Inspired by the recently revived Englebert Humptydumpty thread, I thought I’d try grinding one of my favourite axes:
Judging comprehensively on a combination of breadth and depth of musical output, on songwriting skill, on sales and fanbase, on radio play and universal appeal and whether your granny recognises them etc…
Who’s the best band ever?
Is it the Beatles?
Is it the Stones?
Nope, nor is it the SmashingPistol HeadPeppers (and it’s definitely not LedBlackPurpleMetalliMaidenDC)
It’s…
ABBA.
But since the only people who take the question seriously are usually straight men, and ABBA tends to appeal more to women and gay men, they’re often unjustly overlooked. If their entire ouvre is insufficient evidence, consider that they wrote all those songs in their second language.
Not sure why I started the thread, really - that’s that discussion done and dusted…
No way do ABBA have greater “breadth and depth of musical output” than The Beatles, I doubt whether many people (except rabid ABBA fans) would agree that they had greater songwriting skill (whose songs have been covered more?), and I very much doubt that they surpass The Beatles in sales, radio play or universal appeal (however that might be quantified). Maybe they might win on the granny-recognition test, if granny happened to be be a teenager in the 1970s.
I am sure ABBA do well on those measures. Perhaps they might even be in second place overall, but beating The Beatles, no way.
On another significant measure of “bestness” (of popular music groups), degree of influence on other musicians, The Beatles would also be at or near the top of the list, and ABBA would be very far down.
Straight male? Nah, forget I asked, it’s none of my business. But you did take the question seriously…
Its true that ‘Yesterday’ has been covered innumerable times…but so has ‘Wonderwall’, and let’s not pretend that either song is the best thing either band produced, not by a long chalk (and yes, I get that Oasis aren’t an ABBA tribute band…)
I don’t doubt that there are individual measures by which one band may do well and others by which they don’t. Consider the problem of a DJ trying to coax punters onto the dancefloor at a wedding do…what will get them up there? Her Majesty or Dancing Queen? Mother’s Little Helper or Mamma Mia? ABBA wins again…and what do we know about winners? They take it all…
Don’t forget that for about a decade or more, ABBA were considered room-clearers. Really, they were reviled. So you can’t really say they have universal appeal.
I get what you’re saying, that there’s a gender bias to these “best band” proclamations, but you can’t seriously be claiming that the Beatles didn’t have a large female fanbase?
So, you start by making an ad hominem attack, then shift your criteria (because you have been shown to be wrong on all of your original ones); and then you stack the deck by comparing one of The Beatles’ least danceable songs to what is probably ABBA’s most danceable. Either you are joking or you are simply being intellectually dishonest.
I will concede that ABBA may beat The Beatles on the average danceability of their oeuvre, but that is because the scope of ABBA’s musical output was so much narrower. ABBA focused mostly on dance tunes, The Beatles did lots of other sorts of stuff (that "breadth and depth of musical output thing again). Furthermore, it is not hard to think of bands whose music is at least as likely to get people up and dancing as ABBA: K.C. and the Sunshine Band, for instance to give an example off the top of my head. (Although I readily concede that ABBA were a far better band overall than KCatSB, perhaps by as a wide a margin as The Beatles were better than ABBA.)
“Yesterday” is far from the only Beatles song that has been widely covered, and I am quite sure that not only “Yesterday” but several of their other songs have been far more widely covered than “Wonderwall”, or any other Oasis song, or any ABBA song. If you really think “Wonderwall” has been covered anything remotely as many times as “Yesterday”, you are just revealing your ignorance. (Although bringing it up at all was a red-herring: just more intellectual dishonesty.)
What would get people up and dancing at a wedding: “Are You Experienced” or “Born to be Alive”? “Hurricane” or “Backstreet’s Back”? “Space Oddity” or “Venus”?
I think you’ll find that’s you - since I started by seeking to confirm my hypothesis in the OP. I am a straight male, if it matters at all, but I wouldn’t think it were attack to ask if someone else, even if the context wasn’t the claim in the OP.
I would have thought the topic itself was obviously intended to be taken lightly, but this is the internet after all and some people need conflict to feel alive.
