Greatest Recording Artist of the 1960s: James Brown or the Beatles?

[L.Kizzle]

The sixties, the Revolution was not only televised, it was played in radios all across the country. Rock & Roll was born in the early 50s, and took of to amazing heights in the mid to late 50's. Artist like Elvis, Sam Cooke, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly ect were at the top of the mountain. They paved the way for what was to come in the 1960s'.

You had the Motown Sound and the British Evasion happening at the same time. You had your Otis Reddings, your Bob Dylans, your Jimi Hendrix', your Doors, your Miles Davis', your Sly & the Family Stones, your Rolling Stones all peaking at the right time.


But to me, at the forefront was James Brown and the band from Liverpool, England, the Beatles.

But, who was the greatest? Can you put them one after another? Both have innovative songs, historic songs, huge commercial hits? Lasting power still to this day?


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44863000/jpg/_44863208_e8fedb65-8086-4ccf-9b72-d3c94b9a4745.jpg

http://www.kalamu.com/bol/wp-content/content/images/james%20brown%2056.jpg


Go!

[LJJ]

All the artists you mentioned in your second paragraph are miles ahead of these guys.

[DeuceWallaces]

:oldlol: :oldlol:

[Beatlezz]

:whatever: The Beatles :coleman:

[Budadiiii]

All the artists you mentioned in your second paragraph are miles ahead of these guys.
Really?

[MetsPackers]

Implying James Brown was even better than Hendrix :kobe:


But seriously troll harder its becoming too obvious

[ROCSteady]

Truth be told, I never really cared much for James Brown as strictly a recording artist. His songs are really niche to me, serve best in movies and shit to be honest.

Performance wise is where his legacy becomes deservedly reputable

[Myth]

Wow, no mention of The Beach Boys? They released 15 amazing albums in the 60s with countless hits.

[andgar923]

As 'artists' the Beatles changed music in general.
AS 'artists' the Beatles changed the world with their music.

Hits.... it aint even close.

As 'artists' the Beatles are more creative and innovative. Take almost any album and every song is completely different from the other. They pushed the boundaries, experimented and changed music in the process.

They may have not been the first to do certain things, but they incorporated them in a way that inspired the rest of the music world to imitate.

Beatles.>>>>>> James Brown and it aint really close.

[Nick Young]

in the studio, the beatles. But no doubt James Brown was better live.

[DukeDelonte13]

As 'artists' the Beatles changed music in general.
AS 'artists' the Beatles changed the world with their music.

Hits.... it aint even close.

As 'artists' the Beatles are more creative and innovative. Take almost any album and every song is completely different from the other. They pushed the boundaries, experimented and changed music in the process.

They may have not been the first to do certain things, but they incorporated them in a way that inspired the rest of the music world to imitate.

Beatles.>>>>>> James Brown and it aint really close.


this.

[Jet]

L.Kizzle makes a thread comparing white entertainers to a black one.

To nobody's surprise, L.Kizzle thinks the black entertainer is better.

Agenda accomplished

:rolleyes:

[Dasher]

You have the most important artist in Pop Music History and The Beatles, and people are saying that The Beatles are superior and it isn't even close.


COMEDY

[ROCSteady]

You have the most important artist in Pop Music History and The Beatles, and people are saying that The Beatles are superior and it isn't even close.


COMEDY

Whoa dude where the FLUCK have you been? :cheers:

If you feel that strongly about James Brown, plz post your favorite 1-3 tracks by him in a studio setting, without the aid of his amazing on stage skills.

After all, the thread is premised by Recording Artist greatness and not performance. IMO James Brown was a dynamo of energy but his variance 0f artistic tone left a lil to be desired.

Plz school us on how he was superior to The Beatles and how that translated in an auditory fashion. Thanks in advance :banana:

[L.Kizzle]

As 'artists' the Beatles changed music in general.
AS 'artists' the Beatles changed the world with their music.

Hits.... it aint even close.

