Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who, in your opinion, is the best group from the 60s? It's pretty self-explanatory who mine is.

i love the beatles!! they rock my socks

I cant think of any bands that I like from the 60's.....

Originally posted by SlipknoT
I cant think of any bands that I like from the 60's.....

It was the greatest ****in' era of music, you can think of something.

I like Bob's writing alot...

The Beatles Hands Down

Originally posted by alcoholicpoet
It was the greatest ****in' era of music, you can think of something. Noooooo Way the 70's -80's and Now are the best times for Music. The 60's to me were Just boring. Though Hendrix is alright..i just cant listen to that music for long periods of time.

Originally posted by alcoholicpoet
It was the greatest ****in' era of music, you can think of something.

Hahahaha. Incredibly debateable.

Gonna go with Hendrix.

-AC

i voted for the doors but i like the allman brothers/doors pretty much the same....both are very good

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahahaha. Incredibly debateable.

Gonna go with Hendrix.

-AC

No way, since the end of the 60s the only bands worth listening to were Led-Zeppelin, Punk bands, and early 90s Grunge Rock, possibly Queen as well.

From 1970 to 2005 there is more than enough evidence to prove that the 60's weren't the greatest era.

The fact that you don't find the rest worth listening to doesn't factually prove that the 60's is the greatest. The late 80's-90's produced far more talented bands.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
From 1970 to 2005 there is more than enough evidence to prove that the 60's weren't the greatest era.

The fact that you don't find the rest worth listening to doesn't factually prove that the 60's is the greatest. The late 80's-90's produced far more talented bands.

-AC

Yeah your right, half the 60s weren't even hard rock, my remarks were blatant and closed minded and I take them back.

Where the hell are the Monkees?

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Where the hell are the Monkees?



There's a selection called 'other', and the Monkees toyally inspired the Beatles.

Are you being sarcastic? I was. Now I'm just confused.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Are you being sarcastic? I was. Now I'm just confused.

Salmon.

I like all the bands in that list except allman brothers(haven't heard a lot), and I voted for The Doors because I just adore their music.

Jefferson Airplane are another I love from that decade too.

Talking about bands, i think that the beatles was the best one, not only in the 60s, in music story. But the doors or the rolling stones were great too.

Talking about individuals, bob dylan was the man, althought Hendrix was amazing too.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Talking about bands, i think that the beatles was the best one, not only in the 60s, in music story. But the doors or the rolling stones were great too.

Talking about individuals, bob dylan was the man, althought Hendrix was amazing too.

Hendrix wasn't solo, he had a band. And I agree Bob Dylan is one of my favirite solo artists.

Seriously, my vote goes to The Who.

the beatles. best band ever.

It will never stop puzzling me as to why people view The Beatles as a band better than any other band to exist in Earth's history. Considering there are many many many bands with world's more talent.

-AC

Never any band was so influential, original, talentend and best songwritting than the beatles. Best band ever without doubt.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Seriously, my vote goes to The Who.

Agreed, they're my second favorite band on that list.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It will never stop puzzling me as to why people view The Beatles as a band better than any other band to exist in Earth's history. Considering there are many many many bands with world's more talent.

-AC

I find that the Beatles are overrated beyond human belief, I've heard them so much I could vomit. They're a good band but not as good as everyone makes them seem.

^Agreed...Even though I dont think they're good at all...Wheres the Grateful Dead on the list?

The Who were awesome, still are...did anyone see them play at live 8

Originally posted by bakerboy
Never any band was so influential, original, talentend and best songwritting than the beatles. Best band ever without doubt.

Well everything you just said is wrong, so that would mean you are wrong too.

Never were a band more influential? Patton on his own. Original? Mr. Bungle ring any bells? Talented? I'll have to go soon....in a RUSH. Songwriting? Opeth would take that title from them if they actually had it.

I could use many other examples. Many.

The Beatles aren't the best band ever by far. They're not even the best 60's band. The Who are much better.

-AC

Originally posted by SlipknoT
^Agreed...Even though I dont think they're good at all...Wheres the Grateful Dead on the list?

The 'other' option I guess, I only had room for 10 options and I listed them as they came to mind.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well everything you just said is wrong, so that would mean you are wrong too.

Never were a band more influential? Patton on his own. Original? Mr. Bungle ring any bells? Talented? I'll have to go soon....in a RUSH. Songwriting? Opeth would take that title from them if they actually had it.

I could use many other examples. Many.

The Beatles aren't the best band ever by far. They're not even the best 60's band. The Who are much better.

-AC

Agreed, in the realm of british bands alone The Who, Pink Floyd, and Led-Zeppelin are much better than The Beatles.

False, false and false. More influential? the beatles without any doubt. The broken many rules and open the way for many bands . Original in their moment? without any doubt. best songwritting? A group with Lennon, Macartney and Harrison together is the best songwritting band ever. Talented? one of the most talented bands ever. The beatles are the grupo more versioned and most popular and with many good songs ever. Patton??? The who??? mr bumble ring??? Are you joking??? Which great songs of these people could you post? And by the beatles? The beatles are the best band ever without any doubt.

