The problem right here and now is, as, is already obvious by the Beatles page I already have, I am a big Beatles fan. This means that I acknowledge it will be very difficult to be as objective as the proverbial alien from Mars looking down, all I can do is promise I will try. I also admit that the conclusion that I think they are the best is of the foregone variety, so maybe I should have called the page 'Why I think...' etc, but sadly there wasn't enough space!
The first thing to establish is, who are the pawns in this particular battle? And who are the commanders?
Although the Beatles had and still have millions of fans world wide, it is important to note that they have millions of detractors / critics also. But as the lions's share of this section of the global population are not pop / rock music fans at all, it does not make sense to allow them into the equation. Even if any such debate / comparison was unfavourable to the Beatles, the disregarding of redundant factors at the outset, adds weight to such a conclusion, or perhaps opinion if we give a rightful nod to the subjectivity of something like this. So, the commanders are those who love at least something from the world of rock'n'roll, pop, rock music - from Les Paul and Mary Ford through to the X Factor wannabees. Although I suppose as this is just my take on matters, all I can really do here is acknowledge the many others who have and do talk about such matters.
As for the Pawns, we can do a rapid elimination of most artistes - one hit wonders, good singles bands but who had poor albums such as the Hollies, Kinks, Shadows/Cliff, Move. Then, vice versa, very good album bands who did not make an impact over a prolonged sustained period, either with their albums good or otherwise or with hit singles; such as Tull, Steeleye / FC, Led Zep ( yep, sorry folks ), Purple and the rest of the hard rockers, Fleetwood Mac ( both / either incarnations ), Moody Blues, Pretty things, and then the plethora of excellent but cosmic US bands, Beefheart, GD, LS, the Band ( Ugh! Overweight hillbillie's who can't even stand to do a show ). I also have to discount the bands who did have a few good singles and albums but just didn't stay the course, CSN ( and Y at times ), Bread/Gates ( although what a song writer/musician/singer ). There is obviously more who merit a mention here if only to discount them, but memory ( even Elephant's memory! ) and the more important fact they haven't come to mind ( subtle difference ) means they should not figure anyway.
Special mention: The Rolling Stones. Mick and the boys merit a singular feature on them mainly by their association with the Beatles through the 1960's. They did have a stronger, even more energetic, rawer sound than the Beatles, and we do have to take our hats off to them for this, but the fact remains; despite a superb back catalogue of singles from the 60s, early 70s, their albums were way, way off the Beatles standards, and despite their fame, in reality don't come anywhere near the top in this comparison. The dice have tumbled, eh?
So, apart from the Beatles, who does it leave that fit the bill? Not many, but for my money, the Beatles nearest contenders are the Beach Boys, Who, Floyd, Yes, Queen, Elton, Elvis, Abba, and finally ELO. So do any of these possibly challenge the Beatles? In my opion, no, and here's why.
To be the best ever in this game means the band or even singer has to have very wide appeal, not always, but at least sometimes. Straight away this knocks out some very strong contenders such as the Who, Floyd and Yes. These are great bands, but did your granny ever say 'shame about that fellow who flung his telly out the window and swore on Parkinson, but I liked that song about?' Nope, of course she didn't, so sorry guys, particularly Floyd ( Two lost souls swimmin' in a fish bowl! Brilliant! ), but you have to go.
Onto an oddity. Abba. Very much liked by everyone's granny and rightly so, and they were a great, great singles band, Fernando, superb, but they do fall down on their albums, which were poor, so, nice knowin me and you, but you gotta go too, you could say this is your Waterloo.
What about Elton? Million selling singles and million selling albums and sell out shows, even now. Is he up there? Er, no, sorry. It would have actually helped if I actually like / liked his stuff, I don't. The piano intro on 'someone saved my life tonight' sounds like an intro played by the cinema pianist to a Keystones Cops silent movie. Great lyrics from Bernie, yes, some great songs, yes, but not enough, nowhere near enough, for me anyway, and as there is a strong dislike of a great deal of his work, which isn't the case with most others mentioned here, this pegs him right back.
