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

[HisIceness]

I like Hootie and the Blowfish better, but I'm sure I'm one of the few who share that opinion.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Another band that needs to be mentioned is U2, who I believe are still the highest grossing concert band in rock history.

U2 is always overlooked in these discussions. Their resume is just as strong (and in some cases, stronger) as the other bands mentioned in the rock band GOAT discussion. For whatever reason, they are just a band people love to hate on.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

highest grossing does not equal influence

I guess, but the subject is "greatest by popular consensus", I don't think influence on their peers is part of the equation.

I like Hootie and the Blowfish better, but I'm sure I'm one of the few who share that opinion.

Better than the Beatles? Yes you are probably alone.

 

[Shareefruck]

I couldn't disagree more with lumping Led Zeppelin in with the Stones and, god forbid, CCR.

CCR was a swamp rock phenomenon - a band who had no real enduring impact on musical evolution with neither the incentive or perhaps the opportunity (4 years) to vary their signature style. John Fogerty went on to write songs as a solo artist that were really no different in any objective way.

Listen to this song by the Hollies which they openly admit was a blatant attempt to jump on to the bandwagon. I grew up hearing this on the radio and thinking this was CCR.



Meanwhile, Led Zeppelin went out and followed up their highly popular heavy metal debut albums with the extremely controversial Led Zeppelin III, a folk album recorded at Bron-Y-Aur using largely acoustic instruments.

Much like Bob Dylan's electric album, people openly questioned their decision-making and direction. This idea that you are peddling that Led Zeppelin went out of their way to make commercially-friendly music as part of their ethos is so misguided that it really begs belief.

You've argued that the Beatles made music that mainstream audiences wouldn't appreciate, and those albums you cited ended up as their most best-selling albums. Commercial success does not preclude creative development.

Led Zeppelin would go on to experiment in all kinds of ways that diverted significantly from their heavy-feedback guitar-fuzzed metal anthems with albums like Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti. Their soundscape evolved from the stripped down sound of their early days into all kinds of new instrumentation and new studio techniques. How many radio unfriendly songs did they craft, with song lengths that extended well over 5 minutes?

Your problem is that, by the time you were alive and cogent, Led Zeppelin's catalogue was already completed and part of the mainstream rock musical history. A lot of the sharp edges and controversy have been smoothed over by time. Their music had been dissected, analyzed and replayed over and over again until it reached that saturation point.

I like CCR and the Rolling Stones, but they are far more similar to each other than they are to Led Zeppelin. The Stones and Zeppelin share their roots as English blues-influenced rock bands, but Mick and Keith were far more content to follow their formula than Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones were.

I mean, Jimi Hendrix is also about as blues-influenced as it gets, so I don't really understand why you've separated him out. Probably because he died before he turned into Eric Clapton.

I've never argued that The Beatles made music that mainstream audiences wouldn't appreciate (McCartney's presence on 99% of their work doesn't really allow for that-- they would never be outright unpopular or obscure). I've shown skepticism in thinking that the correlation between their popularity and quality is due to other circumstances besides their music, and benefited from the order that they were introduced (on top of disagreeing with that correlation on a song-by-song, artist-by-artist basis). That's very different.

While I think there are some good points in this, and can concede that Zeppelin is less guilty of it than the other two, and that Zeppelin were more innovative in the context of their time (same thing could be said about the Stones to some degree, and not said about CCR), I don't know that saturation explains the same-ness of their music, looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. To my ears, Physical Graffiti and Houses of Holy are different from the rest of their discography, but not wildly different (not nearly to the degree that Dylan or The Beatles or VU or Eno reinvented themselves, for example), and not towards areas that themselves were that interesting. The sensibilities are still pretty similar. Another factor that also played into my grouping that has nothing to do with innovation is that these bands are much more aesthetic driven/not fully believable/interesting on an expressive/personal/human level-- their music comes across as more theatrical/showman-like to me-- That's a completely different charge that I admit is more subjective and hard to back up-- it's probably a bigger part of the equation as well.

