- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why do you think The Beatles are the most influential band of our time?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:26 pm
This one band has accomplished this over all others
If you google most influential band it’s The Beatles.
Even after break up and Death of Lennon
Was it timing? Or all talent?
Obviously the songwriting and their diverse sound.
So many amazing songs
I wonder what it feels like to be
Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr
If you google most influential band it’s The Beatles.
Even after break up and Death of Lennon
Was it timing? Or all talent?
Obviously the songwriting and their diverse sound.
So many amazing songs
I wonder what it feels like to be
Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 5:17 pm
25
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:32 pm to STigers
quote:It was simply meant to be. The stars aligned.
Was it timing? Or all talent?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:43 pm to STigers
quote:
Was it timing? Or all talent?
Obviously the songwriting and their diverse sound.
All of it.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 5:56 pm to STigers
Sir George Henry Martin
Posted on 9/1/25 at 6:12 pm to STigers
Generational talents...all of them.
Songwriting and vocals are off the charts incredible.
All very good musicians.
...and the timing of their ascension was perfect.
Songwriting and vocals are off the charts incredible.
All very good musicians.
...and the timing of their ascension was perfect.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 6:41 pm to STigers
What is our time? People who were teens in the 60s? I've never considered The Beatles a band of my time.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 7:46 pm to STigers
Talent and timing? Yes.
George Martin? Yes.
Not to be overlooked is both John and especially Paul had parents with broad musical tastes which exposed them to more diverse styles on which they drew on during their time in The Bealtes. And their parents encouraged and supported them in persuing music.
Then (unlike other artists who found and stuck with their "sound"), they continued in trying to expand their base of knowledge listening to and gleaning influence from other artist and new forms of music as they were emerging like Indian, electronica, hard rock, etc.
Just as Elvis was the human confluence of country, boogie and blues in the 1950's, The Beatles were the end product of the four members soaking in generations of musical influences and dispensing it all through their careers. Still love listening to them.
George Martin? Yes.
Not to be overlooked is both John and especially Paul had parents with broad musical tastes which exposed them to more diverse styles on which they drew on during their time in The Bealtes. And their parents encouraged and supported them in persuing music.
Then (unlike other artists who found and stuck with their "sound"), they continued in trying to expand their base of knowledge listening to and gleaning influence from other artist and new forms of music as they were emerging like Indian, electronica, hard rock, etc.
Just as Elvis was the human confluence of country, boogie and blues in the 1950's, The Beatles were the end product of the four members soaking in generations of musical influences and dispensing it all through their careers. Still love listening to them.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 7:55 pm to Mizz-SEC
quote:I’m watching the Billy Joel Documentary and they just mention George Martin.
George Martin? Yes.
Weird coincidence for me
Posted on 9/1/25 at 9:11 pm to STigers
The Beatles are regarded as highly as they are in big part because the boomers who loved them have owned and operated most music magazines and such since some point in the 1970s.
When they’re all gone, acclaim for The Beatles will wane greatly. You’re already seeing it now.
When they’re all gone, acclaim for The Beatles will wane greatly. You’re already seeing it now.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 11:51 pm to STigers
I wasn't alive during their time, but they defy logic. I knew them as successful solo artists before exploring their time as a band.
Talent, musicianship, songwriting, innovation, charisma, charm, timing, mystery, superior production, etc. etc. etc. They were the singular "all of the above" band.
The mind-blowing thing is each of their album releases is essentially equal to most bands' greatest hits albums, and they put these albums out once a year and sometimes more often, and that doesn't include the dozens of singles they released that were not on their albums like "She Loves You" and "Hey Jude" because they could make more money by selling singles separately. Their song catalog, composed in just 8 years is just not believable, but they did it.
Nobody comes close to them. Nobody. They weren't a band for my time. They were THE band for ALL time.
Talent, musicianship, songwriting, innovation, charisma, charm, timing, mystery, superior production, etc. etc. etc. They were the singular "all of the above" band.
