Say what you want about The Beatles... and I'll probably agree. Even as an African-American, I like and respect and can appreciate much of their work. But with that being said... I want to argue that Prince is better, and more talented.

True, the Beatles had more #1 hits than anyone in history... but radio was different back then. They were a phenom. They came across the pond and just took America by storm.

But artistically... talent-wise... versatility... experimentationally... and "arguably" body of work"... I'm going to say that Prince is better.

No one has ever had Prince's range. No one can do what Prince has done.

As a pure artist, entertainer... and as someone who pushed the envelope with an utterly STUNNING body of versatile work... I'm sorry... but I gotta go with Prince.

Help me build a case... or tear it down. I'd love to read the comments.

i'd say Prince is one the very few popular music performers who can be even put in the same league with Beatles. that's saying a lot.

YES!

One man band < 4 man band

Let's put this to bed....Prince is the best...EVER.

Argue all you want, but NOBODY(s) comes close to his genius.

It's all up to the individual's taste. There really is no "better" when it comes to an artist's body of work.

squirrelgrease said:

u're wrong...
F this PC shit, say what you mean dammit!

edit, 'fo I get plastered...
[Edited 4/7/07 9:56am]

I don't know, I don't know enough Beatles music to be absolutely sure...

but yeah, Prince is definitely better...

Musically speaking, Prince is the Mozart of our time....people really need to look at his total arsenal....he's got it all, and he knows how to play anything he touches. On top of the technical knowledge, the man can play, arrange, and organize by ear, and not many cats can do that, and, he is an extraordinary writer.

The man needs to be recognized as not just A musical giant, but one of THE musical giants. Prince has far more talent than The Beatles (no offense to The Beatles, they were innovative). Lennon was a giant, but for something totally different (his social movement was enormous). McCartney was an excellent concept man, but not quite the musician that Prince is.

How can you fairly compare the two,they are so different. Prince's achivements as one single talented man as opossed to four talented men working together is impressive.Look at the massive amount of music that Prince has created on his own, WOW. For their time the Beatles were amazing and remain timeless to this day, the songs are still relatable. I have to go w/ the Beatles simply because their music has stood a longer test of time. I really do adore and treasure the work of Prince though.

Prince is a one man wrecking crew.
The Beatles were good but NOT as good as Prince.

It is simple really.

Almost impossible to say.

The Beatles produced some timeless classics and pushed music forward in a direction never seen before. I can listen to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" again and again and constantly hear new nuances. It is an audible treat.

In my opinion, Prince has never produced a perfect album in this class (although he's come close with SOTT, Lovesexy & TRC) and the last few albums haven't filled me with hope that he will (don't get me wrong, I still enjoy these albums but they're not in the same class as Prince's peak).

Many have argued that Prince as a solo artist vs. The Beatles as a group is an unfair comparison. I guess it's because there are very few solo artists in Prince's league with the shear output to compare. I have to agree that I can't compare the 2. I enjoy both Prince & The Beatles in completely different ways and thank God that both have brought such pleasure to so many people and continue to do so....

Hmmm... Beatles (correct me if I'm wrong):

Day in the Life (my most favorite song... ever)
Eleanor Rigby
Strawberry Fields Forever
Norwiegan Wood
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
When I'm 64
Blackbird
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Something
Come Together
You Never Give Me Your Money
Let it Be
I Saw Her Standing There

to name a few that I like personally on a supernatural level of mood.
_____


Beatles made conceptual music videos in 1967,

they were the first band to print lyrics in an album,

and release a commercial but artistic concept album,

they were the first to put distorted guitar feedback onto a single.

They charted twenty #1 singles in America alone.

That's twenty #1'singles (not top 10 or top 40) in an age where the charts were true. DJ's could play whatever they wanted...

they released Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967, an album that has almost universally been cited as the creative apotheosis of rock and roll, a watershed event in which rock became “serious art” without losing its sense of humor (or sense of the absurd). Realizing the band members’ collective ambitions took four months and all the technical wiles of producer George Martin. A completely self-contained album meant to be played and experienced from start to finish, Sgt. Pepper broke the mold in that no singles were released from it.

The Beatles had 14 songs in Billboards top 100 AT THE SAME TIME.

the Beatles and George Martin universally served as creative studio pioneers with a footprint of recording techniques and experimentation that is easily heard in every modern pop recording today.

