Posted on 02/07/2014 10:54:23 AM PST by US Navy Vet
It was 50 years ago today that The Beatles landed in America for the first time. Could any other group ever hope to top the talents of these beloved moptops? Well ...Yeah, yeah, yeah! Check out 11 bands that I think took the Fab Four’s pop revolution and made it even better, way beyond compare
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I agree that he wasn’t as big as the Beatles. He did have a profound affect on the direction of music and culture, though.
Both were a little before my time, so not a huge fan of either one.
I just re-read the original article, and it is even more horsesh-t that I first thought. The writing is pitiful, with the author seeming to be more concerned with sticking in allusions to the lyrics of each selected artist than truly identifying what makes them “better” than the Beatles.
And there is no way that the majority of these folks “took the Fab Four’s pop revolution and made it even better.” Led Zep took the blues and made it fast loud, and they did it very well. And while they may have inspired a lot of teenagers to start a band in their garage, they didn’t revolutionize the way rock and roll is written, recorded, and listened to the way the Beatles did.
The Rolling Stones of 1965 is pretty much the same as the Rolling Stones of 2014. The progression of The Who—and band left off his list—from My Generation to The Who Sell Out to Tommy to Who’s Next to Quadrophenia is spectacular and influential in rock and roll (and forget everything they did after Keith Moon died).
Heck, Bob Dylan had more influence on rock and roll than most of the bands listed. In fact, Bob was actually a main influence for many of them.
Rant over (for now).
If this list did not include The Who, it is not a list. But I’m biased; I think The Who was the greatest band of all time.
And Quad was their best album.
They're pretty much the penultimate garage / smoky barroom band.
The Beatles have their place in music history but in terms of actual talent and vocal quality, they don't even come close to the Motown groups of the 60's and the artists of the 50's......
These types of lists are useless since everyone who reads them have their own personal preferences..........
I wish that I'd seen Seger. Good beer drinking music, that.
I saw Kiss for the first time a few years back. I'd been going to rock n' roll shows since I was a kid, but never bothered with them whenever they were in town. They put on a decent show, lots of spectacle as expected, but the entire time I said "Ohhhhhhh....that's where (band X that I'd seen before) got their idea for stage theatrics!" Kiss may not be a top five rock band, but they put on a top 5 performance.
Interestingly enough, Ted Nugent opened for them. He put on a pretty good show too.
I saw them live a few years ago. Disappointing. Stevie Nicks was singing off a teleprompter. Rest of the show was flat, at best.
I should have left good memories of them alone.
How could they not have the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo listed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX58oJsrd-E
No, there is no one else in the modern age, not even Elvis, who comes close to the Beatles as the most influential musical act of the late 20th century.
I think it was during the 25th anniversary of Sgt Pepper that I read for the first time a critic who dared to say that “this chit doesn’t hold up!” He was right of course. Concept albums don’t hold up, rock operas don’t hold up, the first Little Richard album on Specialty does hold up.
The Beatles were a “complete” package (plus producer).
The Motown acts were pre-fab, put together a singer with a backup singing group, with a songwriting team, with session musicians to play the music.
The Beatles were prolific songwriters and ruled in the US from 1963 through 1967.
The Who should be on the list, as should be Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.
The Beatles, a group for only ten years (or eight, if you start with their career in Britain). The best-selling band in history. The Beatles' memorable song production in ten years dwarf's the Stones' over 50 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-lFCYGCXCI (the man who taught Little Richard how to play)
The Beatles’ influence sharply fell off following their breakup (after woodstock such bands were “passe” you had to be socially conscious, almost neo-country folky hippie).
Wings and Lennon had a few hits but their their influence as soloists never compared to what they did as Beatles.
The Kinks, Who, and Rolling Stones all were more relevant in the charts through the 70s and even 80s.
I introduced my son to ELO a while back as an example of professional, high quality, talented musicians in rock & roll.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bld_-7gzJ-o
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.