Beatles
 

Where did they get that incredible talent ?
so talented they conquered the world,
add to that they were virtually one of the first groups
and kind of unique in that they did nt have a lead singer(like the Shadows )

http://ist1-4.filesor.com/pimpandhos...UFUUF555_0.jpg

Sorry if I offend any hardcore Beatles fans but they were not really talented. I think what made them so popular worldwide was the role they were playing in many aspects for young people. They were the voice of a generation. But besides that, they were just an average heart-breaking group. The band members made better music after the split-up. :)

they filled the niche and got lucky, thanks in a great part to a genius man called brian epstein.....

history, i guess, will rate The Rolling Stones and The Who as far greater i reckon due to their longevity....

having said that.. did u see mick jagger destroy fifty years of greatness at the grammys with his supposed tribute to sam brown??? bet the poor old guy was rolling in his grave..!!??? i know i was in sheer cringe factor watching it..!!!

I guess after wot , 14 years together and living in each others pockets,
John and Paul got sick of each other, split up and then spent 10 years
calling each other, writing skit type songs, how do you sleep etc.

I dont think they ever reconciled or got together, Paul went to New York and got as far as the gate.. with his guitar, but John was too busy baking bread to invite him in ( or something like that )

A bit like the split of Gilbert and Sullivan, they ended up hating each others guts.

1. Yes, they had luck on their side. Yes, Epstein was integral to them making it.
But to imply that they weren't talented is kind of absurd.
2. I truly love The Stones and The Who. And yes, it was awesome to see them play live, something we were all cheated out of because of the Beatles early breakup.

However, saying that The Stones and The Who will be one day considered greater than the Beatles would be like someone in Shakespeare's day saying, "I reckon that history will consider Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe to be far greater than the Bard."

There is a VAST chasm in greatness between The Beatles and any other rock band, both musically and culturally.

only as wrong as people comparing Elvis and The Beatles......?? At least im comparing bands who were around in the same period, and continued since.... think that makes solid ground.....

i cant argue that they have a huge back catalogue that make macca and yoko (or whoever she sold john's songs to... jackson then sony?) a fortune each year; and macca still plays to this day, and to massive ovations from what ive seen on youtube, but i think longevity of bands such as those ive mentioned means a lot to fans who've grown up listening to their music, and continual development over the decades, as they have. maybe we were cheated of john and paul writing far more progressive and complicated ditty's due to mr chapman, but maybe not? we''ll sadly never know.

but we're all entitled to our opinion, and it should make for an interesting thread at any rate..??

PhEg.

Oh, yeah, I agree; few things are more subjective than musical taste.
But the earlier poster described how current musical acts would be viewed historically. One can't predict the future, but it'd have to be quite an alternate universe where The Who's musical canon is considered "far superior" to that of The Beatles, eh?

All those shows every day in Hamburg while living on top of one another made them a tight band. All those days in Abbey Road studio together broke them up.

The Beatles were a studio band. They were crap live. The Who and The Stones were live bands and cut their teeth on stage. The Beatles wrote some great songs, well John Lennon did. But they turfed out some shite.

I was was fortunate, or not as the case may be, to see the Beatles live and that was all, as you could not hear them for all the screaming.

More later.