As 'artists' the Beatles are more creative and innovative. Take almost any album and every song is completely different from the other. They pushed the boundaries, experimented and changed music in the process.

They may have not been the first to do certain things, but they incorporated them in a way that inspired the rest of the music world to imitate.

Beatles.>>>>>> James Brown and it aint really close.
Wait, so James Brown did change music?

Everything you said here can relate to JB. JB basically created his own genre and countless others he affected.

He changed music from the 12 bar blues tracks to something totally different.

They both were doing something different at the time, that's why I made this thread. They are the best of the 60s.

[Guy Dudebro]

The key words are 'recording artist', both are legends, but The Beatles are the legends of legends, and slow down on the whole James Brown kills them live because bltches were losing their shit at Beatles shows.

Yeah buddy!

[ROCSteady]

B!tches were losin their shit the same way little girls, adolescents, teens, disturbed young adults lose their shit at past Hanson concerts, N'Sync, Bieber & One Direction sell outs. Doesn't mean the act itself was transcendent, although word is N'Sync did some pretty wild shit at their past concerts lmfao.

Just means females have historical precedent for bouts of psychosis when they see their favorite boy band/ entertainer live.

For the record, I still think the Beatles were more impressive as innovative song writers

[Jackass18]

Kizzle wants people to say James Brown, but the answer is The Beatles. I wouldn't bother trying to argue against The Beatles. Not my favs from the '60s, though.

You made this thread just because you want to put James Brown up there with The Beatles? What's next, The Jackson 5 vs. The Beatles?

[Duderonomy]

These guys http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/sep09/images/ClassicTracks_02.jpg

[Guy Dudebro]

B!tches were losin their shit the same way little girls, adolescents, teens, disturbed young adults lose their shit at past Hanson concerts, N'Sync, Bieber & One Direction sell outs. Doesn't mean the act itself was transcendent, although word is N'Sync did some pretty wild shit at their past concerts lmfao.

Just means females have historical precedent for bouts of psychosis when they see their favorite boy band/ entertainer live.

For the record, I still think the Beatles were more impressive as innovative song writers


Nah B, bltches were LOSIN their shit at Beatles concerts, not just a bunch of not quite grass on the field girlies goin gaga for cutie pies, this was adult women.

Yeah buddy!

[andgar923]

Wait, so James Brown did change music?

Everything you said here can relate to JB. JB basically created his own genre and countless others he affected.

He changed music from the 12 bar blues tracks to something totally different.

They both were doing something different at the time, that's why I made this thread. They are the best of the 60s.

No not really.

Was JB innovative? sure
Did he inspire many great artists? sure
Did he have an array of hits? sure

But not at the level nor magnitude that the Beatles did, not close dude.

Beatles changed the way music writing was even thought of, the way music was recorded, engineered, they are considered to have pioneered or introduced various genres and styles, as some have said in the past, they opened the door to a door artists didn't even know existed.

JB stayed within his realm and genre, the Beatles were doing a rockabilly song, followed by a Motown inspired song, then have orchestral arrangements and recording techniques that weren't even thought of all within the same albums. Following albums they followed up again with innovative songwriting techniques not used in popular music, arrangements not heard of in popular music, transitions that were beyond most artist's intent, etc.etc.

JB's albums are almost all the same format and genre.

It's hard to categorize the Beatles. Even if they didn't straight up invent new genres or styles, they MADE them.

So while there may be a legit argument as to whether or not The Beatles invented punk, garage, progressive, heavy metal, rockabilly, emo, electronica/dance and even reggae rock.... they MADE those genres/styles what they are.

[Overdrive]

James Brown's body of work is too one-dimensional. I don't know his input into the actual music. I know it's been his compositions, I know he did the arrengements for his livegigs, minute for minute second for second, to make it seem to be a loose jam, but infact it was more of an opera, but the thing I don't know if he actually came up with the rhythm sections way to perform his songs, because this is what actually changed the music from 12-bar blues to funk.