The mind-blowing thing is each of their album releases is essentially equal to most bands' greatest hits albums, and they put these albums out once a year and sometimes more often, and that doesn't include the dozens of singles they released that were not on their albums like "She Loves You" and "Hey Jude" because they could make more money by selling singles separately. Their song catalog, composed in just 8 years is just not believable, but they did it.
Nobody comes close to them. Nobody. They weren't a band for my time. They were THE band for ALL time.
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:55 am to STigers
The music is the overriding factor. But IMO when the movie AHDN was released not only were the songs great but people bought into those guys on the screen are who they are. Talented but also funny, good looking and irreverent. The goal of all teenagers.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 7:22 am to STigers
Stones>>>beatles
Posted on 9/2/25 at 7:44 am to DeltaTigerDelta
I think The Beatles were sort of innovators of music. They were ahead of the curve putting out music that hadn't been touched before. The assembly of such talent, especially Lennon and McCartney, was a magical collection of talent.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:31 am to STigers
quote:The time was ripe, they were musically very talented, McCartney in particular IMO. Lennon and McCartney made each other better.
Was it timing? Or all talent?
Obviously the songwriting and their diverse sound.
The group was willing to experiment musically after they got very popular, rather than coasting on a formula that worked for them. Looking through a modern lens, they may not seem very "rebellious," but in their time, they certainly were.
That's all I got, and it's probably way off base
I was born in January of '62 and had siblings 8 & 10 years older than me, so I recall a lot of the buzz surrounding them both before and after they broke up. 
Posted on 9/2/25 at 10:05 am to STigers
It was lightning in a bottle. You had 4 guys come together (pardon the pun) at the right place, right time with the right management, style, collective set of talents and a work ethic that allowed them to change everything about popular music forever. Just the concept of a "band". Most of the 50s artists were either straight solo with a support infrastructure or perhaps a band with a clear, clear leader/frontman. Even The Beach Boys (for all practical purposes the American contemporaries of The Beatles at the time) relied heavily upon session musicians. The Beatles were the first stratospherically successful band that was (mostly) self-contained - songwriting, instrumentation, singing, etc.
The effects didn't really wane until the rise of Rap and the death of the traditional rock band (at least a dominant force in popular music), so really a 40+ year effect with ripples to this very day.
The effects didn't really wane until the rise of Rap and the death of the traditional rock band (at least a dominant force in popular music), so really a 40+ year effect with ripples to this very day.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 10:15 am to Ace Midnight
Cultural Phenomenon
Posted on 9/2/25 at 10:46 am to STigers
Everything that has been said in this thread is true, but if not for the fact that Paul and John (and George to some extent) could sing like birds.
Those sweet voices send them over the top....For example, imagine Axel Rose singing Beatles tunes; it doesn't come off quite as pleasant to the ears.
Those sweet voices send them over the top....For example, imagine Axel Rose singing Beatles tunes; it doesn't come off quite as pleasant to the ears.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 11:21 am to Mizz-SEC
quote:John didn't get a whole lot of musical encouragement from adults.
nd their parents encouraged and supported them in persuing music.
quote:They invented almost everything we think of as "normal" for bands to do, including:
Why do you think The Beatles are the most influential band of our time?
Albums as stand alone works of art
Concept albums
Concerts in large venues like arenas/stadia
Innovative studio layering
They DNGAF. They always did what they wanted to do. Instead of finding a formula and putting out infinite albums of the same shite, they would immediately move on and push boundaries.
I could go on and on, but we have a Beatles thread already.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 11:33 am to Crow Pie
quote:
Those sweet voices send them over the top....For example, imagine Axel Rose singing Beatles tunes; it doesn't come off quite as pleasant to the ears. ?
For proof try listening to G n Rs version of "Live and Let Die".
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:01 pm to STigers
The beatles broke up over 20 years before I was born. They are not of my time in any way, shape, or form.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News