Not that I necessarily want to get dragged into another Beatles debate, but what you've said seems to indicate an ignorance of both rock history of the beatles. In terms of musical signifance and influence, the Beatles absolutely tower over Prince, and in terms of actual proficiency in terms of playing multiple instruments to a high standard and skill at all levels of music making Paul himself is at least Prince's rival; the man was recording one man albums while Prince was still a little kid. Here's a reiteration of my assessment of the Beatles' musical significance as stated in another thread:

The Beatles were more or less the first act in rock music (or arguably popular music as a whole) to A."grow" artistically and make it acceptable, even expected for a band to expand and progress rather than keep rehashing the same songs over and over again. B. they were among the first bands to exclusively write their own material and not be beholden to outside songwriters, again making it expected for artists in popular music to write their own stuff. C. Were among the first groups to embrace all kinds of styles and influences. Revolver may not have been the first place where orchestral strings were used in rock music, or the first place a rock artist made forays into eastern music, or the first place a musician used tape loops to craft collage/soundscape, but it was the first record where all those things were done in the same place. D. Made the biggest contribution towards making rock music, and "popular" music as a whole, respectable and held on the same level as "Serious" art, not just disposable fluff that wouldn't have any relevance beyond it's time of release. I bet you the term "classic rock" would have never existed if not for them E. They just wrote dozens and dozens of excellent songs, both lyrically and musically, in almost every style and pioneered in some direct or indirect way just about every "hyphen rock" sub-genre that would come into existence in the next decades.

and as another person pointed out, they also did the most towards making the album format the primary means of artistic expression in rock music, eventually causing albums to outsell singles. In terms of technical innovations, well they may not have been the absolute originators of any technical innovation (but then again who is) but they were among the first to be incorporate all manner of technical innovations into their music in a way that was accessible to a large audience without dumbing them down: sitar, fuzztone, tape loops, orchestral strings, exotic instrumentation, styles hitherto not in the vocabulary of rock, again they may not have been the first to do ANY of these things, but they were the first to do ALL of these things.

Why the fuck should Prince be honored to be a "fifth Beetle".
Please name a musically not commercially significant Beetle's song.
Come on.....just one

I have nothing against Paul or Sir Paul as he is now called...we're both avid weed smokers....but what has he done to be considered "one of the most respected MUSICIANS of the 20th century"
Come on.....tell me
[Edited 6/25/06 18:13pm]

Way to prove yourself as completely ignorant

Name a musically significant song by the Beetles.
Please

You did everything but name a song.

By the way, you don't have to belittle Prince (or anybody else) to defend the Beatles. Besides, you know damned well McCartney is no rival of Prince's on any instrument. Now McCartney could come up with a catchy melody with the best of them.... and yes, the Beatles pushed the envelope with rock and practically invented pop music as we know it. However, that very same envelope was pushed well beyond the scope of the Beatles long ago.

Not that I necessarily want to get dragged into another Beatles debate, but what you've said seems to indicate an ignorance of both rock history of the beatles. In terms of musical signifance and influence, the Beatles absolutely tower over Prince, and in terms of actual proficiency in terms of playing multiple instruments to a high standard and skill at all levels of music making Paul himself is at least Prince's rival; the man was recording one man albums while Prince was still a little kid. Here's a reiteration of my assessment of the Beatles' musical significance as stated in another thread:

The Beatles were more or less the first act in rock music (or arguably popular music as a whole) to A."grow" artistically and make it acceptable, even expected for a band to expand and progress rather than keep rehashing the same songs over and over again. B. they were among the first bands to exclusively write their own material and not be beholden to outside songwriters, again making it expected for artists in popular music to write their own stuff. C. Were among the first groups to embrace all kinds of styles and influences. Revolver may not have been the first place where orchestral strings were used in rock music, or the first place a rock artist made forays into eastern music, or the first place a musician used tape loops to craft collage/soundscape, but it was the first record where all those things were done in the same place. D. Made the biggest contribution towards making rock music, and "popular" music as a whole, respectable and held on the same level as "Serious" art, not just disposable fluff that wouldn't have any relevance beyond it's time of release. I bet you the term "classic rock" would have never existed if not for them E. They just wrote dozens and dozens of excellent songs, both lyrically and musically, in almost every style and pioneered in some direct or indirect way just about every "hyphen rock" sub-genre that would come into existence in the next decades.

and as another person pointed out, they also did the most towards making the album format the primary means of artistic expression in rock music, eventually causing albums to outsell singles. In terms of technical innovations, well they may not have been the absolute originators of any technical innovation (but then again who is) but they were among the first to be incorporate all manner of technical innovations into their music in a way that was accessible to a large audience without dumbing them down: sitar, fuzztone, tape loops, orchestral strings, exotic instrumentation, styles hitherto not in the vocabulary of rock, again they may not have been the first to do ANY of these things, but they were the first to do ALL of these things.

