Yes vs. The Beatles

[staunchally]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 12:03 AM)

McCartney's pretty f***ing talented. Even still at his advanced age. But at his height he was easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe (Taxman and The End guitar solos, Blackbird, etc.), as good or better a bassist as Squire (ask Squire, plus listen to Something, Don't Let Me Down or just about anything else or play Beatles Rock Band on Expert Bass), as good a keyboardist as Tony Kaye (listen to Penny Lane, Let It Be or the Abbey Road medley), as good a drummer as Alan White (both were good enough for John Lennon) and easily as good or better singer than Anderson with a wider range. Just saying...

What?!

[ghostworks]

QUOTE (staunchally @ Sep 14 2011, 11:53 AM)

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 12:03 AM) McCartney's pretty f***ing talented. Even still at his advanced age. But at his height he was easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe (Taxman and The End guitar solos, Blackbird, etc.), as good or better a bassist as Squire (ask Squire, plus listen to Something, Don't Let Me Down or just about anything else or play Beatles Rock Band on Expert Bass), as good a keyboardist as Tony Kaye (listen to Penny Lane, Let It Be or the Abbey Road medley), as good a drummer as Alan White (both were good enough for John Lennon) and easily as good or better singer than Anderson with a wider range. Just saying... What?! don't worry, kid   he's just funnin'   (and it is funny)

[ghostworks]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 08:07 PM)

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 13 2011, 03:14 PM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 12:22 PM) ...the main thing is, he feels The Beatles revolutionized rock and roll, so you two are on the same page as far as that goes indeed! Not that I agree with you. There's too much talent there to call it an accident... the talent isn't what's accidental, though   what's 'accidental' is the revolution   The Beatles didn't get together in grammar school and say, "right, then - let's revolutionize rock and roll"   and even if they did, their first five albums are evidence enough to the contrary   I'm not debating their incredible talents or their revolutionary influence (no one legitimately could)   but so much of their influence and impact is 'after the fact' - as we look back, in retrospect, etc.   Yes' 'revolutionary' impact was real-time - they were challenging/being challenged by their contemporaries practically week to week   and they showed just about everyone the door for a solid seven years (1971-1977)   of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion - like who you like   personally? I can't see how anyone can objectively give The Beatles the nod, here

Edited September 14, 2011 by ghostworks

[Presto-digitation]

You know you're on a prog board when the vote is this close.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 10:09 AM)

QUOTE (staunchally @ Sep 14 2011, 11:53 AM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 12:03 AM) McCartney's pretty f***ing talented. Even still at his advanced age. But at his height he was easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe (Taxman and The End guitar solos, Blackbird, etc.), as good or better a bassist as Squire (ask Squire, plus listen to Something, Don't Let Me Down or just about anything else or play Beatles Rock Band on Expert Bass), as good a keyboardist as Tony Kaye (listen to Penny Lane, Let It Be or the Abbey Road medley), as good a drummer as Alan White (both were good enough for John Lennon) and easily as good or better singer than Anderson with a wider range. Just saying... What?! don't worry, kid   he's just funnin'   (and it is funny) That ain't "funnin'" that is the truth. Dispute one thing I have stated here. I didn't say anything about Wakeman nor Bruford because I think those two are virtuosic on their instruments and McCartney on his best day couldn't play like Wakeman or Bruford. But the others easily. Keep in mind I have studied both these bands very seriously and extensively. A good friend of mine has written the definitive biography of Yes and I am sure he would agree with me. More than half of the Wings material is McCartney and not the hired hands who toured with him. McCartney was the most talented Beatle easily. I would put any of his basslines against any of Squier's. Squier is great, but he's no McCartney, Entwistle, or Geddy Lee. Just because McCartney writes "pop" music doesn't mean he has less talent than someone who writes more progressively. Especially when you consider that the Abbey Road medley is largely a McCartney masterpiece. That is a pretty progressive "side". Plus the whole Sgt. Pepper thing was his idea, stringing the album together as if it were another band putting on a show. All of this before Yes came into being.   Then when one considers that McCartney is THE MOST successful songwriter in recorded history I think that kind of seals the deal. (Yesterday is the most recorded song ever).

[ReRushed]

McCartney's basslines are as fluid and melodic as anyone's, including Chris Squires. As a bassist, and many other things, McCartney can hold his own against anyone. He's an all-time great.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 01:30 PM)

but so much of their influence and impact is 'after the fact' - as we look back, in retrospect, etc.

