Links between the two have already been discussed.
But which, in your opinion, is the greater band?

Remember: The Fall never did anything as naff as Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

Though both bands recorded different songs called Birthday.

Both groups use typographic characters on songtitles, as for example the American character for number (#). The Beatles used it once to title their Revolution. Through the years many Fall records came out with numbered versions of their songs, so on Hex, Bend, TRNFLP and a few more. I like these tricky typographic specialities that is one reason to vote for The Fall.

A DAY IN THE LIFE - both bands tie on this one
in terms of sheer northern english brilliance as far as im concerned -
ill get me clogs...

Alternatively you could just say that The Fall are really very good and The Beatles aren't.

:o
Someone voted no!!!!
Track them down!!! Infidel!!!

And without citing any evidence, either!

I love the Fall more than any other group ever and probably better than most things on this earth. However, let me just take a minute to defend the Beatles. Their music may have become over-familiar to us, and it is also undeniable that quite a few of their songs are sentimental codswallop. On the other hand, loads of the melodies are memorable and original, the playing isn't bad, and they paved some of the way (not all, by any means) for groups folowing them. If you take their best songs and play them back to back, you are left with a solid body of excellent and inspiring music. And millions of people agree with me on this. Which isn't to say that I don't prefer the Fall, or even Magazine or Wire. But it seems to me unfair to knock the Beatles. They're better than Coldplay, in any case!

I agree with you. I wasn't knocking the Beatles at all. Far from it: I was really asking "Is the band considered the all-time greatest actually better or worse than the group most of us here love rather a lot?" The fact that Fall fans are obviously biased is nicely counterbalanced by the fact that much of the rest of the world rates the moptops so highly...

Coldplay are indeed disturbingly mediocre, if not quite as average as the quite alarmingly conservative Stereophonics.

One more thing: when and why was it decided by the media that there was one band that was "better" than all others and that this group was the Beatles?

Yes - respect to The Beatles!

It was around 1983 that TV Personalities brought out a single or LP called Bigger than the Beatles.
Okay, they did not proclaim that they were better.

I'd say there are at least 10 bands as good and arguably better than The Beatles.

I think that there are bands/artists more important, more prolific and who contributed more to the evolution of popular music.

The Beatles are just easy listening - Cliff Richard was more adventurous in his day.

A ridiculous thing to say, but impressively ridiculous, nonetheless!

I have never been fond of the Beatles. Suppose i would have had to be a teen in the 60's to appreciate them fully. I really can't stand Paul McCarthney. I see he's on the cover of this months Uncut which is enough to put me off buying it. I also don't like the way Record Collector/Mojo/Uncut put the supposedly fab four on their covers every second month simply to boost sales (would I do the same if I was in their position? sadly most probably yes just for the cash or job security!) I love The Fall and so have to say that for me they are the best band ever and I wouldn't swap them for The Beatles. No way sir.
I do like the stones though.

I prefer the Stones too, but they shoulda retired about 3 decades ago.

Stones are great, but they're more of a singles band. It's funny with the Beatles; as a Scouser, I'm even more aware of the ridiculous unjustified reverence surrounding them. It seems as though it's now fashinable to not like them, seeing as they are so widely-regarded as being great, which of course is silly.

Agree that much of their output is rubbish, saccharine boy-band crap, though A Day In The Life and parts of the white album are undeniably genius.

I mean, if the Pixies were as popular, you'd probably think of them in the same way. Be honest.

Prefer Macca to Lennon or Harrison, but I think Brian Wilson is the IMMESURABLY superior artist. Try this: whistle the vocal melody from the first track on Pet Sounds, then the first track on Sgt Pepper. Then compare the second tracks on both albums, and so on, until you are convinced of the Truth!

Sorry, but I find Pet Sounds one of the most overrated records in the history of pop music. I am not saying it's bad, simply that its perennial place in the critics' top ten is misguided. For me, it lacks bite, just sort of drifts along. The B. Boys produced a whole line of great singles...that's how the band are best for me.

