Is it Possible for Anyone to Ever Be Better Than the Beatles?

[liveloud4life]

It just seems like every time the Beatles are mentioned with the suggestion of anyone else being even comparable someone jumps in with "are you kidding? You're an idiot." Everyone seems to be in a subconscious agreement that the Beatles music is perfect and every single thing after them will pale in comparison no matter what. So I just wanna know if anyone thinks it's possible.

[Fedaykin]

Seems I am the only No vote here
But, no, it's not possible for the perception to change

[liveloud4life]

Seems I am the only No vote here
But, no, it's not possible for the perception to change

I'm not sure what you mean, "the perception to change." Do you think the Beatles are the absolute pinnacle of what can be musically accomplished?

[silentstar1134]

No, I don't think so. They were amazing but saying noone in the history of music is better is ignorance.

[Fedaykin]

I'm not sure what you mean, "the perception to change." Do you think the Beatles are the absolute pinnacle of what can be musically accomplished?
Not necessarily
I don't per se
Radiohead is a tie imo
but
you created the poll because that very perception about their music exists
and it won't ever change
agree?

[liveloud4life]

Oh, of course. People can be ignorant and they always will. I think my point in creating this poll was to get people to realize how absurd a view this is.

[Fedaykin]

Oh, of course. People can be ignorant and they always will. I think my point in creating this poll was to get people to realize how absurd a view this is.
Well, its not so absurd
Especially for people who were alive during the 60's
Why again is it just so absurd?

[jay_klinkhammer]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.

[smelltheglove]

i'm not going to vote in this poll, but here is my take on it.

Beatles are the most important band in the history of rock and roll. no band before or since has not only achieved as much mainstream popularity and commercial success (27 #1 hits for example...that's just their #1 hits...) but no band has been as groundbreaking creatively either. the Beatles were the first to do so many things...use feedback, use a re-occuring riff in a song as a bridge between chorus and verse, use tape loops, use backwards recordings, etc. in a matter of 7 years they put out 13 albums, many of which are some of the best albums ever made...the white album, sgt. peppers, abby road, help!, rubber soul, revolver...that's half their discography being completely essential listening for any music fan.

no, there will never be another Beatles. the 60's was the defining decade for rock music. they were the defining band. it's not going to happen again. every decade will have their landmark bands, but it's just not really possible to duplicate that type of innovation and success anymore. studio magic has reached it's peak. people don't buy albums anymore. mainstream radio isn't as popular as it used to be. it's just so easy anymore for a handful of asshole kids in highscool to have their parents buy them a Mac, record some shit on garageband and put it up on myspace. no one wants to work for it anymore like the Beatles did, being a house-band in germany, playing 4 hour sets of covers every night in shitty venues for years before getting noticed. the musical landscape and climate is just too different for this to happen again.

but every decade has their standout bands...Zepppelin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead...that leave their mark on the history of rock and roll but it all started with the Beatles and that's just the way it is. it's not going to happen again, the music business is just too different anymore. you can hardly get a band to put out an album every other year anymore, the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. find me a band that has that kind of creative output.

plus now touring is too important. bands would rather tour than spend months in the studio working on a masterpiece becuase people don't buy albums anymore, but they do still go to shows. so bands tour instead of record and now bands only put out albums every 3 years and they don't put as much effort into them because on some level, the band knows half the people that want the album are just going to walk into the internet, stuff the torrent down their pants and walk out without paying.

these are just rambling thoughts...but no. there's not going to be another beethoven, or michaelangelo, or leonardo da vinci. but there's still plenty of great bands and artists and art out there to be excited about

[EmaleeMae]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.
I agree,

[briewer]

Yes, it's possible for a band to be better than the Beatles. I personally think that Elvis Costello, The Velvet Underground, and Talking Heads were better than the Beatles, simply because those bands made music I like better and influenced the bands I listen to more than the Beatles.

Is it possible, though, for Blink to be considered better than them? Hell fucking no.

[briewer]

Radiohead. is. boring.

You. Are. Dumb.

[Helpless]

No matter how good any one does in basketball, everyone will still consider Michael Jordan the greatest player of all time. No matter how many of his records are broken. Same goes for the Beatles. It's kind of like a reverence thing, y'know?

[MyNameIsRoss]

It's not about being 'better'. What The Beatles created can never be touched. They are set apart from anything else. They were 'pioneers'. I like Radiohead more, and they have obviously have had a longer career than The Beatles. But there is no need to determine if a band can be better than them.

[MyNameIsRoss]

And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.


It's a truly sad occurrence. But some dumb fucks just can't appreciate Radiohead..

[dpetty21]

i'm not going to vote in this poll, but here is my take on it.

