I've become increasingly convinced that the Grammys' sole purpose for existence is to give people something to complain about. I mean, no one's opinion of any musician has ever been altered by finding out that that artist won a Grammy, but if the old fogies who run the joint give an award to the wrong person, we can moan about it till the cows come home. This year, we didn't even need to wait for the show to start.

When I picked up Paul McCartney's recent album New, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Which is weird, right? I mean, it's Paul McCartney, one of the greatest songwriters of all-time. Why would it be surprising that he made a great album. The likely culprit is the specter of the Beatles.

It's impossible to think about anything any Beatle did in their solo career without thinking of the music they made together. The four of them combined to make the greatest band of all time. That's why it's easy to be underwhelmed - in theory at least - by McCartney's latest efforts. No matter how good it is, it'll never be anywhere near the quality of Abbey Road or Revolver. because almost nothing is.

So, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's create an alternate universe where the Beatles never exist, but the solo works of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr still do. "But John, that's impossible!" Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it! That's what being a music blogger is all about! Admittedly, it would involve taking some liberties. It's difficult to account for the number of solo Beatles songs that were written about the other Beatles, or the experience of being in the Beatles, but that makes up a rather small portion of each Beatle's respective solo catalog. Now that that's settled, let's look at the individual careers of the Fab Four, and try to figure out how we might perceive them if the Beatles had never happened.

Paul's career would likely be viewed much more favorably, because it would eliminate the "Silly Love Songs" problem. Paul has always been derided for writing allegedly lightweight music compared to the more serious, political works of John, and to a lesser extent George. This has never been fair. For one thing, Paul's music, while not necessarily political in tone (although there was "Give Ireland Back To The Irish"), was undeniably deep. Just because he was singing about his pleasant home life with Linda rather than advocating for world peace doesn't mean there wasn't anything behind the surface. Songs like "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "Heart Of The Country" are among the most thoughtful meditations on the nature of love and family ever written.

With the Lennon comparison gone, we'd compare McCartney's music to his more logical contemporaries; people like Harry Nilsson, Todd Rundgren, and Elton John. McCartney's solo work has included elements of all their works, and has likely bested them all. Without the Beatles connection, we would look at McCartney's solo career, and see one of the best songwriters of his era.

As for John, we'd still love his music, but the conversation about him changes entirely. His first non-Beatles work was the avant-garde Wedding Album with Yoko Ono, which I am convinced no one has ever actually listened to. Then, he went on to make the abrasive Plastic Ono Band, a brilliant record that would nonetheless scare the crap out of anyone only familiar with his Beatles work. "Well Well Well" and "Mother" alone would have established him as one of the more dangerous songwriters around.

Imagine was where his work began to become more commercial, even if the political themes were still around. As he got older, he talked politics less and less, and made more music about family life. Really, his later records are more similar to McCartney's than we might realize.

Without the Beatles, we'd look at John Lennon is an angry, difficult artist who sold out later in his career instead of appreciating Walls And Bridges and Double Fantasy for what they were. We'd deride him for not talking about John Sinclair, or screaming about his mom anyway. In this world, Paul and John switch positions. Paul would become the established, canonized genius, while John be trashed for abandoning his protest music to write, well, silly love songs.

George and Ringo are a bit tricky to think about. George's solo career was starkly similar to that of the former Cat Stevens. two strong early records that established him as a songwriter of note (All Things Must Pass and Living In The Material World), followed by an inconsistent stretch of good-but-not-great records in the mid to late 70s. Then, he largely abandoned pop music to focus on his spiritual life. I mean, really, save for the comeback with Cloud Nine, George Harrison and Cat Stevens basically had the same career. So, if he was never a Beatle, I'd imagine he had a following and respect similar to what Stevens had

As for Ringo, one might wonder if we'd care about his solo work at all had he not been the drummer for the Beatles, but really, it wasn't as worthless as one might think. 1973's Ringo was a joyous glam-pop record, and the follow-up Goodnight Vienna was surprisingly strong as well. My guess is Ringo lives on as a minor 70s songwriter, and his best records gain a reasonable cult following.

