Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ] 

Board index : Music Talk : Rock/Pop

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Beatles or Beach Boys?
Beatles 85%  85%  [ 45 ]
Beach Boys 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 53
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:43 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:03 pm
Posts: 6402
Self Titled Wrote:
How can you go against The Beatles?


your sensei has taught you well grasshopper.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:12 am 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 6690
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
No one's ever properly explained why the Beatles deserve the hero-worship treatment or why they are put in a category as "indisputably, without a question, the greatest band of all-time".

I've listened to a lot of their music. I know a lot of their songs. It doesn't do anything for me.

Besides write some popular songs, what exactly did they do that was so important?

I'm asking a genuine question. I wasn't raised on the Beatles like a lot of people. My parents don't own any of their albums. My dad was more prone to playing Sabbath, Aerosmith, Zeppelin, and the Stones than them.

Even if the songs they wrote were very popular, writing songs alone should not merit a band being labeled as untouchable, should it? I've heard people say they don't like Nirvana or Radiohead, but they never get the kind of flack that I do for disliking the Beatles.


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:25 am 
Offline
A True Aristocrat of Freedom

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 22121
Location: a worn-out debauchee and drivelling sot
alongwaltz Wrote:
No one's ever properly explained why the Beatles deserve the hero-worship treatment or why they are put in a category as "indisputably, without a question, the greatest band of all-time".

I've listened to a lot of their music. I know a lot of their songs. It doesn't do anything for me.

Besides write some popular songs, what exactly did they do that was so important?

I'm asking a genuine question. I wasn't raised on the Beatles like a lot of people. My parents don't own any of their albums. My dad was more prone to playing Sabbath, Aerosmith, Zeppelin, and the Stones than them.

Even if the songs they wrote were very popular, writing songs alone should not merit a band being labeled as untouchable, should it? I've heard people say they don't like Nirvana or Radiohead, but they never get the kind of flack that I do for disliking the Beatles.


Ask Sabbath, Zep, aerosmith or The Stones about The Beatles...

I have said it before, and no one quite gets it, but every note played since 1964 was influenced by The Beatles. All the music you claim to like is in existence because of The Beatles. I understand holding unorthodox and indefensible opinions, but The Beatles greatness is FACT.

_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.

FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:29 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
For what are we picking them? If it's to die painfully from that flesh-eating disease, then it's the Beatles, well...at least one of 'em. I hope that 60 years from now people are still dying from Paul McCartney's Disease. The remaining Beach Boys are such harmless goofy charicatures that it's almost worth keeping them around so they can swing by on a "Hit all the local movie theatres in the midwest" tour with The Kingston Trio.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:38 am 
Offline
Street Teamer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:47 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Vermont
ayah Wrote:
Self Titled Wrote:
How can you go against The Beatles?


your sensei has taught you well grasshopper.

Hey.
I was listening to the oldies while Stacey was still into Three Doors Down, and Creed...


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:44 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:13 am
Posts: 8264
Location: Norfolk, VA
Sen. LooGAR (D - MEH) Wrote:
alongwaltz Wrote:
No one's ever properly explained why the Beatles deserve the hero-worship treatment or why they are put in a category as "indisputably, without a question, the greatest band of all-time".

I've listened to a lot of their music. I know a lot of their songs. It doesn't do anything for me.

Besides write some popular songs, what exactly did they do that was so important?

I'm asking a genuine question. I wasn't raised on the Beatles like a lot of people. My parents don't own any of their albums. My dad was more prone to playing Sabbath, Aerosmith, Zeppelin, and the Stones than them.

Even if the songs they wrote were very popular, writing songs alone should not merit a band being labeled as untouchable, should it? I've heard people say they don't like Nirvana or Radiohead, but they never get the kind of flack that I do for disliking the Beatles.


I have said it before, and no one quite gets it, but every note played since 1964 was influenced by The Beatles. All the music you claim to like is in existence because of The Beatles.


I think the question is more of a "why is every note from them on influenced by the beatles"? For some, it may be hard to understand that something far separated from the Beatles, like MONO for example, is directly linked to the Beatles. I guess it just doesn't make sense sometimes to say, "why are the beatles referenced so often as being the greatest most influential band" only to have someone essentially answer with, "because they are. Duh".


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:46 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Hegel-Oh's Wrote:
I think the question is more of a "why is every note from them on influenced by the beatles"?


