Does everyone agree that if this site is still going in 50 years,Bob Dylan will be #1.
C'mon - everyone rallies around those 5 Beatles albums from '65-'69. Two of them aren't even that great. Dylan has whole phases of his career. It is a joke if the Beatles stay #1 much longer - there is so much more depth to his body of work. As George Harrison said, " . . . 500 years from now, Dylan will be the most remembered and revered name from this era, eclipsed even the Beatles." His continuing to add more and more to his acclaimed body of work as the Beatles stuff gets more and more stale every year and bands start to draw more from the angular sounds of punk/indie bands of the late-70s/early 80s

He's not going to live much longer, realistically speaking. Sad and true.

The bad part is that, phases and all, he only had 5 good phases (early folk, 65-66 neato organ blues-rock, 67-69 country/folk, 75-76 jangly folk, 97-06 old man blues-rock). Three of those are folky, two are blues-rocky. Not a lot of ground.

The Beatles, then, had the Crickets/whiteboy-Motown phase, then the various candy of 65-67, then multi-flavored blues-rock in 68, then crazy ecclectic shit in 69.

Them Beeeatalz felt they had more to prove. And yeah. They did.

We'll bet Georgey was wrong, but Bob will always be an awesome Number 2 - find solace in that.

And who cares about those bands. Bad to bring up.

Plus, someone else is going to be #1 in 50 years anyway. Would be fairly absurd if that weren't the case.

It's impossible to know. Fifty years is a reeeally long time, especially in pop music, which makes predicting what critical tastes will be like in 2058 a mug's game.

However, I'll go out on a limb and opine that I think the Beatles will continue as the toppermost of the poppermost on AM.

No other band has been as influential--and as reacted against. Plus, the Beatles' catalog, though smaller than Dylan's, is much more widely known. And I honestly have no idea how to argue that the Beatles were "better" than Dylan, or vice versa, but you know what? They were pretty darn good.

In the current climate, it's difficult to imagine any pop act being as ubiquitous, as talented, and, especially, as widely popular as the Beatles. Better than the Beatles? Sure, I can imagine that very easily. More acclaimed? That's harder to imagine.

Of course, in fifty years we'll be having a wave of nostalgia for the Chelsea Clinton presidency, trying to save New York and Amsterdam from rising sea levels, vacationing in low Earth orbit, and accessing this site with wearable zero-point technology. A lot can happen in five decades, and maybe there will be one or two acts ahead of the Beatles. Maybe Dylan. It'll be fun to find out.

Isn't the formula of the site only based on the top 6 albums and songs?

If that's the case, to improve his score Dylan would have to put a new album in the top 201, or a new song in the top 466.

Dylan may land another album in the top 500 or another song in the top 1000, but doing *that* well would be practically impossible.

Or his current albums in the top would have to go up and the Beatles' down. If there were to be several Best-Of-The-Last-100-Years polls in 2050 on which Dylan would take up all the high spots and the Beatles would have none.. he could overtake them.

Then again, who cares. We all know Dylan is the greater artist.

If it's only on the top 6 albums/songs,then it would be very hard for Dylan to catch up. Just doing top 6 benefits a band like the Beatles to no end. But I do think the top albums/songs would have moved around a hell of a lot by then. OK Computer may well be #1. Seriously

In 50 years it won't be Dylan or The Beatles. It will probably be somebody that is currently unknown or maybe hasn't even been born yet.

In 50 years, the greatest music of Dylan and The Beatles will be closing in on 100 years old. Most of their original fans will be long gone.

Most people now days don't like music that is over 50 years old, let alone 100.

You have to wonder if in 50 years rock and roll will even be on modern lists.

The Beatles and Dylan won't be forgotten until all modern forms of music completely lose popularity.

Sure, the kids and casual music fans won't know about them, but any real music fans and critics still will. If you haven't noticed, on critic lists old music is always at an advantage, not a disadvantage. If anything they'll be elevated to even further godly status the way great classical composers are now.

Elvis Presley was a lot more popular 20 years ago than he is now. Fan bases die off.

I'm not saying the Beatles and Bob Dylan will be forgotten, I just don't think they will be the most critically acclaimed acts in 2058. I mean, how many times can we listen to "Hey Jude" or "I Want To Hold Your Hand"???

Every dog has his day.