Being in the greatest band of all-time is, to use a dreadful cliche, a blessing and a curse. John, Paul, George, and Ringo made some of the most brilliant music of the last century together, and when they disbanded, all of their solo work existed in the shadow of what they accomplished as the Beatles. Removing their individual works from that context allows to really consider the work they made as individual human beings. We can appreciate the Beatles forever, but we should also admire the genius they were capable of as individual human beings.

It's generally accepted that music is subjective. Which is to say there is no concrete proof that one musical artist is superior to another and that it's all just a matter if personal taste and opinion. With that said, we do tend to reach consensus on certain things. Some bands are just accepted as being great, while others are widely considered to be terrible. It doesn't mean these opinions become facts, it just means that they start carrying a bit more weight.

One such consensus involves the greatness of The Beatles. Indeed, if you got hundreds of musicians and critics all in a room and asked them who the greatest band to ever walk the earth, The Beatles would take it, and it wouldn't be close.


But are they greatest band of all-time? I mean, is there any objective way we could try to determine that? Well, that's what I'm here for! Let's look at what we know about the Beatles and their legacy, and try to determine if they really are the all-time number one. I should mention form the start the Beatles aren't my personal favorite band, but they are pretty high up there. Still, my personal opinion of their music is only part of the rubric.

First, let's talk about influence. In this category, they're pretty much unparalleled. Just about every modern band was shaped by the Beatles in one way or another. Some bands were influenced by their immense talent for catchy melodies, while others were moved by their ability to try anything. But really, no band has impacted music in the last 40 years more than the Beatles have. Okay, they're looking pretty good so far.


Originality is a no brainer as well. Sure, they were borrowing a bit from 50s rock n roll artists in their early albums, but once 1966 rolled around, they were inventing sounds and genres left and right. When they released "I Should've Known Better" in 1964, they pretty much invented power pop. Three years later, they would play a pivotal role in the creation of psychedelic rock. In general, there was a sense that the Beatles were willing to try anything, and that meant they were the first to try a lot of things.

This would lead into another key category: diversity. On any given record, the Beatles were prone try out 5 or 6 styles of music. They weren't burdened by any notions of what rock or pop was supposed to be, so they integrated anything and everything. From the 1920's pastiche of "Honey Pie," to the aggressive proto-punk of "Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey," to the overwhelming sound mashup of "Revolution #9," they were game for anything.

Taking all of this into consideration, there is a damn good case that the Beatles really were the greatest band of all-time. of course, that doesn't make it true. There's still concrete proof that they're better than Radiohead, Neutral Milk Hotel, or hell, even Insane Clown posse. But the career the put together is amazing, and to this day, it remains unmatched.

Ah, the double album: home to musical over-reach in the highest order. Whether it's Axl deciding Guns N Roses biggest flaw was that not enough of their songs went over 9 minutes, or The Clash abandoning any primitive notions of punk's accessibility with the triple-album Sandinista, when a band make's an album that goes over the allotted running time, it tends to be a sign that they've gotten ambitious, and sometimes it means they've gotten too ambitious.


If you read the reviews for most double or triple albums, you're going to find countless critics talking about how much better things would've been if they had just left it at one disc. There's always that thought of "well, it was good, but there's so much filler." In a way, that's understandable; double albums are a heavy undertaking for the listener, but when critics go after the double album for its scope they tend be missing the point. Sure, it's easy to look at some of the worse tracks on Use Your Illusion I and II ("Back Off Bitch" and "Shotgun Blues" in particular just come of as dull), but there's something to be said for the scope of the project. Guns N Roses didn't want to just show that they were serious musicians, they wanted to show that they fully deserved the title of "biggest band on the planet." Did they succeed? Not entirely, but they made an intriguing album that, despite its flaws, should be admired having such a broad scope and trying to make something truly epic.



And let's be honest, suppose those overreaching double albums were brought down to single-disc status. Would we really be in pieces? I doubt it. The whole point of criticism is to find some holes to poke in whatever it is your reviewing. Take Weezer's self-titled debut album. There really isn't a single weak track on there, but "Holiday" is a bit less awesome than the rest, so it gets singled out as the "bad" song on the album, even though it's a perfectly fine power-pop number that would've been the best song by far on any Weezer album since Make Believe. Same goes for every classic Beatles albums. At various points I've heard "Within You Without You," "When I'm Sixty Four," and "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" referred to as the black sheep on an otherwise flawless record. Really though, all of those songs have some value, and contribute to the album's feel in one way or another. Critics are always going to find things to not like about albums. Turning double albums into single albums won't change that. Maybe some lengthier efforts do get over-stuffed with second-rate material, but if that's the price I have to pay to see musicians expand their horizons, I'm more than happy to pay it.