It also doesn't really matter to me what their actual ethos and intentions were (I'll grant just about anything charitable in that regard), just the effect and impression that it has when you listen to it (they have a sound that is very aesthetically pleasing, but doesn't exactly inspire a liberating sensation of limitless creative possibilities). The former isn't something I find relevant anyways, so if it sounded like I was passionately arguing about actual intentions, that wasn't what I was going for (nor is it really ever anything I care to get into in general).

I included Hendrix primarily because of how wildly different Band of Gypsys sounds to me (and what it as well as his posthumous stuff signified about the direction he was headed). If we're strictly talking about his first three big albums, I could probably agree with you there and lump them with the others-- Are You Experienced, Axis Bold As Love, and Electric Ladyland are as similar to each other as Zeppelin's albums. (I would consider the former more personal, authentic, and expressive, but not strongly enough to argue about it)

One thing that I probably can walk back (which I don't think was argued, but whatever) is whether or not innovation is even at the root of what matters about a band being considered good in the first place. Something can feel inspired, beautiful, human, and have a constantly individual sense of identity without completely reinventing itself, I suppose (although I do think something's lacking in Zeppelin/The Stones music that prevents them from hitting that mark-- it's probably mostly how impersonal they feel). I also personally have never related to the idea of over or under exposure being much of a factor. What excites and creates appreciation in me rarely has anything to do with how much I expose myself to them. Even if no derivative bands or radio play existed, I think I would still feel the same way about the music from this group sounding less interesting and having less of a human connection.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I guess, but the subject is "greatest by popular consensus", I don't think influence on their peers is part of the equation.



Better than the Beatles? Yes you are probably alone.

you do realise due to riots the fab could not tour that last 6 years they were together?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

you do realise due to riots the fab could not tour that last 6 years they were together?

Riots are a lame excuse, they just couldn't play most of their material live.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Riots are a lame excuse, they just couldn't play most of their material live.

Before they retired from touring YES THEY COULD


it was AFTER they retired from touring they only became a studio band

please get your facts correct

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Before they retired from touring YES THEY COULD

it was AFTER they retired from touring they only became a studio band

please get your facts correct

I'm not sure WHY there's need for caps HERE, but hey, you seem pretty WORKED UP about this. I'm sorry I didn't get THE facts right. It seems RINGO felt he couldn't HEAR the band play either (too many people not ABLE TO CONTROL THEIR EMOTIONS).

I guess that PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT that Hootie is INDEED the GREATER band.



(did I get it right this time?)

 

[Shareefruck]

Before they retired from touring YES THEY COULD


it was AFTER they retired from touring they only became a studio band

please get your facts correct

But that's more or less the period you guys are talking about-- the last five-six years they were together (essentially after they retired from touring), in which they wrote material that they generally couldn't play live. It wasn't because the riots prevented it-- it was because they moved in a direction that made it infeasible to perform live because they thought the rewards justified it.

 

[Jumptheshark]

But that's more or less the period you guys are talking about-- the last five-six years they were together (essentially after they retired from touring), in which they wrote material that they generally couldn't play live. It wasn't because of the riots prevented it-- it was because they moved in a direction that made it infeasible to perform live because they thought the rewards justified it.

how many riots and or death have been there are U2 concerts?

 

[Shareefruck]

how many riots and or death have been there are U2 concerts?

What? What is the point being made here?

 

[NyQuil]

I've never argued that The Beatles made music that mainstream audiences wouldn't appreciate (McCartney's presence on 99% of their work doesn't really allow for that-- they would never be outright unpopular or obscure). I've shown skepticism in thinking that the correlation between their popularity and quality is due to other circumstances besides their music, and benefited from the order that they were introduced (on top of disagreeing with that correlation on a song-by-song, artist-by-artist basis). That's very different.

