The moment Prince picked up a guitar he made history.

At that same moment Elvis and the beatles became history... lol...

jackflash said:

i have seen Chuck Berry live and i can confirm that he IS the most rock and roll artist out there.

Pffft! Never better than The Beatles.

Dont go their on The Beatles.. They accomplished much more than Prince did, and the fact that Prince is being contrasted against four fellows of a group (3 of them are genius) is laughable... They arent even in the same category to me. Prince is an excellent musician and will always have his spot/part/role in the music/next generation influence. The Beatles were the best group that has hit America/Europe, Timeless music, and it will remain that way. I listen to ALL kinds of music: Funk, soul, R&B, pop, rock, glitch, experimental, indie.. ect. it goes on and on, and it always will come back to how much I appreciate what The Beatles created in the music industry. The White Album is simply amazing, their best album.

By the way, I wrote a review/documentation of The White Album recently and how important that album is. 6 or 7 pages if anyones interested in readin it.. just fo fun

july said:

Let's not get too carried here, folks!

If Elvis hadn't stolen from older black artists then The Beatles would not have been able to steal from Elvis. If The Beatles hadn't stole from Elvis, then Prince would not have been able to steal from them. Or Elvis. Or older black artists. I'm not saying none of the above made their own sound (they all did) but they all relied on their predecessors to find it.

stymie said:

bullshit

Moonbeam said:

O.K., after that comment you just made, ..I...I...I can't be cool with you anymore. I mean, to not like the Beatles is to not like...uh..water, if you will.

Anyways, to answer this stupid thread's question, The Beatles are better than Elvis & Prince. And I'm not just saying that to say it either. But who's to say who's better than who here, right??

NWF said:

I can't tell if you are being facetious, but I stand by my opinion that the Beatles are awful.

Moonbeam said:

NWF said:

I would rather listen to ANY of those artists than the Beatles. That doesn't mean that those artists are better, but they certainly suit me more. If that makes me lose cool points, so be it.

Moonbeam said:

Well, I won't chide you too much about your opinion. It's just that if you don't like The Beatles, then why even listen to Rock-n-Roll?

NWF said:

Because they are not the end-all, be-all of rock music, or music in general. I could say the same thing about someone who doesn't like David Bowie, but some people may just not like him. What I have found to be true is that some artists are revered and cool to like, while others are not. Who cares if I like Warrant better than the Beatles? That doesn't take anything away from their accomplishments- it just means they haven't done anything for me and I highly doubt they ever will. No harm done- there should be no "cool points" at stake.

Moonbeam: The fact is most of the music you listen to would not exist without the Beatles. Listen to pre-Beatles British rock artists like Cliff Richard, Adam Faith, Billy Fury etc. It was SHIT (no offense to you rabid Billy Fury fans), they were Elvis imititations, just horrible! The Beatles came and changed all that. NO ONE in the history of popular music was the best and the most popular at the same time like the Beatles were. End of story.
PS: Ask Bowie what he thinks of the Beatles, or in fact just about any other musical performing artist in the western world?

Moonbeam said:

I respect your opinion, and I must ask this.. Have u heard the entire White album, Revolver, Abbey Road and Rubber Soul?

Just wondering.

WatchThemFall said:

Who they've influenced isn't relevant to the point at hand. I know that they are influential. I just can't stand anything I've heard by them.

Sdldawn said:

No, and based on what I've heard, I'd rather not.

WatchThemFall said:

Very well said, And of course you are right. Even If one was to say they didnt like the Beatles, if they have any knowledge about music at all they should at least hold some type of respect/ or at least acknoledge what they accomplished for music.

Moonbeam said:

I thought so.. it shows.

Sdldawn said:

As I said earlier, I saw all these careers unfold, saw the Beatles live, bought their stuff the day it was released, read many of the biographies and I play music myself. There is no question that the Beatles were innovative pop musicians who changed music forever. However, how much of their impact was due to them as musicians, and how much to good fortune (being present at the nexus of generational change, having George Martin to hold their hands, being easily marketable - white, cute, squeaky clean, etc.)?

