The Beatles

[j4lackey]

But just think if Richard Manuel had sung it.

[embiggen]

let's all get up and dance to a song that was a hit before you mother was born

[Sir Stewart]

"Come Together" is a great tune.

[cryptique]

and as i said earlier, Richard Manuel. i could rest my whole argument on him. none of The Beatles had that kind of vocal talent.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I think Manuel's voice was amazing (as was Danko's, really) but it was a matter of being perfectly suited to the kind of music that they wrote for themselves to perform (and selected other songs they chose to perform). Neither one of those guys had the kind of overall versatility that either McCartney or Lennon had (in my opinion, of course).

 

There's almost nothing the Beatles couldn't sing and sing well; Manuel was a terrific, fabulously expressive singer for songs by The Band, but he simply couldn't have handled the kinds of screamers that the early Beatles did, and he didn't have the octave range of McCartney. Manuel is a case of wildly overachieving -- doing the very best with what he had; McCartney (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Lennon) is an example of having a supremely capable vocal instrument and being able to apply it with equal skill to a wide variety of styles.

[m_thomp]

Manuel was a terrific, fabulously expressive singer for songs by The Band, but he simply couldn't have handled the kinds of screamers that the early Beatles did

 

Or that the latter day Beatles did: Richard Manuel sings Helter Skelter

[caliber66]

Whispering Pines, King Harvest, Rockin' Chair, Across The Great Divide, Unfaithful Servant, Up On Cripple Creek, The Weight, We Can Talk, In A Station, The Rumor, Stage Fright, Sleeping, All La Glory, The Shape I'm In, Caledonia Mission, Lonesome Suzie, When You Awake, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, The W.S. Walcott Medicine Show, Rag Mama Rag, Strawberry Wine, Katie's Been Gone, etc. so hey cool.

You forgot Jawbone, which is a better performance than anything the Beatles ever did.

 

False things in bold. Arguable things in italics. Unimportant things underlined.

I'm gonna agree with Adam2 that Richard Manuel had a better voice than John, Paul, George or Ringo, but one voice doesn't make the Band a better group than the Beatles. To me, it's not even close. Not Holocaust-denial nondebatable, but just about. Nobody beats the Beatles.

[Adam2]

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I think Manuel's voice was amazing (as was Danko's, really) but it was a matter of being perfectly suited to the kind of music that they wrote for themselves to perform (and selected other songs they chose to perform). Neither one of those guys had the kind of overall versatility that either McCartney or Lennon had (in my opinion, of course).

 

There's almost nothing the Beatles couldn't sing and sing well; Manuel was a terrific, fabulously expressive singer for songs by The Band, but he simply couldn't have handled the kinds of screamers that the early Beatles did, and he didn't have the octave range of McCartney. Manuel is a case of wildly overachieving -- doing the very best with what he had; McCartney (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Lennon) is an example of having a supremely capable vocal instrument and being able to apply it with equal skill to a wide variety of styles.

 

I also have to disagree. Richard Manuel could belt out a screamer better than anyone. The Hawks were also more raw and wild than anything the early Beatles did. I completely disagree with what you said about Manuel. I would say that your statement is flip-flopped... it was Manuel who had the natural singing ability, the supremely capable vocal instrument. He used his voice for a wide variety of applications. Raw belters, quiet ballads, rich falsetto or baritone, etc.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqbTPVvZ5pA

[cryptique]

You forgot Jawbone, which is a better performance than anything the Beatles ever did.

Jawbone's great, but I'm not sure I understand your slavish devotion to that performance. Possibly not even my favorite Manuel vocal on that album.

 

Also: though it's not even close to being my favorite Beatles tune, I think McCartney's vocals on "Hey Jude" are up to anything Manuel did.

[MattZ]

I see your:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqbTPVvZ5pA

 

And raise you a:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcuvjYxYJz0

[cryptique]

I also have to disagree. Richard Manuel could belt out a screamer better than anyone. The Hawks were also more raw and wild than anything the early Beatles did. I completely disagree with what you said about Manuel. I would say that your statement is flip-flopped... it was Manuel who had the natural singing ability, the supremely capable vocal instrument. He used his voice for a wide variety of applications. Raw belters, quiet ballads, rich falsetto or baritone, etc.

