From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: Best Rock Band Ever
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: york
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:17:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.143012.8983@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911226@ariel.yorku.ca (DEAN J LACAPRARA) writes:
>
>Despite the obvious greatness of Led Zep, they just didn't provide
>the type of social-musical-political aura that only one group has :
>
>THE BEATLES are the greatest band that ever existed. Why you say?
>
>1) Without them, we would have been stuck with Tin Pan Alley shit
>   for most of the Sixties, since R 'n' B could not have been a
>   major force without the Merseybeat scene becoming one first.

You obviously haven't studied rock history.  R&B has been around since
the early 1950s.  It began as black music and was introduced to white
audiences by performers such as Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Carl
Perkins.  The Mersybeat was interesting but certainly not antecedant to
nor even dependant upon the popularity of R&B.

>
>2) Despite their obvious flaws (mid-60's concerts, gay manager, 
						    ^^^^^^^^^^^
						    ???????????
>   a ridiculous breakup), they pretty much defined rock music.
>   Elvis was good in the mid-50's, but he just couldn't branch out
>   like the lads from Liverpool did. They played rock 'n' roll,
>   folk, acid-rock, hard-rock, and more better than a lot of groups
>   who stick to one style.

What the hell does THIS have to do with anything?  Homophobia has reared
it's ugly head early in this group.

As for the comparison to Elvis, I don't think that the comparison holds
up very well.  They appealed to gradually diverging audiences but if you
look back at the roots of the music, Elvis had much more influence on
Rock and Roll but the Beatles had more influence on popular culture
surrounding R&R.

>
>3) Every moment of their career gets so much attention, you'd think
>   they were the messiahs of the 60's. 

A lot of bands experienced this phenomenon and many experience it today.
Does that mean the Michael Jackson is a great musician?  I think not.  A
pop icon and the defining character for pop music in the 80s, yes, but a
great musician???

>
>4) Their LP covers from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road are brilliant.
>   Listening to their tunes makes the covers inconsequential.

So what?

>
>5) They worked almost non-stop during the 60's, something a lot of
>   bands find a hard time doing for more than two years.

The Rolling Stones have been around a lot longer...  And the Who keep
reappearing...  I don't think the Beatles were together all that long
compared to other bands.

>
>Sure, there are other reasons, but the key one is the MUSIC.

The music is the key, agreed.  All this other junk you've compiled is
not particularly useful in defining who they were and why they did what
they did.


-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k

Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.classic