None of those bands are better than the beatles. Good bands? sure, better than the beatles?? none of them.

Originally posted by bakerboy
False, false and false. More influential? the beatles without any doubt. The broken many rules and open the way for many bands.

Hahaha. You actually wanna sit here with me and talk about who breaks more rules and who influenced who more out of The Beatles and Mike Patton/his bands? Laughable, truly. The Beatles are the most namechecked band purely because people are scared to not say anything negative. People mostly say "The Beatles inspired me" to look cool. Because to be perfectly honest, whilst I love The Beatles, if you weren't around during the peak of their ultra hype, all we have to go by is the music they left. Which is just really good, it's nothing amazing.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Original in their moment? without any doubt.

How? Tell me how they're the most original band ever.

Originally posted by bakerboy
best songwritting? A group with Lennon, Macartney and Harrison together is the best songwritting band ever.

No, no it's not. Because to be fair, it was all Lennon. McCartney's solo stuff should prove this. Secondly, whilst Lennon was a great man, he too is overrated. How many times have you seen Imagine top a list of greatest songs, purely because it was written by Lennon? I have seen that many times.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Talented? one of the most talented bands ever.

No, don't try to weasel out. You claimed they were the best ever at everything. None of them on their own were more talented singularly than any singular member of any most other bands on that list.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles are the grupo more versioned and most popular and with many good songs ever.

So? What does popularity matter? None.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Patton??? The who??? mr bumble ring??? Are you joking??? Which great songs of these people could you post? And by the beatles?

Hahaha, you clearly only know The Beatles. Because anyone with any musical opinion worth their salt knows who Patton is. The fact that you think they're called Mr. Bumble Ring is also a part that made me laugh, you uninformed deliquent.

The bands I mentioned mostly don't make "hits". They don't need millions to buy their music for it to be genius. That and the fact that posting them would be wasted on you seeing as you're already so closed-minded as to think they're the best ever in all ways. So if this is an arguement about who's more popular, more known, it might aswell be 50 Cent Vs The Beatles.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles are the best band ever without any doubt.

They're not. Simple. This is a 60's band thread, so if you wanna discuss best bands ever, go to the best bands ever thread.

The Beatles are the only pop-band on that list also.

-AC

aw for f**ks sake here we go again...round and round we go on the unstoppable proof carousel

Man, without beatles, there wont be rolling stones, who, doors or the other bands. They were the first pop/rock popular band and his style over the years changed the way of people think on music. Without them, another bands wont exist. They created the first video clip, after 35 years they are one of the most selled bands , they are the group with many and many songs in every list music made by the specialized magazines and critics, etc. They are the most influential band.

As i said before, they broken many ways, they were the first pop/rock band to be popular, the first band to be stars, and their style changed the way of the bands until that moment.

It was only lennon?? dude, you haven any idea of what are you talking about. Surely than Lennon songs are great, like lucy in the sky with diamonds or strawberry fields forever or im the walrus, but Macartney wrotte many amazing songs like yesterday, let it be, hey jude or the fool on the hill. Macartney has so good songs as Lennon. And what about harrison? something, hey comes the sun, while my guitar gently weeps, wich are amazing songs. The three of them were important in different times of the grout, and they were three of the best musical composers ever. Lennon overrated? you clearly dont have any clue on what are you talking about, because Lennon is one of the best composers, musicians and musical poets ever. Imagine only good because it was written by Lennon? Man, you couldnt be more wrong. Imagine was and is great because is very good, like mother, woman, jealous guy, instant karma, working class hero, mind games and another songs written by lennon. Clearly, if you post than lennon was overrated and imagine is only good only for being written by lennon, clearly, you dont know anything about music.

Ill give it to you, lennon wasnt the best guitarrist, not harrison, macartney wasnt the best bass player, or ringo wasnt the best drummer, but toghether, they were great and fantastic, they complemented one to other in a perfect way.

Band with many good songs. None couldnt compare them.

None of those groups have the musical impact and the influence than the beatles. For not talking about talent and good songs. Im not talking only about popularity, what isnt really a sign of quality, im talking about many other things, and the beatles surpass the others in all those things.

The beatles are the best british band ever, the best 60s band and the best band ever. Call it as you want, but they were and they will be the number ones.

no they were pish...face facts...the only reason they've had a revivial in popularity is because sad oasis fans do what liam tells them to do...this is evident in the fact that before oasis came along...everyone i know thought the beatles were shit...then oasis came along...and now they all think the beatles are the greatest....but in fact...they're still shit

Originally posted by bakerboy
Man, without beatles, there wont be rolling stones, who, doors or the other bands.

The Stones, The Doors, and The Who rose into stardom with the Beatles, how could they have been inspired by them if they all became popular groups at the same time?

Nope, the beatles are a little older than those groups. They were the first pop/rock popular band.

