My friend and I are having a debate over whos better. I believe

File: 1487820722080.gif (493KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 500x380px

the beatles because that music

File: ABSOLUTE.jpg (77KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x465px

>>71312278
is it even a real question?

The Beatles

They pretty much invented modern music with Sgt. Pepper

The Beatles are superior in just about every way.

Beach Boys > all

>>71312278
The Beatles, not even close.

>>71312278
good question since they're both pretty much in the same league (near bottom of the barrel)
honestly though I'd say Beatles because they were more experimental towards the end of their career and forwarded the music industry farther in the right direction
>>71312353
this

I love Led Zeppelin too. How about we look at a list of some of the songs Zep stole from other artists:
"Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant."
"Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch.
"Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson).
"Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown."
"Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy."
"Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes).
"Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down."
"How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter."
"In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut).
"The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court.
"Moby Dick" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker.
"Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues.
"Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar.
"Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is apparently from "Taurus" by Spirit.
"White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair."
"Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love."

>>71312278
I'd say the Beatles.
They covered a wider range of sounds than Zeppelin and I personally believe they're work is more prolific.

>>71312353
I agree but this isnt the question

>>71312414
while this looks bad you could say similar stuff about nirvana, and probably the beatles

>>71312565
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

>>71312621
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

>>71312630
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

thanks>>71312621

>>71312637
The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.

>>71312742
you dont like the beatles?

>>71312278
The Beatles.

Out of interest, has he heard deeper cuts like Rain, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Norwegian Wood, Hey Bulldog, Fool On The Hill, She Said She Said, Tomorrow Never Knows, etc? Or just Hey Jude, Yesterday, Let It Be, and the like. I tend to find that people who actually know the first group of songs I listed say The Beatles 9 times out of 10

>>71312882
The Beatles most certainly belong to the history of the 60s, but their musical merits are at best dubious.

>>71312930
he knows the big songs and black bird

you're both wrong. music is subjective.

>>71312353
This meme needs to die. Sure, you can argue that Brian Wilson was the most visionary, but the rest of the band is literally who? Without Brian The Beach Boys are nothing. Sry mike

>>71313303
>He hasn't listened to pacific ocean blue

>>71312565
Ok, say it, what songs did the beatles steal from someone else?

>>71312278
I prefer the best Zep to the best Beatles, but the latter undoubtedly did more. I'd say the guys in Led Zeppelin are more talented though, instrumentally at the very least.

Led zeplin are for faggots

>>71313504
Paul McCartney is a spectacular bassist i will get hate for this, but i think he is better than John Paul Jones.

>>71312278
beatles are better. Led Zeppelin are better musicians and even pretty good song writers, but they did borrow a lot from other artists, sometimes blatant plagiarizing, and i just dont think one can really compare beatles song writing accomplishments to zeppelins, they just smash zeppelin on that

>>71313604
I don't think I'd agree, but I wouldn't really fight that. Paul is great.

>>71313303
>Glen Campbell
>Bruce Johnston
>Pacific Ocean Blue, Dennis' only album which sold more than the Beach Boy's album that was out at the time

mike can eat a dick, carl was too nice for his own good which is probably why he never had a hit

>>71313604
>>71313646

Paul was fantastic writer and came up with some amazingly tasteful bass lines

>>71312278
Is that even a question?

Beatles Easily

>>71313303
>being this wrong

>>71313813
Beetles a shit

>>71313419
Come Together from Chuck Berry. That's it afaik.

>>71312278
Beatles, they're more tuneful

Led Zeppelin is boring cockrock

ITT: anon's friend BTFO

they're both grandpa rock, who cares

File: john lennon paul mccartney.jpg (194KB, 790x811px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 790x811px

>>71313419
they did a lot of covers in their early albums, but thats what they were- covers.
and even then they were writing a lot of their own music, especially compared to other bands at the time
>the lowest amount of original songs they had on an album was 8 originals songs with 6 covers
>all songs on their 3rd album A Hard Day's Night were written by them
and
>like 95% of their hits were written by them

I unironically agree with Scaruffi when it comes to the Beatles and Radiohead. You guys love to mock him, but Scaruffi's right. Let's be honest here.

>>71316580
wow you are fucking sad

>>71316580
i do not trust the opinions of an italian paedophile tho

>>71316617
>>71316647
Not an argument. So, it looks like Scaruffi is right.

>>71316672
The fact that so many books still name Scaruffi as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” music critic ever only tells you how far music journalism still is from becoming a serious art.