Beatles are the most important band in the history of rock and roll. no band before or since has not only achieved as much mainstream popularity and commercial success (27 #1 hits for example...that's just their #1 hits...) but no band has been as groundbreaking creatively either. the Beatles were the first to do so many things...use feedback, use a re-occuring riff in a song as a bridge between chorus and verse, use tape loops, use backwards recordings, etc. in a matter of 7 years they put out 13 albums, many of which are some of the best albums ever made...the white album, sgt. peppers, abby road, help!, rubber soul, revolver...that's half their discography being completely essential listening for any music fan.

no, there will never be another Beatles. the 60's was the defining decade for rock music. they were the defining band. it's not going to happen again. every decade will have their landmark bands, but it's just not really possible to duplicate that type of innovation and success anymore. studio magic has reached it's peak. people don't buy albums anymore. mainstream radio isn't as popular as it used to be. it's just so easy anymore for a handful of asshole kids in highscool to have their parents buy them a Mac, record some shit on garageband and put it up on myspace. no one wants to work for it anymore like the Beatles did, being a house-band in germany, playing 4 hour sets of covers every night in shitty venues for years before getting noticed. the musical landscape and climate is just too different for this to happen again.

but every decade has their standout bands...Zepppelin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead...that leave their mark on the history of rock and roll but it all started with the Beatles and that's just the way it is. it's not going to happen again, the music business is just too different anymore. you can hardly get a band to put out an album every other year anymore, the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. find me a band that has that kind of creative output.

plus now touring is too important. bands would rather tour than spend months in the studio working on a masterpiece becuase people don't buy albums anymore, but they do still go to shows. so bands tour instead of record and now bands only put out albums every 3 years and they don't put as much effort into them because on some level, the band knows half the people that want the album are just going to walk into the internet, stuff the torrent down their pants and walk out without paying.

these are just rambling thoughts...but no. there's not going to be another beethoven, or michaelangelo, or leonardo da vinci. but there's still plenty of great bands and artists and art out there to be excited about


And that's pretty much what all needs to be said in this matter. Very valid points all around. I did not realize the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. That is fucking ridiculous.

I voted before reading this so I voted that it is possible but this makes me think otherwise. Then again it depends how you look at the question. If it is about being innovative and doing things first and breaking ground then yeah it is The Beatles who take the cake and always will. However if you look at it as musically who is better or who you enjoy better then the answers can differentiate. I for one think there are other bands who write better music and play better music than The Beatles. Because of what The Beatles did to shape the face of rock n roll then they could easily take this if we're looking at that part of it.

[liveloud4life]

And that's pretty much what all needs to be said in this matter. Very valid points all around. I did not realize the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. That is fucking ridiculous.

I voted before reading this so I voted that it is possible but this makes me think otherwise. Then again it depends how you look at the question. If it is about being innovative and doing things first and breaking ground then yeah it is The Beatles who take the cake and always will. However if you look at it as musically who is better or who you enjoy better then the answers can differentiate. I for one think there are other bands who write better music and play better music than The Beatles. Because of what The Beatles did to shape the face of rock n roll then they could easily take this if we're looking at that part of it.

Thank you. I can live with saying no one else will ever be as influential, but I refuse to believe that it is even possible for anyone to make music so well-written that it can never be touched by anyone, or by any means that it's already been done by the Beatles.

Well, its not so absurd
Especially for people who were alive during the 60's
Why again is it just so absurd?

How do you say anything is perfect? Or that it is not physically possible for anything to ever be better? That's an absurd concept.

[MyWorldEntire]

It's more a question of importance rather than being better. There will likely never be a more important pop band than The Beatles.

[Adrian Villagomez]

Of course.

[Paulb-182]

highly doubtful, but yes

[eliselovesmusic]

Possibly as good as the Beatles, but not better. Purely because of the circumstances when Beatles came out eg records and TV and world tours becoming a reality. Also the vietnam war made everyone want to buy into the idea of "all you need is love" (which is a good idea, I'm not dissing it).

Basically what I'm saying is that musically, yes, people have already at least equalled their musical excellence. But no one will be able to go down in history the way that they did.

[A7XBlink]

Yes...It's possible to be better than The Beatles...

It's called...Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, & Jimi Hendrix.

If we're basing this whole poll of influence then yes The Beatles are the best ever...but the four groups I mentioned are all more musically talented.

[lesto17]

Yes...It's possible to be better than The Beatles...

It's called...Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, & Jimi Hendrix.

If we're basing this whole poll of influence then yes The Beatles are the best ever...but the four groups I mentioned are all more musically talented.

I hope you know that "musically talented", as you use it, is extremely ambiguous. For example, say you have two guys. Guy 1 is not a very good guitar player, but he writes incredible songs. Guy 2 can absolutely shred on guitar, but can't write a lick to save his life. Who is more "musically talented"?


p.s. - No, none of those bands are/were better than The Beatles, and I'm not just talking about influence. They might be able/have been able to play their instruments better than some of the members of The Beatles, but skill on a particular instrument certainly doesn't define talent. I don't mean to take anything away from any of those bands, but there has never, and will never be another band like The Beatles.

[lesto17]

i'm not going to vote in this poll, but here is my take on it.

Beatles are the most important band in the history of rock and roll. no band before or since has not only achieved as much mainstream popularity and commercial success (27 #1 hits for example...that's just their #1 hits...) but no band has been as groundbreaking creatively either. the Beatles were the first to do so many things...use feedback, use a re-occuring riff in a song as a bridge between chorus and verse, use tape loops, use backwards recordings, etc. in a matter of 7 years they put out 13 albums, many of which are some of the best albums ever made...the white album, sgt. peppers, abby road, help!, rubber soul, revolver...that's half their discography being completely essential listening for any music fan.

