Removing Subjective Tastes, the Beatles Were the Greatest Band/ Artist/ Musicians of All Time

Many thanks to Pro for his patience. I'll begin by apologizing for missing the last round - I've been extremely busy. In order to win this debate, I only have to prove that a better artist or band exists than The Beatles. I don't necessarily have to specify who that is (though I will of course narrow it down). As superior musicians, I will nominate the likes of Johan Bach, Wolfgang Mozart and Ludwig von Beethoven as artists who were better than The Beatles. [ Intro ] Pro begins by talking about individual vs. collective subjectivity. The common denominator is still there: subjectivity. If something is subjective, it exists in the mind; it belongs to the thinking subject rather than the object itself. In this case, the thinking subject is the general population and the object is music. Can music's beauty or value be measured objectively? Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty [1]. Traditionally,musical aesthetics explored the mathematical and cosmological dimensions of rhythmic and harmonic organization. The most distinctive development in the aesthetics of music is directed at the distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' music, now understood to align with the distinction between art music and popular music. Theodore Adorno suggested that culture industries churn out a debased mass of unsophisticated, sentimental products which have replaced the more 'difficult' and critical art forms [2]. Capitalistic notions have propelled us to appreciate pop music that satisfies false needs (cultural values), but abandons our'true' needs - freedom, full expression of human potential and creativity, and genuine creative happiness. It is suggested that we can meet these needs through more complex music that reflects our innate sense of humanity. 1. Re: Accomplishments There are a lot of factors that play into a band's popularity, including but not limited to their looks/style, marketing ability, etc. The Beatles were considered the pinnacle of cool for a lot of reasons outside of music. The "British Invasion" was a new fad in the early 1960s, with only The Rolling Stones to really rival the Fab Four. This is when television was first becoming popular, so The Beatles were fortunate enough to have that facilitate their fame. Their achievements do not necessarily reflect their musical talent. At the time, they were revered for being attractive, exciting and controversial. It wasn't just the quality of their music but the cultural implications of their music that helped them achieve such widespread fame. Since then, the nature of the music industry has changed exponentially. It's not possible for artists to mirror The Beatles' success according to the same standards. For example, most people don't buy music anymore, so we can't value popularity through sales. We also have to consider that there are more musicians and music channels than ever before, making it infinitely harder for a single band or artist to stand out the way they could have in the 1960s. 2. Re: Individuality Let's concede that rock music was "stolen" from black people. The Beatles were influenced just like every other artist who came before them, and paid homage to greats such as Little Richard and Chuck Berry by directly and indirectly borrowing from their music. In fact, some of the songs Pro brought up were specifically influenced by Bob Dylan. Likewise The Beatles were bound to influence those who came after. While it's true that they introduced new methods of recording, does that really reflect their musical talents? Or does it reflect that they happened to be musicians at a time when new recording technology was up-and-coming? Utilizing unique instruments in their music was certainly artistic. However those sounds (like the sitar) were already being used in Eastern music, and The Beatles simply helped make it popular given the fame they had already achieved. Musicians had been doing far more original things before the Beatles came around, though it was very little known and certainly not popular. Obscurity doesn't inhibit greatness, nor does popularity inflate it. Obviously The Beatles made significant contributions to the music world and those that came after. However they too were influenced, and a lot of people achieved important "firsts" that helped shape the music industry before them. At the height of Beatlemania, John Lennon declared "Before Elvis, there was nothing" [3]. By that standard, should Elvis be considered better than The Beatles due to his profound influence on them? Or how about all of the artists that Elvis "borrowed" from significantly? After all, without them, The Beatles may not have come to be a band at all. The infinite regress of influence here makes this contention problematic. 3. Re: Appeal The Beatles' music can be classified as pop-classic rock. I posit that if you played their songs (or songs similar in style) to people today, it would be nowhere near as well-liked as the Beatles' music. However given the fact that The Beatles are glorified and have been idealized throughout history, people aren't as fast to reject a Beatles song as they would a song that sounded exactly the same by a more obscure artist. This popularity isn't a reflection of the quality of the music, but rather the place The Beatles have secured for themselves in history as being a revolutionary band that "everyone likes." [ Arguments ] The artists I have proposed to rivaling The Beatles in talent lived during a time when there weren't pop charts to top or records to sell in order to distinguish popularity or achievement. As such, these measures cannot be used as standards of success. Almost everyone alive has heard of either one or all of the artists I brought up, indicating that they managed to stay significantly famous centuries after their death. We still don't know if that distinction will be true of John, Paul, George and Ringo. I contend that it was a lot harder to achieve such widespread fame without television and radios, though "my artists" had managed to be extremely popular both while they were alive and even through today. Popularity isn't an issue. All were extremely versatile and innovative composers, and wrote in every major genre including symphony, opera, the solo concerto, chamber music - including the string quartet and string quintet, the piano sonata, etc. They also created entire new genres of music, and advanced the technical sophistication and emotional reach of those that already existed. Mozart almost single-handedly developed and popularized the Classical piano concerto, for example. They wrote a great deal of religious music, including large-scale masses, but also dances, divertimenti, serenades, and other forms of light entertainment. In other words, they were profoundly eclectic and could appeal to a wide range of audiences worldwide - and still do. In terms of aesthetics, nothing The Beatles have written or performed come remotely close to that of my artists. They are the pinnacle creators of 'high' music - that is music which is profoundly complex, intricate and harmonious. Subjective preferences aside, The Beatles' music is objectively of inferior quality. The I-IV-V chord progression utilized by The Beatles has been around since Mozart (and earlier) and considered infamously simple. A novice musician can learn a Beatles tune in a few hours; it takes expert musicians a lifetime to reproduce the classics. Each of these artists were not only better songwriters but better musicians in the technical sense than any Beatle. They were also more well-rounded in instrument mastery, and infinitely more well-versed in music theory. Aesthetically, the comparison isn't even close. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.liverpoolcityportal.co.uk...