I think Elvis is quite a bit more "forgettable" than Dylan though.

Well, Elvis was eclipsed by the Beatles and Dylan because standards changed. After 1966 or so, it was no longer possible to be a top-tier critically acclaimed artist unless you both composed and performed your work. That attitude's ebbed a little bit since, but it's still the dominant paradigm (see, for instance, the difficulty critics have in evaluating Madonna).

It's very, very likely that in the next fifty years, there will be another massive, unforeseen change (or two) in critical standards--and that change will make critics re-evaluate dozens or hundreds of past artists.

The artists that are best...insulated?...against dropping reputations because of unforeseeable changes in criticism, are those who have the most bases covered--those who did the most different things (wrote, sang, played, produced, toured, looked good in both sequins and flannel, etc.).

For that reason, of artists in the AM top 10, I think the Beatles, Bowie, and Prince are pretty safe. Relatively one-trick ponies like Zeppelin, Springsteen, and Hendrix might be in more trouble.

Twenty years from now, when the Radiohead fans are 40s and 50s and controlling the "established" critical opinion, and the trendmakers are kids who are just being born today, somebody is going to conclude that Dylan's old "folk songs" are more "forgettable" than Radiohead's advanced, ground-breaking sound.

And another generation after that, in 2058, seventy-year old Radiohead music will be deemed more "forgettable" than Future Band X.

I've already seen it happening over the last 25 years. In the 1980's The Replacements were considered drunken losers. Now that their generation of music nerds has grown into more power in the established media, they are critical darlings. Twenty years from now they likely will be forgotten again.

In 2058, when Dylan & Beatles are long gone, I think they will be regarded like Robert Johnson/Woody Guthrie/George Gershwin/Duke Ellington are today: Hugely important historical figures who made great and important music that helped to lay the foundation for the more modern music that followed.

Discussions like this are why I was trying to locate historical records of what was considered to be the most acclaimed music in the past. I'm interested in the process how public opinion changes. I think demographics are huge.

One more point: Baby boomers have excerted an incredibly huge influence on everything for the last fifty years. Everything seems to revolve around that narcissitic generation, and they LOVE Dylan and The Beatles.

Someday the baby boomers will be gone and major shifts in public opinion will ensue. The baby boomer influence will not persist from the grave.

Unless, of course, they pass legislation that subjugates today's schoolchildren under the austere requirement of listening to Dylan et al.

One word : Radiohead

Who?

When rapist ants start singing, funny guy.

Can somebody please explain to me the appeal of Bob Dylan? I can see that he's a great lyricist, of course, but that's all. He's a terrible singer and an average musician.
If he's remembered in 50 years it'll be as a poet.

As for that copmparison with the Beatles - just get an orchestra to perform the best works of both and see which sounds better.

Harpo: linky winky.

Lots of people grab on to the fact that Dylan is a lousy singer. He's not. You try singing with the soul he did.

As for his appeal: his backing bands were incredible, the melodies were good, and he did awesome blues/rock and folk.

Ah, and as for the orchestra argument, hehe...

Guess what. Dylan would actually win. "Like A Rolling Stone", "I Shall Be Released", "Knockin' On Heaven's Door", "One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Late)", "I Want You", and so forth, all done by an orchestra that can actually do them quite well, and Dylan wins. There's more anthemic beauty to them.

That link just tells me he isn't in the top 10 best singers, and that he's only two places higher than the second best singer in the Beatles

ok, he had some good backing bands - but so did a lot of other people listed on AM (is there a best backing band poll?)

Well, The Beatles had great backing bands too - made up of session musicians.

I just can't stand it, when some guys here declare their opinions as a fact that is written in stone.
Some people prefer Dylan to the Beatles, some people don't. Just because someone has another taste, it doesn't mean that he/she is more or less right than you.
I love the Beatles and I appreciate Dylan, but for me it's hard to listen to a whole Dylan-album from track one to the last track, because his monotonous style is just too annoying for me. But nevertheless he's a great and incredibly important artist and I blame myself (because of my bad english) for that, because it seems that I just don't get the lyrical depth of his songs; purely musically most of his songs don't appeal to me.

Hilarious. Compare this:

I just can't stand it, when some guys here declare their opinions as a fact that is written in stone.

With this:

his monotonous style is just too annoying for me.

