[QUOTE=lunch998]See I don't know why we have to accept the Beatles as a "greater" band then everyone else.[/QUOTE]

Well my reasons for it are that there are very few bands that escaped their influence. There instrumentals, vocals, and lyrics are amazing and catchy with a good message, they were huge political figures, they went through more changes more then any band I can think of, and every change was a good one so somtimes its like your not listening to the same band. But thats just me.

It's part of our Classic Rock religion?

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]Well my reasons for it are that there are very few bands that escaped their influence. There instrumentals, vocals, and lyrics are amazing and catchy with a good message, they were huge political figures, they went through more changes more then any band I can think of, and every change was a good one so somtimes its like your not listening to the same band. But thats just me.[/QUOTE]

I'd argue that The Who changed just as much.

[QUOTE=lunch998]See I don't know why we have to accept the Beatles as a "greater" band then everyone else.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to accept it. I never accepted it until just a few months ago.

The main reason The Beatles were huge is because they took whatever music was on the cutting edge, and made it accessable to the general public. You no longer had to be a young rebellious teen to listen to rock, and later on you didn't have to be a hippy to listen to psychedelic music because they wrote songs in such a way that anyone could relate to them.

edit- I kinda worded that strangely at parts..

Hay guys.

For my two cents, the Beatles > all. It's inevitable for all to understand.

The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.

[QUOTE=Paranoidd]Hay guys.

For my two cents, the Beatles > all. It's inevitable for all to understand.[/QUOTE]

Whoa, look who stopped in.

[QUOTE=lunch998]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.[/QUOTE]

They had a Hard Days Night with a Yellow Submarine, though.

[QUOTE=lunch998]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.[/QUOTE]

Thats a well explained opinion, although it's still just an opinion.

What do you mean "did a Tommy"? You mean made a concept album that fit into a movie? Such as Sgt. Peppers?

Yes I'm going to have to take the non "Beatles>All" side on this one.

[QUOTE]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy. [/QUOTE]

They did not influence as many bands as The Beatles, and arguably changed music as much as them. (IMO)

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]Thats a well explained opinion, although it's still just an opinion.

What do you mean "did a Tommy"? You mean made a concept album that fit into a movie? Such as Sgt. Peppers?[/QUOTE]

Sgt. Peppers is just pop songs with more studio effects. Tommy was a much better concept/story/rock opera than anything the Beatles did. I also believe the musicianship and songwriting on Tommy are at least as good as the best of the Beatles.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]Thats a well explained opinion, although it's still just an opinion.

What do you mean "did a Tommy"? You mean made a concept album that fit into a movie? Such as Sgt. Peppers?[/QUOTE]
No, anyone can make a concept album that fits into a movie. Tommy is alot more than just that.

[QUOTE=lunch998]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.[/QUOTE]

Well they did write harder songs to play I'll give them that. The Beatles really couldn't do much touring during their rock days, and they also did a lot more then pop, and depending on how you interpret Sgt.Peppers the Beatles did do a Tommy.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the Who are a bad band, and in many ways its pointless to try to find the "greatest" rock band, I just feel that some of the way you look at the Beatles is closer to their "Fab Four" days then their "amazing rocker" days

[QUOTE=Badmoon]They did not influence as many bands as The Beatles, and arguably changed music as much as them. (IMO)[/QUOTE]
I'd say they did.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]They did not influence as many bands as The Beatles, and arguably changed music as much as them. (IMO)[/QUOTE]

Almost any music group will say that they are influenced by the Bealtes. But in terms of actual musical influences, many of those bands have no trace of Beatles influence. Therefore in terms of just musical influence, the Who=Beatles.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Sgt. Peppers is just pop songs with more studio effects. Tommy was a much better concept/story/rock opera than anything the Beatles did. I also believe the musicianship and songwriting on Tommy are at least as good as the best of the Beatles.[/QUOTE]

Come come now...that's hardly fair.

Sgt. Peppers, while retaining the Beatles typical superior songwriting, was a little more than Pop with studio effects.

Besides, it was those studio effects that made the Beatles to influential. The recording techniques they use are still revered by people today. I used to have a huge book dedicated to dissecting the techniques used in every song they made.

[QUOTE=Paranoidd]Come come now...that's hardly fair.

Sgt. Peppers, while retaining the Beatles typical superior songwriting, was a little more than Pop with studio effects.

Besides, it was those studio effects that made the Beatles to influential. The recording techniques they use are still revered by people today. I used to have a huge book dedicated to dissecting the techniques used in every song they made.[/QUOTE]

True, to an extent.

In terms of just music though, I think Tommy is far superior. And without using the studio too much, they could play it live.

And after Sgt Peppers a lot more bands from that time used a full band in their songs like Pink Floyd and Hendrix wanted to, but died. It is a lot more then pop.

I never said it wasn't influencial at all.

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]And after Sgt Peppers a lot more bands from that time used a full band in their songs like Pink Floyd and Hendrix wanted to, but died. It is a lot more then pop.[/QUOTE]
Crediting that to them would be a huge mistake.

[QUOTE=lunch998]True true.