It was an album, and it was actually entitled "they could have been bigger than the beatles", which meant they weren't, which is a shame cos the tv personalities have always been a billionth times better than the beatles...

have you seen the prettiest girl in the world?

:whistle:

thx for the corrected title. The TV Personalities were nice guys. I remember a strong performance in 1984 and very fine melodies.

And you know they shared their bass player...with the swell maps...whose second album was entitled..."jane from occupied europe"!!!
ok I'm sorry I really had to mention it

I dont like comparing the fall to the beatles or vice versa. The beatles music is as mes would say "a different kettle of fish entirely"............i love that phrase!......typically northern! :D

I like it too. :D I think I've even used it once or twice. Of course I am also a northerner (northern U.S., that is).

I was quite fond of the Beatles in my early teens, after a few years of my dad really liking them and me not being able to see what all the fuss was about. Probably the main problem now, as others have suggested, is sheer overexposure. I still quite fancy a lot of the later material — the earlier R&R stuff pales in comparison to the Rolling Stones, who while not as innovative as the Beatles did the attitude thing so much better. Definitely more partial to the Stones on the whole, despite their over-elongated career.

It does seem like the Beatles were responsible for a lot of important things — bands writing their own material (8/14 songs on Please Please Me were originals), conceiving an album as more than singles & leftovers (Rubber Soul, arguably), and using the studio as an instrument (Revolver). Of course, Chuck Berry for instance wrote his own stuff, Frank Sinatra had been doing "concept albums" practically since the introduction of the LP, and Pet Sounds preceded Revolver by a few months. Even so, I think the Beatles really were pretty singular in setting so many trends, even if they didn't do things first.

As far as the comparison with the Fall goes, I obviously don't like the Beatles as well, but I doubt that means much. In terms of the development of music (whether it's gone well or badly is open to question), the Beatles are simply more important. They are part of the continuity of rock history in the way that the Fall will never be (the latter seem to exist on their own plane). On the other hand, I was a bit annoyed when one Amazon reviewer of the All Music Guide to Rock accused it of "out-of-proportion reviews (3+ pages on The Fall, about the same as for the Beatles!)." I mean, who's had more output here?!?

I like Maxwell's Silver Hammer. It's rather charming and not exactly meant to be taken seriously. Is something naff just because it's harmless?

Sorry, I just think the Beatles are pedestrian overated crap. Given the choice what Psychedelic album would you choose: Sergeant Peppers or The 13th Floor Elevators "Easter Everywhere". I know what one would grace my turntable and which one my bin. Likewise regardless of its parody sleeve i would rather have "Meet the Residents" than "With the Beatles". :rolleyes:

Wasn’t it Jowe Head on bass? Very great pumping bass lines during the 30 minutes lasting medley on stage in 1984.

But surely A Day In The Life is a thing of utter loveliness?

Yes, yes it is :applaud:

So is Strawberry Fields Forever...and Happiness is a Warm Gun. and I'm so Tired..."curse Sir Walter Raleigh...he was such a stupid get": great line.

Yes it was... you're so lucky you saw them live, I wish I had been born in 1984!

Yeah, the Swell Maps were truly unique. Quick, someone do a Swell maps poll! :D

Yes, like "is nikki sudden's haircut better than MES's???" I would say no, but this is highly arguable...

I am still very positive with this 1984 gig. A couple of years later, around 1992, the night with the group who could be bigger than the beatles, was very boring.

the only thing worse than the beatles are beatles fans :finger: :gun: B)

and new model army fans................
:banghead:

I don't know if many people on this board would call themselves Beatles 'fans'.

Fall fans maybe? Me mates a hardcore Beatles fan, and he bores the arse off me, as much as I do him going on about the fall, I imagine :D

I find that rather than being an inspiring juxtaposition, the childlike tune and nasty lyrics clash in an unpleasant way. The whole thing seems somehow... pointless. And you're the first person I've ever known to like it!

Revived to accompany Rex's best album poll...

Give credit where credit is due, Stephen. You were the one to point out we needed a Beatles poll, I just did the gruntwork. :D