths. It seems like, before the Smiths, the British music press used to call any up-and-coming band "the new Beatles". After the Smiths, every up-and-coming band seemed to be called "the new Smiths".

[Coplantor]

Well, I would say Queen, beacuase it was the greatest band ever, period. Regarding influence? Maybe bands that started different genres, like sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Yes, Kraftwerk as ebonsword said.
Some of the late beatles song were far more intelectual than those of their first years, as that matter goes, I think that bands like Pink Floyd and Kansas fill that spot. And if you want the "make young girls scream" then the Jonas Brothers:smallamused:

[RabbitHoleLost]

And if you want the "make young girls scream" then the Jonas Brothers:smallamused:

How about a band with talent that makes us girls scream, eh? :smallannoyed:

[Klose_the_Sith]

You want a band who can be compared to the Beatles? I've got two

1) Iron Maiden

2) Thin Lizzy


Well, I would say Queen, beacuase it was the greatest band ever, period. Regarding influence? Maybe bands that started different genres, like sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Yes, Kraftwerk as ebonsword said.
Some of the late beatles song were far more intelectual than those of their first years, as that matter goes, I think that bands like Pink Floyd and Kansas fill that spot. And if you want the "make young girls scream" then the Jonas Brothers:smallamused:

Wow that failed :smalltongue:

Alright, lets pick it apart piece by piece:

1) "Queen, beacuase it was the greatest band ever, period"

*Facepalm*

2) "Maybe bands that started different genres, like sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Yes, Kraftwerk as ebonsword said."

Out of those only Sabbath/Kraftwerk really started anything new. Zeppelin and Purple (while good) only managed to provide slightly harder blues (something that wasn't even remotely new). On top of that, both Zeppelin and Purple detested the idea of being Heavy Metal and objected when labelled as such, whereas the Beatles were at least pleased with their (somewhat mleh but often decent) creations.

3) "Some of the late beatles song were far more intelectual than those of their first years, as that matter goes, I think that bands like Pink Floyd and Kansas fill that spot."

I see you don't actually understand what it is to make smart music, as opposed to moderately interesting music that sticks with elitists the world over.

4) "And if you want the "make young girls scream" then the Jonas Brothers:smallamused:"

Would be a lot more impressive if it wasn't already plastered over basically every UG discussion regarding the Beatles. You might want to look into bringing something new to the table if you intend to end on a zinger (friendly advice) :smallwink:


I do not see how the Beatles were remotely similar to Dragonforce. One is an insanely popular band known for playing a wide variety of cheerful, fun, simple songs. The other is a moderately popular band known for playing songs that all sound the same because they are all played as fast as humanly possible and always have lyrics involving fire, flames, swords, pain, burning, and swords.

And, while I agree that Queen is overrated, I will Internet-fight anyone who denies that We Are The Champions is a good song.

I was talking about the concept of being a studio band rather then being a band who are about taking music to wherever it should be. Also, mocking DF alone doesn't get you points with me unless if its valid, as even the most uppity of their detractors will admit that there's a vast difference between say "Last Journey Home" and "Starfire".

We are the Champions is an alright song, if you're into that kind of bland thing.

[Coplantor]

How about a band with talent that makes us girls scream, eh? :smallannoyed:

You know it was a joke and... oh mine, it took me some time to recognize you.

Well, what makes girls scream today and its good? A sexy paladin?

@^: The Jonas Brothers thing was a joke, and yeah, sabbath were the ones who started the thing, but zeppelin was a great influence to later bands. I dont believe that zeppelin and purple are metal, I wasn't saying that, I was talking about the influence. Also, how did I forgot about Iron Maiden?

[Hawriel]

Seeing the news today I look back at the thread and am shocked that no one mentioned Mikel Jackson. The man is huge. So is Prince.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Seeing the news today I look back at the thread and am shocked that no one mentioned Mikel Jackson. The man is huge. So is Prince.

Well, I don't really see Prince as being influenced by the Beatles, but I guess h did make the girls scream like they did :smallwink:
Michael, valid point. Especially because he did quite a bit of work with McCartney before he won the bid on the rights to the early Beatles music.

[Lord of the Helms]

You want a band who can be compared to the Beatles? I've got two

1) Iron Maiden

2) Thin Lizzy


Iron Maiden - debateable. Awesomamzing music, but influence firmly limited to metal (and the affront to life, the universe and everything that is metalcore), and there rather varied (massive in power metal, traditional heavy metal and melodeth, far less in thrash and death or grindcore).
Besides, Judas Priest is more influential, so if I'd nominate any strictly metal band, it's them.

Thin Lizzy - wait, what? How? At all? They're a cool hard rock / heavy metal band that doesn't stand out for influence or diversity, let alone both.



Wow that failed :smalltongue:

Alright, lets pick it apart piece by piece:

1) "Queen, beacuase it was the greatest band ever, period"

*Facepalm*



Aside from the absurd influence on everything rock and metal produced after the mid-70s (both really really really obvious at first listen and outright stated by tons of them, including all the most influential heavy metal bands) and the huge diversity in sound especially in their 70s albums (arena rock anthems, early heavy metal, prog and epic rock, ballads of tons of different styles and the whole neoclassical rock thing), I refuse to take seriously on musical subjects anyone who tries to tell me that Bohemian Rhapsody and The Prophet's Song are anything short of amazing.


2) "Maybe bands that started different genres, like sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Yes, Kraftwerk as ebonsword said."

Out of those only Sabbath/Kraftwerk really started anything new. Zeppelin and Purple (while good) only managed to provide slightly harder blues (something that wasn't even remotely new). On top of that, both Zeppelin and Purple detested the idea of being Heavy Metal and objected when labelled as such, whereas the Beatles were at least pleased with their (somewhat mleh but often decent) creations.

Even if Deep Purple did not like being labelled as Heavy Metal, their influence on pretty much everything metal - heavy, speed and thrash as the most prominent - is blatant and decidedly not second to Black Sabbath. Highway Star? Speed King? Burn? Child in Time? etc. blabla.

[Hawriel]

Well, I don't really see Prince as being influenced by the Beatles, but I guess h did make the girls scream like they did :smallwink:
Michael, valid point. Especially because he did quite a bit of work with McCartney before he won the bid on the rights to the early Beatles music.

The OP asked who was/is as influential as the Beatles. Not who is/was influenced by them.

[Cthulu]

The OP asked who was/is as influential as the Beatles. Not who is/was influenced by them.

"clap,clap,clap" my dear young boy you are correct for how could anyone not say michael was an influential character ( musically only ) and to say prince wasnt influential in his prime would be just plain dumb. the man was genius....

[SurlySeraph]

Iron Maiden - debateable. Awesomamzing music, but influence firmly limited to metal (and the affront to life, the universe and everything that is metalcore), and there rather varied (massive in power metal, traditional heavy metal and melodeth, far less in thrash and death or grindcore).
Besides, Judas Priest is more influential, so if I'd nominate any strictly metal band, it's them.

I challenge you to a duel, good sir. Unless you add "Not counting Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying, Demon Hunter and one or two other bands" as specific exceptions to the rule that metalcore is terrible.

[Raistlin1040]

Thin Lizzy - wait, what? How? At all? They're a cool hard rock / heavy metal band that doesn't stand out for influence or diversity, let alone both.

The influence Thin Lizzy had on hard rock and metal is actually pretty big. Their harmonizing double lead guitar lines is what CREATED bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. In addition, bands like Motorhead and Def Leppard have praised the band's advances in hard rock. Basically, Thin Lizzy is a "forgotten" band among the great 70s rock bands. Everyone knows KISS and Aerosmith and Queen. Thin Lizzy was very influential for late 70s, early 80s bands, it's just that they've been out of the spotlight since Phil died. But without Thin Lizzy, I'm not so sure New Wave Of British Heavy Metal would have been quite so potent.

Not anywhere near The Beatles, though.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In what sense is "compare" meant? Sonically, commercially, etc?

I'd say that The Clash could compare, and favourably, in a lot of ways. Commercially, of course, they're no match. However, their diversity was amazing, music all-but universally impeccable, cultural and music impact immense.

[Moff Chumley]

GOD I hope not. in terms of the beatles they sucked. took all their ideas from blues riffs and songs and then were "formed" and "Molded" by produicers, after that they got all druggy and looser. Without Blues their is no rock.....let alone three to four cord junk like the beatles.



"The blues had a baby, and they named it rock and roll"

My friend, I don't know if you're interested in an actual discussion or if you're just trolling, but please consider the following:
As to the Beatles, they had some very intricate stuff.
Eleanor Rigby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxyJLxV0_-8) is the most obvious counter-argument: there's barely any blues influence in the song, and even if some of the jazzier chords might be similar, I doubt anyone could accuse this of being a three/four chord song.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps is another more complicated song; lots of the harmonies aren't anything that could be encountered in the blues.
There are, of course, dozens of other amazing Beatles songs, but my time runs short...

