The Instigator
nco.20
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
devcoch
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Beatles are NOT the best band ever

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/16/2017 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 99031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

nco.20

Pro

Round 1: State your position.
Round 2: State your arguments.
Round 3: State your conclusion.

The Beatles are over glorified pop stars from the 1960's and were/are NOT the greatest band to ever walk the stages. I am not saying they were bad, just that they are not worthy of the titles and appraisal they are given. Many other bands from their decade and subsequent ones have more virtuosity, showmanship, and trajectory than they do.
devcoch

Con

My position: I believe they are worthy of the titles and appraisals they are given. They made history as the only band to ever monopolize the top 5 positions on the Hot 100's. Only one singer since has come close to holding all top 5 spots. Beatlemania was not just for some over glorified pop stars. Other bands may be good, but no one touched the Beatles during their time.
Debate Round No. 1
nco.20

Pro

1- During the 60's, bands like The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Jimmy Hendrix Experience, and The Kinks emerged and contributed to the formation of Rock Music. Not only by creating songs we still listen to today but by creating signature moves, sounds, and techniques (like Keith Richards' simple yet engaging solos or Pete Townshend's "windmill").
2- Topping the charts does not equal being the best, it just equals being a fan favorite. People don't always like what is truly the best in terms of talent and technique. The fact that The Beatles monopolized music charts doesn't entitle them to be regarded as the best, just the mainstream's favorite.
3- The Beatles as individuals were talented, no doubt, but their instrumental skills were not mesmerizing. You wouldn't classify Ringo as the best drummer ever, Lennon and Harrison as the best guitarists ever, or McCartney as the best bassist ever. Exceptional bands have exceptional musicians, and that was not the case for the Beatles.
4- Great bands have great vocalists and frontmen (eg. Freddie Mercury, Axl Rose, Robert Plant). Once again, that was not the case for the Beatles.
5- Many great Rock bands played the stages after The Beatles. Just because The Beatles were pioneers in their genre doesn't mean they were the best, much less the epitome of it.
6- A great Rock band has a trajectory. Yes, The Beatles' music is still widely listened to today, and their faces are in half of the shirts sold at Forever 21 and Hot Topic, but their career only lasted ten years, and it was not due to anyone's death. Truly great bands know how to stay together and keep creating iconic music for decades (eg. The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, ZZ Top, Aerosmith).
7- The best bands give the best shows. Regardless if it's due to an impressive stage presence, theatrical stages, or the musician's energy, a good performance is worth a lot when weighing a band's greatness. The Beatles' had little to none of that as their performances were rather bland.
devcoch

Con

1) Yes, they contributed to the formation of Rock music. They were the most successful songwriters of their era
2) Then you need to define what the best means, because when a group sets records for being the favorite band on a list called Hot 100's (which is still looked at today) it means they are pretty good, especially when it took decades for people to even contend with them on it. As to their terms of talent and technique, I'll address that next.
3) They don't have to be the best musicians to be considered one of the best bands. Individual musicians can be amazing and be part of bands that are not fantastic. Many talented people and bands came after them, but they are not on the same standard for many reasons.
4) They changed the way music was made and recorded. Prior to them record labels dictated much and controlled how artists recorded. They changed the archetype and broke out writing their own songs and recording them. They played their instruments and sang, something that was not the norm for that time. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com... )
5) Yes, many great Rock bands came after them - but they owe much of what they did to the Beatles paving the way. They still have songs that are more popular than songs written currently.
6) They have truly been a band you can listen to in any decade, they have stood the test of time thus far.
7) A measure of a good band is not if they stay together, it is their music, what they did to further the music industry, and how their music still affects and resonates today.
8) That is an opinion, that the best bands give the best shows. Were you at a Beatle's show? Because I believe they had much stage presence and bland is the last word many would use to describe them. It seems you are comparing shows from today to what they performed with back then - and that is a false comparison to make.
Debate Round No. 2
nco.20

Pro

1- Even though I acknowledge your counter arguments, I still stand firm in my belief that The Beatles are not the best band ever. However, even though I have my favorites, I will not label any band as the best ever. Such thing does not exist. Relativity and taste weigh largely on this decision and it is nobody's right to make such choice for everybody else. Everyone has a favorite band or musician, and in each individual's little world (not in the whole wide world), that artist is the best. Things like this are what make music such a great element of life, its diversity, and its capacity to reach billions in an infinite number of ways. For music to do this, defining one particular group as the best for rigid, "factual" reasons is not at all important. Sure, some artists are better than others for obvious reasons (auto-tune vs authentic vocals, drum beat generators vs virtuous percussionists, etc.), but there really is no point in determining which one is the ultimate best. Many entertainers are characterized by their excellence, and allowing listeners to choose which one(s) stand out in their worlds is what makes music our universal communicator. Music is about sharing emotions, feelings, experiences, and thoughts. The possibilities are endless. Searching vigorously for who is the best at that just takes away time and energy from enjoying music's true purpose.
2- The Beatles contributed to music's evolution, and that is admirable, but marking them as the best ever is innaccurate. The aspects that define a great band are quantitatively large (musical talent, trajectory, stage presence, influence, and innovation, just to name a very few). Some bands excel in some of these aspects, some excel in others. It is obviously impossible for one single band to cover all of those aspects and be the all-time greatest at all of them. And for the reasons mentioned above, to me, it is pointless to try to define one group as the only one who meets such "requirements of greatness".
devcoch

Con

1) Best is subjective when it comes to taste, which is why things like topping charts, longevity of their music, paving the way for different styles, etc. has to come into play. You said in your initial comment, part of why I took the debate, "I am not saying they were bad, just that they are not worthy of the titles and appraisal they are given." And I think I have proved they were worthy of it.

2) "The Beatles contributed to music's evolution, and that is admirable," To me, that seems to be contrary to what you said. It seems you are saying they do deserve the titles and appraisals they have been given. They did much to make it possible for other bands to expand. I don't disagree that you can't give the title of greatness to one band alone, however, your first post was more than just them being the best band. You said they did not deserve the appraisals given, and that is beyond false to me and something you even admitted to an extent.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 46571 1 year ago
46571
They're not the "best band ever" as a lot of people make it seem to be. Their music is alright, nothing special.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Smooosh
Drrrrr, C and C music factory was.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
I would accept, but I agree with you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.