New Orleans Eats Forums at NOLAEats.com

There is no doubt, at least to my mind, that the BBE should have:

Talent--of course, but of a nature that demands attention
Distinction--a unique sound & look, totally fresh
Acceptance--by old & young alike
Longevity--tested, and proven by time, still topical
Viability--successful under all conditions & generations

The Award goes to...

The Beatles

Dude, I was sure you were gonna say KISS.

It is pretty hard to argue with that.

Mac da Knife wrote:There is no doubt, at least to my mind, that the BBE should have:

Talent--of course, but of a nature that demands attention
Distinction--a unique sound & look, totally fresh
Acceptance--by old & young alike
Longevity--tested, and proven by time, still topical
Viability--successful under all conditions & generations

The Award goes to...

The Beatles

I call horsesh*t. Judging by your criteria, Tang would be the best drink ever. "Successful under all conditions & generations?" They drink that stuff in space, Jack.

Most popular band ever, but judging by musical talent, they don't even make top 100. Speaking of which, does Paul McCartney have no shame, to continue to release such crappy records? Everything has that same tired bubble-gum poppy beat. "Ever Present Past" is a great example. It reminds me of that awful "Wonderful Christmas Time" song.

To quote Ron White, I would rather sandpaper an alligator's *sshole in a phone booth than listen to "Wonderful Christmas Time" again.

Where was I? Oh, yes - best band ever. Why not the Rolling Stones? Their catalog is every bit as large, and unlike the Beatles' flaky selves, did not get too big for their britches and fall apart over drugs and extremely ugly Asian women.

Talent - Stones, no question. Better guitarists, drummer and vocalist (different but certainly unique).

Distinction - edge goes to the Beatles, but they were contemporaries. The Beatles opened the U.S. market to the Stones, no doubt. At that point they should have stepped aside before deciding it was a good idea to let Ringo write a song.

Acceptance - push.

Longevity - the Stones are still touring. The Beatles' last public performance was almost 40 years ago.

Viability - if you like rock n' roll, you pick the Stones 10 times out of 10.

I'm sorry, Mac. The Rolling Stones may not be the best band ever, but I cannot abide praise for the Beatles. It is a character flaw and I am working on it, as long as it does not require me to listen to the Beatles.

Wow.
Calm down man.

I'm not claiming that I'm the final word.

My original post was just my opinion.
But I'm glad it provoked responses.

Paul McCartney, by the way, is NOT the Beatles. What he does on his own is his, and his alone (and I mostly agree with you).
The Stones were, and are, a great band.

So are Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, ELO, The Cars, and the Clash.

But The Beatles rule.

Pelican Six, you must have been reading my mind. Hands down, the Rolling Stones are greatest ever IMO, for all of the reasons listed (and many more). You cannot deny the Mick Taylor-era of the Stones, all of that stuff is right up there with the best stuff the Beatles have ever done. Also, check out "Shine A Light" and see how they continue to be one of the best live bands ever.

I wouldn't argue that The Beatles are probably the most influential band of all time though. I wish they would have kept touring and making albums for many more years.

Mac - I meant no offence.

Good points, by the way, on Fleetwood Mac and ELO - highly underrated, especially as far as musical ability and songwriting is concerned.


Now where's peychaud to make his case for the 1910 Fruitgum Company as Best Band Ever?

And tell me the bass player wasn't the inspiration for Austin Powers. I dare you:

The answer is Toto.

I am not p;articularly unbiased on this issue. I was arguing that the Stones were a better band than the Beatles as long ago as the mid 1970's.

When I was in high school, most everbody loved the recently dismantled Beatles. I much preferred the Stones.

I may not have been right then, but I am now. As far as body of work, the Stones win hands down. They are not as quirky/artsy and really rock. While I agree the Beatles were great, I did and do prefer the Rolling Stones (who I saw as recently as 10/06, outdoors in Austin on a Sunday night, a great show and my 4th time seeing them, 1st since 1981).

I need to add that the most under-rated and under appreciated major band of all time is the Kinks (a personal favorite).

What I mostly listen to are unknown/little known bands or bands with cult like followings (ardent fans, but not large in numbers). Many of my favorite bands had no mass appeal/success. That does not keep them from being great bands.

IMO, the greatest little known band of all time is the Only Ones (from England, 1976-1980). This group led by Peter Perret, a frail, thin, intellegent singer/songwriter/guitarist, was sometimes thrown in to the punk or new wave crowd, but was really a rock band, with some pop and pshychedelic influenses (an early guitarist was Glen Tilbrook, later of Squeeze). This group should have been huge, but record company employee changes (the guys who signed them left the label and were replaced with guys form a label they had previously turned down), drug use (two of the 4 were herion users) and personality conficts torn them apart. One of my alll time faves, they reunited in 2007 and are playing dates this years, with the 4some that became their stable lineup in the 1970's). Do a Youtube search and watch some of their stuff.

More recently, the poorly named Slobberbone (from Denton, Texas, 1995-2001) was awesome. Featuring soaring dual guitars, gut wrenching songs of pain and angst, this band was the sh*t. Led by singer/singwrite/guitartist Brent Best, these guys could kick it and were one of the best live bands EVER. You can You tube search them also.

Indeed.

Chris Difford & Glenn Tilbrook were the Lennon / McCartney of the punk arena (Google "Another Nail in My Heart").

Greatness begets greatness.

The Beatles changed the world.