The Beatles spanned from Chuck Berry covers to basically the invention of Prog within a decade. They kept influencing artist for decades and still do. In contemporary music James Brown's influences a niche of music that hasn't changed much since the 70s.

All that said, I still love James Brown.

[L.Kizzle]

No not really.

Was JB innovative? sure
Did he inspire many great artists? sure
Did he have an array of hits? sure

But not at the level nor magnitude that the Beatles did, not close dude.

Beatles changed the way music writing was even thought of, the way music was recorded, engineered, they are considered to have pioneered or introduced various genres and styles, as some have said in the past, they opened the door to a door artists didn't even know existed.

JB stayed within his realm and genre, the Beatles were doing a rockabilly song, followed by a Motown inspired song, then have orchestral arrangements and recording techniques that weren't even thought of all within the same albums. Following albums they followed up again with innovative songwriting techniques not used in popular music, arrangements not heard of in popular music, transitions that were beyond most artist's intent, etc.etc.

JB's albums are almost all the same format and genre.

It's hard to categorize the Beatles. Even if they didn't straight up invent new genres or styles, they MADE them.

So while there may be a legit argument as to whether or not The Beatles invented punk, garage, progressive, heavy metal, rockabilly, emo, electronica/dance and even reggae rock.... they MADE those genres/styles what they are.
This is all true about the Beatles, but not about JB.

I made this thread specially because these are the two greatest artist if the 60s.

[LJJ]

So while there may be a legit argument as to whether or not The Beatles invented punk, garage, progressive, heavy metal, rockabilly, emo, electronica/dance and even reggae rock.... they MADE those genres/styles what they are.

http://i.imgur.com/dBsKFOe.gif

[LJJ]

Really?

Yes really.


James Brown was great at a number of things. He had impeccable taste and was a great assembler of talent. He was a great live entertainer. He was a great business man. In regards to everything that encompasses being an artist? I feel like James Brown was always surrounded by better artists than he actually was himself. This entire thread is about being an important record artist. In that sense it's a very damning thing when even most fans of his work will tell you not to get any of his albums. Just get two of his famous live albums and get a good greatest hits collection and you are golden. When people say "James Brown is one of the most important artists ever", what they really mean is James Brown with all his band members and all his songwriters and producers. And then suddenly you are talking about a group of 100 people. Sounds less impressive when you put it that way doesn't it? James Brown the person might be the binding factor in that, but at the end of the day people are giving Brown a lot of credit that isn't his.


The Beatles are a peculiar band in terms of their rep. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time while at the same time they were very capable musicians who made important contributions to pop music. The combination of their hype as pop superstars and their real contributions on a musical level have melted together into this larger than level of hype for their work that is comical in it's exaltedness. You get crazy people making fools of themselves telling people that the Beatles pioneered dozens of different musical styles and are the foundation for all modern music.
The truth is that The Beatles are the important origin of the powerpop genre. They can claim that, and it's a very important style of music that has stood the test of time.
But that's it, that's what they did. If you actually listen to their records you'll hear that their sound is very consistent, it's all in the same vein. It's nothing like for instance their contemporaries the Byrds, or Bob Dylan. Artists who made records so different that you almost can't believe they are the same performers. The Beatles are nothing like that, they made light pop music their entire career. A genre they helped define, but their status in regards to everything else is quite ludicrous. And you can see it further in their careers: Lennon became a pretty good singer/songwriter. Harrison became a pretty good soft-rocker. McCartney became a pretty good continuation of powerpop. Nothing particularly groundbreaking or trailblazing there.

[L.Kizzle]

Yes really.


