And if the question being asked is What was the greatest band of all time? and the answer isn't The Beatles, then the question requires a different answer. I get into this argument all the time. IF THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME ISN'T THE BEATLES, THEN WHO THE FUCK IS IT!? People aren't generally equipped with an answer.
I don't wanna hear anyone say The Rolling Stones. The 1980's happened to the Stones. When more than half of your career is completely irrelevant, you are disqualified. The Stones are disqualified. Who does that leave us? Not Led Zeppelin; Zeppelin is ultimately a niche. I think that extremely broad appeal is a requisite for the title; Zep is disqualified. It can't be Pink Floyd; Floyd was and is incredibly popular, and groundbreaking enough to be considered as a candidate, but they had a golden age -- beginning (arguably) in 1970 (Atom Heart Mother) and ending (even more arguably) in 1980 (The Wall). Everything before and after is either terribly dated, or just plain terrible.
The 80's were a dark time for music -- if anyone has a nominee, you'll have to work pretty hard to convince me -- and we don't have enough perspective on any band from the 90's to make any claims that wouldn't sound like knee-jerk reactions and fanboy gushing. And no, it's not Radiohead. Their golden age is over as well.
So I'm seriously asking: who, if not the Beatles, are the greatest band of all time?
I know lots of people who don't like the Beatles but that's just because they are unwilling to explore anything beyond the 10-15 songs that have been drilled into their skull by pop culture and therefore have yet to experience the awesomeness that is a full Beatles album.
Best band in history? The Beatles, it just has to be. Floyd is a close second, and their 'golden age' was longer than the Beatles entire career, but I still give it to the Beatles.
And if the question being asked is What was the greatest band of all time? and the answer isn't The Beatles, then the question requires a different answer. I get into this argument all the time. IF THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME ISN'T THE BEATLES, THEN WHO THE FUCK IS IT!? People aren't generally equipped with an answer.
I don't wanna hear anyone say The Rolling Stones. The 1980's happened to the Stones. When more than half of your career is completely irrelevant, you are disqualified. The Stones are disqualified. Who does that leave us? Not Led Zeppelin; Zeppelin is ultimately a niche. I think that extremely broad appeal is a requisite for the title; Zep is disqualified. It can't be Pink Floyd; Floyd was and is incredibly popular, and groundbreaking enough to be considered as a candidate, but they had a golden age -- beginning (arguably) in 1970 (Atom Heart Mother) and ending (even more arguably) in 1980 (The Wall). Everything before and after is either terribly dated, or just plain terrible.
The 80's were a dark time for music -- if anyone has a nominee, you'll have to work pretty hard to convince me -- and we don't have enough perspective on any band from the 90's to make any claims that wouldn't sound like knee-jerk reactions and fanboy gushing. And no, it's not Radiohead. Their golden age is over as well.
So I'm seriously asking: who, if not the Beatles, are the greatest band of all time?
Thank god the Beatles broke up in time to miss out on making three shitty albums in the seventies and a horrible reunion album in 1986 and money sucking tours thereafter. That shit will ruin your reputation.
I'm learning that George really hated the Beatlemania stuff, and was less interested in the Beatles by the end than any of them. Didn't know that.
It's pretty apparent if you watch Let it Be. It's a heartbreaking thing to watch at all, which is a big part of why it's so hard to find -- they hated each other by the end. George was the only one who really took the the transcendental meditation to heart, and the stress of being a Beatle and the incredible strife between John and Paul really put him off.
I haven't read the Hunter Davies, although I've been meaning to. It was published a couple years after I recovered from my initial bout with Beatlemania. Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head is a phenomenal read, if you're still hankering for more when you get through that. Breaks their entire career down one chord progression at a time, it's fucking fascinating. Details who contributed what to each and every song, explores the cultural context of every last recording, and just generally puts you right in the recording studio from 1965 until 1970.
Is there some sort of algorithm that I'm completely missing that propels an album into the "Best New Music" category over in Poochfuck land? Blut Aus Nord's "777 Cosmosophy" was just given an 8.5, but was denied a BNM tag, while dozens of other 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 rated albums were awarded the coveted title. I seriously don't fucking understand it.
Is there some sort of algorithm that I'm completely missing that propels an album into the "Best New Music" category over in Poochfuck land? Blut Aus Nord's "777 Cosmosophy" was just given an 8.5, but was denied a BNM tag, while dozens of other 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 rated albums were awarded the coveted title. I seriously don't fucking understand it.
I'm overstepping my boundaries, because Cbats and Gramma are the authorities on PF, but I used to read PF regularly, and I noticed the same thing. My opinion was, "We are PF, our BNM is what no one has ever heard, but every hipsters will be praising in two weeks. Then if we ever BNM a band, we are required to continue BNMing them, because we knew them first. We also like Neurosis, and we'll give them an 8.6 to show you all we're cool like that, but they don't get a BNM."