Taxman. Hand's down, the absolute worst.

Notice how we hijacked CM's voting thread? :-)

Genesis. The Beatles were absolute simpletons compared to Genesis.

Somebody please get FOB a new brain. I think he fried his with the Okra.

Haha, no way. John Lennon couldn't hold a candle to Peter Gabriel.

obi, what I don't like about Imagine is that it basically (my take on it at least) boils down to "Can't we all just get along?" I hate that shit. Annoys the fuck out of me because it is usually directed at people that are thousand times better off in that department than many parts of the world. You want world peace? Sing songs against terrorism, suicide bombers, mass genocide, drug wars, piracy, tyranny, and all the real bad shit that is going on in the world every day. Don't preach to ME.

Plenty of other Beatles and related songs that are amazing to waste a spot on a list with a song like that.

Well, assuming that you live in the first world, you are at least indirectly responsible for much of the bad shit you allude to, Alderian.

I don't think that's at all the real message with "Imagine," or, I should say (as it wAS the 1970s, so yeah, there is a bit of that in there, but that was the time) MOST of what the song is is a vision for how mankind SHOULD be and CAN behave and CAN be and become, rather than what man IS.

To put what I mean in perspective, Let It Be is asking (or, rather, telling) us to "all get along, ie, LET IT BE" whereas Imagine is asking you to do just that--IMAGINE if things were this way, how great would it be if we had a different outlook, and that's really the focus of the song, this isn't just "stop the war," but rather asking people to Imagine what life would be like if human priorities would be different; if more people placed a greater emphasis in their lives on the non-material and the idealized concepts rather than simply accumulating wealth and security through any means necessary like any other animal does with food and sex as the currency...if people acted more on their own accord and less in a us vs. them situation, saying ME before WE and placing the self before the state...Imagine such a world--and do you like it, or is it even worth trying?

I don't see it as preaching, then, so much as almost a proposal of a new plan for life...in song.



Really? Yellow Submarine? That song is CLASSIC how can you hate that, it's jsut a fun song, it's not really even bAD...just because it's not a smash hit song, it's just a fun, quirky piece, it's not trying to be anything else...and yet it IS more than the sum of its parts, because that little quirky piece became the theme for one of the best quirky movies (and I'd vote one of the Top 20 Best Animated Films EASILY, this trumps a LOT of the factory-produced Disney/Dreamworks crap, especially of modern day) in the film "Yellow Submarine."

Tazman...eh, it's OK, not great, not bad, I don't see how that can be bad...

To me, the WORST Beatles song has to be one where you ask, like you'd ask of any master who fouls up, "HOW could HE/SHE/THEY have made THAT?" It's so bad that you almost want to find an excuse and say that some how they didn't do it...

Take Shakespeare (as obiwanobiwan always needs to mention him and Nietzsche in any thread, those two names out of the way and we're there lol.)

Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, Richard III, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice...

And that's just off the top of my head, and that's the POINT, you can name SO MANY great ones SO EASILY with the best, when you come to that hitch in the road, it's so incredible, because it's so incredibly below what you'd expect you wouldn't believe it.

There are folks who, even barely after Shakespeare's day, REALLY wanted to say "Titus Andronicus" wasn't really written by the Bard, it couldn't be, it was so bad (and I use that term for them because I actually love the work, it was his first tragedy and it does really show, it's very rough and very raw, not at all as good as that string of later ones I mentioned, it's over-the-top gruesome...14 deaths in all gives it the highest body count, 9 of these deaths occuring on stage, and to top it off we have tongues and hands and limbs being hacked off, people being sacrificed to gods, and a rape...if you want to see a really raw, REALLY Gothic Shakespeare piece, I'd say this is more Gothic at least in mood and gore than even Macbeth, famous for being so dark) they had to disown it.



By that same topic, what clashes so badly with the Beatles' usual level of excellence?

Not Yellow Submarine, that fits right in with their quirky pieces that they made, they made quite a few that were quirky like that song, especially in the period that came out, so even if you dislike the song (and I really don't see why, again, I think it's superb for the fun, unassuming little ditty it is, and it's nice to here Ringo get to sing a song people actually like and listen to for a change) it can't be the worst, you can't ask, all to appropriately for the Beatles, "What the hell were they smoking when they made THAT?" ;)

Same with Taxman--it might not be the best, but it fits their style, it just lacks some parts to make it one of the best or ones that we love so much.

So for my pick, I propose two, and one especially...

Revolution 9 (can't believe no one said that one) and Wild Honey Pie.

And of those two...I'm going with Wild Honey Pie, BOTH are just insanely ridiculous to hear, but at LEAST with Revolution 9 I it has three things going for it--it's so bad and ridiculous you can laugh and spoof it, it has super-easy lyrics (Numbah nine...numbah nine...numbah nine...numbah nine...) and you can sort of write it off as basically "The Beatles Got High And Decided To Screw Around With The Sound Editing To Make A Ridiculous Tape." I can picture them high...we all can...especially John...so yeah, I can at least SEE how they could've made that.

But Wild Honey Pie? :O MY GOD! I might be short, and yet I can't get through it, I sat through it a couple times just to do it but even at maybe a minute and a half, I can't get through it, it hurts my ears...the singing's horrible, there's nothing IN the song, the tune is awful, that twanging noise drives me up the wall...

AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Worst one...

Imagine butterflies and unicorns and eternal sunshine. *pfft* Pointless song. I don't see value in imagining a perfect world. I think there is far more value in imagining a better world, not a perfect world. Imagine what is actually possible and work towards that. Don't waste time on pipedreams.