Because every one of 'em is lifted from American blues, rock-a-billy, and r&b artists.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:01 am 
Offline
"Weddings, Parties, Anything…"
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:57 am
Posts: 939
As much as I love the beach boys, the beatles have many different styles so that i wouldn't get tired of them after a while.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:39 am 
Offline
The Listerine Queen
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 12677
Location: vermont
Self Titled Wrote:
ayah Wrote:
Self Titled Wrote:
How can you go against The Beatles?


your sensei has taught you well grasshopper.

Hey.
I was listening to the oldies while Stacey was still into Three Doors Down, and Creed...


Hey little man, you're close to being right, but not quite there. You forget I brought the White Album into our house and played it ad nauseam well before any of that other junk I flooded your head with.

_________________
i haven't heard of that


Back to top
 Profile YIM 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:59 am 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:59 pm
Posts: 10777
Location: Sutton, Greater London
shmoo Wrote:
Preferring the Monkees to the Beatles is like preferring Blink 182 to Black Flag.

New sig.


Back to top
 Profile WWWYIM 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:17 am 
Offline
Forever moderating your hearts
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:40 pm
Posts: 6906
Location: Auckland, NZ
wtf why is this even a poll?

the beach boys make me want to punch holes in the wall


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:34 am 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:37 pm
Posts: 8889
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
Sen. LooGAR (D - MEH) Wrote:
alongwaltz Wrote:
No one's ever properly explained why the Beatles deserve the hero-worship treatment or why they are put in a category as "indisputably, without a question, the greatest band of all-time".

I've listened to a lot of their music. I know a lot of their songs. It doesn't do anything for me.

Besides write some popular songs, what exactly did they do that was so important?

I'm asking a genuine question. I wasn't raised on the Beatles like a lot of people. My parents don't own any of their albums. My dad was more prone to playing Sabbath, Aerosmith, Zeppelin, and the Stones than them.

Even if the songs they wrote were very popular, writing songs alone should not merit a band being labeled as untouchable, should it? I've heard people say they don't like Nirvana or Radiohead, but they never get the kind of flack that I do for disliking the Beatles.


Ask Sabbath, Zep, aerosmith or The Stones about The Beatles...

I have said it before, and no one quite gets it, but every note played since 1964 was influenced by The Beatles. All the music you claim to like is in existence because of The Beatles. I understand holding unorthodox and indefensible opinions, but The Beatles greatness is FACT.


I understand this reasoning, but for someone like me who wasn't directly influenced by the Beatles nor really ever became infatuated with their great albums, they are just another band to me. That might be sacrilege and I might come off as a dolt for saying it, but the pure cockiness and arrogance of the Stones has had a much greater impact on me. To this day it is impossible for me to place any Beatles song above Paint it Black, they made the Sitar into a rock instrument.
I also think you have to take into consideration that some bands came into consideration to spite the Beatles, while that definitely cements their impact on music, it might not justify their greatness.

_________________
Rock 'n Roll: The most brutal, ugly, desperate, vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear.
Frank Sinatra


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:42 am 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:41 am
Posts: 11048
Just out of curiousity, of the people who are anti-beatles in this thread, how many consider themselves musicians or have tried writing a song?

It's not meant to be an "if you're not a musician, you just don't GET it, man" kind of statement, because i'm sure that there are plenty of pro-beatles people in this thread who aren't musicians/songwriters either.

So to boil it down from my perspective, bands need songs, and for those songs to be successful, they have to have a hook, whether it's the bass line from the Humpty Dance or the opening riff in Back in Black (cause it ain't the singing), but the greatest hook of all is melody. If you've got a good melody, the song has the ability to have it's own life in the heads of non-musicians.

Now you've got a melody, what chords do you frame it with? There are alot of options, and a choice unexpected chord can be a hook too. You don't have to be a musician to recognize those either, you just have to be an active listener as opposed to a passive one.

Let's say you've got a chorus, a verse, and a bridge (or middle 8), each part has a really good melody and some chords that support the melody, maybe even make the melody better by virtue of some hooks...

Sounds easy? (that's meant to be sarcastic) Well, we're not done yet. Now you have to record it. If you've ever had to record anything, from a PSA on your college radio station to a mix tape for a girl you like, let alone a song, you already know what a pain in the ass that can be. Well, there's two basic ways to record. Live one pass, and multi tracking. In live one pass, the band plays live, together, and no matter how well you baffle stuff, unless they're in separate rooms or isolation booths, there will be bleed between microphones. And that means that if anyone screws up, you pitch the take and do it again, you just can't edit something good together out of that. So multiply your own frustration at recording by let's say 4 (4 guys in a band trying to do a 3:30 song one time perfectly with no mistakes). So why would anyone do that? Because the performances tend to sound alot more energetic and real and fun. The other way to record is to multitrack. Each person lays their part separately to a metronome ( a steady click track in your earphones ). Then you can edit each part because there's no bleed, and build a take out of a bunch of takes. This makes a recording sound like, well present day radio. Slick and soulless and imperfectly perfect.