Ta da da da. Boom shakalaka.

I hope I'm not escalating this non-issue debate now, but I've done the comparison and that's statements on two different levels (although the first isn't really a statement, but a summary).

Keywords: for me. We should all use it now and then.

Henrik, too annoying is under the privilege of to me, but - if you want to be correct - monotonous obviously is not. Therefore, he was contradicting himself.

As for us using for me, what's the point, really? Just added baggage of two words. Of course it's for us - what idiot would assume otherwise, other than one who was really easily intimidated by someone else's opinions?

Now I read the sentence again and I suddenly understand that you find it offensive. The first time I read His monotonous style I agreed with it and therefore didn't react.

A monotonous style does not have to be a bad thing though. I could write that the monotonous style of Laurie Anderson's "O Superman" is appealing to me. Or, that the monotonous style of Laurie Anderson's "O Superman" is just too annoying to me, if that was the case. Here, the word monotonuous can't offend anyone, can it?

Coming to think of it, is it really wrong to say that Bob Dylan's style is monotonous? Take Masters of War for example, where Bob effectfully delivers his message through monotonous verses. Effectfully because it's monotonous.

It could. You could have new agers come and say O Superman is trance-like, not monotonous - or who knows!

I disagree with Bob being monotonous.

In any case, monotony is very ambiguous criticism, and reflects little more than someone's bordeom. You could just as easily say the Sex Pistols are monotonous, or The Rolling Stones - well, anything really, if you like to stretch it.

Whereas, really, Bob had huge shifts of nuances between every song on his good albums.

Dylan will remain behind the Beatles. Dylan was qouted as saying the "Beatles were heading the direction where music was heading".

The Beatles were doing things musically that their peers were not doing. Surprising modulations that The Beatles would establish from "From Me To You" onwards though. Many unusaul chord ending progressions. Plus The Beatles more or less pioneered the use of middle-eights in songs with a verse-chorus based build, which "Something" is a brilliant example of. They used modal progressions which influecned the Byrds, Dylan and King Crimson. They invented the Lydian II chord progression in Rock and that and using Mixolydian Mode in a non blues form. Unlike most of their peers they used altered chords and chromatic progression. Anyone making a rock album and Progressive Rock is indebted to their experimental phase 1966-1968.

Many rockers switched to the electric 12 string guitar after hearing it from them McGuinn, Townsend etc. They made the Elvis dominated front man not writing songs extinct in rock. Along with Dylan they made the album an art form. They used for the first time in Rock, Indian Ensembles, full symphony orchestras, Stockhausen styled tape loops, Exotic Indian drones, backward guitars and vocals, string octets, they established the mellotron etc. "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" are two of the most groundbreaking tracks ever in music.

The Beatles are on top and when you are on top people try to find way to bring them down. You have a fundamemtal gene missing if you think the Beatles were not innovative or influential. Dylan said it himself the Beatles chords and harmonies were outrageous


.

Yeah yeah yeah. The same old bullshit about how they influenced everyone.

There was far more groundbreaking music being made 20 years before them that no one remembers.

Seriously now. If The Beatles were great, it's because they were great. Influence on others is irrelevant - for all you know, music as a whole would actually have been better if they hadn't come along and ruined it in their own special way. Additionally, every single "groundbreaking" thing they did had been done by someone; as well, for each one, there are five others genuinely groundbreaking ones by obscure people that you aren't even going to mention. Why? Because something matters only if The Beatles did it. When, really, they only did stuff that was in plain sight. If you should be doing anything, it's blaming them for only having gone as far as they did.

Sorry. Socratean dialogue.

If were talking about Pop and Rock Music then its the Beatles. I can't name one technical innovation the Velvet Underground did. Dude you are in denial.

