Independent Leyton Orient Forum

It's also incredible how much they evolved between 1962 and 1969.

Listen to Tomorrow never knows, A day in the life, Helter Skelter and She’s so heavy. It’s astonishing to think that these songs were created by the same band in the space of 3 years, in the late 60s.

Those four songs demonstrate how revolutionary The Beatles really were.Their early stuff is decent, but when they stopped touring and began experimenting in the studio they were basically inventing entirely new genres of music which are still relevant today.

Personally I find that debating who the “best” musician (or any artist for that matter) is a pointless endeavour. But it’s objectively incorrect to dispute to cultural importance of The Beatles.

Listen to Oddessey & Oracle by the Zombies if you want to hear a band who were doing stuff just as interesting at the same time

Also, earlier Beatles (62-65) stuff, while not always the most revolutionary, contains some absolute pop perfection.

They mastered the art of the instantly recognisable intro note, followed by the classic verse/chorus/middle-eight song format that was to be the mainstay for decades to come.

Revolver is a good example of the strength of their song writing. Outside of Eleanor rigby and possibly taxman, there’s songs on there the average person wouldn’t have heard but they are all more or less bangers.
Here, there and everywhere. And your bird can sing. Got to get you into my life. For no one.

Relatively unknown songs that are better than 99% of bands best song.

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 4:07 pm

oxo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 1:04 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 10:37 am Below average song by an incredibly overrated band

I mean, my previous post was sort of nonsensical. I don’t actually think it makes sense to talk about any band being ‘the best’ — music isn’t a sport. That said, I’m curious as to whether there’s a British band you consider ‘better’ than the Beatles?

Can’t think of one I enjoy more.

The Smiths. Better songs overall. Better lyricist. Better instrumentalists. Rated probably the correct amount.

I’m not saying the Beatles are sh*t. Just that they aren’t the perfect great band most people claim. Their best albums have dud songs on them. A handful of great and iconic songs, nothing more.

The Smiths are brilliant.

“Better songs overall” — nah, makes as much sense as my post about The Beatles being the best British band ever (ie none).

Don’t think there’s such thing as a perfect band, or perfect album even, but the sheer variety — both in terms of their ‘sound’ and in terms of their songwriting — is astounding over such a short career.

Edit: I see I’ve basically just repeated points others have already made

I prefer Wings .

Constanza wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 11:08 pm I prefer Wings .

The band the Beatles could have been...

The song is pleasant enough and if it provides pleasure, that's great

£17.99 for a vinyl single 7” or £22.99 for 12” on their official website.

Is a double A-side and included Love Me Do released originally in 1962

Filling their boots!

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:03 am £17.99 for a vinyl single 7” or £22.99 for 12” on their official website.

Is a double A-side and included Love Me Do released originally in 1962

Filling their boots!

I stopped buying vinyl singles when they reached a scandolous 99p each. Just outrageous

don't get me on vinyl albums costing over £5 - I blame Dire Straits ( whether they started it or not is irrelevant, I just like blaming them & their Scottish frontman)

spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:15 am

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:03 am £17.99 for a vinyl single 7” or £22.99 for 12” on their official website.

Is a double A-side and included Love Me Do released originally in 1962

Filling their boots!

I stopped buying vinyl singles when they reached a scandolous 99p each. Just outrageous

don't get me on vinyl albums costing over £5 - I blame Dire Straits ( whether they started it or not is irrelevant, I just like blaming them & their Scottish frontman)

Totally agree, is a gimmick for the Z Gen or whatever they are called. Had great pleasure owning my music but would be almost impossible at them prices these days. I soon learned that it was a bad idea taking part of your collection to a party and leaving them there to ‘collect later’.

I thought when they released the single in 96 (free as a bird or whatever it was called) that was supposed to be the last one.

JimbO wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 5:13 pm I thought when they released the single in 96 (free as a bird or whatever it was called) that was supposed to be the last one.

He did have to pay the ex 20 odd million , drop in the ocean for him by all accounts but to boost his bank balance is not an opportunity to be sniffed at especially when he is doing what he enjoys , playing an instrument and making music.

I think his ex got run over by a police motorcycle and badly damaged or lost her leg and got weighed out a small fortune as a result and she opened a cafe somewhere on the coast . I cannot remember her name but she came across as quite unpleasant.

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:12 pm

JimbO wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 5:13 pm I thought when they released the single in 96 (free as a bird or whatever it was called) that was supposed to be the last one.

He did have to pay the ex 20 odd million , drop in the ocean for him by all accounts but to boost his bank balance is not an opportunity to be sniffed at especially when he is doing what he enjoys , playing an instrument and making music.

I think his ex got run over by a police motorcycle and badly damaged or lost her leg and got weighed out a small fortune as a result and she opened a cafe somewhere on the coast . I cannot remember her name but she came across as quite unpleasant.

Heather mills

It’s growing on me a bit. Still a bit plodding but Paul’s bass is good and I like the very George Harrison little guitar licks.

The video is beyond cringe though

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 4:07 pm

oxo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 1:04 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 10:37 am Below average song by an incredibly overrated band

I mean, my previous post was sort of nonsensical. I don’t actually think it makes sense to talk about any band being ‘the best’ — music isn’t a sport. That said, I’m curious as to whether there’s a British band you consider ‘better’ than the Beatles?

Can’t think of one I enjoy more.

