Originally posted by generalissimoArguably so.
The Beatles must be the best band in the world, I couldn't find anything better.
However The Velvet Underground, REM and Tom Waits do come close.
Counting albums which are absolutely brilliant though (lots of bands have a good album, but a band has to have 5 or more "Classic" albums), and considering a band should have at least 5 or more on their name to make it to "Beatles" level, the arena becomes slightly bigger. Here's a few I know:
Sprinsteen:
- The wild, the innocent and the E-street shuffle
- Born to run
- Darkness on the edge of town
- The river
- Born in the USA
U2:
- War
- The unforgettable fire
- The Joshua tree
- Achtung baby
- How to dismantle an atomic bomb
REM:
- Life's rich pageant
- Document
- Green
- Out of time
- Automatic for the people
- Up
Lou Reed:
- The Velvet Underground and Nico
- White light / white heat
- Transformer
- Berlin
- New York
Tom Waits:
- Closing time
- Swordfishtrombones
- Rain dogs
- Bone machine
- Mule variations
- Orphans
Bob Dylan:
- The free wheeling Bob Dylan
- The times they are a changin'
- Another side of Bob Dylan
- Bringing it all back home
- Highway 61 revisited
- Blonde on blonde
- John Wesley Harding
- Blood on the tracks
- Desire
- Infidels
And to tell you the truth. I think that Dylan has more "brilliant" albums than the Beatles actually made albums...
Which surely puts one in front of the other?
Originally posted by shavixmirI think Bob was probably the closest to being as important as the Beatles, but I think he did it more quietly. His lyrics aren't a Pop-friendly as the Beatles were, which I like, which is what made him important in large part. 'Positively 4th Street' always makes me laugh.
Bob Dylan:
- The free wheeling Bob Dylan
- The times they are a changin'
- Another side of Bob Dylan
- Bringing it all back home
- Highway 61 revisited
- Blonde on blonde
- John Wesley Harding
- Blood on the tracks
- Desire
- Infidels
And to tell you the truth. I think that Dylan has more "brilliant" albums than the Beatles actually made albums...
Which surely puts one in front of the other?
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldWith songs like ''A hard rain's a-gonna fall', I don't think he was thinking pop culture. Or the lonesome death of Hattie Carrol. Or Hurricane Carter.
I think Bob was probably the closest to being as important as the Beatles, but I think he did it more quietly. His lyrics aren't a Pop-friendly as the Beatles were, which I like, which is what made him important in large part. 'Positively 4th Street' always makes me laugh.
I loved his rendition of 'baby let me follow you down' learned from Dave Van Ronk who died recently, the guitar on that song is right on.
Don't think twice, its all right. I loved Boots of Spanish Leather, and an incredible cover of that one by Nance Griffith, (I also loved her song, Its a very hard life)
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
The Beatles may have been the best studio act around but I can't imagine that their live shows after '63 were all that great. Puny amps, screaming, 25 min sets...the thing is, they didn't do much of anything live after groups like The Rolling Stones improved arena sound. As a result there will always be that distinction about The Beatles - great songs, great albums, but a plethora of lives acts were and are better.
Originally posted by buckkyI didn't hear anyone mention snoop dog apart from you???
Normally I don't care for the most popular bands. The Beatles were the exception. The original sounds, and song writing that came out of that act will stand the test of time. I doubt if you will hearing Snoop Dog tunes playing years from now.
The other bands certainly will stand 'The Test' I think.