The Beatles have innovations all over the place. Where is the innovation of others on "Rain" backward vocals the bass and drum style, "Taxman" the distorted Gretty Chord is the chord that influenced Hendrix Purple Haze, "And Your Bird Can Sing" the harmonized guitar parts that presages Queen and the Allman Brothers. "Tomorrow Never Knows" uses psychedelic styled tape loops, ADT, backward guitar solo, exotic Indian drones, leslie vocals, "Love You To" uses Authentic Indian Ensemble with rock instruments, "Eleanor Rigby" uses a string octet, "Got To Get You To Into My Life" overlapped leslie tremeolo guitar solo. "Penny Lane" has Bach styled horn solo, the Beatles routinely put pianos through a guitar amp to get that unique sound you hear on Penny Lane. "Its Only Love" uses the leslie guitar effect with volume swells which also influenced Hendrix. The fade in guitar effects on "Eight Day a Week". The 12 string sound of "A Hard Days Night" and "What Your Doing" which influenced folk rock and jangle pop. The doubling of the main guitar riff on bass on "Day Tripper" and "Drive My Car". Large orchestras were on "A Day in the Life" and "All You Need Is Love". How they uses brass section into Rock Music like the soul-rock of "Got To You Int My Life" and "Good Morning" influenced Chicago. Their use of unorhtodox instruments, studio techniques and experimentation influenced the progressive rock movement early Pink Floyd, King Crimson and the Moody Blues. Their use of authentic Indian Drones on "Tomorrow Never Knows" and others influenced many guitarists to use exotic drones in rock and jazz. They used volume swells another popular guitar style in rock, they add Beethoven like arpegios on harpsichord, guitar and synth on "Because"."Strawberry Fields Forever" uses trippy mellotron parts and reversed drum effects with two separate recordings. "A Day in the Life" uses the atonal orchestra on a pop record. So where is the innovation of others in rock music that others were doing in rock music.

Many genres including pop and jazz music where influenced by the Beatles ideas. Any rock band making a album owes more to the Beatles than anyone else. There is a good issue on the Beatles innovations on GuitarEdge Magazine. The songwriting innovations are pretty impressive also.

They added also distorted guitar feedback intro as recording effect "I Feel Fine" the guitar distortion of "Revolution" and the various leslie guitar sounds like acoustic leslie guitar of "Flying" and the leslie arpegios of Lucy In the Sky With Diamond and others.

I could go part 2 and do songwriting. So like I said where is the innovation of others in rock music on these songs?

Technical innovations. Why don't you just worship Edison for having invented sound reproduction and be done with it?

I'm going to do some brief research on everything you mentioned that The Beatles did, and counter it. Back with you soon.

Go ahead read Guitar Edge Magazine, The tribute to the Beatles the Greatest band ever its all there and I did not list everything.

You read it, you cheater. I do my arguing the hard way!

Hey I already knew this about the Beatles just in case you don't believe me I have this magazine Guitar Edge you could read and learn. By the way in your research add Automatic Double Tracking which Lennon requested to be invented and the Hidden Track.

Edison was easily the first and the best - I own a cylinder recorder.....


....and a lightbulb



(Edison invented the lightshow)

Edison should be the standard by which all rock stars are judged.

Why is that everytime I come here the Beatles get trashed? Who in Rock Music does not build upon the innovations of others. Why the Beatles get singled out I don't know. They were plenty who took from the Beatles. The Byrds got the concept of folk rock from the Beatles they all got the Rickenbacker 12 string jangle sound from Harrison. Did the Beatles variate others innovations well yes they did but who else did not. Graham Bond might have been the first to use the mellotron but the innovation there is the one who invented the mellotron. The ones who put the Mellotron on the map was the Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberrry Fields Forever"

I really don't know if anyone in Rock Music used Stockhausen avant styled tape loops Tomorrow Never Knows before the Beatles or using a Authentic Indian backing. Backward vocals on a forward tape is on "Rain" and Hendrix and the Byrds ripped of the Beatles in using backward guitars I'm Only Sleeping and "Tomorrow Never Knows". Everyone used Automatic Double Tracking and vocals through a leslie speaker which the latter was innovated by Geoff Emerick to please Lennon request. The Beatles incorporated Tamboura drones and guitar drones. Hendrix again used reversed(cymbal)drum effects "Strawberry Fields Forever". The Beatles while debatable if they invented guitar feedback introduces a song with feedback "I Feel Fine"which the Kinks copy that into-feedback on "I Need You". The Beatles combined drones on organ and guitar on She Said She Said which John Cales has said influenced him.

Most of their early songs have at least strange chord progression and the main reason did not read music so they did what feld was right to them. No one makes music in a vacum but I am done with this site.

