The Beatles: The highest point in History of Rock?
 

IMHO

Yes!

Any other opinions?

Well?


theflaco

The highest point in the history of British rock. They spawned a huge number of other British groups and individuals to a lesser extent.
I don't know about the highest point ever when you look at the likes of The Backstreet Boys, 'nsync, and Britney....:D

I would say 1967 was the highlight of R&R. Its was fresh and pure.

Beatles - Sgt Peppers
Hendrix (debut) - Are you Experienced (like a greatest hits)
Doors (debut) - Doors
Pink Floyd (Debut) - Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Jefferson Airplane(debut) - Surrealistic Pillow

Kesey and Leary made the whole experience even better ;)

Monterrey Pop Festival was happenng!

..I gotta agree with Freudian Slip...1967..is probably the high water mark for rock-n-roll.

In another post( on search tips)..... I mentioned you can search by year in most programs... 1967 .... yields some interesting results....try other years too.

Its fun to see just what people were listening to in various years.

I think it's purely subjective. Maybe people who were listening to rock music in 1967 can remember only the good music from that year while they can remember all the good and bad music from the past couple of years. I myself don't remember anything before 1983 when I was two years old. But in twenty years will I come across a thread titled "The Smashing Pumpkins: The hightest point in the History of Rock?" Maybe not, but at least then I'll have something to say about it, and I doubt I'll remember the Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears two decades from now.

I'll take "72-74, The Golden Age" for 800 Alex.

Lot's of other bands have had big impacts on the Rock world - and many have proclaimed themselves to be bigger, better, and badder than the Beatles.

I'll believe it when people stop using the Beatles as the measuring stick.

God I hate the Beatles. I can't say they are or are not as influential as the music party line says as that would make me as knee-jerk as those that have the opinion. I'm not a recording artist and am unfamiliar with studio techniques before and after the Beatles, something I've heard they had great influence on.

I am familiar with pop culture and pop culture history however, and feel the Beatles spawned in that area trends that did far more damage then good. In my opinion they single handedly hijacked the late sixties into being an apolitical acid fest instead of being about any meaningful policital change. Lennon spawned a generation of shallow, insipid lead singers who feel that stating moronic, generalist statements like "All you need is love" and "Give peace a chance" is somehow "political" (Bono, anyone?).

Their massive popularity in and of itself may have made them "most influential." Then again, Elvis was pretty fucking influential as well. Can you honestly say that there would be no Radiohead, no Nirvana, no Sex Pistols if not for the Beatles? I don't think so; it's too many bands and acts removed from the Beatles to make that assumption now. If you do, I would shoot back that the same could be said for Elvis then, simply for breaking rock clearly into the mainstream homes of white america.

Oh well, only 2 more to go until they are finally wiped out. Now if only rock critics could clear them from their superlative lists when describing new acts.

"U2 lead singer Bono and U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill will travel to Africa later this year on a development mission. "I can assure you that O'Neill will be coming back with more than a souvenir spear," Bono told a news briefing. Bono also said that he has gotten assurance from Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien that Africa will be "center stage" at theupcoming G-8 conference."

Credit where credit is due - he is doing more than being just a singer at least.

That would be the Doors. Unlike the give peace a chance message, they had a message of death, the unknown and getting as close to the edge as possible - sometimes over the edge and breaking on through to the other side. The Doors were a dark underside of the hippy movement, often calling their fans fucking slaves, cocksuckers stupid assholes ect. The things that Jim preformed and got arrested for are common in punk and grunge. Alleged Nudity, profanity, lewd and lacivious behavior are all standard today. But if you really listen to the words/poems you are treated to complex formations. Jim was a brilliant songwriter and the other band members all studied music and were exceptional musicians. I heard a rumor that they will be touring soon, I hope that they choose not to have a lead singer and just jam. But if they do have a singer I would like to see Iggy Pop as the front.

The Beatles were revolutionary. They were, along with Jimi Hendrix and the Beach Boys, the first to use the studio-as-instrument. A lot of break-throughs they made we take for granted now. What I do hate about the Beatles is that baby-boomer critics state that "The Beatles were the high point of pop music, it will never be as good as this again". A load of crap from a bunch of insecure has-beens. As for the Beatles, I like 'em but can we just move on and stop being so relevant to the past the whole time. There isnt anything interesting to be said about the Beatles that people havent heard before.

I dont agree with assorted's statement that Lennon just wrote a bunch of namby-pamby crap like "All you need is love". What about "Working class hero" or "Revolution"?

Ummmmm...
 

...ok....In my view
...the Golden age of Rock-n-Roll was 1952-1962.
.. the Platinium age of Rock-n-Roll was 1963 - 1973
.. the Silver age of Rock-n-Roll 1974-1984.

Since then... most everything has been lame...weak , or has been done before....(except Nirvana..and a few other rare exceptions)..IMHO:S: :S: :S:

Re: Ummmmm...
 

well lets hope they invent time machines real soon so all of you hippie freaks can fuck off back to the 70's and live there forever

as for the beatles...as the only person here from liverpool i can quite safely say...

the beatles are/were shit :ND:

ahem..
 

..my liverpoolian friend...
...I also happen think the late 1700's and early 1800's was the golden age for classical music as well...

That dosn't mean I (or anyone else for that matter) want to go back and live in those times. :loud:

:no:never call a Scouser a liverpoolian........it's Liverpudlian or Liverpuddinglian or sumpin'

You said it, Malk....in a recent cover story (Time or Newsweek), Bono said he realized music alone wasn't going to change anything...but that rock stardom provided a platform and access to places where positive social, political, and economic change could be fostered. This is a concept that Lennon and the Beatles, for all their great songwriting, never grasped....

not that what Bono's doing is bad or anything, but why does he have to act like such a prick ?

Actually, in this same cover story, he admits to being a complete megalomaniac (I think it's in his job description:) )...but at the same time, it works for him - his campaign for Third World debt relief has caught the attention of policy makers and politicians all over the world.

One of the most jarring aspects of the whole Napster controversey was the contrast between musicians like Metallica and Jon Bon Jovi, multimillionaire rock stars who were spending their time and energy moaning about the few dollars they might have lost in cd sales...and people like the members of U2 and Peter Gabriel, who spend their non-performing time working for causes like Amnesty International and Third World debt relief.

Seems to me that being a great artist or performer is only part of it - the question is, what do you do with the incredible wealth, fame, fortune, and power that you accumulate along the way?

:tu: