HevyDevy
Coach
- Messages
- 17,146
Yes but most people are also happy to accept whatever is presented to them as the extent of music available - thus the proliferation of complete crap in music charts around the world.
If people can present a reasoned argument to me as to why a band should or shouldn't be considered the 'best' (whatever that means) then I'll listen. Some people in here have made some very valid points re: The Beatles. They're influence, for one, which is undisputable.
Others are less convincing - such as citing ther induction to the Hall of Fame (Zeppelin also happen to be inductees, but as I said that's irrelevant).
My simple point is this: there is no clear definition of what best band means but I would take it as predominantly talent and music theory education as well as other factors such as feel and songwriting ability. Now, as a complete package, I don't personally believe that The Beatles are 'the best'.
As I've said before they are certainly among the most influential of all time, but let me put to you why I consider some other bands to be just as influential - and I'll use Zeppelin as my example.
Ok, while The Beatles were pioneers in many ways and influenced a number of bands as a whole, particularly in the mainstream, did they do so to the same extent when you move a fraction away from pop culture?
Zeppelin, for example, boasted John Bonham on drums who is considered far more if a pioneer as a drummer than Ringo ever was. The same argument could be said re: Jimmy Page. Zeppelin weren't as commercial as The Beatles but their influence was huge on that 'alternative' scene as it might have been called at the time. If you talk to metal or heavy rock bands today, almost all would mention the likes of Zeppelin and Sabbath as more direct influences than The Beatles. I'm sure basic rock bands would say The Beatles were the main influence. But given that metal and heavy rock bands are more instrument-based bands - that is they put more emphasis into actually being good musicians than the likes of Coldplay (who suck! :shock: ) - it could be argued that Zeppelin had a much more direct influence on musicians than The Beatles who probably had more of an influence on baasic society as a whole.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong by naming The Beatles as best band of all time, I'm just saying that I don't consider them to be anywhere near it. And even for the fact that Lennon, McCartney and particularly Harrison (I really do like the Beatles stuff he wrote) may be under-rated as musicians, they really don't hold a flame to thousands of musicians roaming the earth today. That is fact and not meant to be a criticism of them. Just check out the likes of Mike Portnoy, Hellhammer or Carter Beauford as drummers; EVH, Satriani or Jason Becker as guitarists; Billy Sheehan, Flea or Sting as bass players; Devin Townsend, Mikael Akerfeldt or James LaBrie as vocalists. So much talent floating around.
If people can present a reasoned argument to me as to why a band should or shouldn't be considered the 'best' (whatever that means) then I'll listen. Some people in here have made some very valid points re: The Beatles. They're influence, for one, which is undisputable.
Others are less convincing - such as citing ther induction to the Hall of Fame (Zeppelin also happen to be inductees, but as I said that's irrelevant).
My simple point is this: there is no clear definition of what best band means but I would take it as predominantly talent and music theory education as well as other factors such as feel and songwriting ability. Now, as a complete package, I don't personally believe that The Beatles are 'the best'.
As I've said before they are certainly among the most influential of all time, but let me put to you why I consider some other bands to be just as influential - and I'll use Zeppelin as my example.
Ok, while The Beatles were pioneers in many ways and influenced a number of bands as a whole, particularly in the mainstream, did they do so to the same extent when you move a fraction away from pop culture?
Zeppelin, for example, boasted John Bonham on drums who is considered far more if a pioneer as a drummer than Ringo ever was. The same argument could be said re: Jimmy Page. Zeppelin weren't as commercial as The Beatles but their influence was huge on that 'alternative' scene as it might have been called at the time. If you talk to metal or heavy rock bands today, almost all would mention the likes of Zeppelin and Sabbath as more direct influences than The Beatles. I'm sure basic rock bands would say The Beatles were the main influence. But given that metal and heavy rock bands are more instrument-based bands - that is they put more emphasis into actually being good musicians than the likes of Coldplay (who suck! :shock: ) - it could be argued that Zeppelin had a much more direct influence on musicians than The Beatles who probably had more of an influence on baasic society as a whole.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong by naming The Beatles as best band of all time, I'm just saying that I don't consider them to be anywhere near it. And even for the fact that Lennon, McCartney and particularly Harrison (I really do like the Beatles stuff he wrote) may be under-rated as musicians, they really don't hold a flame to thousands of musicians roaming the earth today. That is fact and not meant to be a criticism of them. Just check out the likes of Mike Portnoy, Hellhammer or Carter Beauford as drummers; EVH, Satriani or Jason Becker as guitarists; Billy Sheehan, Flea or Sting as bass players; Devin Townsend, Mikael Akerfeldt or James LaBrie as vocalists. So much talent floating around.
