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

[peate]

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...

That movie is one of their worse performances. I saw them three times at the Forum and they were great, especially the first show, played almost 4 hours. Have you seen the reunion concert with Jason? Worth checking out.

 

[peate]

The first metal song is 'Black Sabbath', and I've yet to be convinced otherwise.

I'd have to agree; I remember hearing it the first time and going: "Well, this is a whole other ball game"

 

[SlickHands]

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

They only have 2-3 good ones. Sheer Heart Attack and Night at the Opera. I don't think there's another album I would enjoy listening to front to back.

 

[SlickHands]

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.

They were adult contemporary before that genre existed. The kind of music that would never challenge you, surprise you, or grab you. And that is enough right there to fully justify their reputation.

Now, I'm 100% in the Beatles camp on the Stones/Beatles debate, but I'd take any Stones album from 64-72 over anything the Eagles ever did. I'm not going to give the Stones credit for their "attitude", since that's always felt self-mythologizing and gimicky (ala' Bob Dylan), but on pure sound, creativity, songwriting, there's no comparison. Minimizing their catalog and implying that they're just the Eagles with a snarky / sex-symbol front man is a pretty big injustice to the actual music (and Brian Jones / Keith Richards), which helped create/define numerous sounds, pushed creative boundaries (even if it was usually following the Beatles lead), and led to an era from 1964-1972 that saw them create 8-9 classic albums (8 more than the Eagles). I think, if anything, they've done a disservice to their music by continuing to tour and make music probably about 30 years longer than they should have. But let's be real, up until Exile on Main St., they were consistently making some of the best music on the planet.

If you're really tickled by studio polish, gloss, and vapid songwriting and musicianship, then I guess the Eagles are your band. I'd gladly take CSN over the Eagles too for Helplessly Hoping alone.

 

[Eisen]

They only have 2-3 good ones. Sheer Heart Attack and Night at the Opera. I don't think there's another album I would enjoy listening to front to back.

The only one I don't like is Jazz and even there are a couple of good songs.

 

[Lshap]

They were adult contemporary before that genre existed. The kind of music that would never challenge you, surprise you, or grab you. And that is enough right there to fully justify their reputation.

Now, I'm 100% in the Beatles camp on the Stones/Beatles debate, but I'd take any Stones album from 64-72 over anything the Eagles ever did. I'm not going to give the Stones credit for their "attitude", since that's always felt self-mythologizing and gimicky (ala' Bob Dylan), but on pure sound, creativity, songwriting, there's no comparison. Minimizing their catalog and implying that they're just the Eagles with a snarky / sex-symbol front man is a pretty big injustice to the actual music (and Brian Jones / Keith Richards), which helped create/define numerous sounds, pushed creative boundaries (even if it was usually following the Beatles lead), and led to an era from 1964-1972 that saw them create 8-9 classic albums (8 more than the Eagles). I think, if anything, they've done a disservice to their music by continuing to tour and make music probably about 30 years longer than they should have. But let's be real, up until Exile on Main St., they were consistently making some of the best music on the planet.

If you're really tickled by studio polish, gloss, and vapid songwriting and musicianship, then I guess the Eagles are your band. I'd gladly take CSN over the Eagles too for Helplessly Hoping alone.

It's funny that I've been cast as the advocate for The Eagles when, as I've said, I wouldn't rank them near the top of any list. But I'll defend them against silly and inaccurate descriptions like 'studio polish' and 'vapid'. Ironically, I'm not even a huge fan, but the quality of their vocal blend and many of their songs is undeniable. That said, I'd also take CSN(&Y) over them (I love Helplessly Hoping!), but I can tell you that their harmonies are easier and less complex. I'll repeat my very first comment about The Eagles: I think their harshest criticisms are a backlash against their immense popularity. Their music isn't great, but a lot of it is really nice.

 

[SlickHands]

It's funny that I've been cast as the advocate for The Eagles when, as I've said, I wouldn't rank them near the top of any list. But I'll defend them against silly and inaccurate descriptions like 'studio polish' and 'vapid'. Ironically, I'm not even a huge fan, but the quality of their vocal blend and many of their songs is undeniable. And by the way, I'd also take CSN(&Y) over them (I love Helplessly Hoping!), but I can tell you that their harmonies are easier and less complex. I'll repeat my very first comment about The Eagles: I think their harshest criticisms are a backlash against their immense popularity. Their music isn't great, but a lot of it is really nice.

I don't disagree on the harmonies. I also don't think that complexity is necessarily a good measure of music quality (I'll take plenty of Punk bands over Prog ones, for example). But it's fair enough. I wouldn't have even replied if you didn't drag the Stones into it.

 

[Hammettf2b]

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

Metallica gets my vote for greatest American band of all time. Although I'm biased.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Metallica gets my vote for greatest American band of all time. Although I'm biased.