And Elvis? Great, great vocalist and entertainer, and his batch of come back hits shortly before his death were brilliant, but, he did not write a note and his albums were not just poor but atrocious. Into the Ghetto for you, Pelv, sorry.
And on to to Brian and the boys ( the other Brian ). I mean of course the Beach Boys. These should have rivalled the Beatles far stronger than they actually managed to do so, and in my opinion, their failure to do so was down to one, humble musical commodity both in vocal arrangements amd in music production - Bass - or more accurately - lack thereof. The Beach Boys were superb in many ways, they seemed to have had more fun than most others and it showed. But, they let themselves down and were repeatedly let down by the LA music producers who didn't have the gumption to say 'Very nice, Brian, but where is the bottom end oomph?' Although to be fair to Brian, nor did the producer somehow inject this into the recordings. High harmony is one thing, and great to listen to, but someone in the band and behind the desk has to look after the arse-end of the scale, and this did not happen, or, when it did, it was too late for a tired band. The 1975 album '15 Big Ones' is a great, great production, but the songs were lacklustre, sad, I wanted far more from then when I heard they had brought this out.
This leaves just 2 who do rightly figure as strong contenders to nick the Beatles crown, and that's Queen and E.L.O, but, here's the problem. Queen started very, very strongly with three superb albums, and then discovered the singles market, they peaked album wise very very early with Night at the Opera, but I think the fat lady sung a little too early. Great, great singles and live shows, but you gotta have the moxy in the studio album wise, they did have it but lost it. And finally ELO, Once the over-bearded one had left with his lutes and his flutes, Jeff took them on a 15 year roller coaster which never hit the drop in all that time, until the end. Not too many top flight albums, but they fared better than Queen even if it was just timing of releases, add to this their superb singles and out of this world concerts, and with a very wide appeal, wider than most of their peers, and they were like a mini-Beatles. Great tunes, lyrics, great production, great use of different instruments ( one up on Queen for this ), and there you have it, for me ELO are the only ones to come anywhere near the Beatles as being the best ever. Obviously my bias has already cemented the Fab Four into their throne, but ELO are a very very fine second. But why only second?
For me, what keeps the Beatles at the top and to stay there forever, is what they did in the times they did it. In 1962, recording technology was limited, and one had to be a very good producer to get the best from the equipment available; so much so, the best recordings of the time, had its own 'producers stamp' on them, not literally but artistically. The Shads arrangements were Norrie Paramor's arrangements and stood out accordingly; the bargain basement but brilliant early echo / reverb and synth work by Joe Meek shouted out his name rather than the artiste's. And so it was with George Martin, he took the considerable, basic, raw stage act of the Beatles, and produced 2 stunning early albums, Please Please Me and With the Beatles. The rawness was in the energy of the band, not in an amateurish production, and it paid off, big time as we all know. I still listen to these albums, often, and enjoy every second of them. Nowt like 'Money' or 'Twist and Shout' to dismiss the blues on a cold winters evening, even though these were both covers and not originals. But, this was just the beginning; superb lyrics, superb melodies, superb harmonies, descants, were repeatedly enshrined into eternity by George Martin. Techniques improved, and the Beatles were only too happy to take advantage of this. Even George's poor rock 'n' roll lead improved over time, and his command of the more rustic rock forms was never in doubt anyway, as shown by the respect given to him by Perkins et al. Although the early Beatles were poor live, until 67 onwards, this did not matter as the industry was then all about the studio, rightly or wrongly, and the Beatles ruled from 1963 to 1970. Their dominance both single and album wise proved this. And they still rule now.
Post Script: The omission of current / recent acts is not accidental, they are just not good enough, and there's not even any promise in anyone to make me say 'watch him/her/them'. Even Oasis, who have supposedly been at the top longer than the Beatles were when still together, have not cracked it. 12 years? What have we had from them when compared to the Beatles 7 and a 1/2 years at the top? Exactly.
Back to Home Page