Well, then we'll just have to keep on disagreeing. I love Manuel, don't get me wrong -- I just find him limited compared to McCartney. That's the great thing about music ... not everyone hears it the same way.

[Sir Stewart]

Pavarotti had a better voice than anyone in rock music, and the Beatles are the best thing ever.

[Gobias Industries]

Pavarotti had a better voice than anyone in rock music, and the Beatles are the best thing ever.

 

Fo' sho'.

 

Love Me Do is killer.

[JerseyMike]

The first two Band albums, and maybe even the third, were indeed recorded mostly live.

 

Thats just not true. Sorry. EVERY BAND STARTS THEIR SESSIONS BY PLAYING LIVE IN THE STUDIO. Its called "basics". Then they go back and start re-tooling whatever they want to fix or change. The Band did A LOT of this on "Big Pink" and especially on "The Band".

[caliber66]

Jawbone's great, but I'm not sure I understand your slavish devotion to that performance. Possibly not even my favorite Manuel vocal on that album.

 

Also: though it's not even close to being my favorite Beatles tune, I think McCartney's vocals on "Hey Jude" are up to anything Manuel did.

That's okay, I don't quite understand it either. I just don't think it's possible to top the emotion of the vocal performance in that song. To me, it's perfect, and nothing the Beatles did comes close.

[Elixir Sue]

Also, Paul McCartney had an amazing voice. John Lennon's voice was the definition of "raw and organic". George developed into a hell of a singer before he was done, and Ringo did "Don't Pass Me By".

[mpolak21]

The Band are great, and the Beatles, themselves, would tell you that. George Harrison often referred to the Band as one of his favorites and the Get Back sessions definitely have a bit of a Basement era feel to them, Harrison actually visited Woodstock in 1968 while Dylan and The Band were in their heyday.

 

In terms of who's better? Well nobody beats The Beatles, in my book. The Band might have had better singers, better musicians, etc. But at the end of the day the Beatles songs are better and their albums are better. The Band released two classic albums up there with the greatest records ever created, however if I was ranking them I'd come up with about five Beatles albums that I'd take over Big Pink or the Brown Album.

 

--Mike

[howdjadoo]

Let's be serious about them fab 4:

 

 

[tjr]

The Beatles as The Beatles, and The Band is The Band (and Wilco is Wilco), and they are all great. Trying to compare who is better is kind of pointless... cause The Beatles are better...

 

and Ringo had that Octopus song too... "I'd like to be, under the sea..."

[Gobias Industries]

The Rutles >>>> The Beatles.

 

[bobbob1313]

"Don't Pass Me By" is better than anything anyone has ever done ever.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I was watching this VH1 Classic special on the history of rock this weekend, and it had a funny quote that was attributed to Dylan. Apparently, he literally told the Beatles, "You guys don't have anything to say," and then, after that, John Lennon started writing more "artistic" song lyrics. (And here I thought all this time it was just the killer weed influence.)

 

So, Beatles + Dylan = all the good music that came after.

[Gobias Industries]

To be honest no one would have 1/100000000th as good as they were in the '60s without Dylan. This is how is works for me:

 

Bob (on drugs, obviously): "I write fucking great songs. They make you think and shit."

Beatles: "Argh. We don't think. Must. Start. Thinking." (and then they start doing drugs)

Stones: "We don't ever think. Check back a couple years from now." (too stoned to know)

Everyone else: "We're lame, we don't really matter. We're just going to copy everyone else."

[bobbob1313]

Maybe. Still, early Beatles albums > Dylan albums from same time period, and late Beatles albums > Dylan from same time period. I think Highway 61 and Help/Rubber Soul are the only times they released albums in the same year and Dylan beat them.

[Sir Stewart]

I think Highway 61 and Help/Rubber Soul are the only times they released albums in the same year and Dylan beat them.

 

Even that is questionable.

[bobbob1313]

Even that is questionable.

 

Actually the more I think about it, the more I'm pretty sure the Beatles got their asses kicked in that round. They still won by a 7-1 decision though.