Better than the Beatles?

 
  • Better than the Beatles?

    I think so.

    Ain't no sunshine when she's gone...
  • I like The Byrds better than The Beatles?

    I suspect that ours is a minority opinion. ;)

    • M1ck1 said...
    • User
    • 7 Aug 2006, 09:39
    At least The Byrds were better at than The Beatles for sure... :-)

    "I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!"
    • M1ck1 said...
    • User
    • 7 Aug 2006, 09:39
    At least The Byrds were better at than The Beatles for sure... :-)

    "I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!"
  • They were better musicians, but I think the Byrds lacked the stability to rival them. For all his skill as a guitarist and arranger I think that the one constant, McGuinn, just wasn't prolific enough to give the Beatles the run for their money that Fifth Dimension and Younger Than Yesterday promised.

    • IAJP said...
    • User
    • 3 May 2007, 08:53
    yeah they actually are.

    chreee fawwlll utta the skayes.
    regllee laydee. fyootcha quee.
    ...she cayum swingun the andromeduh blue.
    ...sweet sexy laydee, creeole quee.

    sheh cayum wit those lyurh ayes. sweet sexy laydee, ammmonnmamuma kneez.
    sheh cayum wit those big browwwn ayes. sweet sexy laydee. sheedaz.

    she sarrz...wit her fadduh kneez. afrikun massiarr. hed for huh tiyum.
    she sarrz black star singin quee. flyur wumman. flyfur fuuh.
    she der fuh all uh uz to see. reh she sit dah all duh lunnng.
    she saarzz, am on mamamamakNEEz.
    sweeh...sexeey laydee...shurrdaz.

    suicide - shadazz
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 20 Jun 2007, 20:18
    I don't think the Byrds are better overall than the Beatles, mainly due to the larger body of work the Beatles managed to put together. The Byrds do run circles around the Beatles in the country/folk/rock arena, as already mentioned.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 2 Jul 2007, 23:25
    Yeah, the Byrds were awesome in the country rock genre, but I still like the Beatles better.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 22 Jul 2007, 21:20
    No!
    Never!

  • The Beatles are better
    but i like The Bryds and The Beatles.

    アイシテル
  • I really think that musically the byrds are better and more nice for the ear. Beatles was good. Byrds was Ace.

  • Absolutely not.

    Whichever way you look at it, The Beatles beat The Byrds hands down.

    I don't understand this 'better musicians' thing either. The Beatles' rhythm section would NEVER have made the huge errors Michael Clarke did (notably on Fifth Dimension) or Chris Hillman (we all know what I'm on about here - its almost enough to ruin the entire song).

    Moreover, every single Beatles album is very very good. Finding bad Beatles songs is difficult. The same can't be said about The Byrds.

    Also, The Byrds fired all of their best members. Gene Clark could've been one of the most important people of the entire decade had they kept him in. Crosby was just finding his feet also. But the power struggles meant McGuinn was running the entire show, and ultimately, they became his rubbish experiment.

    The Beatles are my favourite band. The Byrds are also my favourite band. But The Beatles are streets ahead!

    nycwtf
    • avmaxx said...
    • User
    • 29 Nov 2008, 15:49

    Well The Byrds ofcourse!

    There had been many a bands and artists, never been popular but have some awsome numbers under their hoods.
    I remember listening to My Back Pages, and getting confused if it was Bob Dylan palying with The Byrds. It might sound stupid!

  • un sens de l'espace et de la lumière, comme disait Roger McGuinn, propre aux groupes américains.
    Yes, much better ;)

    Qui gardera les gardiens ?
    • Cw4499 said...
    • User
    • 18 Jan 2009, 03:26

    Better than the Beatles???

    Music is in the ear of the Beholder. As far as talent, the Beatles were probably better musicians. The Beatles were also very creative but they were together a long time before they hit the US airwaves and had so much material under their belts, there was never a more prepared group to come on the scene as was the Beatles. The Byrds were more creative than the Beatles, The Byrds of 1970 may have been better musicians than the Beatles. I would rather listen to the Byrds,
    and I really like where the Byrds eventually went with their music. I love listening to Hillman/Pederson and McGuinn as a solo artist, and I love those old Gene Clark Albums, and Crosby has done some nice work.

  • For me

    Yessssssssssss.

  • The Beatles had more great albums, but I think the Byrds' best albums (like Mr. Tambourine Man, Turn! Turn! Turn! and Younger Than Yesterday) are superior to the Beatles' best (and I certainly love a lot of the Beatles' music).

    The jangle pop that the Byrds created as a form was utterly amazing and, IMO, has been the best branch of pop music (jangle pop and it's descendant power pop).

  • Never in a million years were The Byrds better than The Beatles. I love both bands. but The Beatles wrote better songs then The Byrds, if, as has been said, they had kept Gene Clark and David Crosby things MAY have been different, but there's no better composers than Lennon/McCartney, although they wrote most of their songs separately. By the way, The Beatles never played Country/Rock!

    Willie.
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 3 Jun 2010, 22:05
    I like both The Beatles & The Byrds.

  • the beatles are a better band. but the byrds have that awesome sound of the 12 string. but the beatles were more talented as far as diversity, creativity and lyrics. but the byrds are my second favorite band. if mcguinn played in the beatles then that would be a truly magnificent band.

    The Force Inside The Opposites
  • I love both bands, The Beatles being my tops though. I believe The Byrds were just as influential as The Beatles but obviously in different ways. This discussion can go on forever...

Anonymous users may not post messages. Please log in or create an account to post in the forums.