Music: The Beatles, greatest "popular consensus" band of all time?

[montreal]

It all depends on what you are using as criteria for most popular, album sales, ticket sales, etc..

for me the stones, pink floyd, led zeppelin, queen, the beach boys, the eagles, the Doors, I like them all but my personal favorite would be Pink Floyd who I think are just outstanding. For the rest I think Queen has more songs I like, I'm not a huge fan of the stones but they are very popular, led zeppelin has some great songs for sure, big fan of the Doors likely more then anyone else I listed outside of Pink Floyd. The Beach Boys are popular for sure but I was never a big fan. The eagles have one of the greatest songs ever written imo but beyond that I don't care for them that much but agree that they are very popular.

There's more modern bands like U2, Coldplay, Radiohead that I could see being up there for most popular.

 

[ORRFForever]

"Underrated" and "Overrated" are subjective terms. What's not subjective is that nobody else sounds like The Beach Boys. They're a stand-alone anomaly in music, partly because of Brian Wilson's unique songwriting and partly because the harmonies are too complex for most other bands. If 'unique' is a measure for greatness, I'd say the only other well-known band that reaches that level was Queen.

But okay... I'll say The Beach Boys were underrated among the general public, who don't hear much beyond the catchy tunes. On the other hand, musicians typically hold Brian Wilson up as one of music's rare genius, because we geek out over the arrangements and production.

Queen is in danger of becoming overrated because of Freddie's star power. Yeah, he's probably the best front-man of all time, but to me one guy's personality is not as important as the overall writing and performance of the group. Don't get me wrong -- by every measure Queen is great and unique, but their ranking has been propped up a little by Freddie's cult of personality.

The Eagles aren't near the top in any category, but they're consistently very, very good in all of them. Some really beautiful tunes and harmonies, and I happen to love Henley's voice. I'd say they're probably underrated, not because they deserve to be in the all-time-best list, but because they're unfairly dismissed as bland/pop/top-40. They're excellent writers and have some of the best group vocals around.

I don't pretend to know as much about music as everyone here - it's not my thing, but the overrated Queen thing is something even I have noticed.

It was reinforced by the movie Bohemian Rhapsody. During the movie, I expected for a bunch of hits I'd never heard before. But it was the same old, same old. The same half dozen songs everyone knows and I thought, "Don't they have anything else worth including?"

Can you imagine trying to make a movie about the Beatles, L.Z. or the Stones and narrowing it down to a half dozen songs?

As for the Eagles, I think their lack of a compelling / sexy front man hurts their rankings. Don Henley is kind of an "everyman" and Glenn Frey always came across a short little a-hole with a chip on his shoulder. Having said that, The Eagles have FAR more quality material than Queen - AINEC.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Everytime I try The Doors I always end up feeling that they're so strictly average. Never anything that I can remember. Nothing bad. Just agonizingly okay. I don't get it.

 

[ORRFForever]

As for me, my Top 5 would be...

The Beatles
========
Led Zep
The Stones
The Eagles
U.2.

 

[ORRFForever]

I think they are and it’s not even really close. If they only made “Sargent Peppers” and the White Album that alone would put them in the top 5

Abbey Road is the best album I've ever heard.

Imagine being a band where your last album is your best - most bands have run out of material long before then.

 

[montreal]

Everytime I try The Doors I always end up feeling that they're so strictly average. Never anything that I can remember. Nothing bad. Just agonizingly okay. I don't get it.

they aren't for everyone, I think it helps if you smoke pot personally. Some of my favorites are,

You're Lost Little Girl
Indian Summer
Love Street
Ghost song
The Crystal Ship
Moonlight Drive
Been down so Long
When the Music's Over
Alabama Song
The End
Hyacinth House
Riders on the Storm
Waiting for the Sun
Spanish Caravan

 

[x Tame Impala]

A case could be made for the Eagles to be the best American rock band of all time. Mostly due to a lack of legendary competition, but they have a lot of really good songs

 

[Lshap]

I don't pretend to know as much about music as everyone here - it's not my thing, but the overrated Queen thing is something even I have noticed.