no, there will never be another Beatles. the 60's was the defining decade for rock music. they were the defining band. it's not going to happen again. every decade will have their landmark bands, but it's just not really possible to duplicate that type of innovation and success anymore. studio magic has reached it's peak. people don't buy albums anymore. mainstream radio isn't as popular as it used to be. it's just so easy anymore for a handful of asshole kids in highscool to have their parents buy them a Mac, record some shit on garageband and put it up on myspace. no one wants to work for it anymore like the Beatles did, being a house-band in germany, playing 4 hour sets of covers every night in shitty venues for years before getting noticed. the musical landscape and climate is just too different for this to happen again.

but every decade has their standout bands...Zepppelin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead...that leave their mark on the history of rock and roll but it all started with the Beatles and that's just the way it is. it's not going to happen again, the music business is just too different anymore. you can hardly get a band to put out an album every other year anymore, the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. find me a band that has that kind of creative output.

plus now touring is too important. bands would rather tour than spend months in the studio working on a masterpiece becuase people don't buy albums anymore, but they do still go to shows. so bands tour instead of record and now bands only put out albums every 3 years and they don't put as much effort into them because on some level, the band knows half the people that want the album are just going to walk into the internet, stuff the torrent down their pants and walk out without paying.

these are just rambling thoughts...but no. there's not going to be another beethoven, or michaelangelo, or leonardo da vinci. but there's still plenty of great bands and artists and art out there to be excited about

Well said, but I am confused as to why you didn't vote. It seems clear to me that you agree that there has/will never be another band like The Beatles. The way I see it, every aspect of the entire Beatles phenomenon is what makes them so much better than any other band, and so untouchable. Looking at just one aspect of a band's career as the definitive measurement simply short changes whatever band you may be looking at.

[liveloud4life]

I hope you know that "musically talented", as you use it, is extremely ambiguous. For example, say you have two guys. Guy 1 is not a very good guitar player, but he writes incredible songs. Guy 2 can absolutely shred on guitar, but can't write a lick to save his life. Who is more "musically talented"?


p.s. - No, none of those bands are/were better than The Beatles, and I'm not just talking about influence. They might be able/have been able to play their instruments better than some of the members of The Beatles, but skill on a particular instrument certainly doesn't define talent. I don't mean to take anything away from any of those bands, but there has never, and will never be another band like The Beatles.

This is exactly why I made this poll. You're not talking about influence or anything like that. You're saying that no matter what, without ever hearing something, before it even has the chance to be written, that it's physically impossible for someone to write music that's objectively better than the Beatles. That's asinine.

Also you can't completely disregard technical ability. And still, speaking objectively, and not about the circumstances surrounding the Beatles music, it's definitely argueable that some on those bands were better at writing music.

[VIVALAMATT]

Anyone who says Yes is clearly ridiculous.

They dont call the Beatles the greatest band ever for no reason. No band can do what they did. Ever. Many bands wouldnt even be around these days if not for them.

[VIVALAMATT]

Yes...It's possible to be better than The Beatles...

It's called...Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, & Jimi Hendrix.

If we're basing this whole poll of influence then yes The Beatles are the best ever...but the four groups I mentioned are all more musically talented.

oooo idk about that. those are great bands, but they arent the beatles...

[liveloud4life]

Anyone who says Yes is clearly ridiculous.

They dont call the Beatles the greatest band ever for no reason. No band can do what they did. Ever. Many bands wouldnt even be around these days if not for them.

You say, "They don't call them that," as if because someone said it, it's a universally accepted fact. And do you think that for some reasone the Beatles were just born with more talent different than everyone else so no one will ever stand a chance of creating something comparable? 3 out of 4 people must be clearly ridiculous.

[VIVALAMATT]

You say, "They don't call them that," as if because someone said it, it's a universally accepted fact. And do you think that for some reasone the Beatles were just born with more talent different than everyone else so no one will ever stand a chance of creating something comparable? 3 out of 4 people must be clearly ridiculous.

Yes, and 1/4 of people are retarded.

Obviously you dont consider the time period in which they accomplished what they did. They were before their time.

The Beatles were a musical revolution, and they were the last one we've had. No band has changed music since, no band has caused a rippling effect to the generations of bands to follow. No band will.

The reason why people are voting "yes" on this page is because I highly doubt everyone here listens to/appreciates classic rock.

Respect your elders. Your favorite band wouldnt be around today without them.

[undonesweater93]

There are many bands right now that are better than the Beatles. But that's only because of the beatles, and the progress they made in their generation.

[smelltheglove]

Well said, but I am confused as to why you didn't vote. It seems clear to me that you agree that there has/will never be another band like The Beatles. The way I see it, every aspect of the entire Beatles phenomenon is what makes them so much better than any other band, and so untouchable. Looking at just one aspect of a band's career as the definitive measurement simply short changes whatever band you may be looking at.

well, i didn't vote becaue i don't want to say anything is impossible...i mean, for all i know, in 100 years, aliens will land on earth and bring with them the dopest, sickest alien rock we've ever heard and will be massivly globally popular and will change the way we look at music forever...

i just don't want to be that guy in 1750 that's like "well this is it...we've mastered the seas, global travel is now possible, this is the final frontier, there will never be a superior form of travel than ship" and not forseeing the invention of the airplane...or the space shuttle

[liveloud4life]

Yes, and 1/4 of people are retarded.

Obviously you dont consider the time period in which they accomplished what they did. They were before their time.

The Beatles were a musical revolution, and they were the last one we've had. No band has changed music since, no band has caused a rippling effect to the generations of bands to follow. No band will.

