Was ELO better than the Beatles?
- Thread starter DirtyJohns97
- Start date
You have to understand Jeff Lynn's producing history as well. Beatles, Tom Petty, Del Shanonn....on and on.
No. The Beatles had twenty (20) #1 hits on Billboard. ELO had twenty (20) songs make it to Billboard overall, none of which made it to #1 (they hold the record for most songs without a #1).
That said, I love me some Living Thing, Telephone Line, Mr. Bluesky, Evil Woman, etc but they're not The Beatles
That said, I love me some Living Thing, Telephone Line, Mr. Bluesky, Evil Woman, etc but they're not The Beatles
Lynne is a genius. And "News Of The World" is a fantastic album. But if you ask me "were they better than the Beatles?" No would be my answer.
I've always sort of lumped them in with a acts from the 70's to 80's like Queen or Elton John (bands that I'd say were part of the post 60's "next or 3rd generation" of R&R) in that they were good to occasionally great at what they were for that period of time. But they don't quite stand up to acts such as The Beatles, Elvis, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Pink Floyd...handful of others - as far as the imprint on music they left behind them.
"On the list, but not near the top of the list" I'll call it. And saying that is not in any fashion meant to discredit them. But when you're talking about the number of acts there have been in the 70ish years "rock and roll" has been around, there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on when you're talking about the best and greatest of them all.
And not to derail this discussion, but one subject I believe has never been discussed here ever is defining generations of rock and roll music. Meaning, if we were to divide up the R&R years into generations or eras, what would those look like?
I've always sort of lumped them in with a acts from the 70's to 80's like Queen or Elton John (bands that I'd say were part of the post 60's "next or 3rd generation" of R&R) in that they were good to occasionally great at what they were for that period of time. But they don't quite stand up to acts such as The Beatles, Elvis, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Pink Floyd...handful of others - as far as the imprint on music they left behind them.
"On the list, but not near the top of the list" I'll call it. And saying that is not in any fashion meant to discredit them. But when you're talking about the number of acts there have been in the 70ish years "rock and roll" has been around, there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on when you're talking about the best and greatest of them all.
And not to derail this discussion, but one subject I believe has never been discussed here ever is defining generations of rock and roll music. Meaning, if we were to divide up the R&R years into generations or eras, what would those look like?
I would have to take the Beetles over ELO…and I love ELO
In what context? The 60s absolutely dominated each era for Rock and Roll. You have bands and musicians who are still at the top of most "best of" lists coming from that era. Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Beach Boys, Dead, Doors, Janice, Jefferson Airplane, etc
The 70s are distant second in this category.
I'm talking in more of an "archiological" sense.
Not defining which era is/was best so much as what are the eras and how does one define them? By simply years or decades, by dominating genres, by changes in the industry as a whole, by the technologies used to consume the music, etc.
There are so many different ways one can carve up all those years.
I recognize the greatness of the Beatles, but most of their top hits were bubble gum songs. All of them did better once they split up.
None of the Beatlles have Jeff Lynne's credentials when it comes to helping others in making great music.
I'm positive George and Ringo would agree with me
None of the Beatlles have Jeff Lynne's credentials when it comes to helping others in making great music.
I'm positive George and Ringo would agree with me
Jeff Lynne is a musical genius; always have enjoyed his efforts, not just with ELO, but the Wilbury's, various charity concerts etc.
Having said that, Lynne is NOT ELO. As a band, they are terrific, but couldn't carry water for The Beatles. The Beatles were an eye-opening event and Sgt. Pepper's was an epiphany for this middle-schooler. ELO has put out much great music, but not to that level, nor have they ever had the fan base that helped the Beatles become what they became.
I do, however, firmly believe that if Lynne had stayed with The Move instead of changing over to ELO they would have been one of the elite rockers of their time. (ELO was actually Roy Wood's idea, not Lynne's, btw). If 10538 Overture had been released as a Move single instead of being held back for the first ELO album, things might have been different.
None of this is to denigrate ELO or Lynne. They were terrific, and their first 6 albums started with a song that grabbed your attention and left you anxiously waiting for the rest of the album. But they weren't Beatle-esque, which is why the Fab Four will always be at a level of sainthood for rock music.