The point about the Beatles changing popular music from cookie cutter pap to decent rock/pop seems true, as long as you concentrate on white musicians of the early 60's. When you throw Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, James Brown, etc. into the discussion, the perspective is considerably different.

I contend that as individual musicians, they were very good but not great, to wit, their post-Beatles output fell flat within a couple of years after the group split up. C'mon, without the competition within the group and George Martin's help, Lennon's couldn't come up with an interesting melody to save his life - and don't even try to find anything interesting in Paul's lyrics. George wrote some good songs for the group and he had one good record in him, which he stretched over 3 LP's, but that was it. Hardly the stuff of a musical genius.

Also remember that thru 1964, they performed and recorded a lot of covers (in part due to a lack of material - "Beatles for Sale"). After their creative peak in 1966-67, it was like the "Emperors New Clothes", the could do no wrong although they recycled riffs to the degree that the "Beatle" sound was so recognizable it was a cliche.

The White Album is a mess. Great stuff, as well as half baked demos, parodies worthy of Wierd Al, and that "indulgence" called Revolution #9, all jumbled together. Woulda made a good single album. Of course anyone who knows their history knows they had to get that product out for the Christmas 1968 shopping season, but they were so dysfunctional and surrounded by yes-men by then that there was no one to tell them that some of it wasn't ready for prime-time.

Anyway, the point is not to slam the Fab Four, but to say that pound for pound, P's got them beat - more musical diversity, more great songs, plays several instruments better, works harder and actually performs his stuff live.

Oh yeah, he never told the world that Yoko Ono's music was the wave of the future and we'll eventually come around.

Sdldawn said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about- patronizing comments because someone sways away from the norm. Who cares if everyone loves the Beatles? Goodness!

ButterscotchPimp said:

Yep, yep yep. and yep:)

Moonbeam said:

Moonbeam, Go borrow someones cd's that I just stated, listen to them all, if u hate their music after that, then u really dislike them and I would accept that, but I just cant if u havent heard those albums..

I'll burn u some Moonbeam, if u promise to listen, and if u just dont wanna, its all good too.

I have never liked Elvis
Beatles are (were) good, but i think P is better

Sdldawn said:

Thank you for the offer, but I think I'll gracefully decline, as I probably wouldn't listen to it. I admit that I'm not open to it, which reflects upon me more than anything, but I wouldn't want you to waste your time and money on something I'm not even sure I'd appreciate.

LOL...The Beatles are one of those bands that almost everybody likes,so if you say you hate them,you will probably take alot of heat.I love the Beatles,but if I didn't like them,I'd be afraid to come right out and say it.For this,Moonbeam deserves props for his bravery

I like them but I WON'T worship them...
[This message was edited Wed Aug 27 4:36:02 PDT 2003 by BRO915]

jackflash said:

You made some good points here, but you're using some of the main criticisms of the Beatles work to build up Prince's work, whilst overlooking some of his major flaws. As a body of work, more Beatles songs will live on in the public consciousness for a lot longer than most of Princes.

You called the White album a mess, but its no more a mess than Graffitti Bridge, Rave, Chaos & Disorder, Emancipation, New Power Soul, Come……Prince’s Yes men must have been working over time on those. Also to say they did nothing in their solo careers is rubbish. There is something of merit in nearly all their solo albums.

To say that pound for pound P has them beat is just wrong IMO. Prince, whilst a consumate songwriter, is NOT a better melody writer (or vocalist) than Paul McCartney (who IMO is one of the best melodisists in modern music). Whilst he has his moments of humour and wit, he cannot match Lennons lyrics (not that I believe these to be that great anyway, but I feel Prince has never truly revealed himself in his songs). And lets face it, he doesn't even scrape the surface when it comes to sales (but lets not get into that).

However if you mean as an individual is he better than each individual beatle, id be inclined to say yes. Only Paul comes close to matching P's multi-instrument ability, and even then he's quite a way behind. Prince is the ulitmate all-round performer- a fantastic singer, songrwriter, musician, show man/ performer, but as a collective, the Beatles are just too big a monster to contend with.