It's not asking to imagine a perfect world--just for you to actually IMAGINE for a change.

I think the REAL title of "Imagine" by John Lennon is "you Bloddy Stupid and Ignorant Bastards, Quit Killing Each Other And Have An Original Thought Or At Least think For Yourself For Two Goddamn Seconds Already!" by John Lennon. ;)

Imagining a world like Lennon describes isn't about achieving it. It's about setting lofty goals and improving the world on while striving to achieve it. In other words, it's the journey, not whether you fully succeed in achieving perfection.

Damn, the OP for this thread is laughable. Creed and Linkin Park as candidates for the 'best band ever'?

Oh, and Draugnar, Megadeth are a thrash metal band, not a hair metal band.

And on the subject of "Imagine" - ugh. It's an awful song.

Really? I don't read to much into the lyrics, but that combined with melody and John Lennon's amazing voice makes it a beautiful song.

Jamiet I laughed too, when I saw Creed mentioned (I know who Linkin Park are but I don't really know their music).
If you were going to pick a big-hair band from the 80s (you know the genre - Poison, Cinderella and the like - Cock Rock) I would say Motley Crue were the best. If Guns 'n' Roses fit into this genre - they were quite good too (even if ridiculous).
The Darkness played this style (but with a big Queen influence), but with a sense of humour, which made it work. I really like the Darkness.

The Beatles were quite a good band, but in no way do they justify the 'legendary' status they now hold.

My favourite Beatles songs are "Helter Skelter", "Back in the USSR" and "Daytripper".

Who do you rate as legendary then Jamiet?

Absolutely Poison do not belong on any list of good bands. Motley Crue, on the other hand, are excellent.

The BEATLES aren't legendary?

We just named about 30-40 of their songs, off the top of our heads, ranging from masterpieces to "just good" (with the exception of REv. 9 and Wild Honey Pie--ARGH! HOW...???)

They're one of those names you say and ypu're INSTANTLY there.

Muhammad Ali.
JFK.
The Beatles.

Everyone of them is legendary. Lennon/McCartney, I beleive, is at least statistically the most successful songwriting team (for both duos and single people) of all time.

That's jsut TWO out of the Fab FOUR.

And...well, I could go on and on, but really, they define the 1960s, they transcend it, they're the must successful group ever, you say "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" and everone knows exactly who you're talking about, you say "Lennon" or "McCartney" or "Ringo" and everyone knows (George is no less famous, just cursed with two more common names, plenty of Georges and Harrisons...)

Who DOES qualify as a legendary band, if not the most successful band of all time, and the most influential to boot, with the four having influential solo careers as well?

Who do I rate as being legendary?

Led Zeppelin
AC/DC
Black Sabbath
Guns'N'Roses
Jimi Hendrix
Thin Lizzy
Megadeth
Metallica

And of course Justin Bieber.

@ obiwan: I said the Beatles had legendary status. I just don't think their music is up to that level, even though they do have some good songs.

@ obi: "with the four having influential solo careers as well"

Who did Ringo Starr's solo material have a strong influence on, exactly?

OK, 3 influential careers...and Ringo's just a fun guy. ;)

And on what basis do you claim that their music isn't up to "that level?"

What is up to "that level?"

The level for Jamiet might be kick-ass hard rock. I suspect Simon and Garfunkel or Burt Bacharach is probably not at that level either. Music is subjective. For every group that one might consider inconsequential might prove to be highly consequential upon an artist that we might all end up admiring. Likewise an artist who is deemed great might not have any relevance to another artist.
There was a time once when ABBA were considered complete shite by punk and post-punk artists of the seventies because they did not relate to what they were trying to achieve. Now, some of those artists look back and say ABBA were great after all, but it just didn't speak to them at the time (Bono from U2 is one of those artists).
In the case of the Beatles, the impact of their music was huge, even if not relevant to everyone.

Hey, obiwan....Glass Onion. Tell me 'bout that. Sinks the whole Beatles catalog with one song.

I still stand by, and expand, my earlier assertion that Genesis > The Kinks > The Stones > The Beatles.

I'll name an artist who I think is great but has not been mentioned in this thread (perhaps because he is a solo artist) - David Bowie!

I a massive Beatles fan, but I have to admit that I don't think any of their solo careers were that spectacular in comparison. Don't get me wrong, John and Paul had lots of good songs (and a few were great) in the seventies, but they were no longer cutting edge; other artists were achieving greatness while they slid into mediocrity.

FriedOkraBlues...

No. Just...no. One song sinks the entire catalogue? No. Two Nowhere Bands (sitting in their Nowhere Lands, making all their Nowhere plans for Nobody...) better than the Beatles?

No.

Those bands signify an entire generation, a whole people? No.
Their works' influence is as profound? No.

The Stones...they have an argument, probably the best of any other band, and Beatles/Stones is a whole different debate, THAT is the mother of all debates, that's pop music equivalent of "What is the meaning of life, and how should we live our lives?" in a philosophy circle, Beatles/Stones is THE big conpetition and question...The Beatles generally win out, and I think with good reason, but I'll save those reasons for that Beatles/Stones debate if it comes.

But in NO WAY are those other bands greater or more influential or significant than the Beatles, to say the STONES are below then, and the Beatles below even THAT...

......No.

And spyman, I wouldn't say they slid into "mediocrity." Sure, they weren't as good (at least George and Ringo weren't, and probably not Paul...I actually think John Lennon kept up a good career, and would've still been huge for many years if he hadn't been gunned down) but mediocrity?

No...they were "just" good, that's the thing--TOGETHER they were the Fab Four, the perfect band, APART, they were just..."good."