No one makes music in a vacum but I am done with this site.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The conclusion is the Beatles were innovative in their own right and people took from then and it worked the other way around also. Anyone listening to much of Revolver, Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery knows the Beatles were using things not common in rock music with pop sensibilites. I give them credit no one else pulled it off in rock music and many have tried afterwards.

What about the thousands of DJ's using more complex effects than The Beatles ever even envisioned?

Hmm, I will leave with this you know "Tomorrow Never Knows" which is basically sampling or tape loops used as a surreal background created by the Beatles was mixed live in the studio with the course the help of Emerick. Today everything is done by computers and the Beatles had no drum tracks either.

Discounting true experimental artists... (Because then you'll say you were referring to innovations in pop/rock). Let's see. What were the innovations, again?

Didn't get to do much research. Will do off the top of head.

- Backwards vocals!

Weeeell. Apparently, Edison discovered backwards vocals as early as 1878, and wrote about them too. That's 88 years earlier - whole lotta time. When records started being produced a lot, some folks spent a lot of time listening to them backwards just for fun.

And then came the 1950's, with musique concrète, where they played with backwards recordings all of the time.

So how did The Beatles stumble on this, exactly? Lennon smoked pot and put the tape in in reverse (so, you can ascribe this to luck). And, like many had noticed before, it sounded sort of cool.

This is no act of unspeakable genius. This is an act of pot-smoking combined with a "hey, why not?". Do you think the "hey, why not?" makes a world of difference? No, any dumbass could have decided to use backwards sounds in a song - and some already had.

I therefore rest my case on this so-called discovery. On to the next one.

- "Taxman" chord.

It's just one lousy chords. Maybe you should start blaming The Beatles for every chord they didn't invent, right?

C'mon. Any moron can find a chord.

- "And Your Bird Can Sing" the harmonized guitar parts.

Well, d'oh. Are you actually saying they invented guitar harmonies?

What's the logical process for guitar harmonies, again? "Well, they have harmonies for all other instruments... Sooooo... Why not try out some guitar harmonies?"

The hair on my asscheeks is more groundbreaking than this silliness.

Especially considering that people had guitar harmonies for hundreds of years.

- Tape loops.

Done, done, done, and done. They did them until they got sick of them. Then The Beatles came along and,
whoa, saviors of tape loops.

- ADT.

You're gonna blame The Beatles for what their engineers discovered? Cheap tactics. You don't play fair.

Plus, do you realize that ADT merely means linking two tape recorders? Very rudimentary stuff with a fancy name.

- Indian stuff.

The Kinks released a single in 1965. It was called "See My Friends", and it was psychedelic (in 1965!!) and it was the first Western rock song to use Indian raga sounds.

But nooooo. They weren't The Beatles, so no one cares! Soon as The Beatles decide to rip them off, Incredible Originality Syndrome kicks in for them.

- Strings.

They had a gazillion songs with strings before Yesterday/Eleanor Rigby. Instead of going on and on about something as dull as those, consider The Drifters' "There Goes My Baby", of which I quote:

"This recording introduced the idea of using strings and elaborate production values on an R&B recording to enhance the emotional power of black music. This pointed the way to the coming era of soul music as the popularity of the doo-wop vocal groups peaked and faded. Phil Spector studied this production model under Leiber and Stoller, working on The Drifters records."

That is where your loyalties should lie.

Or... hmmm... maybe in all the jazz singers of yore that had strings as backing? Sinatra and co.? Let's be serious.

- Leslie effects.

Want to give credit for Leslie speaker effects to anyone? Give it to Leslie. Everyone and their dog knew about the Leslie speaker.

Lots, lots, lots of folks were using the Leslie speaker with organs. And then they figured it worked for other instruments too. But then The Beatles found out about it too, and there you go - Sudden Big Discovery.

- Pianos through guitar amps.

Might sound incredible to you, but this is the same as with the Leslie speaker - you don't have to be a genius to mix cabbage with carrots. In fact, I daresay you'd have to be an idiot to not.

And lots of people tried played with amps this way... out of their own initiatives...

- Volume swells.

"We have this functionality available to us. Let's try it out!"

Changing volume... is not... a big deal.

- Fade-in effect.

Now we are entering the realm of the obviously stupid.

Fading was around since 1918.

- 12 strings.

McCartney: "Whoa! Guitars with 12 strings! Would you believe that?"

