The Instigator
rubbersoul
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
zander
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Would the Beatles still shake the music scene if they came out today?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,062 times Debate No: 3520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (18)

 

rubbersoul

Pro

I would like to put out a challenge that if the Beatles came out today, like they did back in 1963, they would still kick everbody's butts musically.

any takers?
zander

Con

While the Beatles were highly sucessful, there musical ability pales in comparison to several bands now and in the post-Beatle past.

No Beatle could attempt to rival modern musicians. Modern musicians play faster and more complex pieces. I can name a laundry list of bands that can just straight up out play the Beatles, instrumentally. Led Zeppelin is one I would personally note.

Just listen to a Beatles song and compare the musicianship with a talented band of your choice from the post-Beatles era and the difference is clear.

Not until the Beatles hit the hippy phase did their song writing become anything worth noting. None of the Beatles had any song-writing talent with the exception of John Lennon, and that was way after '63.

I don't see anyway in which The Beatles could compete musically with most bands. While I like them personally, I don't see how anyone can argue that they are somehow more musically talented or advanced. The Beatles inspired the work of countless bands after them. So, it would follow that those bands built on The Beatles ground work.

I'm not really sure exactly what you are arguing, but I'll just await your response. Thanks and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
rubbersoul

Pro

I thank you for your answer. I must also say that the Beatles did not become the greatest band in the world for nothing. There are countless bands back then and now, that would not have existed if not for the Beatles. the Rolling Stones, The Byrds, bands more recent that cited the Beatles as their inspiration, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Radiohead etc. They not only influenced music, but fashion, thinking, and the ability to sing about anything in life and make it with a sound EVERYBODY could listen to. All 4 of them had hit singles while they were the Beatles, I challenge you to find any band where each member of a group had a # 1 single while still in the same band. They broke boundary's nobody thought was possible and bands still copy them today.

After your rebuttal, I will tell you how.

thank you.
zander

Con

I don't know how the topic of debate shifted so dramatically. I am not arguing the profound impact of the band. That can't be doubted. Your opening argument and the topic of the debate was "if the Beatles came out today, like they did back in 1963, they would still kick everbody's butts musically."

I don't see how The Beatles undoubtedly profound impact on the world has any relevance to the topic at hand. I argue that The Beatles pale in comparison to bands now MUSICALLY.

No doubt The Beatles where insanely popular, but that does not equate to musical ability. People like Jay-Z and 50 Cent sell more records than most bands. Would we call them more musically talented?

Again, the fact that each member had a hit single is irrelevant. Popularity and musical ability are not analogous. If it were, pop culture would most certainly be worshipping a different group of stars.

I'm not arguing that the Beatles are god-awful. I actually like their music. But, bands now and moreso after The Beatles, are more musically talented. The Beatles sound is simple and melodic, on the whole, which is why it served such a broad audience. Musicians now are simply better instrumentally and vocally.

So, I urge you to migrate back to the topic of the debate in your next round and prove that the Beatles are more MUSICALLY talented than bands that followed or bands now. You haven't given me any reason thus far to think that is the case, other than their immense popularity.
Debate Round No. 2
rubbersoul

Pro

What I was trying to do, was tie everything together into a neat package. Listen even you must admit that the quality of music has gone wayyyy down in the past couple of decades. I guarantee you that, if the Beatles came out today, there would not be a band that would come even close to their unique talent. Even if you do manage to find any, there is no way they would have even the slightest impact the Beatles did. The Beatles were one of a kind, which is a reason they are STILL more popular than these bands today.

So go ahead and name bands that would have even been in the Beatles shadow today. Since you already stated that bands nowadays sound better than the Beatles did, you don't have to worry about naming any other 60's, 70's or maybe even 80's bands.

thank you.
zander

Con

I agree. The quality of music has gone down in recent times. But, that doesn't mean The Beatles would compete today.

The Beatles were groundbreakers. But, that was in the sixties. They inspired decades of rock because of their unique talent. But, there talent is no longer unique. The Beatles could never play as fast or as intricately as hardcore musicians today. Look at the tabs to a Beatles song and compare them to the tabs from a Muse song and tell me any of the Beatles could play it. They were groundbreakers in the day, but music has evolved and bands now play faster and more intricately.

I don't argue the Beatles weren't revolutionary or extremely popular. But, they are in no way musically comparable to bands that followed them. None of the Beatles could play like musicians today.