Now you're through the recording process, time to go hawk your wares, which means rocking out on stage. If you've never played in a rock band, well, it tends to be loud. It's hard to hear stuff even when you do have a p.a. with monitors. Monitors are the speakers pointed towards the band on the floor in front of them.

Oh by the way, you need to have personality too. Let's say we're in make-believe land and you've got a personality, songs, recordings, you're well rehearsed, and all of the above are solid in their quality.

The Beatles did this in their late teens through their mid to late twenties, playing so loud on stage because monitors didn't even exist and they couldn't hear over the crowds, they didn't mike up drum kits live back then, so all the early performance films, Ringo sounds awesome AND HE WASN'T EVEN MIKED, which means he was killing the drums, and the harmonies were all in tune while they were playing pretty difficult songs (oh you think they're simple? Go learn one. Then try and sing the vocal or a background over it, yes the early BORING ones).

Now think about your favorite band, how often do they put out albums? Let's look at Wilco, an exceptionally talented live band, and by most peoples accounts here, great songwriters. They're at what, 5 albums in over a decade? A look at allmusic's entry shows 21 "main" albums in 7 years (63-70 even though Let it Be was never intended to be released and was recorded before Abbey Road was released in 69. Alot of the early albums were released by various labels and contained many of the same recordings, but they still were recording a few new songs for each album, so it would be fair to say that they only released 13 albums in those 6 years of recording. Only 13. And in the beginning of that run they were touring like fiends. Go listen to that Live at The Hollywood Bowl album (not one of the 13-21 "main" albums) which was compiled from a performance in 64 and another in 65. 17,000 screaming kids make more sound than 4 guys in a band, and they still hold it together.

But let's just talk about songs.

Help
Hard Day's Night
I'm Only Sleeping
Sexy Sadie
Helter Skelter
It Won't Be Long
Can't Buy Me Love
Yesterday
Hey Jude
Eleanor Rigby
Strawberry Fields Forever
Hello Goodbye
Drive My Car
Michelle

we could go on, but these songs are more than just hits, they're all part of the greater pop culture consciousness, and they put out about 2 albums a year in the middle of playing their asses off. They were deported from Germany because George wasn't even old enough to have a visa while they were playing marathon gigs, popping pills to stay awake, boozing and screwing. They killed live, they killed in the studio, they wrote songs that everyone of us here knows and that most of us dig, and it's a good bet that most of the artists you do love were directly or indirectly influenced by them, if not by their music, then by techniques pioneered in the studio by them or for them. It's also probably a given that most of the artists you love respect The Beatles whether or not they like them.

Is that a cohesive enough statement?

_________________
Flying Rabbit Wrote:
I don't eat it every morning, I do however, pull it out sometimes.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:46 am 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:41 am
Posts: 11048
Promethium Wrote:
...but the pure cockiness and arrogance of the Stones has had a much greater impact on me. To this day it is impossible for me to place any Beatles song above Paint it Black, they made the Sitar into a rock instrument.


Would Brian Jones have put sitar on Paint it Black if George hadn't done it first on two other songs by that point?

His death was a bad stroke of luck for The Stones, he was talented.

As far as the pure cockiness and arrogance of the stones... what about the songs, and the performances? They've got some decent songs, but monty could probably fart more in tune than Mick. Luckily for Mick he's got charisma or something (i haven't seen it, but whatever).

_________________
Flying Rabbit Wrote:
I don't eat it every morning, I do however, pull it out sometimes.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:53 am 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:37 pm
Posts: 8889
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
I don't want to be considered Anti-Beatles, because I do respect them. I just tend to be in a group of people who posted on this thread that would choose neither and felt like commenting why I felt that way.

_________________
Rock 'n Roll: The most brutal, ugly, desperate, vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear.
Frank Sinatra


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:00 pm 
Offline
Smoke
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:40 am
Posts: 10590
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell
alongwaltz Wrote:
No one's ever properly explained why the Beatles deserve the hero-worship treatment or why they are put in a category as "indisputably, without a question, the greatest band of all-time".

I've listened to a lot of their music. I know a lot of their songs. It doesn't do anything for me.

Besides write some popular songs, what exactly did they do that was so important?

I'm asking a genuine question. I wasn't raised on the Beatles like a lot of people. My parents don't own any of their albums. My dad was more prone to playing Sabbath, Aerosmith, Zeppelin, and the Stones than them.