While I think there are some good points in this, and can concede that Zeppelin is less guilty of it than the other two, and that Zeppelin were more innovative in the context of their time (same thing could be said about the Stones to some degree, and not said about CCR), I don't know that saturation explains the same-ness of their music, looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. To my ears, Physical Graffiti and Houses of Holy are different from the rest of their discography, but not wildly different (not nearly to the degree that Dylan or The Beatles or VU or Eno reinvented themselves, for example), and not towards areas that themselves were that interesting. The sensibilities are still pretty similar. Another factor that also played into my grouping that has nothing to do with innovation is that these bands are much more aesthetic driven/not fully believable/interesting on an expressive/personal/human level-- their music comes across as more theatrical/showman-like to me-- That's a completely different charge that I admit is more subjective and hard to back up-- it's probably a bigger part of the equation as well.

It also doesn't really matter to me what their actual ethos and intentions were (I'll grant just about anything charitable in that regard), just the effect and impression that it has when you listen to it. The former isn't something I find relevant anyways, so if it sounded like I was passionately arguing about actual intentions, that wasn't what I was going for (nor is it really ever anything I care to get in general).

I included Hendrix primarily because of how wildly different Band of Gypsys sounds to me (and what it as well as his posthumous stuff signified about the direction he was headed). If we're strictly talking about his first three big albums, I could probably agree with you there and lump them with the others-- Are You Experienced, Axis Bold As Love, and Electric Ladyland are as similar to each other as Zeppelin's albums. (I would consider the former more personal, authentic, and expressive, but not strongly enough to argue about it)

One thing that I probably can walk back (which I don't think was argued, but whatever) is whether or not innovation is even at the root of what matters about a band being considered good in the first place. Something can feel inspired, beautiful, human, and have a constantly individual sense of identity without completely reinventing itself, I suppose (although I do think something's lacking in Zeppelin/The Stones music that prevents them from hitting that mark-- it's probably mostly how personal they feel). I also personally have never related to the idea of over or under exposure being much of a factor. What excites and creates appreciation in me rarely has anything to do with how much I expose myself to them. Even if no derivative bands or radio play existed, I think I would still feel the same way about the music from this group sounding less interesting and having less of a human connection.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[ORRFForever]

Watching them on PBS...

How about some love and credit to the BeeGees ?!

Lyrics were terrible but the music was great.

I started scanning thru some "Best 100 Band Of All Time" lists and none of them have the Bee Gees. I know their lyrics are painful, but this seems wrong.

My guess : More people (even someone who knows NOTHING about music like me) can name more of their songs than 85%+ of the bands on the list.

If you bet me $100, I could not name you a "Ramone" song. I might be able to name you ONE (maybe 2) Who or RadioHead or Red Hot Chile Peppers songs... maybe. But I bet I could name 10+ Bee Gee songs.

Anyway, I think they deserve better.

 

[Eisen]

I started scanning thru some "Best 100 Band Of All Time" lists and none of them have the Bee Gees. I know their lyrics are painful, but this seems wrong.

My guess : More people (even someone who knows NOTHING about music like me) can name more of their songs than 85%+ of the bands on the list.

If you bet me $100, I could not name you a "Ramone" song. I might be able to name you ONE (maybe 2) Who or RadioHead or Red Hot Chile Peppers songs... maybe. But I bet I could name 10+ Bee Gee songs.

Anyway, I think they deserve better.

Not one Ramones song? Everyone knows Blitzkrieg Bop. It is everywhere.

 

[ORRFForever]

Not one Ramones song? Everyone knows Blitzkrieg Bop. It is everywhere.

Does not sound familiar to me. I will look it up.

 

[Eisen]

Does not sound familiar to me. I will look it up.

You'll know it.

 

[ORRFForever]

You'll know it.

I know the "Aye, Oh, Let's Go" part. I've heard it at sporting events.

Again, I am not a music guy so...