The biggest issue I have is that with groups like the Beatles, I like their music and I HEAR the music.

With Prince, I FEEL the music, and that is way more IMPORTANT 2 me. I've NEVER felt a Beatles song. N E V E R

Comparing the performances of SuperBowl XLI (Prince) & XXXIX (Paul McCartney), Prince wins hands down.

Sure, Paul McCartney did a decent job. The show wasn't completely boring (like the Rolling Stones, who I couldn't care less about)... but Prince took full advantage and really knows how to put on a show.


And I'm still remembering his performance even now, 2 months later. But how can I forget? It was the very thing that converted me from a casual fan to a serious fan of his Greatness.

This isn't an attempt to answer the question, but I read an interview with Prince once where he said, "I can write 'hits' anytime I want. I like to experiment with ALL types of music."-or something LIKE that ...

DreamyPopRoyalty said:

noob

Prince will be ranked in the "best of all time" category - but I don' think he is better than the Beatles, who many consider the best.

Just ranking him in that category is an honor.

If he would've stopped after 1989 (or if you just ranked his first 10 albums) his body of work then was much more impressive. He's managed to "water-down" in the past 10 years or so . . . whereas the Beatles quality was very consistent and top-notch.

dahli said:

I agree with you. Prince is my all time favorite, because he is the ULTIMATE performer, but there are some aspects of the Beatles' music that I think are better. They cranked many MANY great songs in a short amount of time (much like Prince). A lot of their work was ahead of their time (much like Prince). They also experimented with many different genres (much like Prince). If they would have stayed together longer, who knows what they would have been capable of? Thank God for their solo careers! (Wings, especially.) Paul McCartney is my favorite song writer of all time.

Also, there are many Beatles songs that I thought were great, but would have been even better if they were recorded later on, with more advanced technology. I guess the vintage sound of some their songs is what makes people feel nostalgic, but ultimately, their work has a timeless appeal.

All that being said, I don't think we've seen a one man tour de force like Prince in a long time (if ever), and he will leave HIS OWN legacy behind.
[Edited 4/7/07 11:44am]

sitruk7 said:

I was thinking the same thing. How can you compare one man to a band?

Graycap23 said:

I feel more immediately when I listen to Beatles songs than Prince songs. Just a few seconds of You Never give Me your Money, A Day in the Life or Strawberry Fields puts me in a spell of an original emotion/mood that is so strong, that sometimes I'd rather stay away.

With Prince songs the emotion I feel is a fun excitement, with songs like 3121, or Housequake, Le Grind, or Sexual Suicide. His deeper, meticulous songs like Crystal Ball or Condition of the Heart are more of an intellectual type of feeling for me, at least on first listen.

I'm obsessed more with Prince, because of course, the Beatles are gone, and also Prince is an incredible performer even in just a visually theatrical sense. Prince keeps putting out interesting studio stuff and doing incredible live performances. Takes a licking but keeps on ticking. Paul McCartney's last solo album was cool though!

erm, no. Has this site lost its mind!?

Ufoclub, you and I must be long lost twins, because I agree with you 100%!

I would add Blackbird, Here There and Everywhere, Oh Darling, and Golden Slumbers to the list of songs that make me very emotional. Not to mention, I fricken bawled like a baby when I saw Paul perform Let it Be in concert in 2005!


[Edited 4/7/07 11:50am]

wonder505 said:

McCartney, or Lennon, or Harrison solo are still formidable....

Maybe I'm Amazed, Live and Let Die

Jealous Guy, Mindgames

My Sweet Lord, What is Life

UCantHavaDaMango said:

So in ways Prince is better, and in many ways, nothing has topped the Beatles yet (even if you disregard their hit track record)...

Prince is just a singular phenomenal creative force. I study everything he does, even if it's stupid...

The Beatles were magic. No collective has made such a huge collection of magical, varied, melodic music.

DreamyPopRoyalty said:

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether Prince is better than the Beatles.

This can't even be answered. Prince and the Beatles r 2 completely differant things.One perfect, talented man verses a band?

.
.
.
.
Who are the Beatles?
.
.
.
.

ufoclub said:

Being Influencial and revolutionary does not equal "better". Nor does popularity. So what are we going to use to measure "better" with?