The reason why people are voting "yes" on this page is because I highly doubt everyone here listens to/appreciates classic rock.

Respect your elders. Your favorite band wouldnt be around today without them.

Yes, they're the last we've had, but what stops there from being another at some point in the infinite future?

well, i didn't vote becaue i don't want to say anything is impossible...i mean, for all i know, in 100 years, aliens will land on earth and bring with them the dopest, sickest alien rock we've ever heard and will be massivly globally popular and will change the way we look at music forever...

i just don't want to be that guy in 1750 that's like "well this is it...we've mastered the seas, global travel is now possible, this is the final frontier, there will never be a superior form of travel than ship" and not forseeing the invention of the airplane...or the space shuttle

Thank God someone said it.

[jbaseball44]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.
Speaking of ignorance

[tonighttonight0]

There's really no way that anyone can achieve what the Beatles accomplished in the 60s through 13 albums. They broke so many rules of recording and being a band, such as refusing to tour. Also they can be credited with the creation of the music video really. Seeing as they were the biggest band in the world and they grew tired of going to tv show after tv show they put the promotional video into full effect.

[batmannj]

Yes for no other reason than nothing is impossible.

[liveloud4life]

There's really no way that anyone can achieve what the Beatles accomplished in the 60s through 13 albums. They broke so many rules of recording and being a band, such as refusing to tour. Also they can be credited with the creation of the music video really. Seeing as they were the biggest band in the world and they grew tired of going to tv show after tv show they put the promotional video into full effect.

That's a contradictory statement. If they did it, than obviously someone can.

[MyWorldEntire]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.

Don't forget Beethoven,Chopin, Bach,Mozart. So. Boring

[AussieBoy]

yes, the answer is blink-182

[briewer]

Don't forget Beethoven,Chopin, Bach,Mozart. So. Boring

I loled hardcore at that one.

[briewer]

yes, the answer is blink-182

Dear Christ I hope you're joking.

[liveloud4life]

yes, the answer is blink-182

I made this assuming that most everyone would assume it's definitely possible, but of all the people that might be in contention, they should not even be close.

[jawstheme]

I put Radiohead and Led Zeppelin on the same level as The Beatles.

[Un'Aria Ancora]

I put Radiohead and Led Zeppelin on the same level as The Beatles.

Me too, I actually think Radiohead is better, not exactly more enjoyable, but better as far as what they do as a band. Talent wise I guess.

[whitelocust_x]

like Kevin Garnett, anything is possibleeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

[Iron Aeroplane]

The legacy of the Beatles will never be forgotten. However, music will continue to be made, and hopefully, "better" albums will be written.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

i'm not going to vote in this poll, but here is my take on it.

Beatles are the most important band in the history of rock and roll. no band before or since has not only achieved as much mainstream popularity and commercial success (27 #1 hits for example...that's just their #1 hits...) but no band has been as groundbreaking creatively either. the Beatles were the first to do so many things...use feedback, use a re-occuring riff in a song as a bridge between chorus and verse, use tape loops, use backwards recordings, etc. in a matter of 7 years they put out 13 albums, many of which are some of the best albums ever made...the white album, sgt. peppers, abby road, help!, rubber soul, revolver...that's half their discography being completely essential listening for any music fan.

no, there will never be another Beatles. the 60's was the defining decade for rock music. they were the defining band. it's not going to happen again. every decade will have their landmark bands, but it's just not really possible to duplicate that type of innovation and success anymore. studio magic has reached it's peak. people don't buy albums anymore. mainstream radio isn't as popular as it used to be. it's just so easy anymore for a handful of asshole kids in highscool to have their parents buy them a Mac, record some shit on garageband and put it up on myspace. no one wants to work for it anymore like the Beatles did, being a house-band in germany, playing 4 hour sets of covers every night in shitty venues for years before getting noticed. the musical landscape and climate is just too different for this to happen again.

but every decade has their standout bands...Zepppelin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead...that leave their mark on the history of rock and roll but it all started with the Beatles and that's just the way it is. it's not going to happen
again, the music business is just too different anymore. you can hardly get a band to put out an album every other year anymore, the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. find me a band that has that kind of creative output.


plus now touring is too important. bands would rather tour than spend months in the studio working on a masterpiece becuase people don't buy albums anymore, but they do still go to shows. so bands tour instead of record and now bands only put out albums every 3 years and they don't put as much effort into them
because on some level, the band knows half the people that want the album are just going to walk into the
internet, stuff the torrent down their pants and walk out without paying.

these are just rambling thoughts...but no. there's not going to be another beethoven, or michaelangelo, or leonardo da vinci. but there's still plenty of great bands and artists and art out there to be excited about

This, please.

[TreyForest]

i find them boring and incredibly over rated looking back on there music but i admit that at the time they were groundbreaking and really changed pop music forever

will there be a band ever so influential... maybe
music is pretty bad right now and u would think that this could be a time where a new band could come up and change everything
....
i hope

[I am Mick]

Yes. Brokencyde.

I hope nobody made this joke yet

[spunkmastaflex]

Even though right now, there aren't any huge bands, i think that in the future, there will be some sort of entertainment group that will succeed the beatles.

[lesto17]

This is exactly why I made this poll. You're not talking about influence or anything like that. You're saying that no matter what, without ever hearing something, before it even has the chance to be written, that it's physically impossible for someone to write music that's objectively better than the Beatles. That's asinine.

