Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, if you wish to compare the writers of two genres I'm going to tell you the only true criterion I know of to figure who is the best out is the amount of people who love the songs composed by the writer. Thus, we can easily see The Beatles beat all your fave jazz composers.
If popularity defines great song-writing, then a lot of real musical crap would be called the best musically. To argue popularity as equivalent to quality is specious on its very face. In fact, since the advent of popular radio, musical popularity has been more about shrewd marketing than it has been about either songwriting quality or performer talent. Even among the composers I cited, often their most popular songs were not their best musically. Duke Ellington once commented that though "Satin Doll" was the most popular tune in his play book, it was one of his least favorites musically.
The Beatles did write some nice tunes--some of which, like some pop tunes before them, have become "standards." That list, though, is fairly short. As to their talent playing their respective instruments, they were not far above mediocre, even among many of their peers. In fact, there are few Beatles tunes that I don't feel were "covered" better by some other performer along the line. What the Beatles DID have was a first-rate marketing and promotional organization that marketed them very masterfully. If one wants to draw a distinction between pop and jazz--at least since about 1945--that is it: pop is centered around the marketing and jazz is centered around the music. What a friend said about McDonalds holds true for pop music, "It just proves you can get people to eat s*** and like it if you market it well enough."
I tend to lean towards Pete Townsend being one of the best song writers. I think Tommy was brilliant, and Babba O'Reily was one of my favorites.
I read as far as this post and am AMAZED that nobody mentioned Bob Dylan. I also agree about Pete Townsend (I just started a thread about that exact subject BEFORE reading this post.)
Props to John and Paul too. They absolutely belong in the discussion, but I don't think you can give any person or pair the title of best. It's very subjective.
I'd throw Jerry Garcia and Robert Hunter into the mix, as well as Neil Peart from Rush.
You may not like any of their music, but look at their songwriting. WOW.
Especially Dylan. Not the greatest performer IMO, but look at the many many many songs he wrote.
jazzlover: I think Paul McCartney was well above average as a bass player. He played such inventive, musical bass parts that he composed! IMO, he was the best player in the band.
I'm a jazz lover too, but I think The Beatles came up with a lot of very good music. Sure, it was poppy and a lot of it was "commercial", but within those constraints it was fine. It is a product of its time, just like Louis Armstrong's music is.
If popularity defines great song-writing, then a lot of real musical crap would be called the best musically. To argue popularity as equivalent to quality is specious on its very face. In fact, since the advent of popular radio, musical popularity has been more about shrewd marketing than it has been about either songwriting quality or performer talent. Even among the composers I cited, often their most popular songs were not their best musically. Duke Ellington once commented that though "Satin Doll" was the most popular tune in his play book, it was one of his least favorites musically.
The Beatles did write some nice tunes--some of which, like some pop tunes before them, have become "standards." That list, though, is fairly short. As to their talent playing their respective instruments, they were not far above mediocre, even among many of their peers. In fact, there are few Beatles tunes that I don't feel were "covered" better by some other performer along the line. What the Beatles DID have was a first-rate marketing and promotional organization that marketed them very masterfully. If one wants to draw a distinction between pop and jazz--at least since about 1945--that is it: pop is centered around the marketing and jazz is centered around the music. What a friend said about McDonalds holds true for pop music, "It just proves you can get people to eat s*** and like it if you market it well enough."
Most of this wrong and I wish people would get their facts straight. You play any Beatles on any tonal instrument the melodies and chord progressions truly stand out. They had a lock on melodies and time signatures. I think the amount of cover versions the Beatles song have recieved in all genres should be enough for you or the amount of musician they have influenced.
I mean do you think the Beatles were not serious about their music? Uh, they quit touring to concentrate on their music.
It was the other way behind when it came to marketing with the Beatles. Before the Beatles basically started the British Invasion people thought British rock bands would never make it here thus paving the way for the Kinks, The Stones, The Who etcc when they broke through. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was played by some radio DJ in America and it created such a response that Capitol Records were forced to promote the record. Instrumentally many view Paul McCartney if not the greatest all-around rock musicians then one of them.
Jazz Musician Brian Bromberg
"So much of their song writing was from an era where songs were truly songs, that's why so many jazz artists have recorded Beatles tunes. Melodies, chord changes, and actual song structure. Because of that their songs will last forever because many of them are not trendy and time period based"
Oh by the way Jazz Musicians last year honored the Beatles and their influence on them or their music.
That says most of it. My dad didn't like rock at all, but Norwegian Wood and Michelle changed his mind. Excellent music!
I loved the British Invasion in general. The Dave Clark Five, The Searchers, Peter & Gordon, etc...it's all good. What a great time to listen to AM radio!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a great time to listen to AM radio!