If The Beatles appeared now, without their prior success, they would be a dud. Their slow pace and melodic sound would be laughed out of popular culture, sad to say. It has been said that if the Mona Lisa walked into a modeling agency, she would be sent to a plastic surgeon. The same is true of The Beatles. Perhaps it is due to their profound inspiration so many decades ago, but bands now have progressed farther, MUSICALLY, than the Beatles.

Again, this isn't an argument over their popularity and impact, but musicianship. Musicians now, while nowhere near as popular, are simply better musicians, instrumentally, lyrically and vocally. Your arguments are ones of popularity and notoriety, rather than musicianship. The Beatles sound was unique then, but wouldn't catch the ear of people now.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theDoctor 5 years ago
theDoctor
The thing about the Beatles is that they were never okay with how their music and the music of the rest of the world sounded. They always were looking to one up themselves. Now today, some of the modern music is loads better than the Beatles and vise-a-versa. So if the Beatles, unintetionaly or intentionaly, were trying to change the norm of music; and now today the norm is songs that are better in MUSICALLY compared to the Beatles, the Beatles would to do something to mix it up.

Now for a personal beef to pick: Paul is considered one of the most MUSICALLY talented people ever. George is considered one of the best Guitarists ever. John is considered to be just plain awesome. And Ringo....he's okay, but there's room for improvement. So 4 people that are slightly more than moderatly talented come together to form a great band. Maybe another band today has a better guitarist that George, but does ONE extremely talented guy make the band better collectivally?
Posted by behindblueeyes 8 years ago
behindblueeyes
This is certainly a catch-22...to have true impact, the Beatles would have to have not come out at all, until today, however, there still would be good music, albeit, it would be mainly rock n roll, because of the Stones...BUT, they still could shake it up then, because of the lack of music other then rock and/or metal.
Posted by Krad 8 years ago
Krad
ohhhh kaaay...what a repetitive debate.
as for musically talented: http://darkmonkey.org.uk...
Aphex twin annihilates the beatles in musical complexity.

"countless bands back then and now, that would not have existed if not for the Beatles"
well, thats great but that was THEN. If they came out NOW, well... it would be a joke.

another problem: "What I was trying to do, was tie everything together into a neat package"
you cant do this, if they came out NOW, they wouldn't have sold that many copies, and wouldn't have had any fame so they wouldn't shake the music scene.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9
Posted by HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
I understand both arguments, you really could've elaborated your thoughts more instead of rehashing the same point over and over.

Zander, I felt that you should've linked your arguments more, you kind of stated a strong beginning argument and didn't back it up until the 2nd to last paragraph in your 3rd speech, so your arguments felt like the same thing over and over again.

Rubbersoul, you didn't do anything to refute your opponents points, whereas he at least brought up arguments against yours.

Altogether a sub-par debate, hopefully you guys improve so I can see a better debate on this. I voted Con, by the way.
Posted by rubbersoul 8 years ago
rubbersoul
First of all the Beatles used to be nobodys and look what happened.

Second of all, FOR THE 3RD TIME...You still have not given an example of a group who would be more popular than the Beatles musically!
Posted by rubbersoul 8 years ago
rubbersoul
First of all the Beatles used to be nobodys and look what happened.

Second of all, FOR THE 3RD TIME...You still have not given an example of a group who would be more popular than the Beatles musically!
Posted by Morgs 8 years ago
Morgs
They would own any musician(s) that our out today. They were brilliant when they first came out and they remain so today. Music today doesn't compare. Whether the shallow people of today's world would actually like it is the question.
Posted by zander 8 years ago
zander
Their records sell because they are 'The Beatles'. If they were a nobody, that wouldn't become popular. And again, you are confusing popularity with musicianship. You didn't add a word about their musical talent. I get that people like them, that doesn't mean they are good.

They are an influence because they were groudnbreaking. Thats the thing about being groudbreaking. Once you have broken ground, you are no longer stirring. Do you think "I wanna hold your hand' would be a hit in today's day and age without the Beatles' established notoriety? Thats like saying hair metal would catch on now because people liked it then.
Posted by rubbersoul 8 years ago
rubbersoul
You say they would not catch the ear of the people now, but how can you explain that in 2000 their #1 cd was the bestseller of that year? And you still did not name any bands that would compete with them today.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by colormecourtney 7 years ago
colormecourtney
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 8 years ago
WeaponE
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by uiop 8 years ago
uiop
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by malmal16 8 years ago
malmal16
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by emiliocab 8 years ago
emiliocab
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kelly123 8 years ago
kelly123
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by crunchbate 8 years ago
crunchbate
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Krad 8 years ago
Krad
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by inrainbows 8 years ago
inrainbows
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
rubbersoulzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30