Also you can't completely disregard technical ability. And still, speaking objectively, and not about the circumstances surrounding the Beatles music, it's definitely argueable that some on those bands were better at writing music.

I think you kinda misinterpreted what I wrote. I think that there is a big difference between the influence of The Beatles and the circumstances surrounding the band. I said I was not considering their influence, but the circumstances surrounding the band (from the time of conception up until their demise) are very much a part of what makes them untouchable. As far as me saying there will never be another band like The Beatles, maybe that is slightly premature. However, I do think that the chances of another band coming together with all of the talent of The Beatles, and in the absolute perfect situation (including the social climate throughout their career and the incredible progression/reinvention that The Beatles had, among several other factors), but the chances are so incredibly slim that I really can't imagining it happening again. Plus, even if that were to happen, when it came down to it they would always be compared to The Beatles.

Of course you can't completely disregard technical ability, but I also never suggested such a thing. I do however think that technical ability takes a backseat to several other factors. I would also say that sure, maybe some of those bands wrote some music better than The Beatles, but while most bands tend to stick to what they are good at, The Beatles got to a point towards the end of their career that with each album they released they were reinventing themselves (and doing everything they tried extremely well) and even breaking brand new ground to some extent. I don't think that can honestly be said about any other band. Most bands take a couple albums to find "their sound" and then spend the rest of their careers refining that sound. Which brings me to my next point, on a whole The Beatles discography is consistently stronger than any other band. When people argue about which Beatles album is the best there are always several different albums considered, whereas most bands there is usually some overall consensus on 1, 2, or MAYBE 3 albums that could possibly be considered to be their strongest work.




Edit: By the way, suggesting that it is even possible to listen to music completely objectively without considering its context is extremely naive. People may do their best to do such a thing, but it is just not possible. Not to mention that the whole concept of some music being objectively better than others just seems somewhat ridiculous.

[newfoundmichael]

"Better" is such a hard term to define. Musically? Sure, there are hundreds of muscians out there that are capable of playing their guitars, drums, or bass better than the Beatles did. Better at writing pop songs? Eh, that one could be up for debate. The Beatles are by far the best band when it comes to commercializing pop music. The simple fact that everyone knows who they are proves that in my opinion.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.

thats not ignorance, thats opinion. not one that i support (despite my thom yorke avatar).



anyways, i think led zeppelin is the all around best band of all time, despite the beatles being the most important.

[handlikesecret]

didn't even know what the question was, so i voted yes.

however, no, i don't think it's impossible.

[davidmest]

It's a truly sad occurrence. But some dumb fucks just can't appreciate Radiohead..

i've tried so hard to appreciate radiohead. lyrics are definitely there, i just can't get into listening to the music they put out. its not that i think they're overrated, i don't, it just makes me angry when everyone i know who listens to them puts them on a golden pedestal. i feel similarly about incubus.

as far as the beatles go:
better - yes
more influential - not likely

[SendALetter]

the beatles suck.

[briewer]

the beatles suck.

If I may quote emit remmus, i hatechu.

[petethemeat]

the only reason i voted on this poll is so it would stop popping up on the front page.

[showyourteeth]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.

i agree

[yellowhouse]

It's not absurd at all. The Beatles will always be the gold standard despite myself not even being into them hardcore.


And Radiohead being up there with them...THAT'S ignorance. Radiohead. is. boring.

Noooo, it pains me to read that.

[emptyvictory]

i'm not going to vote in this poll, but here is my take on it.

Beatles are the most important band in the history of rock and roll. no band before or since has not only achieved as much mainstream popularity and commercial success (27 #1 hits for example...that's just their #1 hits...) but no band has been as groundbreaking creatively either. the Beatles were the first to do so many things...use feedback, use a re-occuring riff in a song as a bridge between chorus and verse, use tape loops, use backwards recordings, etc. in a matter of 7 years they put out 13 albums, many of which are some of the best albums ever made...the white album, sgt. peppers, abby road, help!, rubber soul, revolver...that's half their discography being completely essential listening for any music fan.

no, there will never be another Beatles. the 60's was the defining decade for rock music. they were the defining band. it's not going to happen again. every decade will have their landmark bands, but it's just not really possible to duplicate that type of innovation and success anymore. studio magic has reached it's peak. people don't buy albums anymore. mainstream radio isn't as popular as it used to be. it's just so easy anymore for a handful of asshole kids in highscool to have their parents buy them a Mac, record some shit on garageband and put it up on myspace. no one wants to work for it anymore like the Beatles did, being a house-band in germany, playing 4 hour sets of covers every night in shitty venues for years before getting noticed. the musical landscape and climate is just too different for this to happen again.

but every decade has their standout bands...Zepppelin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead...that leave their mark on the history of rock and roll but it all started with the Beatles and that's just the way it is. it's not going to happen again, the music business is just too different anymore. you can hardly get a band to put out an album every other year anymore, the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. find me a band that has that kind of creative output.

plus now touring is too important. bands would rather tour than spend months in the studio working on a masterpiece becuase people don't buy albums anymore, but they do still go to shows. so bands tour instead of record and now bands only put out albums every 3 years and they don't put as much effort into them because on some level, the band knows half the people that want the album are just going to walk into the internet, stuff the torrent down their pants and walk out without paying.

these are just rambling thoughts...but no. there's not going to be another beethoven, or michaelangelo, or leonardo da vinci. but there's still plenty of great bands and artists and art out there to be excited about

brilliant

[Un'Aria Ancora]

Even though right now, there aren't any huge bands, i think that in the future, there will be some sort of entertainment group that will succeed the beatles.