Oh, good grief.

Well in order to avoid confusion, and you just going "that's not what i meant" -first you need to define what you mean by musically significant. Then we'll happily give you examples, unless your definition makes it impossible to do so.

Thanks for defending my position.
Can you please try to get an answer to my question.....name a musically not commercially signigicant song made by the Beetles.

"I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand"

real creative isn't it.

I've really started something haven't I?
What I mean essentially is Prince need to see how other elder statesmen of the music world stay in the game. Our boy Prince is closing in on fifty fast. He can't get on MTV to save his life.

I think Mick Jagger is another legend Prince should seek wise council from. Mick is still pouting and struting as strong as ever (amazing considering all the drugs, but that's another thread.)

What would happen if Mick, Paul, and Prince got together to as Prince calls it, save music from big corporations. Artist centered, artist ran, not ran by marketing executives and accountants. Would music get better, more daring and experimental? Stop having rap groups that look and sound like ever other rap group. Stop making any half-baked singer with some acting ability a Pop-star for pre-teens. These three shaped popular music as we know it today, I think they could stop the negative trends we see in music.

Could egos be kept in check? Probably not, but we sure would have a lot to talk about on the org.

wow...Paul really said so many nice things about Prince? You all read it? That´s cool, because Paul is one of the most respected musician/songwriters of the 20th century.
If this George Harrison quote is true, it´s real good also.
Or are u all being ironic? hehe

True but I'd rather see Prince, Sting and Bono hook up with something....think of the possibilities.

Not that I necessarily want to get dragged into another Beatles debate, but what you've said seems to indicate an ignorance of both rock history of the beatles. In terms of musical signifance and influence, the Beatles absolutely tower over Prince, and in terms of actual proficiency in terms of playing multiple instruments to a high standard and skill at all levels of music making Paul himself is at least Prince's rival; the man was recording one man albums while Prince was still a little kid. Here's a reiteration of my assessment of the Beatles' musical significance as stated in another thread:

The Beatles were more or less the first act in rock music (or arguably popular music as a whole) to A."grow" artistically and make it acceptable, even expected for a band to expand and progress rather than keep rehashing the same songs over and over again. B. they were among the first bands to exclusively write their own material and not be beholden to outside songwriters, again making it expected for artists in popular music to write their own stuff. C. Were among the first groups to embrace all kinds of styles and influences. Revolver may not have been the first place where orchestral strings were used in rock music, or the first place a rock artist made forays into eastern music, or the first place a musician used tape loops to craft collage/soundscape, but it was the first record where all those things were done in the same place. D. Made the biggest contribution towards making rock music, and "popular" music as a whole, respectable and held on the same level as "Serious" art, not just disposable fluff that wouldn't have any relevance beyond it's time of release. I bet you the term "classic rock" would have never existed if not for them E. They just wrote dozens and dozens of excellent songs, both lyrically and musically, in almost every style and pioneered in some direct or indirect way just about every "hyphen rock" sub-genre that would come into existence in the next decades.

and as another person pointed out, they also did the most towards making the album format the primary means of artistic expression in rock music, eventually causing albums to outsell singles. In terms of technical innovations, well they may not have been the absolute originators of any technical innovation (but then again who is) but they were among the first to be incorporate all manner of technical innovations into their music in a way that was accessible to a large audience without dumbing them down: sitar, fuzztone, tape loops, orchestral strings, exotic instrumentation, styles hitherto not in the vocabulary of rock, again they may not have been the first to do ANY of these things, but they were the first to do ALL of these things.

Why the fuck should Prince be honored to be a "fifth Beetle".
Please name a musically not commercially significant Beetle's song.
Come on.....just one

I have nothing against Paul or Sir Paul as he is now called...we're both avid weed smokers....but what has he done to be considered "one of the most respected MUSICIANS of the 20th century"
Come on.....tell me
[Edited 6/25/06 18:13pm]

Oh, good grief.

Well in order to avoid confusion, and you just going "that's not what i meant" -first you need to define what you mean by musically significant. Then we'll happily give you examples, unless your definition makes it impossible to do so.

Paul Mc Cartney could release an album tomorrow and it would be in the Top 10 even after all these years.