The Smiths. Better songs overall. Better lyricist. Better instrumentalists. Rated probably the correct amount.

I’m not saying the Beatles are sh*t. Just that they aren’t the perfect great band most people claim. Their best albums have dud songs on them. A handful of great and iconic songs, nothing more.

I’d be hard-pressed to name a more overrated band than The Smiths. Whiny student poetry fronted by an absolute f*cking bell-end.

Stowaway wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:01 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 4:07 pm

oxo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 1:04 pm

I mean, my previous post was sort of nonsensical. I don’t actually think it makes sense to talk about any band being ‘the best’ — music isn’t a sport. That said, I’m curious as to whether there’s a British band you consider ‘better’ than the Beatles?

Can’t think of one I enjoy more.

The Smiths. Better songs overall. Better lyricist. Better instrumentalists. Rated probably the correct amount.

I’m not saying the Beatles are sh*t. Just that they aren’t the perfect great band most people claim. Their best albums have dud songs on them. A handful of great and iconic songs, nothing more.

I’d be hard-pressed to name a more overrated band than The Smiths. Whiny student poetry fronted by an absolute f*cking bell-end.

I already have, The Beatles

The Smiths, even if you take Moz out of the equation, were a very good band. Marr and Rourke were both in a class way and above the standard of many musicians in pop/rock/indie bands.

And you can also hear how their style and musicality evolved and improved across their four studio albums spanning just four years. However, their output and rate of evolution doesn't come close to matching The Beatles over a similar time period.

Having said that, I'm probably still more likely to listen to a Smiths album than a Beatles one. I think Strangeways is perfect.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:56 am The Smiths, even if you take Moz out of the equation, were a very good band. Marr and Rourke were both in a class way and above the standard of many musicians in pop/rock/indie bands.

And you can also hear how their style and musicality evolved and improved across their four studio albums spanning just four years. However, their output and rate of evolution doesn't come close to matching The Beatles over a similar time period.

Having said that, I'm probably still more likely to listen to a Smiths album than a Beatles one. I think Strangeways is perfect.

They were able to relegate Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want and initially, How Soon Is Now? as B Sides. In fact most of their B Sides could have been A's. Only towards the end, when Morrissey's fixation with 60's girl singers was becoming an issue for Marr, would lead to their lesser quality.

The Mindsweep wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:22 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:56 am The Smiths, even if you take Moz out of the equation, were a very good band. Marr and Rourke were both in a class way and above the standard of many musicians in pop/rock/indie bands.

And you can also hear how their style and musicality evolved and improved across their four studio albums spanning just four years. However, their output and rate of evolution doesn't come close to matching The Beatles over a similar time period.

Having said that, I'm probably still more likely to listen to a Smiths album than a Beatles one. I think Strangeways is perfect.

They were able to relegate Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want and initially, How Soon Is Now? as B Sides. In fact most of their B Sides could have been A's. Only towards the end, when Morrissey's fixation with 60's girl singers was becoming an issue for Marr, would lead to their lesser quality.

For most of their existence, I don't think The Smiths were capable of a rubbish B Side even if they tried. They easily win the "Band With The Best B Sides" competition by a considerable margin.

A very distant second is Suede from their 92 - 94 period. Most of the first disc of their Sci-Fi Lullabies compilation of B Sides is arguably their best album. But still not a patch on The World Wont Listen/Louder Than Bombs and Hatfull of Hollow.

Morrissey's Bona Drag may come third.

I just remembered reading in Moz's autobiography where he admitted to Marr having to argue with him for There is a Light to not be relegated to a B Side. Can you imagine how exasperated Marr must have been having to have that debate?

Talking of how much they evolved - I was thinking the other day that the Beatles first hit was 1963 and they broke up by 1970. That’s like a band hitting number one with their first song in 2016 and splitting up today. And in that time, evolving their sound 3-4 times, breaking ground with songwriting, recording etc..writing 30-40 songs that’s are deemed as classics, 12 high quality studio albums

It’s mind blowing

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:23 pm Talking of how much they evolved - I was thinking the other day that the Beatles first hit was 1963 and they broke up by 1970. That’s like a band hitting number one with their first song in 2016 and splitting up today. And in that time, evolving their sound 3-4 times, breaking ground with songwriting, recording etc..writing 30-40 songs that’s are deemed as classics, 12 high quality studio albums

It’s mind blowing

and people say that the pace of change is quicker nowadays. Not in music, it isn't... it's positively glacial in comparison.

OyinbO wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 3:14 pm

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:23 pm Talking of how much they evolved - I was thinking the other day that the Beatles first hit was 1963 and they broke up by 1970. That’s like a band hitting number one with their first song in 2016 and splitting up today. And in that time, evolving their sound 3-4 times, breaking ground with songwriting, recording etc..writing 30-40 songs that’s are deemed as classics, 12 high quality studio albums

It’s mind blowin

and people say that the pace of change is quicker nowadays. Not in music, it isn't... it's positively glacial in comparison.

Good point.

In fact, in terms of how quickly a musical style can evolve, the only comparison I can think of to the Beatles is early 90s underground dance music in the UK. If you listen to the emerging house music style in, say, 1990, and then how it evolved through hardcore, jungle, techno, drum & bass to UK Garage by 1996 (and possibly the emerging Grime sound in 1998), it was incredible.

I remember going to raves just a few weeks apart at the time and it felt like I was listening to completely different DJ sets with very few tunes still being played and a clear difference in style emerging.