After the fact? Not at all. The Beatles were one of the great pop culture phenomenons of the 20th Century.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 10:30 AM)

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 08:07 PM) QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 13 2011, 03:14 PM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 12:22 PM) ...the main thing is, he feels The Beatles revolutionized rock and roll, so you two are on the same page as far as that goes indeed! Not that I agree with you. There's too much talent there to call it an accident... the talent isn't what's accidental, though   what's 'accidental' is the revolution   The Beatles didn't get together in grammar school and say, "right, then - let's revolutionize rock and roll"   and even if they did, their first five albums are evidence enough to the contrary   I'm not debating their incredible talents or their revolutionary influence (no one legitimately could)   but so much of their influence and impact is 'after the fact' - as we look back, in retrospect, etc.   Yes' 'revolutionary' impact was real-time - they were challenging/being challenged by their contemporaries practically week to week   and they showed just about everyone the door for a solid seven years (1971-1977)   of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion - like who you like   personally? I can't see how anyone can objectively give The Beatles the nod, here So do you play music or just listen?   One can learn just about everything one needs to know about music from learning Beatle songs. And that is just the music.   Granted the Beatles did not set out to change anything or start a revolution. George has stated that society used the Beatles as an excuse to go wild. They did what they did and society followed suit with obsession still not seen since. There were many factor and that is well documented. Yet their impact upon society as a whole cannot be disputed nor denied. The music industry changed drastically because of the Beatles and no one else. Definitely not Elvis Presley. There were no arena shows before the Beatles. There were no foldback monitors before the Beatles (or unfortunately during their touring years). Artists were not given artistic control until the Beatles. The Beatles broke rules as they made others.   Now let's talk progressive. The Beatles were the first real progressive band. There is an incalculable growth in their songwriting and production unmatched by any other artist, due in large part the Beatles themselves, George Martin, Geoff Emerick and the other various engineers who worked on their records.   The Beatles haven't even been a band for 41 years and two of them are dead and they still sell more recordings than any other artist living or dead.   Could the Beatles perform Close To The Edge? Perhaps not the same way as the Yes that recorded it, or any other iteration of the band including when they toured with 8 guys.   There is no objectivity when it comes to the Beatles and that is kind of my point. There was no Yesmania and there never will be. Despite how good a band they have been.

[circumstantial tree]

I can't distinguish George Harrison's voice from John Lennon's on many of their songs. Although, George has a whiny voice on some tunes.

[staunchally]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 02:34 PM)

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 10:09 AM) QUOTE (staunchally @ Sep 14 2011, 11:53 AM) QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 12:03 AM) McCartney's pretty f***ing talented. Even still at his advanced age. But at his height he was easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe (Taxman and The End guitar solos, Blackbird, etc.), as good or better a bassist as Squire (ask Squire, plus listen to Something, Don't Let Me Down or just about anything else or play Beatles Rock Band on Expert Bass), as good a keyboardist as Tony Kaye (listen to Penny Lane, Let It Be or the Abbey Road medley), as good a drummer as Alan White (both were good enough for John Lennon) and easily as good or better singer than Anderson with a wider range. Just saying... What?! don't worry, kid   he's just funnin'   (and it is funny) That ain't "funnin'" that is the truth. Dispute one thing I have stated here. I didn't say anything about Wakeman nor Bruford because I think those two are virtuosic on their instruments and McCartney on his best day couldn't play like Wakeman or Bruford. But the others easily. Keep in mind I have studied both these bands very seriously and extensively. A good friend of mine has written the definitive biography of Yes and I am sure he would agree with me. More than half of the Wings material is McCartney and not the hired hands who toured with him. McCartney was the most talented Beatle easily. I would put any of his basslines against any of Squier's. Squier is great, but he's no McCartney, Entwistle, or Geddy Lee. Just because McCartney writes "pop" music doesn't mean he has less talent than someone who writes more progressively. Especially when you consider that the Abbey Road medley is largely a McCartney masterpiece. That is a pretty progressive "side". Plus the whole Sgt. Pepper thing was his idea, stringing the album together as if it were another band putting on a show. All of this before Yes came into being.   Then when one considers that McCartney is THE MOST successful songwriter in recorded history I think that kind of seals the deal. (Yesterday is the most recorded song ever). This is why drugs are bad.

[staunchally]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 02:56 PM)