In terms of just music though, I think Tommy is far superior. And without using the studio too much, they could play it live.[/QUOTE]

Also true.

Buuuut...as far as influence goes...I'd merely like to point out that Sgt. Peppers precedes Tommy by two years, so it's possible that Tommy itself was influenced by Peppers.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Almost any music group will say that they are influenced by the Bealtes. But in terms of actual musical influences, many of those bands have no trace of Beatles influence. Therefore in terms of just musical influence, the Who=Beatles.[/QUOTE]

No way, you are really trying to make this into an unfair argument against the Beatles.

I feel that I can safely say that[B] because The Beatles have such a large fan base than The Who, there musical influence also dominates.[/B] But I'll even try to ignore that which easily ends this whole argument.

Ringo Starr is known as the first drummer to use the modern (Regular?) stick holding position. That alone has influenced sooo many freakin' drummers it is unbelievable.

Psychedelic songs like "Norwegian Wood" and others not only rearranged the British Psychedelic sound that bands like The Who, The Yardbirds and Cream were playing, but it even presented the more outlandish American Psychedelia with new opportunities. That all together influenced later Psychedelic English and American bands, but were the main influence for early 90's Psychedelic bands like Tripping Daisy and many others.

The amount of bad musicians out number the good. And being that The Who had better musicians and influenced good musicians, and that The Beatles had some good musicians and some Okay they strongly influenced the ones that turned out not as good.

^That is merely a prediction, but I believe it can play a role in this if you think about it.

I stickin' to the bold.

And Tommy wasn't the first rock oprea, other bands had done it, but not as well. Also I may be wrong about this, so I would like it if people could tell me, but I belive the Beatles could't tour because of threats from groups like the KKK and well they were just too popular. But I may be wrong I heard this on the internet is it true?

[QUOTE=Badmoon]No way, you are really trying to make this into an unfair argument against the Beatles.

I feel that I can safely say that because The Beatles have such a large fan base than The Who, there musicial influence also dominates. But I'll even try to ignore that which easily ends this whole argument. [/QUOTE]That's a false assumption, ever heard of a musicians' musician?

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Ringo Starr is known as the first drummer to use the modern (Regular?) stick holding position. That alone has influenced sooo many freakin' drummers it is unbelievable. [/QUOTE]
Dead wrong. Matched grip is actually the older of the two grips, dating back thousands of years. Until the introduction of marching drums which necessitated "traditional" grip matched grip, because it was the natural way to play, dominated.

[QUOTE]Dead wrong. Matched grip is actually the older of the two grips, dating back thousands of years. Until the introduction of marching drums which necessitated "traditional" grip matched grip, because it was the natural way to play, dominated.[/QUOTE]

Well, in Rock 'n' roll, he is supposably known as the founder. I'm not saying it was correct.

[QUOTE]That's a false assumption, ever heard of a musicians' musician?[/QUOTE]

No, if there are more fans there are most likely more musicians. The Beatles fan base dominates The Who's, therefore there are more likely more musicians who love The Beatles, and are musicially more influenced by them then The Who.

The Beatles are labelled as the greatest band of all time, not the Who.

If the Who are better, why hasn't the world given them this label? Such status can't be given by a couple peoples opinions, this is a worldwide thing and I think the world truly believes The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.

Now I realize that really doesn't add much to the conversation...I'm just saying that if the Who are as great as some of you think (better than The Beatles), I'm pretty sure the world would recognize that.

edit- you could argue that any band is greater than the Beatles...but what good does that do? Maybe you could convince a couple people, but it's not going to actually make a difference overall.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Well, in Rock 'n' roll, he is supposably known as the founder. I'm not saying it was correct.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt it was correct. I mean, very, very, very highly.


[QUOTE=Badmoon]No, if there are more fans there are most likely more musicians. The Beatles fan base dominates The Who's, therefore there are more likely more musicians who love The Beatles, and are musicially more influenced by them then The Who. [/QUOTE]
That assumption is false though. I'll give you an example. Pythagarus (sp?). You don't see any Pythagarus fans out their listening to his music on their headsets or anything. But his influence on music has been tremendous none the less.

[QUOTE=RockAndRoll]That's a false assumption, ever heard of a musicians' musician?[/QUOTE]
yes but its not just the technical skill, theres a lot to be said by the simplicity of their music and the style they played it with. and if someone was looking for the musician's musicians of classic rock, they could do better than the who. think rush, king crimson, or yes. the who DID set the stage for the punk attitude and later bands' stage presence though. i personally switch between the two, attempting to decide which i prefer but i cant. it just depends on how i feel.

on a different note, i just bought the new adrian belew (king crimson, the talking head, solo) cd. havent listened to it yet but it has les claypool on bass and danny carey on drums. im excited. oh and the new mars volta album comes out tomorrow.

[QUOTE]That assumption is false though. I'll give you an example. Pythagarus (sp?). You don't see any Pythagarus fans out their listening to his music on their headsets or anything. But his influence on music has been tremendous none the less[/QUOTE]

Now, how do you think that example plays a role. You believe that Beatles fans are more influenced by The Who, though they listen and prefer The Beatles?

Explain