Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from cavaliersfan. Show cavaliersfan's posts

    Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    George, Paul, John and Ringo vs. Roy Orbison, George Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, and Bob Dylan.  Hummm ???  Pretty close.  Also, to be fair, I have to say, other musicians, not mentioned, participated on certain recordings for both groups.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    Define "as good as The Beatles" -- quality-wise.  What does that imply?   

    The TW's were a supergroup, with each member of the group a well-established musician singer / songwriter in their own right.   I can see comparing them to another supergroup, but I don't see the comparison with the Beatles.  Sorry. 

    Also, there was a thread on the Traveling Wilbury's not long ago.  I'll bump it up for you so you can see the comments; all of the comments were laudatory.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    The Beatles are the better of the two......based on quality and diversity of their catalog of music.

    The Traveling Wilburys were good but not as good as the Beatles......
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    Wow, I just deleted a two page thesis on this subject.

    Bach, Beethoven and the Beatles. There is a good reason why that saying came to be.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    Try as I may, my brain simply refuses to even process the phrase 'as good as the Beatles'.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from gerbs. Show gerbs's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    Fully agree with all responses and yet would like to create more room for a contrarian view by manipulating the question slightly:

    "Was Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 as good as Meet The Beatles?"

    I pick Meet The Beatles as the comparison to avoid discussions of older UK and pre-Capitol releases.  In my view, Beatles still have the edge, but if you can really look at it in isolation, there might be more room for discussion.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    Got to go with Meet the Beatles. At that time they were just kids for the most part, and the Wilburys were very seasoned veterans if you will. For that reason alone I go Beatles.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    Newman hits it high, far, deep - it's a Home Run.

    You cannot compare the albums. Go with Blind Faith vs T.W Vol. 1.

    Now that would be a good discussion.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?

    In Response to Re: Only Considering Quality: Was Traveling Wilburys As Good As The Beatles?:
    [QUOTE]Fully agree with all responses and yet would like to create more room for a contrarian view by manipulating the question slightly: "Was Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 as good as Meet The Beatles?" I pick Meet The Beatles as the comparison to avoid discussions of older UK and pre-Capitol releases.  In my view, Beatles still have the edge, but if you can really look at it in isolation, there might be more room for discussion.
    Posted by gerbs[/QUOTE]

    We all understand that quality is subjective.  And while when they were active I rated the Travelling Wilburys fairly highly (not my musical sweet spot, but obviously high quality and it made me stop hating Jeff Lynn and his stupid falsetto voice....i.e. if the the other 4 rated him I'd obviously missed the plot), it was only about a year ago after I saw a documentary about the band that made me realise that I'd underrated them despite my generally postive view about them.

    But to compare them to the Beatles?  It would never have occured to me.

    I personally think Georgie Best was the greatest footballer ever.....but that's my personal view, I might be wrong, and whether I'm right or wrong Maradona and Pele are a hair's breadth away.

    Jim Brown to me was the best running back ever (and lax player too, even more so) but there's a decent case for....Dickerson?  Sayers? Sanders?

    I personally think Muhammed Ali was the greatest boxer ever.....but that's my personal view, I might be wrong, and whether I'm right or wrong Armstrong and Hagler are a hair's breadth away.

    Baseball batting:  Ruth, but Williams was close.....

    Cycling:  I'd say Eddie Merckx (by a relatively wide margin....), but there's a good case for Hinault (although he proved himself to be a duplicitious See You Next Tuesday, and LeMond.  Armstrong says Merckx...and he's right!  ;-)

    But rock bands?  I personally don't think there is any credible competition to the Beatles....the musical equivalent of 511 pitching wins.  Not even close, and I'm not even a dinosaur rock guy.

    I hope this hasn't sounded rude, I certainly didn't mean to be if I've been.  But I just can't understand the comparision (except in the Haywood/Marc Sullivan "If I owned the Red Sox I'd let my kid play too" sense).  ;-)






     

Share