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 10:30 AM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 08:07 PM) QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 13 2011, 03:14 PM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Sep 13 2011, 12:22 PM) ...the main thing is, he feels The Beatles revolutionized rock and roll, so you two are on the same page as far as that goes indeed! Not that I agree with you. There's too much talent there to call it an accident... the talent isn't what's accidental, though   what's 'accidental' is the revolution   The Beatles didn't get together in grammar school and say, "right, then - let's revolutionize rock and roll"   and even if they did, their first five albums are evidence enough to the contrary   I'm not debating their incredible talents or their revolutionary influence (no one legitimately could)   but so much of their influence and impact is 'after the fact' - as we look back, in retrospect, etc.   Yes' 'revolutionary' impact was real-time - they were challenging/being challenged by their contemporaries practically week to week   and they showed just about everyone the door for a solid seven years (1971-1977)   of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion - like who you like   personally? I can't see how anyone can objectively give The Beatles the nod, here So do you play music or just listen?   One can learn just about everything one needs to know about music from learning Beatle songs. And that is just the music.   Granted the Beatles did not set out to change anything or start a revolution. George has stated that society used the Beatles as an excuse to go wild. They did what they did and society followed suit with obsession still not seen since. There were many factor and that is well documented. Yet their impact upon society as a whole cannot be disputed nor denied. The music industry changed drastically because of the Beatles and no one else. Definitely not Elvis Presley. There were no arena shows before the Beatles. There were no foldback monitors before the Beatles (or unfortunately during their touring years). Artists were not given artistic control until the Beatles. The Beatles broke rules as they made others.   Now let's talk progressive. The Beatles were the first real progressive band. There is an incalculable growth in their songwriting and production unmatched by any other artist, due in large part the Beatles themselves, George Martin, Geoff Emerick and the other various engineers who worked on their records.   The Beatles haven't even been a band for 41 years and two of them are dead and they still sell more recordings than any other artist living or dead.   Could the Beatles perform Close To The Edge? Perhaps not the same way as the Yes that recorded it, or any other iteration of the band including when they toured with 8 guys.   There is no objectivity when it comes to the Beatles and that is kind of my point. There was no Yesmania and there never will be. Despite how good a band they have been. Could Green Day perform Close to the Edge? Of Course, it would just be different.

[GeddyRulz]

I'd prefer listening to Yes almost any day.

 

But I'm not stupid: I know the Beatles were more influential and made the greater contribution to rock music.

[librarian]

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I can see a comparison discussion happening if it is comparing bands for their body of work as a whole, like the Beatles versus Rolling Stones,

 

or Yes versus

 

or Metallica vs Slayer

 

This is comparing polar opposites and speaking in two different language dialects!

 

Yikes!

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (staunchally @ Sep 14 2011, 01:36 PM)

This is why drugs are bad.

Pithy responses are not exactly a cogent rebuttal to what was said. Please feel free to articulate as to why, if you can. If you disagree with what I say then please illuminate us all.

 

Drugs or no I am certain I can prove my point more concisely than someone who's only responses are dull attempts at humor Mr. 31 posts.

 

And if it weren't for drugs we wouldn't have many Beatle or Yes tunes to enjoy.

 

So there.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Oh wait... You like Dream Theater too. That explains a lot right there.

[tjtull]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 08:20 PM)

Oh wait... You like Dream Theater too. That explains a lot right there.

[KenJennings]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Sep 14 2011, 02:46 PM)

I'd prefer listening to Yes almost any day. But I'm not stupid: I know the Beatles were more influential and made the greater contribution to rock music.

[Priest of Syrinx]

The Beatles. Nothin' to do with influence or legacy... I just like them even more than I like Yes.

[ghostworks]

I see that a few of you have fallen into the 'popularity = better' trap

 

if you can, dig yourself out of that one and rethink your posts (I'd love to keep kicking it around)

[ReRushed]

Prog rock snobs rule!

[Silas Lang]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 12:30 PM)

but so much of their influence and impact is 'after the fact' - as we look back, in retrospect, etc.

There was a world of difference in the culture and in rock and roll music between the years 1964 and 1968 and many of the reasons for those enormous changes are immortalized in the Beatles music. The impact was immediate from the moment they appeared on American soil.

[RUSHHEAD666]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 12 2011, 06:02 AM)

let's get literal The Beatles were innovators by circumstance (and a fair amount of drugs) - that takes nothing away from their genius Yes were innovators by design (and a fair amount of drugs) - that gives them the nod for the sake ofthis poll

"Let's Get Literal!"

 

Hey GW!!

 

Do you have a crush on Olivia Newton John?

 

Signed,

 

"XANADU"

[RUSHHEAD666]

There would be no YES if it there were no BEATLES.

 

Signed,

 

"Heart Of The Sunrise"

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 14 2011, 09:00 PM)

I see that a few of you have fallen into the 'popularity = better' trap if you can, dig yourself out of that one and rethink your posts (I'd love to keep kicking it around)

Popularity has little to do with it. There is a reason the Beatles are the greatest artists of recorded history (and recording history). The reason they became and have remained popular is because of how good they were. They are part of the public consciousness in the same way that Star Wars is. Yes was a great band at one time but they are not a cultural phenomenon. There is something about Beatle music that reaches humanity on a fundamental level to the point that people will be listening to and studying Beatles music into the indeterminable future. I wish I could say the same about Yes. This has nothing to do with popularity, for neither the Beatles nor Yes are on the cutting edge of popular culture, yet when anything Beatles happens it is a global event. That is cultural, not popularity.

 

Millions of young people still discover the Beatles everyday.

 

You may as well ask which is better; the Sun or the Moon? Ok that may not be exactly congruent but close enough for rock and roll.

[Silas Lang]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Sep 14 2011, 02:34 PM)

Dispute one thing I have stated here.

Saying McCartney is easily as good a guitarist as Steve Howe is a bit of a stretch I think. Macca may struggle a bit to play something like 'The Clap', for example.