:soapbox:Blasphemy!:D

I can't disagree with any of that, other than the fact that I don't think Elvis is that much better at singing than Paul McCartney.

I have no problem with saying that Robert Johnson was a much better guitarist than any of the Beatles, but that being said, the Beatles weren't bad. John Lennon used a lot of more advanced chords, but Johnson did as well. I have no problem saying that son house was a better singer. I don't think any Beatle could give A vocal performance accompanied by handclaps only as good as son house's "grinnin in your face".

I don't think other artists being descredited has everything to do with over obsessed Beatles fans. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they were at the top of questionably the most popular era of music in the 20th century. Who do people recognize more these days, bo diddley or the Stones? Howlin wolf or led zeppelin? It's not just a Beatles thing.

It's not only the fans but The Beatles themselves as well. Even though they don't discredit Rock and Roll artist that come before them... they themselves act like they are the amazing and all powerful Oz. You have to watch Anthology to understand.

Bitter? lol. No, I'm just of the opinion that the sun doesn't shine out of their asses. That tends to be controversial for some reason, but it's something I've noticed since long before I delved into the Beach Boys so it really has nothing to do with them at all. I like the Beatles. Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road are all fantastic albums and they have lots of other great material as well, though I think their other albums are all varying degrees of hit-or-miss. I just think the superlatives that get heaped on them are kind of ridiculous and generally seem to be the product of a very myopic way of looking at music.

I think it's pretty unreasonable to compare their album output to someone like Chuck Berry, whose heyday was before the album era. And that's the specific issue that started this whole conversation.

The other poster was claiming that that Beatles experimented in "every way possible"—the kind of grandiose claim about them that I'm referring to above—and I was simply pointing out that they had contemporaries who were doing far more experimental, unusual things than they were.

Elvis was a great vocalist no doubt but when it came to the many Beatles songs he covered he choked on "Hey Jude" actually not an easy song to sing and nailed it with "Yesterday" and "Something". Paul was a great vocalist he recorded on the same day "Yesterday", I've Just Seen a Face" and "I'm Down" the same day. Talk about range in music.

The one thing you guys seem to forget is the Beatles were more known as harmony singers and listen to the harmonies on Abbey Road for example.

I think you guys are shortchanging the Beatles as guitarists toward the end as George really developed into a great slide player and he developed an interesting technique country styled use of volume swells. There is more to playing the guitars than playing blues music. Again playing something like “Here Comes The Sun” is more technical than playing blues music as blues music is more about feel than technical prowess. I remember reading Eric Clapton saying George was a better all around guitar player.

As The Beatles both emerged from the Psychedelic era, & straddled it some with "The Beatles (The White Album)" (& some other material from the era), they became, as far as I'm concerned, a great guitar band. During their last incarnation they began tastefully introducing moog & using multiple keyboards as perfect coloring instruments, but this is overshadowed, for me at least, by the incredible variation of styles & textures of great guitar that are offered up by all three Beatles

Ah, I was talking about the unsusual song form combined with the dissonance that ends with "Strawberry Fields Forever". I never mentioned Stockhausen but hey if you can find me a Stockhausen track that ends like "Strawberry Fields Forever" then I would appreciate it.

Stockhausen was an influence on the Beatles but he was actually a huge fan of the Beatles.

I could find so many examples of better guitar playing and singing on many Beatles tracks than rockabilly music IMO. Have you ever heard of "Blackbird" or "You Neve Give Me Your Money" or most of Abbey Road to start with on guitar. Vocally where do I start maybe try "Because", "Hey Jude" or "Oh Darling".

When did I say the Beatles were the only mold breakers? I was talking about the Beatles in what they did musically.

You would think me being a music fan and guitar player that I don't know George Harrison was highly influenced by rockabilly music "I Saw Here Standing There", "All My Loving", and "She's A Woman" all show influence from rockabilly music. Carl Perkins certainly noticed it when he first heard "All My Loving". I even detect it on some of their psychedelic songs like "Dr. Robert" and "Fixing a Hole".

You said "Buddy Holly, Elvis, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Johnny Cash don't get recognized for their groundbreakingness or moldbreakingness because they become seen as passé towards the Beatles"

I don't think that is quite true IMO and I would think people would know the original sound of rock and roll came from many of the people you mentioned. They might seem passe but I wouldn't single out the Beatles in this regard as there are a whole bunch of bands like Led Zeppelin who are more popular than the people you mentioned. The thing is the Beatles alway's acknowledged who they were influenced by.

The Beatles took their influences and went on to do something different that you can hear a direct influence on many of the bands in the last 45 years ranging from King Crimson to Nirvana. The Beatles had the right mix of presentation, melody, song structure, strange chord progressions and experimention that appealed to the masses and that includes musicians.

The Beatles weren't overtly experimental in every song but why should they there is more to music than releasing experimental music. In songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "I Am The Walrus" and "Being for the Benifit of Mr. Kite" were just as experimental as Sun Ra IMO but in a different way. The type of fusion of "It's Only A Northern Song" is not really far from early Pink Floyd and Miles Davis. Then again for all the hate "Revolution #9" gets it's probably the most dissonant track released on a commercial album.

That was the point I was trying to make but apparently the Beatles themselves were arrogant pricks who thought they were gods gift to the earth. I'm not so sure about that. They were pretty modest and actually joked at the praise they received from some musicologists at the time. There's of course the famous joke about Lennon thinking that aeolian cadences sounded like some kind of "exotic bird". They were never really hesitant to confess who their influences were. I can think of several interviews when they spoke of the influence that Bob Dylan had on their music.

I would definitely say that Zeppelin was a lot more arrogant than the Beatles. They weren't as original and you could even say they plagiarized, or "heavily borrowed" other artists music for their own songs. Not saying the Beatles didn't do that, but zeppelin did it to a greater extent.

The Beatles might have been arrogant but it's maybe they were more secure than being arrogant. The Beatles countless times credited Bob Dylan and Smokey Robinsion for being an influence on them. George basically idolized Bob Dylan. Paul McCartney has gone on record saying Pet Sounds for influencing them. John Lennon said he embarrased performing "Twist and Shout" live because he thought it was done better by soul artists. The Rolling Stones were much worse in giving credit who they were influenced by. George Harrison and John Lennon who were good friends with the Rolling Stones criticiized them for not being forthcoming in the Beatles influence on them.

Everyone has influences and everyone borrows. One of rock and roll first major hits Chuck Berry "Maybelline" was based on some country song from the 1940's. The Beatles "I Feel Fine" is based on an R&B hit and gave the original song writer credit for it's influence.

Led Zeppelin takes the cake they would take large portions of other people songs like "Dazed and Confused" and give themselves the writing credits. I really like Led Zeppelin though but it's hard to respect how arrogant they were.

I can't seem to get your point. First you ask me to give you an example of dissonant sounds fading in and out, I gave you one. Then you add "ending like Strawberry Fields Forever". Are you trying find a replica of the song? The argument was about sophistication, not copycats.