Moving on to rock in general, sure it's descended from the blues, but that in no way effects its status as one of the greatest emotional and cultural forces of the last half century.

[Lord of the Helms]

I challenge you to a duel, good sir. Unless you add "Not counting Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying, Demon Hunter and one or two other bands" as specific exceptions to the rule that metalcore is terrible.

Okay, Cannons at dawn it is. Unless, I guess, you're satisfied if I say "Well, Killswitch Engaged write rather terrible music, but they did make that one cover of Holy Diver that was mostly okay and had a funny video" :smalltongue:

But seriously, metalcore just really, really does not appeal to me musically. I'll stick with my traditional, power, thrash, prog and tech-thrash/death metal, thank you very much.

Oh, and Volbeat. Because they rock.

[Dacia Brabant]

U2 is probably the closest comparison to the Beatles that I can think of, maybe not in sound (U2 is much more continental in flavor) or respective heights of popularity, but definitely in terms of longevity, continuing relevance, influence as well as activism. Plus all the solo projects that Bono and Edge have put together while still coming back together every several years to make another album.

[Yarram]

Let's not wish Paul a happy birthday, since he was the worst Beatle >>

No offense, but wtf? You know Paul was a better drummer than Ringo, and wrote half of the bands material, including their most famous "Yesterday?"

Back on topic, the Beatles had a very simplistic style. They weren't like Queen and other bands, just because their music was so musically simple (Lots of their appeal was that non-musicians could understand their music just because of this). At the same time though, they wrote really good quality music.

As it stands, I can't think of any musicians off the top of my head that write simple, quality music that's popular in the same way they did.

[Raistlin1040]

No offense, but wtf? You know Paul was a better drummer than Ringo, and wrote half of the bands material, including their most famous "Yesterday?"

Back on topic, the Beatles had a very simplistic style. They weren't like Queen and other bands, just because their music was so musically simple (Lots of their appeal was that non-musicians could understand their music just because of this). At the same time though, they wrote really good quality music.

As it stands, I can't think of any musicians off the top of my head that write simple, quality music that's popular in the same way they did.

I hate Yesterday. It's awful. In fact, in the UK, it was originally carried as a Paul McCartney solo release.

Ringo is a far better drummer than anyone gives him credit for.

George Martin-"He's got tremendous feel. He always helped us to hit the right tempo for a song, and gave it that support—that rock-solid back-beat—that made the recording of all the Beatles' songs that much easier."

Phil Collins-"Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song "A Day in the Life" are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' He wouldn't know what to do"

Steve Smith-"Before Ringo, drum stars were measured by their soloing ability and virtuosity. Ringo's popularity brought forth a new paradigm in how the public saw drummers. We started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect. One of Ringo's great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for The Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music and still identify the song."

I could go on. Paul may have been *as* technical a drummer as Ringo, but he was nowhere near as solid, nor as unique.

[Erothayce]

In my opinion, no, no one can come close to what the Beatles did.

[Yarram]

George Martin-"He's got tremendous feel. He always helped us to hit the right tempo for a song, and gave it that support—that rock-solid back-beat—that made the recording of all the Beatles' songs that much easier."

Phil Collins-"Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song "A Day in the Life" are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' He wouldn't know what to do"

Steve Smith-"Before Ringo, drum stars were measured by their soloing ability and virtuosity. Ringo's popularity brought forth a new paradigm in how the public saw drummers. We started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect. One of Ringo's great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for The Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music and still identify the song."

I could go on. Paul may have been *as* technical a drummer as Ringo, but he was nowhere near as solid, nor as unique.

Well you could also find the times saying that Twilight is good fiction and quote that, but I still have to disagree with you there.
I think we can agree to disagree though rather than get into an argument over it? Moving on, I was compelled to reply, just because I was so shocked by your aggressiveness towards a fantastic musician.
About Yesterday, while people do lie, sales don't. Read The Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_(song))
(Highest sales of any one song in the world has to say something no? And that it was released as a single makes him look better in comparison doesn't it?)
Personally though, I'm guessing you don't like him because you associate him as the cause of the Beatles breaking up.

[RabbitHoleLost]

No offense, but wtf? You know Paul was a better drummer than Ringo, and wrote half of the bands material, including their most famous "Yesterday?"