It was reinforced by the movie Bohemian Rhapsody. During the movie, I expected for a bunch of hits I'd never heard before. But it was the same old, same old. The same half dozen songs everyone knows and I thought, "Don't they have anything else worth including?"

Can you imagine trying to make a movie about the Beatles, L.Z. or the Stones and narrowing it down to a half dozen songs?

As for the Eagles, I think their lack of a compelling / sexy front man hurts their rankings. Don Henley is kind of an "everyman" and Glenn Frey always came across a short little a-hole with a chip on his shoulder. Having said that, The Eagles have FAR more quality material than Queen - AINEC.

Musically, Queen is really out there, but I admit it's an acquired taste that's not for everyone. You're right that their catalog isn't nearly as wide as other top bands, but the stuff they do have is so different that they get extra marks for innovation, Freddie's voice, and of course Brian May's guitar. And actually, having a smaller number of iconic songs is probably one of the reasons their story translated so well into film. Focus on the front man, focus on the monster hits, focus on the tragic end, job done.

 

[ORRFForever]

Musically, Queen is really out there, but I admit it's an acquired taste that's not for everyone. You're right that their catalog isn't nearly as wide as other top bands, but the stuff they do have is so different that they get extra marks for innovation, Freddie's voice, and of course Brian May's guitar. And actually, having a smaller number of iconic songs is probably one of the reasons their story translated so well into film. Focus on the front man, focus on the monster hits, focus on the tragic end, job done.

That's fair.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Everytime I try The Doors I always end up feeling that they're so strictly average. Never anything that I can remember. Nothing bad. Just agonizingly okay. I don't get it.

Not a fan either, but I always end up going back to People Are Strange.

I think it helps if you smoke pot personally.

Well, it's kind of telling if it does! But thanks for the suggested songs.

 

[ORRFForever]

A case could be made for the Eagles to be the best American rock band of all time. Mostly due to a lack of legendary competition, but they have a lot of really good songs

Yes. When it comes to bands, the U.S. has not lived up to what you'd expect from such a large country.

 

[Lshap]

A case could be made for the Eagles to be the best American rock band of all time. Mostly due to a lack of legendary competition, but they have a lot of really good songs

You'd have a good case, but then I'd argue for The Beach Boys, someone else would say The Doors or The Byrds, and just when we're reaching a consensus we'd suddenly realize, holy shit... Motown and soul! And we'd be here all night...

 

[ORRFForever]

You'd have a good case, but then I'd argue for The Beach Boys, someone else would say The Doors or The Byrds, and just when we're reaching a consensus we'd suddenly realize, holy shit... Motown and soul! And we'd be here all night...

I don't understand the appeal of the Beach Boys but, then again, music is not my thing and people who KNOW music say their stuff was great.

As for the Doors, did they really have that much material?

 

[Ouroboros]

I was never a big fan of male oriented acts when they got into the Van Halen type. I just used it to show that a song can be anything given the proper treatment. If Metallica or Iron Maiden did the song, would it be metal then? How about Slayer?

You can't label music that way, it's too subjective and prone to change. I just enjoy what I like and ignore the rest. Like here.

There is more to metal, stylistically, than just distortion and an abrasive/loud sound. If that were all it took then any number of abrasive genres [hardcore punk, no wave, noise, grunge, etc.] would all fall under the umbrella of metal. But that isn't the case.

The first metal song is 'Black Sabbath', and I've yet to be convinced otherwise. Maybe some small argument could be made for High Tide's 'Futilist's Lament' from their Sea Shanties LP but I don't think that would get a ton of support. Ultimately I think it comes down to a few simple elements - the first is the tritone/flatted fifth that the Sabbath song is built around. It's a menacing sound. All throughout musical history it was an interval used to signify unease and gloom - or heaviness, if you will. In the blues and rock and roll up to this point it was mainly used for color, not as the main motif in songs. The second element is the trill that accents the tritone - this just ratchets the tension up even higher. I don't even consider the entire Black Sabbath LP to be fully formed metal as it still retained much of their vestigial blues sound but the title track is definitely the archetype of what was to come.