The entire metal genre is totally lost on me. You may be right though

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

While I agree about your individual charges against the Stones deserving SOME of the same criticism, I would argue in the opposite direction and say that attitude shouldn't count for nothing. The Stones deserve to be placed well ahead of The Eagles on the grounds that their music has a ton more personality, style, life, and charm alone (and significantly stronger lyric-writing, for that matter, among other things). Personality shouldn't be removed from consideration-- In fact, as artists (not technicians), it might even be among the most significant criteria to consider, in my opinion.

The Eagles' music is bland, vanilla, and uninteresting as all hell, and that is absolutely a warranted black mark against them, despite maybe being technically proficient.

 

[Lshap]

While I agree about your individual charges against the Stones deserving some of the same criticism, I would argue in the opposite direction and say that attitude shouldn't count for nothing. The Stones deserve to be placed well ahead of The Eagles on the grounds that their music has a ton more personality, style, life, and charm alone (and significantly stronger lyric-writing, for that matter). Personality shouldn't be removed from consideration-- In fact, as artists (not technicians), it might even be among the most significant criteria to consider, in my opinion.

The Eagles' music is bland, vanilla, and uninteresting as all hell, and that is absolutely a warranted black mark against them, despite maybe being technically proficient.

Good points and I agree with every one of them.

 

[Shareefruck]

That movie is one of their worse performances. I saw them three times at the Forum and they were great, especially the first show, played almost 4 hours. Have you seen the reunion concert with Jason? Worth checking out.

While I'm not a big Zeppelin fan, my favorite performance by them is one of their really early ones in Denmark, where they played to a silent, wide-eyed audience who seemed like they had no idea what was happening. Makes me realize how much I prefer live performances without screaming crowds.


Pretty awe-inspiring, and I don't think they ever got more interesting than this moment, personally.

 

[ORRFForever]

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.

True, but it helps. Just like any artform, it's helpful if you have something to compare it to and I have very little.

To me, I enjoy the Eagles music but, if someone says the music is <fill in the blank>, I'll bow to their knowledge.

I thought what you wrote above was well written and you make a bunch of solid points.

 

[ORRFForever]

That movie is one of their worse performances. I saw them three times at the Forum and they were great, especially the first show, played almost 4 hours. Have you seen the reunion concert with Jason? Worth checking out.

I saw a bit of it on YouTube. I agree, much better.

 

[kihei]

Queen was way too bombastic for me, though I loved Brian May's guitar sound and work. But they are really popular.

 

[ORRFForever]

Queen was way too bombastic for me, though I loved Brian May's guitar sound and work. But they are really popular.

I like Queens music but when I went to see BH, I was sure I was going to be introduced to a bunch of songs I'd never heard and I'd think, "That song is GREAT. I wish I'd heard it before."

Instead, it was the same old, same old, "Top 6 At 6". Made me wonder if there wasn't much more to like.

 

[ORRFForever]

The entire metal genre is totally lost on me.

It helps if you grew up with it - you may be too young.

 

[peate]

Eagles early stuff was not bad, the country stuff. We used to do "Take it easy" and I had the lead down pat, and the vocals we nailed. We tried doing "Love will keep us alive " once, but nobody could sing that high.

Only one word describes the Stones: "Satisfaction".

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

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.

I feel like I've been schooled, but I didn't understand much of what happened. ;-)

 

[Aladyyn]

Metallica gets my vote for greatest American band of all time. Although I'm biased.

Only 3 all-time relevant albums, sorry but no way.

 

[Ouroboros]

It helps if you grew up with it - you may be too young.

More likely to be too old, no? It would be unusual for somebody in their mid-20's or older to all of a sudden take an interest in metal. Or, I suspect, any intense/harsh form of music. People like John Zorn and Thurston Moore excluded I guess.

I think younger people would be more likely to at least give it a chance. In recent years it has sort of began to be seen as slightly more acceptable - as a valid art form I guess. Even Pitchfork will occasionally give it some half-hearted coverage, which is more than could have been expected in the past.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Only 3 all-time relevant albums, sorry but no way.

Their first 5 albums are as iconic as it gets.

 

[GiveAFlyingPuck]

You don't like the Eagles because The Dude hates them.

 

[brokeu91]

I have a friend who has two PhDs in music (believe it or not). He agrees that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. His second favorite is Queen. He basically said their chord progressions are so much better than anyone else and that Freddy Mercury’s voice is amazing (for instance it’s him on every vocal in “Bohemian Rhapsody”). Funny enough I was never into Queen other than “Under Pressure” and I may only like that song because of David Bowie’s influence.

 

[Aladyyn]

Their first 5 albums are as iconic as it gets.

3, not 5