The Beatles

He produced Lou Reed's 'Transformer' album. But it is really the Beatles historical importance, rather than them musically influencing other artists I was emphasising. Before the Beatles, British popular music was Lonnie Donegan, Tommy Steele and Cliff Richard and they were not going to set the world on fire.

It was at the height of psychedelia - lots of lysergic acid diethylamide being taken.

It’s a very strange film, I’d suspect whoever wrote it and animated it was on a wild trip somewhere….

Bowie was influenced by John Lennon (and I find the songs he wrote ok, just not what I enjoy  listening to, while I actively dislike those written by Paul McCartney) however he was also influenced by many other artists including Pink Floyd front man Syd Barrett, Marc Bolan, Velvet Underground, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Iggy Pop, and The Legendary Stardust Cowboy (Ziggy Stardust was an amalgamation of the last two)

Much of the dialogue in Yellow Submarine was written by Roger McGough. He was a close friend and bandmate of Mike, Paul McCartney's brother. He was at Paul's 21st birthday party, when John Lennon notoriously punched the manager of The Cavern club.

Without the Beatles, David Bowie's career would not have been possible. Ignoring anyone's likes or dislikes, the Beatles were essential to the process that allowed British popular music to operate on a par with that of the USA.

I don't like them, don't like any of their songs and can't understand why they are seen to be so great.

I have never listened to a Taylor Swift song so I cannot make any judgement about her career, but I believe that David Bowie contributed far more to the world of music than any other artist.

Whenever they are mentioned I instantly replay parts of the yellow submarine film in my mind and the lines some of the band would say. The music was memorable though of course. They weren’t at their peak during my time but my family never moved on from 60s/70s/80s music so they passed their tastes down to me. 

They're not "the pinnacle" but I can't think of another band that pushed things forward as much as they did in such a short period. I see what you are saying about Taylor Swift and you can't deny how insanely successful she's been. Her music clearly means a huge amount to many people but from what I have heard, I don't find anything new, or particularly remarkable about it. She does what she does, very well and has probably paved the way for the number of hugely successful female solo artists around at the moment but musically I just don't hear anything  interesting.

And I don't even remember a ime when all the Beatles were alive (John was shot 8 months after I was born). The day I realised I was now older than he had ever  been was quite a shock! 

You're not "supposed to" think they are the best band ever. What you think is entirely up to you. Many do consider them the best there's been and I would probably agree but everyone has their own taste and I couldn't care less if other people think something else.

For me, they were head and shoulders above anything else at the time. I think that splitting up in 1970 (they did everything they ever did in just 7 years!) probably helps the mythos as it wasn't allowed to get stale and plodding and they never reformed.

Then you have the interpersonal relationships between them which were fascinating, the sheer coincidence of three songwriters of such incredible ability all meeting each other as kids. The fact that they got so enormous globally, and remain so to this day.

Being a Beatles fan gives you this incredibly rich set of things to consider and it's all neatly contained between 1963 and 1970. I like loads and loads of different artists but I will always come back to the Beatles and I can read endless books, listen to podcasts etc about them and learn new stuff.

The Beatles are the reason that British popular music exists in the way that it has done since 1963. Without them, British popular music might have been on a par with that of the French or Germans. They were the trailblazers in making British music relevant worldwide. Think of the acts that were pulled along in their immediate wake: Rolling Stones, Animals, Hollies, Donovan, The Who, Small Faces etc. etc.

They were also very witty, with a mordant Scouse humour. Not that many rock/pop acts have ever managed that.

As an illustration of just how good they were, listen to 'Rain' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK5G8fPmWeA . This was the B-side on a single ('Paperback Writer') and not even released on an album, for most other bands it would have been a major composition and a major release.

At two decades, TS isn't exactly breaking any records. McCartney has been going for 68 years. Maybe TS is only getting warmed up.

See for me i had the pleasure of working with some Merseybeat stars that made me a musican but Taylor swift taught me to never give up even when it’s seems like the wkrld is against you 

I’ve always found it a bit of a cliché to put The Beatles on this unreachable pedestal, as if no music before or since could ever matter as much. Of course they were talented, and of course they changed the landscape of popular music in the 60s, but I’ve never quite bought into the idea that they are the pinnacle of what music can be. For me, it feels more exciting to discover and support new artists who are creating fresh sounds right now, rather than circling back to a band that’s been talked about for sixty years straight.

I’ll give them credit though, they did have an unusually consistent catalogue, and not every group from that era could say the same. Most of the other Merseybeat bands faded out quickly while The Beatles managed to stay inventive and relevant during their run. Still, when people talk about them as “the greatest ever,” it almost shuts down the conversation about everything that’s come since. Music didn’t peak in 1969.

That’s why I find Taylor Swift such an interesting comparison. She’s managed to reinvent herself across genres, stay relevant for two decades, and has built a global fan base that goes far beyond a “moment.” You could argue she has matched or even surpassed the Beatles in terms of cultural reach, especially when you see fans standing outside her sold-out stadium shows just to listen. That kind of longevity and impact across generations is rare.

As for the band members themselves, I agree that Paul’s role was huge in shaping the band. John’s brilliance often worked best in contrast with Paul’s structure and drive. George really only seemed to hit his full stride later on, with his solo work and the Traveling Wilburys. It makes me think the myth of the Beatles as “untouchable legends” is more complicated than people like to admit.

So yes, they’re an important band, but I’d rather celebrate artists who are writing the story of music now rather than revisiting the same old narrative forever.

I LOVE The Beatles. It was The Beatles that made me become a musician in the first place. I would be lost without that band, 

I've seen so many Beatles tribute bands over the years, 

They were very important in music history for sure. The songwriting, recording techniques, and the way songs are sung and performed. If it weren't for The Beatles, music wouldn't be what it is today.  A lot of people wouldn't be musicians in general, in my opinion 

I have a collection of Beatles vinyl records and a bunch of other stuff. I also have a Hofner Violin Bass, just like McCartney's (right-handed though) 

They certainly were a big influence on my musicianship for sure 

Please can you explain your above post, it makes no sense whatsoever?

I like some of their music but not everything. One of my favourites is Let It Be and another is Here Comes the Sun. Great group but I don't think they're the best band.

They define my did they were the first band that refused to be swifites by a genre 

I think theye made a massive contribution to pop music, but I don't want to listen to them as I don't actually like their music.