Wow, so much wrong in so few words
[ul]
[li]The criteria in the OP are examples, as indicated by the word etc[/li][li]Someone has challenged them. With ‘I think’ and ‘most people’ and ‘probably’. In no way, nowhere, is that being “shown to be wrong”.[/li][li]“shown to be wrong” is ‘everything you’ve posted so far’[/li][li]Even the post you refer to doesn’t ‘show’ to be wrong “all” of my original criteria. It actually, if conditionally, concedes the Granny Ranking.[/li][/ul]
Amazingly, it’s the latter, but it’s best to play safe, eh? Not joking about the claim, you understand. Yes, I jokily went for Majesty/Queen (and Mother/Mamma) - that’s poets for you. But the DJ still plays ABBA.
You know the point was partly to highlight that most men see some music as ‘for’ women or ‘for’ gays? (Maybe they do too.) The clue was in the fact (as in actually ‘shown to be true’) that people (by which I mean straight men…) will still argue between the Stones and the Beatles (though there’ll be some determined individualist pitching for CaptainPinkRushRevival or such)
You’re evidently familiar with ABBA’s dance music, and that’s commendable. Now try to dancing to “The Day Before You Came” (lyrical genius to match anything by McCartney - even the Frog Chorus :p) They have other music.
No, I’m revealing my research. Go do some, and then you can ‘show me to be wrong’ with something other than a claim. Except I’ll be shown to be right. Not only has Wonderwall been covered countless times, I can at the drop of a hat point you to versions in genres as diverse as swing, jazz, death metal, punk, country and mongolian throat singing.
Which rooms, when? Oh, the rooms you went to. Who reviled them? Did they, perchance, share any gender or orientation?
But no, appeal can’t be universal if you don’t like them and nor do your mates. Good point, well made…
The Beatles had a considerable female fanbase - that’s why I’m not claiming otherwise. That’s why neither you nor anyone else will find that claim in the OP. What I said was that straight men tend to discount ABBA as music for women and gay men, with the implication that said men are missing out on some great songwriting.
#9 - clearly, I meant ‘former’ when I typed ‘latter’. Although my weakness for flair creates, as art will, a level of ‘dishonesty’, I did not intend to confirm the antagonistic suggestion that my comparisons were “intellectual dishonesty”.
I’m a straight male and I’ll say right now that ABBA were great pop songwriters, and good pop is as valid as any other artform. I too think pop is unfairly dismissed at times.
However, the title of this thread, and the criteria outlined in the OP suggest something different. That argument was they are better than the Beatles on breadth, depth, songwriting, sales and recognition. I only like about 10% of the Beatles’ output and I’d still say there’s no comparison, even objectively. Take a look at this list: List of best-selling music artists - Wikipedia
Wait, how the heck do the Stones even end up in the same category as the Beatles in this discussion? Seriously. I don’t get it.
…I mean, it makes more sense than ABBA, but that’s no great act. Especially if we’re talking about depth of music. The Beatles were all over the map. ABBA… wasn’t. They did dance and pop music. Really good dance and pop music, but could you find as much musical variance in their entire discography as you could on, say, Sgt. Pepper?
I’ve always found the Beatles to be fairly meh, not bad and a few good tunes, but basically just boring. doesn’t really move me either way or another. IMHO of course, there is no objective right or wrong.
Certainly I’ve always preferred the Rolling Stones, I’d definitely take ABBA over the Beatles.
Personally I put forward The Who or Pink Floyd as the greatest.
By any standard ther the “I can dance to it” (right out of the 50s teenagers on American Bandstand), ABBA isn’t in the top 100. Their songs are catchy, but nothing else. Naming better groups is ridiculously easy. Not only the Beatles or Stone, but the Who, the Kinks, Pink Floyd, the Doors, the Grateful Dead, Cream, the Bonzo Dog Band the Talking Heads, U2, Jethro Tull, the White Stripes, Traffic, the Byrds, the Bee Gees, Frank Zappa and the Mothers, the J. Geils Band, Focus, and the Reverend Peyton’s Big Damn Band.
Even most ABBA fans will admit they’re not a great band, but they are fun. They do one thing well, but stick completey to that one thing.