Back on topic, the Beatles had a very simplistic style. They weren't like Queen and other bands, just because their music was so musically simple (Lots of their appeal was that non-musicians could understand their music just because of this). At the same time though, they wrote really good quality music.

As it stands, I can't think of any musicians off the top of my head that write simple, quality music that's popular in the same way they did.

Plus, I wouldn't say Yesterday was the most famous single released by the Beatles.
Hey Jude(It is a McCartney song, I'll give)? I Want To Hold Your Hand (Lennon-McCartney)? Come Together (Lennon)?

Furthermore, most of that "half" you state was written by Macca were actually Lennon-McCartney co-ops. A lot of the Beatles songs were written together by John and McCartney, and, lemme tell you, Paul had his fair share of craps.
Like, you know, Michelle.
And a lot of the more popular songs within Beatles circles were written by John and George.
Granted, Ringo only wrote Octopus's Garden and Don't Pass Me By, but the man was in no way subpar in his drumming to Paul. At the time he was contracted into the Beatles, he was in a different band, which was only popular because of his drumming, and in which he would often have solos the crowd demanded, which were called "Starr Time".
Paul was/is a capable drummer, but there's a reason he was the bassist and not the drummer.
Also, Ringo is capable of playing guitar and piano as well, just fyi.

...And now, the Beatles fangirl gets off her soapbox.

Edit; Nevermind!


Personally though, I'm guessing you don't like him because you associate him as the cause of the Beatles breaking up.
No, we don't like him because he's an outright jerk.(Though Raistlin is a little more vehement in the feeling than I am. My opinion is only towards Macca after the break up).
He tried to sue the other Beatles after they broke up, for one reason, and continued to be mean to George and John for some time afterwards, publically spiting them.

[Yarram]

Plus, I wouldn't say Yesterday was the most famous single released by the Beatles.
Hey Jude(It is a McCartney song, I'll give)? I Want To Hold Your Hand (Lennon-McCartney)? Come Together (Lennon)?

Furthermore, most of that "half" you state was written by Macca were actually Lennon-McCartney co-ops. A lot of the Beatles songs were written together by John and McCartney, and, lemme tell you, Paul had his fair share of craps.
Like, you know, Michelle.
And a lot of the more popular songs within Beatles circles were written by John and George.
Granted, Ringo only wrote Octopus's Garden and Don't Pass Me By, but the man was in no way subpar in his drumming to Paul. At the time he was contracted into the Beatles, he was in a different band, which was only popular because of his drumming, and in which he would often have solos the crowd demanded, which were called "Starr Time".
Paul was/is a capable drummer, but there's a reason he was the bassist and not the drummer.
Also, Ringo is capable of playing guitar and piano as well, just fyi.

...And now, the Beatles fangirl gets off her soapbox.

Yeah, about that. While most of the songs have been *credited* to Both John and Paul, Paul still wrote most of them. Yesterday was credited to both of them too, but it was solely written by Paul.

EDIT: I forgot to say, follow the link in my previous post to find, yes, yesterday was their most popular song.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Yeah, about that. While most of the songs have been *credited* to Both John and Paul, Paul still wrote most of them. Yesterday was credited to both of them too, but it was solely written by Paul.

The same could be said of many of John's songs.
Also, I added an edit >>

[Yarram]

The same could be said of many of John's songs.
Also, I added an edit >>

But it's not said about them... :smalltongue:

[RabbitHoleLost]

But it's not said about them... :smalltongue:

Depends where you look, really. I could go down the complete song list on the Wiki page and point out which Lennon-McCartney songs are just John's, but I'm far too lazy and I don't care so much.
I just had fun working my fangirlism out <3
I don't get to talk with Macca fans often. Infact, the only other fan I get to talk to regularly who's as crazy as I am is Raist, and, as you see, he's not that big of a fan of Paul v.v

[Raistlin1040]

Personally though, I'm guessing you don't like him because you associate him as the cause of the Beatles breaking up.

Actually I just like his solo career the least, and his Beatles songs less than John and George's. He's also a jerk.

[Yarram]

One more note before I retire from this thread.

Ringo Star wrote both Yellow Submarine, and Octopuses garden. Enough said. (Note: These are both written as dual-written, because he couldn't write them without help. =P)

[RabbitHoleLost]

One more note before I retire from this thread.

Ringo Star wrote both Yellow Submarine, and Octopuses garden. Enough said. (Note: These are both written as dual-written, because he couldn't write them without help. =P)

McCartney wrote Yellow Submarine. Ringo was the lead vocals.