No huge bands? Some sort of entertainment group?

lol

[Alex DiVincenzo]

Voted no because you didn't post a good poll title for the front page.

To answer the question, though, I think there has been a variety of bands better than The Beatles. People's perception about them won't likely change, though. It's like when people refer to Citizen Kane or The Godfather as the greatest movie ever made.

[smelltheglove]

brilliant

i wouldn't go that far, but thanks! and just to expand on what i was saying...

what i mean is, the 60's already happened, rock music was defined during that decade and it set the stage for all that has happened in the last 50 years. And the Beatles were the defining band for the 60's and for the foundation of rock music. they are to rock music what Bob Marley was to reggae or what Mozart was to...whatever that era of piano music was called (sorry, i'm 8 years removed from my "western art music" course in college).

it's like asking if there will be another NIrvana. No, grunge already happened. it's not going to happen again. now was Nirvana as innovative as the Beatles? hell no. were they as important to the history of rock? nope. but they were arguably the most important band of the 90's and of the grunge sub-genre of rock and roll.

so that's what we have now. rock music has been defined and the foundation set by the Beatles. now we only have sub-genre's, the spin-off genres of rock music: punk, indy, metal, hair metal, new waveetc. and each sub-genre has it's defining band, but the thing is, they're the defining band of a sub-genre of rock, not rock itself. that honor goes to and only ever will go to the Beatles.

the Clash (in my opinion, some will argue Sex Pistols or Ramones) were the defining band of the punk movement. Thursday defined the emocore/screamo whatever the hell you want to call it genre that spawned hawthorne heights, etc. so you have those defining & important bands, but the Beatles started it all, all the branches of the tree of rock go back to the same root; the Beatles.

so you have landmark bands, new genre's, but nothing is as important to where it all started, and the same thing isn't going to happen twice. it's like asking "will there be another year that "punk broke"?" no, 1994 already happend, thus, the year punk broke. it's not going to happen again.

for those of you wondering what happned in the year punk broke, essentially, Green Day "dookie" and Offspring "smash" came out that Summer of '94. both albums went mutli-platinum. in addition, Rancid, Bad Religion and NoFX had gold records that year ("lets go", "stranger than fiction" and "punk in drublic"). this laid the foundation for everything going on in "teh scene" today, warped tour, blink182, fall out boy, etc. before 1994, punk music really was an underground phenomenon, but post 1994, it became a mainstream music genre. those bands proved that punk music was extremly marketable and punk albums had the potential to be huge-sellers. over the course of the 80's, after the Clash broke up, punk really went underground until these bands broke it open again, and here we are 15 years later still seeing and feeling the effects of 1994, when approx. 8-10 million punk albums were sold by those 5 bands alone ("smash" and "dookie" are both no diamond certified, over 10 million sold each).

end rambling thoughts part 2, thanks to anyone who read that, hope you learned something and don't think i'm retarded.

[punk182mutt]

Yes, and it has happened many, many times. If you mean as popular then thats a different story.

[kaylaalovee]

The Beatles are outstanding, deffantly one of the bests.
But there is always room for improvement and you aren't going to please everyone.
Anyway my vote was yes, someone could be seen as better than The Beatles.

[fightinirish217]

Someone in the future could perhaps come around and be bigger and more influential than the Beatles, but right now? No, no band has been bigger, no band has been more influential, than the fab four from Liverpool. I think that will last for a long time to come. But who knows what the future brings, anything can happen.

[11:11]

I don't think so, because back in the 60s/70s, there wasn't much to music like there is today. The Beatles were ground-breaking in their techniques while still remaining pop icons. I don't think there are any bands today that could do that.

[liveloud4life]

I don't think so, because back in the 60s/70s, there wasn't much to music like there is today. The Beatles were ground-breaking in their techniques while still remaining pop icons. I don't think there are any bands today that could do that.

I didn't really mean more influential, but still how can you say that music isn't on the verge of going in an entirely new and different direction due to some band that's out there right now about to revolutionize the next 50 years of music.

[11:11]

I didn't really mean more influential, but still how can you say that music isn't on the verge of going in an entirely new and different direction due to some band that's out there right now about to revolutionize the next 50 years of music.
I never said that. However, while bands like Rx Bandits are revolutionizing music right now, it's impossible for them to be better than the Beatles. The Beatles literally took over the radio with their singles. Rx Bandits will probably never get even one single on the radio. So, to answer the question, it's not possible for anyone to be better than the Beatles. Society today generally doesn't appreciate songs with substance unless they're poppy.

[Cody Nelson]

Better than them at what? It is most definitely possible.

[liveloud4life]

I never said that. However, while bands like Rx Bandits are revolutionizing music right now, it's impossible for them to be better than the Beatles. The Beatles literally took over the radio with their singles. Rx Bandits will probably never get even one single on the radio. So, to answer the question, it's not possible for anyone to be better than the Beatles. Society today generally doesn't appreciate songs with substance unless they're poppy.

This was never limited to today. This is open to the indefinite future.