Lennon: "HOLY HOT SHIT! We gotta do something with them! Can't leave them standing around like that."

Badadadum.

Not to mention folks had been using 12 string guitars for ages.

- Doubling of riff.

They knew they got fuller sounds for vocals if they double-tracked them. Apparently, even retards can figure out that this principle can apply to other things as well.

- Large orchestras.

Big deal, mean. Humanity knew about large orchestras, you know? Hell, they even knew about strings! Imagine that.

What I said earlier for strings goes for large orchestras too. Small orchestras, big orchestras, 'tis all a difference of size. Obviously, if you're going to have a small orchestra at some point, you might want to try out a big orchestra too at some point in your life. The distance in human thought between the two is... slim.

- Brass section.

Did they invent brass sections? No, they heard brass ensembles and thought: "oh, let's have one too!". That's all there is to it.

This is the same as with the strings. Brass was around, and all over the place. In fact, everywhere you turned, you would bump into songs on the TV with brass parts.

However, in more concrete terms:


McCartney attempted to write in the style of American soul music for this song, as particularly inspired by the Stax label. The soul revue-style horns are especially allusive to the Stax "Memphis soul" sound.


I rest my case.

- Cute-sounding instruments.

Same. On Pepper and co., they wanted to sound like a circus band, and they got what they wanted.

- "Because".

Ripped off from "Moonlight Sonata".

- Atonality.

They wanted a big climax in "A Day In The Life". The atonality came with it. Again, nothing out of the ordinary.

- Drum & bass.

No, just loud drums.

- Synth.

The synth was there. Guess what: they FOUND it and they USED it. Ineffable, innit?

- Experimentation.

Had been done before better, and was done better by their contemporaries as well.

Better listen to Iannis Xenakis, Attilio Mineo, Les Baxter, The Electrosoniks, Marino Zuccheri, Rune Lindblad, or even Silver Apples, and all those others. "Tomorrow Never Knows" was kid's play.

- Dumb dumb lyrics.

Your standard tripe fare lyrics for their first half (talk about originality). Random nonsense afterwards.




Also, George Martin's achievements alone, in and of themselves, tower over The Beatles. The guy put out a dance music single in 1962!

To get a brief idea of how unfairly acclaimed The Beatles are, realize that a song like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" is regarded as the 21st best song of all time on this site.

Whereas one like "I Only Want To Be With You" by Dusty Springfield, from the same year, is regarded as merely the goddamn 2876th. Give it a listen.



I think in a better world they'd switch places.

And I can see how The Beatles impressed anyone given how songs like this one had been around since 1956:



I guess it's their punk aesthetic. (attitude conquers all)

Plus, they were very fake. Like on Anthology 1, you can hear Paul saying about Yesterday: "this is going to be, like, a big anthem".

Hmm, I will leave with this you know "Tomorrow Never Knows" which is basically sampling or tape loops used as a surreal background created by the Beatles was mixed live in the studio with the course the help of Emerick. Today everything is done by computers and the Beatles had no drum tracks either.


Yeah, prefer a 20 year old fridge over a new one because it used more rudimentary technology: i.e. the fridge engineers needed slightly more skill in past, which the actual skill of the engineers of the present doesn't quite make up for because history is the defining decider of what is good and what is better. Instead of taking an unbiased look at the world and deciding what is actually better, we will focus on history, because we have a deeply ingrained logical algorithm that makes us worship the past. So we apply standards to the present that we don't apply to the past, because the past is the past and is therefore excused.

Better listen to Iannis Xenakis, Attilio Mineo, Les Baxter, The Electrosoniks, Marino Zuccheri, Rune Lindblad, or even Silver Apples, and all those others. "Tomorrow Never Knows" was kid's play.

or for serious fixing: Tony Conrad, AMM and Shadow Morton: "Tomorrow Never Knows" remains a righteous milestone of the commonplace. nothing less. nothing more.

Why is that everytime I come here the Beatles get trashed?

I think it's more that you come here when the Beatles get trashed. Which really isn't that often, since they are a fine band.

mismaiome, I thank you kindly for saving me a lot of time on debunking that crap. I love the fact that there are Beatles fans who realize the time machine wasn't invented by Lennon. The fact that you do think they're the best band ever needs some working on.. but you'll get there eventually.

For me, Dylan is about ten times more enjoyable than the Beatles, but that's beside the point.