When looking at the history of music, it's always tempting to contemplate what would've happened if things had gone differently. What if you're favorite band never broke up? What if one of your favorite underground bands had made it big? We can't help but contemplate these things, and today, I'm going to attempt to answer these questions to the best of my abilities with a rousing string of musical what ifs.

1. What If The Beatles Never Broke Up?  As much as we like to think of the Beatles dissolution as a tragedy, it was probably the best option for everyone involved. They had begun to resent each other, and everyone (especially John and Paul) was stifling the creative process of everyone else. That's what happens when you have multiple geniuses in the same band; they're both going to want total creative control and they're going to spend a lot fo time butting heads. By splitting him, the beatles thrived as solo artists, and they made the masterpieces they wouldn't have been able to make if they had stayed together. My guess is, if they had stayed together, we would've still gotten some great albums, and some of the best solo Beatles songs would've made those albums, but the overall body of work wouldn't be as impressive as what we have now.

2. What if Kurt Cobain never commits suicide? Yeah, it's a spooky one, but come on, you've thought about. One thing that was clear from listening to In Utero, was that Cobain wanted to be as non-commercial as possible. He hated all the mainstream fans who had latched onto Nirvana when "Smells Like Teen Spirit" became a smash, and he wanted to shake them off as quickly as possible, so he made a very diificult, but ultimately rewarding third album. My guess is, if Kurt had lived, he would've continued going further in that direction. The few radio friendly singles of In Utero would've been gone in favor of more brutal, uncompromising work. A fourth Nirvana album likely would've been very experimental, and gotten rave reviews from critics, but it wouldn't have found much of an audience.. and Cobain would've been thrilled.


3. What if The Replacements had gotten huge? The beloved Minnesota indie-rockers might be the most famous "should've been huge" band ever, and listening to their output, it's hard not to disagree with that sentiment. Albums like Tim and Pleased To Meet Me are filled with tracks that should've been huge hits, but somehow it never happened, as the band only scored one minor hit with 1989's "I'll Be You." But suppose they had gotten big? I think they would've handled it pretty well. Unlike Cobain, Westerberg didn't cling to the romantic notion of being an underground artist. He was okay with not being huge, but he woukd've loved being huge just as well. If Tim, their first really, really accessible album had broken through, they probably would've been one of the bigger bands of the late 80s. You could picture Westerberg's undeniable hooks bridging the gap between alternative rock, and mainstream rock, and the Mats would've had the breakout that Nirvana did, and they migth have been better suited to handle it. Then again, they were notorious drunks, and they probably would've had some onstage meltdowns that would make Billie Joe's recent meltdown look like child's play.

1. 

OK, this isn't specifically a "buffaBLOG list," it's my weekly column in the form of a list that reflects my lapsed Catholicism, fondness for dark humor, and capacity for easy amusement...so sue me. Anyway, All Soul's Day. An explanation for the heathen among us: not to be confused with the dubious "holiday" Beggar's Night, All Soul's Day is two days after Halloween, following All Saint's Day and All Hallow's Eve. Basically those crafty Catholics piggybacked a few of their high holy days onto a spooky pagan hootenanny to create a high holy trifecta: the congregation gets to get their ya ya's out evil style before honoring the saints (who are dead by their nature) and then everybody else who's dead. Dia de la muertos. Beautiful stuff really when you think about it.So now that you're ready to scrub some tombstones tomorrow, here's a thoroughly incomplete list of rock stars who happen to be dead and deserving of a moments respect....

John and George.




Carl and Dennis.



Jimi



Bonham.


Marvin.


Plus Syd, Jerry, Bob, Ian, Elvis, Otis, Duane, Keith, John, Freddie, Frank, Bon, Joey, Dee Dee, Johnny, Kurt, Jam Master, Biggie, Tupac, Michael, Whitney, Dimebag, and Mama Cass. 

And we're done. 

Actually, if you want to add any that I've missed to show that you're the clever one, go nuts in the comment section. Make a drinking game out of it. Knock yourselves out.