Having said that, Lynne is NOT ELO. As a band, they are terrific, but couldn't carry water for The Beatles. The Beatles were an eye-opening event and Sgt. Pepper's was an epiphany for this middle-schooler. ELO has put out much great music, but not to that level, nor have they ever had the fan base that helped the Beatles become what they became.
I do, however, firmly believe that if Lynne had stayed with The Move instead of changing over to ELO they would have been one of the elite rockers of their time. (ELO was actually Roy Wood's idea, not Lynne's, btw). If 10538 Overture had been released as a Move single instead of being held back for the first ELO album, things might have been different.
None of this is to denigrate ELO or Lynne. They were terrific, and their first 6 albums started with a song that grabbed your attention and left you anxiously waiting for the rest of the album. But they weren't Beatle-esque, which is why the Fab Four will always be at a level of sainthood for rock music.
lol, nobody is saying that. Well, nobody to be taken seriously. Beatles are probably the greatest band of all time.
U.S. Military Accused Of Covering Up Hundreds Of Unexplained ELO Sightings
ARLINGTON, VA—Detailing and providing blurry photos of incidents that go back almost 50 years, activists accused the U.S. Military Monday of covering up hundreds of unexplained ELO sightings. “We’ve spoken with people all across the country who claim to have been taken aboard an ELO tour bus...
www.theonion.com
Both are great, my life would be less rich if either of them never existed. That being said, the Beatles from Rubber Soul onward were the most impactful rock band of our generations.
The only band better than the Beatles are Led Zeppelin.
I don't agree with it in the slightest, but on its face it's hard to put a guy whose entire career was trying to out-Beatle the Beatles ahead of that group. Once he befriended Harrison and got on the Wilbury/Anthology train, he basically fulfilled his life's dream.
Live at Wembley is a great live concert. Great.
This. Cmon man. Nobody is saying ELO is better than the Beatles. And whoever said there songs were bubblegum songs is being ridiculous. Sure at first they were the 2-3 minute poppy songs but look at each album how they got better and better. Also they were doing such incredible studio work they couldn’t duplicate it in concert later on.
I enjoy listening to a lot of ELO stuff more than I do Beatles stuff, but wouldn't argue that they are a better band.
I would take Black Sabbath over both of them as an unpopular opinion for GOAT rock bands.
The way I view questions like this: comparisons are tough because musical tastes/preferences vary tremendously (and often change).
Therefore, IMO “the greatest” or “better” comes down to musical influence. Here, Beatles win hands down. ….and, in my personal opinion, while many are great, Paul McCartney is the best singer/songwriter in my lifetime.
Therefore, IMO “the greatest” or “better” comes down to musical influence. Here, Beatles win hands down. ….and, in my personal opinion, while many are great, Paul McCartney is the best singer/songwriter in my lifetime.
Where’s all this influence today? Country seems to have blown up and rock has imploded.
I wouldn’t put Sabbath in the same category as ELO or The Beatles, but I can dig it.
I don’t know whether they were better, but I enjoy their music much more than that of The Beatles
"Best" is as much subjective as objective and I can see numerous bands in that conversation.
Not sure anyone can argue the Beatles aren't the most influential ever. From recording techniques, production, song writing, style, etc. I mean, listen to Please Please Me/With the Beatles, then Revolver/Sgt Pepper, then Abbey Road/Let it Be and remember those were all recorded over a span of 6 years. No other band had that kind of discography with that amount of stylistic change, let alone in 6 years.
Not sure anyone can argue the Beatles aren't the most influential ever. From recording techniques, production, song writing, style, etc. I mean, listen to Please Please Me/With the Beatles, then Revolver/Sgt Pepper, then Abbey Road/Let it Be and remember those were all recorded over a span of 6 years. No other band had that kind of discography with that amount of stylistic change, let alone in 6 years.
If I never heard a Beatles song again, I wouldn’t miss them.
If I never heard an ELO song again, I would miss them.
But hey, that’s just my opinion man.
If I never heard an ELO song again, I would miss them.
But hey, that’s just my opinion man.
What did McCartney do for Lynn? I don't know much of anything about their personal relationship.
Personally I'd put the Beatles over ELO but IMO Jeff Lynne's overall musical talent exceeds any Beatle including Paul or John.