So I don't think it would matter who was covering 'You Really Got Me'. It still wouldn't be a metal song because the elements just aren't there - it's largely just a few F, G, A and D chords being strummed, right? I think that Van Halen cover you posted pretty much confirms this - it still lacks the heft of what is generally considered metal. The feel is all wrong. Though I should clarify that I generally don't consider Van Halen a metal band either.

I also have to mention that Black Sabbath would never get anywhere near the top of any list concerning 'popular consensus'. They were hated by critics in their time, just utterly despised. It's only relatively recently that their status has undergone some degree of revision.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, and while I'm at it - The Eagles are music for people who don't like music.

 

[ORRFForever]

I have said many times before, the next movie bio pic should be about Van Halen. That would be great. A band who HATED each other. Changing lead singers. Two drunk/drug addicted brothers at each other's throat but still with each other's back. Great music.

 

[ORRFForever]

Oh, and while I'm at it - The Eagles are music for people who don't like music.

What does that mean?

Considering how little love they get from people who rate music, there might be some truth to it.

 

[ORRFForever]

One negative about Led Zep... They weren't good live.

I remember renting The Song Remains The Same as a teenager and being shocked how awful they sounded.

One of the FEW quality versions of songs I've heard from them live...

 

[Ouroboros]

What does that mean?

Considering how little love they get from people who rate music, there might be some truth to it.

For me, The Eagles - and Don Henley in particular - seem to drip with insincerity. Just utterly lifeless music; bloated, over orchestrated, schlocky. Sounds like songs written by a focus group in order to sell records.

It's basically muzak to me.

 

[ORRFForever]

For me, The Eagles - and Don Henley in particular - seem to drip with insincerity. Just utterly lifeless music; bloated, over orchestrated, schlocky. Sounds like songs written by a focus group in order to sell records.

It's basically muzak to me.

TBH, I'm not sure what that means. Again, I am not a "music guy" so what you're saying may just be going over my head.

The Eagles have one song I despise... Desperado(?). Come to think of it, your description above describes that song to a tee.

 

[x Tame Impala]

For me, The Eagles - and Don Henley in particular - seem to drip with insincerity. Just utterly lifeless music; bloated, over orchestrated, schlocky. Sounds like songs written by a focus group in order to sell records.

It's basically muzak to me.

Totally agree. I watched a THREE HOUR documentary about them. They talked about their approach to writing songs and it seemed sooooo formulaic. Not a lot of passion just generally catchy lyrics. Almost like doing enough just to get the job done if that makes sense

 

[ORRFForever]

Totally agree. I watched a THREE HOUR documentary about them.

I saw that. Glenn Frey was always angry. I kept waiting for one of the other members to kick his teeth in.

 

[Shareefruck]

* The Eagles are the worst of the bunch, IMO. Just completely uninspired and forgettable music.
* Queen I find very overrated-- I feel like their impact has more to do with how infectious and charismatic Freddy Mercury and his story are as well as how physically impressive his range is rather than the actual music being all that good.
* The Doors I feel stylistically should be right up my alley (and they seem to influence things I appreciate), but Jim Morrison always struck me as a bit amateurish-- I think he probably has valid ideas but is just lacking in execution.
* Zeppelin are really strong crowd-pleasers with a nice, satisfying, and memorable sound and impressive output, but not a whole lot that I would consider "brilliant" beyond that, IMO. I think they're very good, but they sound very same-y and overly reliant on borrowing from their Blues influences, to my ears. I don't find them all that innovative compared to others, aside from their initial sound. I also don't find the contents of their music truly beautiful or expressive nor do I buy Robert Plante as someone who has anything all that interesting, heartfelt, or humane to express, especially when the music attempts to sound emotional, powerful, or ballad-y. To me it comes across more like he's just a pure show-man who worked on being a decent enough writer to effectively flex his voice, and he treats emotional songs as just an excuse to flaunt that or something. The Stones have some similar limitations, in my opinion. I find both of these bands to be at their best when they just have fun and don't try to be too heavy-handed. The more stripped down, early Zeppelin and Beggar's Banquet era Stones is still my favorite from them.
* The Beach Boys are a properly great band, and deserve some high praise for sure for Pet Sounds alone, as well as parts of Smile, although I wouldn't go as far as to say that they're among the greatest albums of all time. I would say they're super underrated amongst younger audiences (because let's face it, superficially, they just don't seem very cool), but probably overrated amongst veteran traditionalists and people who grew up around that era. Brian Wilson is probably around as good as an individual Beatle, but the rest of the group are pretty whatever.
* I'm still hoping to eventually find some Metal that I can be fully invested in-- There's just something about how the genre usually sounds that really puts me off and feels kind of garish and tasteless to my ears. The closest I've found to a Metal-related thing that I've been able to really dig is probably Earth 2, which I'm not even sure qualifies.