James Brown was great at a number of things. He had impeccable taste and was a great assembler of talent. He was a great live entertainer. He was a great business man. In regards to everything that encompasses being an artist? I feel like James Brown was always surrounded by better artists than he actually was himself. This entire thread is about being an important record artist. In that sense it's a very damning thing when even most fans of his work will tell you not to get any of his albums. Just get two of his famous live albums and get a good greatest hits collection and you are golden. When people say "James Brown is one of the most important artists ever", what they really mean is James Brown with all his band members and all his songwriters and producers. And then suddenly you are talking about a group of 100 people. Sounds less impressive when you put it that way doesn't it? James Brown the person might be the binding factor in that, but at the end of the day people are giving Brown a lot of credit that isn't his.


The Beatles are a peculiar band in terms of their rep. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time while at the same time they were very capable musicians who made important contributions to pop music. The combination of their hype as pop superstars and their real contributions on a musical level have melted together into this larger than level of hype for their work that is comical in it's exaltedness. You get crazy people making fools of themselves telling people that the Beatles pioneered dozens of different musical styles and are the foundation for all modern music.
The truth is that The Beatles are the important origin of the powerpop genre. They can claim that, and it's a very important style of music that has stood the test of time.
But that's it, that's what they did. If you actually listen to their records you'll hear that their sound is very consistent, it's all in the same vein. It's nothing like for instance their contemporaries the Byrds, or Bob Dylan. Artists who made records so different that you almost can't believe they are the same performers. The Beatles are nothing like that, they made light pop music their entire career. A genre they helped define, but their status in regards to everything else is quite ludicrous. And you can see it further in their careers: Lennon became a pretty good singer/songwriter. Harrison became a pretty good soft-rocker. McCartney became a pretty good continuation of powerpop. Nothing particularly groundbreaking or trailblazing there.
If not JB or the Beatles, who's the greatest artist if the 60s?

You said in an earlier post all the names I mentioned in the second paragraph in OP. That was.

Otis Redding, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Miles Davis, Sly & the Family Stone, The Rolling Stones and you mentioned the Byrds. You think they're all >> than the Beatles and JB?

[LJJ]

If not JB or the Beatles, who's the greatest artist if the 60s?

You said in an earlier post all the names I mentioned in the second paragraph in OP. That was.

Otis Redding, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Miles Davis, Sly & the Family Stone, The Rolling Stones and you mentioned the Byrds. You think they're all >> than the Beatles and JB?

well, I don't think it's particularly true for The Doors or Redding.

I wouldn't use Miles Davis to represent Jazz, I would use Coltrane and probably another 50 or so more ahead of Davis. And even if I was a fan of Miles, he peaked in the 50s rather than the 60s.

Furthermore, it's hard to answer the question because the greatest can factor in many different things. James Brown and the Beatles both were pivotal figures in their respective styles and very influential. The Beatles wrote a couple of great records and Brown is a legendary live performer. If you are talking about a direct comparison to the qualities those guys had, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix tick most of the boxes The Beatles and Brown tick, but they also have many additional qualities over them. Someone like Coltrane doesn't match up in terms of sheer influence and popularity, but he's the guy who brought music as a whole to new levels to a much greater extent than any of them. So it depends in what you prefer. To me the only thing that's truly an important criteria is the extent to which I personally enjoy the music.

[Norcaliblunt]

But that's it, that's what they did. If you actually listen to their records you'll hear that their sound is very consistent, it's all in the same vein. It's nothing like for instance their contemporaries the Byrds, or Bob Dylan. Artists who made records so different that you almost can't believe they are the same performers. The Beatles are nothing like that, they made light pop music their entire career. A genre they helped define, but their status in regards to everything else is quite ludicrous. And you can see it further in their careers: Lennon became a pretty good singer/songwriter. Harrison became a pretty good soft-rocker. McCartney became a pretty good continuation of powerpop. Nothing particularly groundbreaking or trailblazing there.

Lol. Yer Blues and Helter Skelter isn't "light pop music" and sound nothing like Blackbird or Julia, all songs which are on the same freaking record. To say the Beatles have no variance or variety in their music is laughable.

[TheMan]

All the artists you mentioned in your second paragraph are miles ahead of these guys.
You just went full retard