 

[Shareefruck]

I started scanning thru some "Best 100 Band Of All Time" lists and none of them have the Bee Gees. I know their lyrics are painful, but this seems wrong.

My guess : More people (even someone who knows NOTHING about music like me) can name more of their songs than 85%+ of the bands on the list.

If you bet me $100, I could not name you a "Ramone" song. I might be able to name you ONE (maybe 2) Who or RadioHead or Red Hot Chile Peppers songs... maybe. But I bet I could name 10+ Bee Gee songs.

Anyway, I think they deserve better.

Whether this is true or not, I'm curious why this matters more to you than admittedly terrible lyrics? Not being able to name something with zero knowledge doesn't seem like much of an indictment on a thing's value (or vice versa). If anything, part of the point of these lists should be to introduce someone who knows nothing about music to at least some things that they may not already know but may actually be better (rather than solely and mindlessly reinforce everyone's existing limited impression), shouldn't it?

Personally, I have the opposite issue-- one thing that absolutely infuriates me when I'm looking for music to get into is that best of lists are usually never a reflection of what anyone actually thinks is the most worthwhile music-- they're just a list of musicians that made it big at some point, even if the author feels that they haven't aged well or sound dated-- at that point, you may as well just look up the sales numbers rather than have any use for the list.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just kinda seems like you want to argue that the Bee-Gee's are one of the best groups of all-time, but aren't really committed to it...

 

[kihei]

I started scanning thru some "Best 100 Band Of All Time" lists and none of them have the Bee Gees. I know their lyrics are painful, but this seems wrong.

My guess : More people (even someone who knows NOTHING about music like me) can name more of their songs than 85%+ of the bands on the list.

If you bet me $100, I could not name you a "Ramone" song. I might be able to name you ONE (maybe 2) Who or RadioHead or Red Hot Chile Peppers songs... maybe. But I bet I could name 10+ Bee Gee songs.

Anyway, I think they deserve better.

Although they don't have a large concert footprint, they sold something like 120 million units in the US. They should be in the top ten.

 

[kihei]

I've looked at record (or unit) sales, concert ticket sales, hits on the internet and Wiki, cover versions, and longevity, and I have come up with an imperfect Top Ten:

The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
The Rolling Stones
Pink Floyd
The Eagles
The Bee Gees
Metallica
Queen
AC/DC
U2

HM: Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses; Fleetwood Mac; Journey

None of the above in necessarily meant as an endorsement, just a guess at "popular consensus"

Revised list.

 

[ORRFForever]

Just kinda seems like you want to argue that the Bee-Gee's are one of the best groups of all-time, but aren't really committed to it...

I know LESS about music than anyone here so it is very hard for me to make an argument. I`m just shocked because, based on what I do know, the Bee Gees get so little respect.

 

[ORRFForever]

Although they don't have a large concert footprint, they sold something like 120 million units in the US. They should be in the top ten.

Yup. Yet I see a LOT of list that don't have them in the Top 100. Makes no sense to me. I just think they are tainted by the whole "disco" thing.

 

[ORRFForever]

Off the top of my head (no cheating), all the Bee Gee songs I hear on the radio ALL the time (titles may be wrong and the ones in red are just lyrics because I don't know the title) :

1) Jive Talking
2) You Should Be Dancing
3) The "Maybe you're a mother or maybe you're a brother" song
4) The "You and me together, baby, for so long" song
5) "The Preacher talked to me and he smiled" song
6) "To Love Somebody" song
7) Title song to the movie "Grease"
8) How Deep Is Your Love
9) Guilty (with Barbara Streisand)
10) Women In Love by Barbara Streisand

Hopefully there are no duplicates - again, music is NOT my strong suit.

Anyway, that's pretty impressive for a band when I know nothing about music.

 

[ORRFForever]

In comparison, if I were to do Queen (off the top of my head) :

1) Bohemian Rapsody
2) We Are The Champions
3) Another One Bites The Dust
4) A Crazy Little Thing Call Love.

That's it.