[11:11]

This was never limited to today. This is open to the indefinite future.
I think such a gap has developed between mainstream and the indie/underground (the only bands that seem to have the capacity to be creative anymore) scene that it would be very hard for a band to ever bridge the gap quite like the Beatles.

[liveloud4life]

I think such a gap has developed between mainstream and the indie/underground (the only bands that seem to have the capacity to be creative anymore) scene that it would be very hard for a band to ever bridge the gap quite like the Beatles.

Very hard, sure. But that's a long way from impossible

[murrich]

Influence wise, probably not, musically, yes (listen to A Love Supreme by John Coltrane).

[11:11]

Very hard, sure. But that's a long way from impossible
Well, I don't see any band doing it, so I'm going with impossible.

[SanePsychotic]

Yes, because there are numerous musicians that are better than the Beatles. Both technically and creatively.

[liveloud4life]

Well, I don't see any band doing it, so I'm going with impossible.

Very logical.

[11:11]

Very logical.
I think so too. Thanks for this nice little debate. Twas fun.

[VIVALAMATT]

The answer is NO. Here's the evidence. Watch this video and ask yourself: "Will any other band be able to captivate the world like this?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsvE4j4ExA

[AndrewIcex]

Yes, it is possible. I am sure it has been accomplished with many bands, maybe even bands that are not as popular as mainstream artists.

[anrooles]

I voted no but musically it is possible. The Beatles were more than just a band they were an iconic staple in a very dark time in American history. The reason that they are the "gold standard" is because they were the first of their kind to make such an impact on the music scene.

You can't be close minded when it comes to The Beatles. Sure you might not like their music but there has to be an appreciation of the band itself because without The Beatles who knows what could have happened to the music scene then and now.

I am a young cat but I do believe that back than anyone could have been "The Beatles" it just so happened that it worked out in John, Paul, George, and Ringo's favor. There are a lot of good bands that could be considered "better" than The Beatles but without them would those bands even exist?

One Love

[liveloud4life]

The answer is NO. Here's the evidence. Watch this video and ask yourself: "Will any other band be able to captivate the world like this?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsvE4j4ExA

Will they? Maybe not. But forever is a long ass time dude. What if civilization is wiped out and a million years from now a whole new generation of people redevelops to this point in history and some band has an ever greater effect than the Beatles?

My point in even making this poll was to see how many people were absolutely so close-minded any time the question of any music being compared to the Beatles arose, that they would vehemently say that not only was there no one even considerable in existence, but that no one can possibly ever exist that has even the slightest prayer of being comparable. Apparantly a fair amount.

For the record, if someone posted these lyrics today in the share lyrics forum and they weren't already Beatles lyrics they would take so much shit.

[eliselovesmusic]

Will they? Maybe not. But forever is a long ass time dude. What if civilization is wiped out and a million years from now a whole new generation of people redevelops to this point in history and some band has an ever greater effect than the Beatles?

My point in even making this poll was to see how many people were absolutely so close-minded any time the question of any music being compared to the Beatles arose, that they would vehemently say that not only was there no one even considerable in existence, but that no one can possibly ever exist that has even the slightest prayer of being comparable. Apparantly a fair amount.

For the record, if someone posted these lyrics today in the share lyrics forum and they weren't already Beatles lyrics they would take so much shit.


I gotta say, this made me think...

[liveloud4life]

I gotta say, this made me think...

I'm really glad. That's what I was trying to do with this. Unfortunately alot of people won't. Once you say Beatles, they won't listen to anything else you say.

[Kid B]

Depends on you definition of "better".

[liveloud4life]

Depends on you definition of "better".

Really for the purposes of the poll, you can use any definition

I feel like from a technical stand point it's obvious. They shouldn't even be mentioned among best technical skill on their instruments.

Speaking from a writing standpoint without regard to the time and circumstances under which it happened, there are certainly some that have surpassed them.

If your definition centers around the influence they had on music to come and their impact on the world at the time, then they're obviously the best there has ever been, but even so why couldn't some time in the infinite future someone achieve even greater influence? The question isn't "Will it happen?" it's "Is it possible?"

[KennyI182]

Possible.... But very unlikely.

[Ryzenfall]

well, i didn't vote becaue i don't want to say anything is impossible...i mean, for all i know, in 100 years, aliens will land on earth and bring with them the dopest, sickest alien rock we've ever heard and will be massivly globally popular and will change the way we look at music forever...

i just don't want to be that guy in 1750 that's like "well this is it...we've mastered the seas, global travel is now possible, this is the final frontier, there will never be a superior form of travel than ship" and not forseeing the invention of the airplane...or the space shuttle

hahahah. That's why I voted yes, even though I pretty much have the same sentiments about the Beatles being untouchable in the certain senses you expressed earlier.

[whataclush]

Tool > Beatles

[IWasaCamera]

Tool > Bealtes
hahaha

To address the poll question, the title specifies "better" so I can only assume quality is the matter at hand. In that case, not only is it possible, it has already happened with The Velvet Underground, Dylan, Can, Miles Davis, etc.

[Goat01]

I say yes.
It's possible for people th be better than The Beatles.
However, no band will ever be bigger than them.
No one will ever accomplish as much as they have, and no band will contribute to music in general as much as they did.

[doppelganger]

you can take it in many perspectives.
one example: many bands can be better than the beatles lyrically.