I could care less who invented what, I just like lines like "you have many contacts among the lumberjacks to get you facts when someone attacks your imagination." And it's not the "poetry" of that line I like, it's all in the way that Dylan, the singer, delivers it!

Mismaiome, your stuff is good. You could probably write for Guitar Edge Magazine.

Hey Misoiome you are wrong about everyhting

"Ticket To Ride" . The droning sound of the guitars marked the very first documented case of Indian tonal concepts in rock music (predating the Kinks' "See My Friends" by three months -- and the group's introduction to LSD by one month). Go read Revolution in the Head. They actually beat the Kinks to guitar drone also.

"Love You To" combines Indian ensemble with rock instruments

The distorted Gretty chord thats on "Taxman" used later on Jimi Hendrix "Foxey Lady"

Automatic Double Tracking again the first. On Lennon behave this led to phase shifting another innovation.

Vocals through a leslie speaker again the first

The Beatles incorporate Musique Concrete in rock music
Backward Guitar Solo on a forward record
Reversve drum effects again
Backward vocals and harmonies.

"And Your Bird Sing"- Harmonized guitars in unison in octaves. If you were a guitarist you would know what I am saying.

Avant Tape loops in the style of Stockhausen with rock go ahead find one example in rock music.

"Eleanor Rigby"- String octet with vocals and no rock instruments

The fade in guitar effect- but then you are clueless

Large symphony orchestra with rock "A Day In the Life"

The Byrds and everyone got the Rickenbacker 12 string because of the Beatles use of the jangle sound. The Searchers did not use one until after the Beatles. The folkies were using acoustic 12 stringers and the Byrds and the folkies got them afterwards.

Their use of unorhtodox instruments, studio techniques and experimentation influenced the progressive rock movement early Pink Floyd, King Crimson and the Moody Blues.

Their use of authentic Indian Drones on "Tomorrow Never Knows" and others influenced many guitarists to use exotic drones in rock and jazz. They used volume swells another popular guitar style in rock, they add Beethoven like arpegios on harpsichord, guitar and synth on "Because".

"Strawberry Fields Forever" uses trippy mellotron parts and reversed drum effects with two separate recordings.

"A Day in the Life" uses the atonal orchestra on a pop record. So where is the innovation of others in rock music that others were doing in rock music.

Like I said you proved nothing. Its your opinion whether others experimented better than the Beatles. We are talking rock and pop music. The Beatles were comnbining experimentation with pop-rock music. "Tomorrow Never Knows" based on one chord over a sampling background with a repetitive bass and drum sound basically the blueprint for most modern dance music. If you like the Beatles then I feel bad for their supporters.

I will add the phased in riffs for "I Want To Tell You"

All you proved you can't debate without showing A you don't know what you are talking about and two you are rude

I can't believe he actually said the same thing again.

I actually didn't think that was very surprising.

Read this. Every single word is true.

If you've noticed, in all such human discourse there are two parties, each with their own opinions, trying to assert their opinions on the other in order to satisfy the primordial need of assertion, and to have a sense of superiority. Each party is interested in being right.

However, The Beatles are my favorite band. Therefore, I have absolutely no interest in making them appear bad, because that would simply be so very absurd. You understand, then, that in this conversation I have no reason whatsoever to persuade you that The Beatles were not good because that would be against my own beliefs. It only follows from this, very logically, that I am not a party interested of asserting anything over The Beatles or their fans, which I belong to. I am a disinterested party in that respect, so therefore can look at the situation very clearly and honestly, and thus only wish the best for you and myself when, in my disinterest, I try to make you understand this: THE BEATLES SUCKED.

As for...

- Drone.


Of course, Young wasn't the first to use the drone—it's fundamental to Indian music—but he can be credited with reviving it within Western classical music. Based entirely on four alternate-tuned pitches, "The Second Dream of the High-Tension Line Stepdown Transformer" from The Four Dreams of China (1962, with a later eight-trumpet version issued on Gramavision in 1991) was his first drone piece in Just Intonation (which substitutes the equal temperament pitches of conventional Western music for tuning that Pythagoras quantified in ancient Greece and is used in many non-Western musics and by composers like Pauline Oliveros and Glenn Branca). With sustained overtones that eventually destabilize the listener's grasp of space and time, its harmonies evoke the electronic hums of hydro wires and power transformers that transfixed Young as a boy.