Even if the songs they wrote were very popular, writing songs alone should not merit a band being labeled as untouchable, should it? I've heard people say they don't like Nirvana or Radiohead, but they never get the kind of flack that I do for disliking the Beatles.




Hey man, you're welcome to like and dislike whatever the hell you want but after being on this board for as long as you have and to not know why they are, arguably, the greatest, then you can't read or just simply have blind hatred for them (in which case that's a "you" issue)

Bottom line is that if they were only a band that wrote pop songs they wouldn't be as revered as they are.

They weren't the first to write pop songs nor were they the first people to be socially and politically active when it came to their popularity but they were the first to do it on a worldwide scale.

The idea that pop music can start a revolution and change things was born in the 60's and the Beatles were the biggest band of the 60's. They were at the front of the wave of change. No one had ever seen worldwide protests of music simply because a pop star said something. (...bigger than Jesus) or so influential that you could effect elections to the point the government spies on you (Lennon).

Besides the social influence they had they were also wildly experimental in the studio and in their approach to songwriting. I mean, we're talking Gershwin in teenage pop music. Many of the studio techniques that they used are still used today and were revolutionary at the time.

Before them it was straight-forward 4/4 backbeat rock music. They stretched so many boundries of what could be played and be popular much like Dylan.

It's easy to be bored with them. They've been so ingrained into our heads now that they feel like a brand. Something to sell cars or blenders to.

I've always been a Stones guy but that's just because I tend to like the sleazier side of rock n roll. But I'll never not give the Beatles their props for what they were able to accomplish. No band will ever have the influence that they did on the world they were living in.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:05 pm 
Offline
TEH MACHINE
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:28 pm
Posts: 16684
Location: Jiggin' for Yanks
Prince of Darkness Wrote:
As far as the pure cockiness and arrogance of the stones... what about the songs, and the performances? They've got some decent songs, but monty could probably fart more in tune than Mick. Luckily for Mick he's got charisma or something (i haven't seen it, but whatever).


I guess as a musician you apply a completely different metric for why something sucks. I'm really not clear about what you mean when you say Mick sings out of tune. Are you talking about his live performances or just everything all together? He always sounds great to me, but I don't know anything about the mechanics of music, so we're coming at this band from two different angles (something we've argued about before :wink:). I'm one who doesn't really think you need to be a good singer or even play that well to sound great, to have a particular quality gestalt that outweighs the technical ability. The pure cockiness and arrogance is what made the Stones the greatest rock and roll band of all time. That being said, there must be more than those two qualities to make the band so successful for so long, and it's in the songs. The few Beatles albums I have gather dust in comparison to how often I pull out a Stones album, whether is something a bit mellower like Between the Buttons or just deranged like Sticky Fingers. I'm not saying the Beatles are terrible or overrated at all, but I've definitely always found the Stones much, much more appealing to hear, and I doubt I'm the only one who's ever felt that way.

_________________
All I can say is, go on and bleed.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:05 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:37 pm
Posts: 8889
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
I've always been a Stones guy but that's just because I tend to like the sleazier side of rock n roll. But I'll never not give the Beatles their props for what they were able to accomplish. No band will ever have the influence that they did on the world they were living in.

This is all that I'm saying too, thanks Derris.
I just don't want to oppressed or disrespected for being a Stones fan.

_________________
Rock 'n Roll: The most brutal, ugly, desperate, vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear.
Frank Sinatra


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:08 pm 
Offline
Smoke
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:40 am
Posts: 10590
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell
Nice post Phil. I was hoping someone with more musicianship than I would post about how absolutley skilled they were at their instruments.

To break musical rules you have to be a master at them to begin with.



Another incredible fact: They stopped touring after 1966 and still remained the biggest band in the world for 4 more years.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:11 pm 
Offline
Gayford R. Tincture

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:22 pm
Posts: 13644
Location: The Weapon Store
Billzebub Wrote:
Hegel-Oh's Wrote:
I think the question is more of a "why is every note from them on influenced by the beatles"?


Because every one of 'em is lifted from American blues, rock-a-billy, and r&b artists.


Why would this apply any less to the Stones?

I can sort of imagine why guys like you and Radcliffe aren't Beatles fans given the different context of when you grew up. "Phony Beatlemania" and all that being something to rebel against.

I will just never understand how it is that people can try to reduce bands like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin to being rip-off artists while somehow not applying the same logic to The Stones and all of the punk bands who were aping Chuck Berry and early rock & roll. In Zepp's case, it's more of an ethical issue, I guess, but musically, everything is derivative. It doesn't really lessen the importance of certain iconic bands who stood out along the way that they borrowed heavily from people who came before.

