its hard to judge who is more original really. cuz they did different stuff than each other. if by more original you mean "more unique in comparison to their contemporaries", then bjork defintely gets that. tho the beatles were very experimental, they never took their entire musical sound in such a unique and creative way (not saying that its a bad thing) in the way bjork did at least, save maybe sgt pepper's. they made pop music with a creative bent.
As far as I know Bjork doesn't even play any instruments so I'd say the Beatles are the better musicians. I'd be surprised if she doesn't but I've never seen her play an instrument (granted I don't really follow her that closely either) and I've never heard anyone refer to her as a great musician. I know, I know her voice is her instrument. But when I think of good musicians I don't think of singers, I think of people who pick up an insturment and learn to play it (and play it well).
More Original:
As far as more original... that's a tricky one. By today's standards you would have to say Bjork. However, at the time The Beatles were very original. I'd say Bjork is extremely weirder but I'm not sure I would say her weirdness necessarily makes her more original. I could easily agree with either side on that one. I think I'd give an ever so slight edge to Bjork though for her "uniqueness".
So anyway, I'd give the overall edge to The Beatles just because I like their music a little better.
Paul McCartney is a great musician, having mastered multiple instruments. Just compare the hit songs, influence, and multi-generational appeal of both bands. There is no comparison.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
its hard to judge who is more original really. cuz they did different stuff than each other. if by more original you mean "more unique in comparison to their contemporaries", then bjork defintely gets that. tho the beatles were very experimental, they never took their entire musical sound in such a unique and creative way (not saying that its a bad thing) in the way bjork did at least, save maybe sgt pepper's. they made pop music with a creative bent.
I'd go with Beatles over Bjork for me personally.
Best Musician:
As far as I know Bjork doesn't even play any instruments so I'd say the Beatles are the better musicians. I'd be surprised if she doesn't but I've never seen her play an instrument (granted I don't really follow her that closely either) and I've never heard anyone refer to her as a great musician. I know, I know her voice is her instrument. But when I think of good musicians I don't think of singers, I think of people who pick up an insturment and learn to play it (and play it well).
More Original:
As far as more original... that's a tricky one. By today's standards you would have to say Bjork. However, at the time The Beatles were very original. I'd say Bjork is extremely weirder but I'm not sure I would say her weirdness necessarily makes her more original. I could easily agree with either side on that one. I think I'd give an ever so slight edge to Bjork though for her "uniqueness".
So anyway, I'd give the overall edge to The Beatles just because I like their music a little better.
The Beatles.
Easily the Beatles
Imma say The Beatles. I'm not sure what the hell a Björk is?
The Beatles. No one can beat The Beatles.
Paul McCartney is a great musician, having mastered multiple instruments. Just compare the hit songs, influence, and multi-generational appeal of both bands. There is no comparison.
You cannot compare The Beatles to that -__-
THE BEATLES all the way!
the doors better