[AndrewIcex]

Tool > Bealtes
:hitself:

[fadedmemories]

It depends on who you ask. But everyone I know between the ages 24-50 loves them.

[whataclush]

:hitself:
Tool > Beatles/ FACT

[AndrewIcex]

Tool > Beatles/ FACT
:chairhit:

[whataclush]

:chairhit:
haha, the smilies are almost as good as the beatles

[ramones182]

remember when nirvana was popular they were called the next beatles they could have passed them if they had enough time but kurt decided to end they run early

[AndrewIcex]

remember when nirvana was popular they were called the next beatles they could have passed them if they had enough time but kurt decided to end they run early
Bad grammar.

And I doubt Nirvana would have been the next Beatles, even if Kurt would have lived.

[olemanblues]

i'm not going to vote in this poll, but here is my take on it.

Beatles are the most important band in the history of rock and roll. no band before or since has not only achieved as much mainstream popularity and commercial success (27 #1 hits for example...that's just their #1 hits...) but no band has been as groundbreaking creatively either. the Beatles were the first to do so many things...use feedback, use a re-occuring riff in a song as a bridge between chorus and verse, use tape loops, use backwards recordings, etc. in a matter of 7 years they put out 13 albums, many of which are some of the best albums ever made...the white album, sgt. peppers, abby road, help!, rubber soul, revolver...that's half their discography being completely essential listening for any music fan.

no, there will never be another Beatles. the 60's was the defining decade for rock music. they were the defining band. it's not going to happen again. every decade will have their landmark bands, but it's just not really possible to duplicate that type of innovation and success anymore. studio magic has reached it's peak. people don't buy albums anymore. mainstream radio isn't as popular as it used to be. it's just so easy anymore for a handful of asshole kids in highscool to have their parents buy them a Mac, record some shit on garageband and put it up on myspace. no one wants to work for it anymore like the Beatles did, being a house-band in germany, playing 4 hour sets of covers every night in shitty venues for years before getting noticed. the musical landscape and climate is just too different for this to happen again.

but every decade has their standout bands...Zepppelin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead...that leave their mark on the history of rock and roll but it all started with the Beatles and that's just the way it is. it's not going to happen again, the music business is just too different anymore. you can hardly get a band to put out an album every other year anymore, the Beatles put out 13 albums in 7 years. find me a band that has that kind of creative output.

plus now touring is too important. bands would rather tour than spend months in the studio working on a masterpiece becuase people don't buy albums anymore, but they do still go to shows. so bands tour instead of record and now bands only put out albums every 3 years and they don't put as much effort into them because on some level, the band knows half the people that want the album are just going to walk into the internet, stuff the torrent down their pants and walk out without paying.

these are just rambling thoughts...but no. there's not going to be another beethoven, or michaelangelo, or leonardo da vinci. but there's still plenty of great bands and artists and art out there to be excited about

I only wish that even half of the people of this site would read what you have said here, its factual and true. Who would ever thought that stealing music was something the fans would ultimately do!

[Kill_the_radio]

it is possible, but it hasn't happened!

[Kill_the_radio]

whoever said that the Beatles didn't get shit back in the day, they are wrong!

[SLoT]

No. No one will ever be better than the Beatles. No band will rock the music industry like that ever again, because those times are over and the music industry isn't at all like it was back then.

[freakster]

Yes, it's possible for a band to be better than the Beatles. I personally think that Elvis Costello, The Velvet Underground, and Talking Heads were better than the Beatles, simply because those bands made music I like better and influenced the bands I listen to more than the Beatles.

Is it possible, though, for Blink to be considered better than them? Hell fucking no.

Elvis Costello is better than the beatles. He's amazing, plain and simple.

I enjoy the beatles but they aren't the best.

[makeasound]

Didn't read the entire thread, but here's my two cents (like anyone cares).

There were better bands/musicians than the Beatles in the 1960's, and there are still better bands/musicians than the Beatles today. Better songwriters, better guitarists, better bassists, better drummers, better singers, etc.

The question should really be, "Will there ever be a band GREATER than the Beatles?"

Will there be a band that can accomplish that much in such a short time as far as quantity of releases, quality of releases, innovation in the studio, and overall impact on the global popular culture of the time and the lasting effects of that impact on future generations?

To that I answer no.

[JacobJames]

Hi,

I've been studying The Beatles for a number of years now. In particular I have an interest in the last 1,260 days of The Beatles. I identified a connection between John and Paul and The Bible as the Lennon-McCartney duo were the two witnesses that appear in The Bible in Revelation 11:3.

Now I do realize that many of you are sure that there is no God but I suggest you take one more honest look before you settle on that conclusion for the rest of your life. John and Paul did some very profound things and it all can be read for free at http://thegoodguise.wordpress.com/.

Using anagrams and numerical statements, prophecies were delivered that tell both where the tomb of Mary Magdelane is located and also how to identify the anti-Christ. Also, when you are reading through the book get a very good grasp on the chapter titled, The Sgt. Pepper Connection. You won't be disappointed - unless, of course, you are already disappointed.

Read over everything and then write with questions. There is much more to be said over and above the contents of the book; let me know what you want to hear more about.

Jacob

[Radiology]

Probably not,

Radiohead is the closest you can get today.

[kdefrisc]

there are many much better bands. i dont know why they have been used as a yardstick for music for so long

[Clark]

No, because of when The Beatles did it.