I'd really like to see you guys try to clearly articulate just why you think The Beatles are so useless, but I know you probably won't.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:53 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:51 am
Posts: 6327
Billzebub Wrote:
Hegel-Oh's Wrote:
I think the question is more of a "why is every note from them on influenced by the beatles"?


Because every one of 'em is lifted from American blues, rock-a-billy, and r&b artists.


And where did those guys lift from? For instance it's been established that gospel music (and by extension blues and soul music) was heavily influenced by Hebridean hymns and work songs.

The Hebrides, for those not strong on geography, are on the islands on the Atlantic coast of Scotland.

_________________
He has arrived, the mountebank from Bohemia, he has arrived, preceded by his reputation.
Evil Dr. K "The Jimmy McNulty of Payment Protection Insurance"


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:39 am
Posts: 6365
Location: Australia
the Beatles definitely shaped music way more than the Beach Boys. They were far more influential. That's for damn sure. The Stones wouldn't have existed in the same copacity if it weren't for the Beatles.

_________________
dances on all fours...


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:17 pm 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:41 am
Posts: 11048
DumpJack Wrote:
Prince of Darkness Wrote:
As far as the pure cockiness and arrogance of the stones... what about the songs, and the performances? They've got some decent songs, but monty could probably fart more in tune than Mick. Luckily for Mick he's got charisma or something (i haven't seen it, but whatever).


I guess as a musician you apply a completely different metric for why something sucks. I'm really not clear about what you mean when you say Mick sings out of tune. Are you talking about his live performances or just everything all together? He always sounds great to me, but I don't know anything about the mechanics of music, so we're coming at this band from two different angles (something we've argued about before :wink:). I'm one who doesn't really think you need to be a good singer or even play that well to sound great, to have a particular quality gestalt that outweighs the technical ability. The pure cockiness and arrogance is what made the Stones the greatest rock and roll band of all time. That being said, there must be more than those two qualities to make the band so successful for so long, and it's in the songs. The few Beatles albums I have gather dust in comparison to how often I pull out a Stones album, whether is something a bit mellower like Between the Buttons or just deranged like Sticky Fingers. I'm not saying the Beatles are terrible or overrated at all, but I've definitely always found the Stones much, much more appealing to hear, and I doubt I'm the only one who's ever felt that way.


Well hell, Dylan sings out of tune and I love his body of work, and I agree with you that a unique performance is more important than a perfect performance. I'm not gonna tell anyone they have to be a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. I just think the Stones are inferior song writers, and mick sounds bad. He also looks like a buffoon. I'm kind of irked that he makes piles of money when i think he sucks. And yet, i'm glad dylan has piles of money even though other people think that he sucks.

I like the occasional stones tune, but i don't go ape over them. They're a good rock band. The Beatles are more than a rock band.

Regardless... I didn't mean to sound like an ass. i could totally use some coffee right now, that'd probably make me way less mean.

As you were.

_________________
Flying Rabbit Wrote:
I don't eat it every morning, I do however, pull it out sometimes.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:18 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:39 am
Posts: 6365
Location: Australia
Dalen Wrote:
Mick the Stripper Wrote:
Still, as a shallow teen surf band in their early years, i think the Beach Boys were much better than when the Beatles were a shallow brit pop band


ban this kid as well.


i agree. Difference of opinion is a bad thing and should not be tolerated. Ban me.

_________________
dances on all fours...


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:22 pm 
Offline
Acid Grandfather
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:03 pm
Posts: 4144
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Mick the Stripper Wrote:
the Beatles definitely shaped music way more than the Beach Boys. They were far more influential. That's for damn sure. The Stones wouldn't have existed in the same copacity if it weren't for the Beatles.


Now I was there, I remember when the boys hit the stage of the Ed Sullivan Show and changed the world forever. And I respect Prince of Darkness as much as anyone on the board, especially his technical knowledge of music... but KonstantinL's comments are well held. Musically, the Beatles were all about timing... and there were influences bouncing around in each way... Rubber Soul wouldn't have happened without Dylan... Sgt. Pepper's wouldn't have happened without Beach Boys... actually none of it would have happened with acid.

But, at this distance and from this perpective, it was about timing and culture more than music.... And given the vortex of culture and events that seemed to generate from whaterver the Fab Four presented, they were the greatest pop band in history.

_________________
Let's take a trip down Whittier Blvd.


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ] 

Board index : Music Talk : Rock/Pop

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Style by Midnight Phoenix & N.Design Studio
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.