The beatles are influential, not great. Greatness requires an abilty to stay together longer than 7 years. Beethoven however, he truly is great.

"Greatness requires an ability to stay together longer than 7 years."

What sort of bullshit is that? The Beatles managed to be the greatest band ever despite lasting less than a decade. It saddens me that they didn't make more music together, but that shouldn't make them less great than all the bands (*coughstonescough*) that stopped making good music after about as long as the Beatles lasted but keep churning out shit ad infinitum for a little more money.

No one cares how long any group is together. Same goes for basically everything else in life.

No but one would think that the supposed greatest musicians of all time (*coughbullshitcough*) could produce anything of quality after the band broke up. They produced just as much collective shit as the stones the only difference is they weren't together. Paul McCartney and George churned out total garbage for a little more money.

Lennon's stuff was still pretty great, and George and Paul both had stuff worth listening to solo.

No it wasn't. Lennon had one song, one. The only reason anybody gave a damn about anything he wrote as a soloist is because he was killed. Martyrdom bump.

"Worth listening to", even if true, doesn't make you the greatest ever.

We aren't judging George and Paul, we're judging the Beatles.

Allow me to defend my statement (however poorly said defense may be). True greatness is something that can not be quantified, much like the "it" factor. To me the beatles don't have "it". They were the first boy band, who lifted a good amount of their music off other artists, boring songs at that, and ultimately, like all boy bands, had strained relationships and broke up seven years after they began. Also, Lennon was kind of a hypocritical dick.

The Beatles is a brand name. Once they lost the brand, their lack of talent was exposed. It's pathetic that these 'greatest musicians' peaked in their 20s.

Most famous people are hypocritical dicks.

"The Beatles is a brand name. Once they lost the brand, their lack of talent was exposed."

Since that's a load of shit, I'm switching my vote to the Beatles.

True, but few of them preach peace while cheating on and beating his wife and being a dead beat dad.

Also, which part of Putin's statement was false?

Calling The Beatles a derivative boy band completely ignores everything they did '65 onward. It also undersells how amazing they were at being a poppy boy band.

They weren't a derivative boy band. They were the first successful boy band. Also, can we really praise them when they brought pop music into this world?

"who lifted a good amount of their music off other artists, boring songs at that"
That's calling them derivative.

"can we really praise them when they brought pop music into this world?"
This is just stupid. They didn't bring pop music into the world. There has always been and will always be popular music. They brought Sgt. Pepper's into the world, positively changing music forever.

Ghug, stop agreeing with me, you're scaring me.

Wait...where was I when the beatles beat pink floyd?

Also, they were successfully sued three times for stealing other artists' music.

##VOTE Beatles

Bo, are you really changing your vote out of spite. Aside from their music being boring (an opinion) I have stated facts.

putin, i really respect your opinions on many different topics and i tend to agree with them, but your view of the beatles just makes me really angry, even if i don't like them very much. you just can't deny that they had more than two dozen #1 singles and you can't deny that they wrote some of the most recognizable songs of the whole popular music genre.

i usually really like your "go against the mainstream" attitude, but now it's just annoying as fuck.

"It's pathetic that these 'greatest musicians' peaked in their 20s"

you do know when mozart died, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J12zprD7V1k - enough said if you ask me

@bo, The Beatles transcend our petty mortal quibbles.

@Vash, what facts have you stated that matter?

@Gazelle, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZulzvVnFzo
Enough said if you ask me.

"Once they lost the brand, their lack of talent was exposed."

Which is why McCartney had success after success in the 70s and later on, and Lennon wrote one of the all-time songs of the century with "Imagine," which charted at #3 on Rolling Stone's Top 500 Songs of All-Time...

Higher than the highest Beatles' song, Hey Jude, at #8 (the Beatles still had the most songs of any band, with 22.)

George Harrison ALSO had a successful career...

And all Ringo's wanted to ever be is Ringo, lol, not like the guy pretended to be the deepest artist ever.

But Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were ALL recognized widely as successes after the Beatles.

You just hate their music, which is fine...but you can't spout untrue crap like their lack of talent was exposed--they continued to have hits...so either 1. They had talent, or 2. Their lack of talent wasn't exposed because they did keep having hits.

Beethoven should still win this in my opinion, but really...

"Greatness requires an ability to stay together longer than 7 years."

What about the likes of Wilfred Owen and John Keats--dead 25 or before, they didn't have long careers, but Keats especially stands as one of the most notable poets of his time and in the English language.

"Also, they were successfully sued three times for stealing other artists' music."

Legally, that's a fair charge...

Artistically--"Immature poets imitate, mature poets steal." --His High Lordship ofthen Modern Poetry T.S. Eliot. ;)

And given that the guy I have to absolutely work into every conversation stole just about every single one of his plots from another source--and that many authors have and still do the same--I'm inclined to agree with his Lordship Mr. Eliot...as long as you produce something great as the result of your "borrowing," there's at least an artistic (NOT legal) argument to be made for the validity of your stealing.

I'm pretty Mozart wouldn't have stopped being a genius had he lived longer, and he wasn't part of a group.

People can't vote Beatles over Beethoven and rail about me supposedly going against the grain here. Beatles wrote Revolution No. 9. Beethoven wrote the 9th Symphony. George Harrison composed albums that were universally panned by critics to the point where he was too depressed to write music. John was supposedly a song writing genius yet couldn't write for shit for the duration of the 70s. McCartney was a member of Wings. What is wrong with you people?