View Full Version : The Beatles
colinh9
31 Jan 2007, 01:46 AM
Damn straight. What a band.
Discuss.
JaredSS07
31 Jan 2007, 11:09 AM
The Beatles were a good band that was more hype that innovation. Their song writing talent was amazing, but they never pioneered anything. They took styles that were flourishing outside of the public eye and made it popular.
PS. Ringo is a shit drummer.
BayernWake
31 Jan 2007, 11:49 AM
Damn Scousers.
Howard Zinn
31 Jan 2007, 12:16 PM
Booooooooo....
Dirt McGirt
31 Jan 2007, 02:25 PM
The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones
The winner battles the winner of the
Led Zeppelin vs. The Ramones
JaredSS07
31 Jan 2007, 02:41 PM
Led Zeppelin vs. The Ramones
That is like having Ali vs Nacho Libre. No contest.
Dirt McGirt
31 Jan 2007, 02:46 PM
That is like having Ali vs Nacho Libre. No contest.
I don't know that's a hard one to pick. Slight edge to Led Zepp.
In fact for me both those match ups are pretty close although I would have to shade it to the Beatles.
BayernWake
31 Jan 2007, 04:34 PM
Beatlins, Zeppelin
ToonUSA
31 Jan 2007, 05:27 PM
I'm more of an AC/DC man myself.
The Beatles aren't my cup of tea.
tigerdave
01 Feb 2007, 04:11 AM
Am I wrong for thinking that U2 top the Beatles in terms of actual accomplishment in the music industry?
I mean, I get the hype, and the fact that the Beatles revolutionized rock music, but U2's been around for 25 years or so and they've stayed popular basically the whole time despite the changes in musical styles.
JaredSS07
01 Feb 2007, 09:13 AM
Am I wrong for thinking that U2 top the Beatles in terms of actual accomplishment in the music industry?
I mean, I get the hype, and the fact that the Beatles revolutionized rock music, but U2's been around for 25 years or so and they've stayed popular basically the whole time despite the changes in musical styles.
I'm not a big Beatles fan, but holy hell that is retarded. Longevity of a group or musician is not related at all to being more accomplished. Robert Johnson recorded less than 30 songs, but is considered one of the most important musicians ever.
Being popular is not an accomplishment. It just means you have duped the drooling public.
tigerdave
01 Feb 2007, 12:07 PM
I'm not a big Beatles fan, but holy hell that is retarded. Longevity of a group or musician is not related at all to being more accomplished. Robert Johnson recorded less than 30 songs, but is considered one of the most important musicians ever.
Being popular is not an accomplishment. It just means you have duped the drooling public.
That's what you get for trying to make a rational argument at 1 am. :o
I stand by my statement nonetheless, but the way I explained it left something to be desired.
The Beatles paved the way, but I think U2 is the 'better' band. It's kinda like Cal Ripken and Derek Jeter. Ripken changed the shortstop position, but Jeter's surpassed him as a better shortstop, imo.
Howard Zinn
01 Feb 2007, 02:09 PM
Let's just all agree that Dylan buries them all in the sand and leave it at that. :cool:
JaredSS07
01 Feb 2007, 03:37 PM
Let's just all agree that Dylan buries them all in the sand and leave it at that. :cool:
Amen.
colinh9
07 Feb 2007, 04:40 PM
U2. Blah. I think they are such garbage.
And yes much love to Dylan, more love to Zep.
BayernWake
07 Feb 2007, 07:45 PM
U2. Blah. I think they are such garbage.
I can't live with or without them.
colinh9
08 Feb 2007, 04:14 PM
I couldn't live without the Beatles or Zeppelin thats for sure.
U2 wouldn't affect me one bit if they fell off the earth.
Wiggen
14 Feb 2007, 11:35 AM
The simple fact is that, without the Beatles, none of these other bands would have existed and Bob Dylan would have faded into oblivion as a folk singer - with about as much relevance as Peter, Paul, and Mary.
Dylan himself said so. I'd suggest all you Dylan fans read his book. He heard the Beatles and decided that was the way music had to go. On came the electricity and the rest is history. There was a reason he was making records with George Harrison in the late '80's.
Any band today who says they weren't influenced by the Beatles, or by a band influenced by the Beatles, is lying.
As Elvis Costello says, "I've spent the last twenty-five years trying to make a record as good as Revolver. I haven't done it yet, but then again, neither has anybody else."
The Beatles made more great albums in 7 years than most of these other guys have done in a lifetime.
BayernWake
15 Feb 2007, 10:50 AM
Any band today who says they weren't influenced by the Beatles, or by a band influenced by the Beatles, is lying.
Most "absolute" statements like this are probably wrong.
Toon³
15 Feb 2007, 11:17 AM
Beatles are shit
Dylan is shitter, infact he's shitters than the shittest shit that got shit out the shittiest shithole belonging to the shittest shithead in shit city, shit state which is a state of the federal union of shittess which is on the continent of shit on the planet shit in the shit system in the shit sector in the shit galaxy in the shit galactic group made by the god of shit