By 1962, Young was performing with a small ensemble that was eventually christened the Theatre of Eternal Music in 1965; aside from the voices of Young and Zazeela, the group variously included violinist Tony Conrad, violist John Cale, hand drummer Angus MacLise, trumpeter Jon Hassell, violist David Rosenboom, organist-vocalist Terry Riley, and others. Dedicated to realizing Young's The Tortoise, His Dreams and Journeys (an ongoing composition that Young initiated in 1964), the music conflated elements of improvisatory jazz, minimalism, Indian music, and psychedelia into one, with the group's ritualistic (and ferociously loud) bowed-strings-voice improvisations lasting for hours. (Around 1965, Young attached a microphone to his turtle's aquarium motor in order to tune his ensemble to its hum, hence the work's title).


In comparison, all The Beatles did was repeat a few notes.

Typical revisionist history hear this again it was the Beatles Music or its combination of things they did musically that made them influential or uniique. Its not my problem others could not put it into pop structures you can't accept the the truth. These guys know better than you. You may have heard of them.

"The Beatles were doing things musically no one were doing. Their chords were outgrageous and their harmnonies makes them valid. They are pointed in the direction where music is going to." Bob Dylan after hearing "I Want to Hold Your Hand".

Anyone who plays music knows the Beatles were doing things musically their blues based peers were not doing. Even Keith Richards was interested in their chord sequences.

The most important music of the 20th Century. The records which have shaped the music we hear today, from trance to trip hop, from big beat to Basement Jaxx. Everything starts with these...

1) The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" (EMI 1966)
(Revolver L.P.)

Every idea ever used in dance music exists in this song. The first track recorded for the epochal Revolver L.P., Tomorrow Never Knows (the title lifted from the Tibetan Book of the Dead) was an acid-soaked masterpiece of prime psychedelia. Distorted guitars, Lennon's treated vocals, endless overdubs and the backwards drum loops all prefigure in some way the idea of sampling technology, while the group's interest in transcendental meditation - letting yourself be transported, disorientated, tripped out lies at the heart of everyone's club experiences. Recorded amazingly, only three years after the saccharine pop of She Loves You, this is untouchable genius.

The Chemical Brothers, The Beta Band and everyone else

The artful Roger: in The Folk Den with Roger McGuinn
The Beatles and Folk Rock.

When the Beatles had come out, the folk boom had already peaked," McGuinn notes. "The people who had been into it were getting kind of burned out. It just wasn't very gratifying, and it had become so commercial that it had lost its meaning for a lot of people. So the Beatles kind of re-energized it for me. I thought it was natural to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music. And in fact, I heard folk chord changes in the Beatles' music when I listened to their early stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.' I could hear the passing chords that we always use in folk music: the G-Em-Am-B kind of stuff. So I really think the Beatles invented folk-rock. They just didn't know it." Early example of folk rock with jangle their early 1963 song " I'll Be On My Way".

The Beatles Indina Tonal concepts within Rock Music and "Ticket To Ride"
The droning sound of the guitars marked the very first documented case of Indian tonal concepts in rock music (predating the Kinks' "See My Friends" by three months -- and the group's introduction to LSD by one month. oldies.about.com/od/thebeatlessongs/a/tickettoride.htm

I would not discount their use of Exotic Indian Drones. Their is guitar drones on "Baby In Black" 1964 but "Ticket To Ride" the drone is implicit and this was before "See My Friends".

Anyone who does not admit the Beatles influence on these things on the realm of Rock/Pop Music has a fundamental gene missing.

Anyone who does not admit the Beatles influence on these things on the realm of Rock/Pop Music has a fundamental gene missing.


The Pokemon gene. Good riddance.

The Beatles did things musically no one were doing.
The Velvet Underground did things musically no one were doing.
Bob Dylan did things musically no one were doing.
did things musically no one were doing.

On second thought, I won't let you.

Dammit, I had such a good ending to this, and then the text didn't show up as I hoped it would. Well, another try:

The Beatles did things musically no one were doing.
The Velvet Underground did things musically no one were doing.
Bob Dylan did things musically no one were doing.
ADD ARTIST HERE did things musically no one were doing.

On second thought, I won't let you.