If massive popularity is a prerequisite (which again, I completely disagree with treating as a factor), I'm happier to give a band like Pink Floyd the second spot over these others, personally. Probably Hendrix as well.

 

[Eisen]

Musically, Queen is really out there, but I admit it's an acquired taste that's not for everyone. You're right that their catalog isn't nearly as wide as other top bands, but the stuff they do have is so different that they get extra marks for innovation, Freddie's voice, and of course Brian May's guitar. And actually, having a smaller number of iconic songs is probably one of the reasons their story translated so well into film. Focus on the front man, focus on the monster hits, focus on the tragic end, job done.

It's not like Queen only has two or three albums.

 

[Lshap]

For me, The Eagles - and Don Henley in particular - seem to drip with insincerity. Just utterly lifeless music; bloated, over orchestrated, schlocky. Sounds like songs written by a focus group in order to sell records.

It's basically muzak to me.

TBH, I'm not sure what that means. Again, I am not a "music guy" so what you're saying may just be going over my head.

The Eagles have one song I despise... Desperado(?). Come to think of it, your description above describes that song to a tee.

I don't believe you need to be a musician to have a valid opinion on musicians. Ranking music isn't like ranking a research paper -- you don't need credentials. Just ears.

About The Eagles, they've become an easy target for criticism partly because of their massive popularity. IMO a lot of it is plain old snobbery. There are valid marks against them: Unlike the other bands being discussed, they're not groundbreaking in any way. No virtuoso musician among them. They didn't evolve much over the years or have a variety of styles -- songs and sounds remain similar throughout their career.

However, The Eagles found a really good sonic groove and wrote a wealth of really good material. Is that enough to make them 'great'? Depends on your criteria, because everything I just said about The Eagles could also apply to The Rolling Stones.

I know plenty of people won't agree with the comparison; that's cool. Very few bands can boast a 'wealth of really good material', so it's not meant as a criticism of the Stones or Eagles. Yet the Stones are considered among the greatest bands ever while The Eagles are often sniffed at as disposable pop. Why? I think the difference comes down to two factors: 1) Timing. Singing about raw sex in the 1960s had traction. The Rolling Stones were the bad-boy flipside to The Beatles' fresh British faces. Girls wanted to marry The Beatles, but they wanted to sleep with The Stones. The Stones' songs aren't better than The Beatles and not even better than The Eagles, but with their accent and attitude, they're much cooler than both. 2) Mick Jagger. Without the lips, the swagger, and the sneering vocals, The Rolling Stones would've been associated with a bunch of groovy, catchy songs, but not as an iconic pillar of an era. In other words, they would've been the 60s version of The Eagles.

Last thing in my defence of The Eagles. Their vocal harmony is superb. Not Brian Wilson-level superb, but still, one of the warmest, fullest and tightest blends you'll hear. Think vocal groups and Crosby Stills & Nash comes to mind, yet the level of vocal craftsmanship in The Eagles is better. Honestly, I wouldn't place The Eagles in any "Greatest" category, but I firmly believe the criticisms against them are mostly unfounded.