And the beatles were the greatest band, i dont know about that gargabe about oasis, but they were and they will be the best ones.

they were the westlife of their day...nothing more...

Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, the beatles are a little older than those groups. They were the first pop/rock popular band.

And the beatles were the greatest band, i dont know about that gargabe about oasis, but they were and they will be the best ones.

Yeah, like one year older, they really can't do much in a year that would heavilly impact the rest of the bands to emerge afterward. And, The Rightious Bros., Elvis Presley, and Little Richard where rock, and they came before the Beatles, and they were popular as well as The Beatles. Believe it or not, The Beatles wasn't the first popular rock group, gotta give props to the originators of the genre.

First popular group. Any group before wasnt as popular as the beatles were, and they were influential in another groups of their time or younger.

They were the westlife of their time, and of alltime. Im listening beatles songs in everypart, radios, tv, spots, etc. Original or versioned.

out of that list my favorite is neil young. i grew up listening to that dude.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Man, without beatles, there wont be rolling stones, who, doors or the other bands. They were the first pop/rock popular band and his style over the years changed the way of people think on music. Without them, another bands wont exist. They created the first video clip, after 35 years they are one of the most selled bands , they are the group with many and many songs in every list music made by the specialized magazines and critics, etc. They are the most influential band.

Who are you to say that without The Beatles there won't be certain bands? Granted, they are extremely influential. Never doubted that. People such as Ozzy and others have cited them as influences, but that was solely because he was just a little Birmingham boy who wanted to do what his fellow northerners were doing worldwide.

The point I made is that anyone who WASN'T around during the period of their major fame, can see without bias that they weren't what people claim them to be. Simple as. Anyone who does just says it to be cool.

Originally posted by bakerboy
As i said before, they broken many ways, they were the first pop/rock band to be popular, the first band to be stars, and their style changed the way of the bands until that moment.

They were the first real boy band. First to be stars means nothing. Why do you believe they are the most original band ever? They're not. By far. Very far. Their style didn't change anything. Boy, you can really hear The Beatles pop guitar sound when you listen to Paranoid by Black Sabbath...

Originally posted by bakerboy
It was only lennon?? dude, you haven any idea of what are you talking about.

Sure I don't Mr. Bumble Ring.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Surely than Lennon songs are great, like lucy in the sky with diamonds or strawberry fields forever or im the walrus, but Macartney wrotte many amazing songs like yesterday, let it be, hey jude or the fool on the hill. Macartney has so good songs as Lennon.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for McCartney's legendary solo stuff to be ranked as high as Lennon's. Or high anywhere. You're wrong.

Originally posted by bakerboy
And what about harrison? something, hey comes the sun, while my guitar gently weeps, wich are amazing songs. The three of them were important in different times of the grout, and they were three of the best musical composers ever.

You named two, really good songs. How does this constitute them being the best band at everything, ever? You're talking so much BS it's not even funny. They're not three of the best ever. Please.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Lennon overrated? you clearly dont have any clue on what are you talking about, because Lennon is one of the best composers, musicians and musical poets ever. Imagine only good because it was written by Lennon? Man, you couldnt be more wrong. Imagine was and is great because is very good.

I'm pretty sure that if someone like Rick Astley had written Imagine it wouldn't be as good. Lennon got lucky. He wrote a song that was really relevant at the time but also very contradictory. He wrote a simple and blatant message to people who didn't think clearly. "Wouldn't the world be better if we all got along", yes John. We already knew that.

Originally posted by bakerboy
like mother, woman, jealous guy, instant karma, working class hero, mind games and another songs written by lennon. Clearly, if you post than lennon was overrated and imagine is only good only for being written by lennon, clearly, you dont know anything about music.

Sure I don't. How many Mr. Bumble Ring albums do you own?

Originally posted by bakerboy
Ill give it to you, lennon wasnt the best guitarrist, not harrison, macartney wasnt the best bass player, or ringo wasnt the best drummer, but toghether, they were great and fantastic, they complemented one to other in a perfect way.

Yes, who's debating that? Nobody. They're far from the best ever. Especially in the way you're claiming them to be. Saying that all the bands I mentioned are "good" but The Beatles are better. They're just not.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Band with many good songs. None couldnt compare them. None of those groups have the musical impact and the influence than the beatles.

You're telling me I know nothing about music, yet you sit there claiming that no band has ever influenced more than The Beatles? Not Faith No More or any of Patton's bands, not Rush, not The Velvet Underground, not Jimi Hendrix? You're as oblivious and undereducated in music as you are incapable of typing, if that be the case.

Originally posted by bakerboy
For not talking about talent and good songs. Im not talking only about popularity, what isnt really a sign of quality, im talking about many other things, and the beatles surpass the others in all those things.

They don't though. They're not better players, or better at making music.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles are the best british band ever, the best 60s band and the best band ever. Call it as you want, but they were and they will be the number ones.

Yeah, now if you could just try saying something different than the one thing I've been proving you wrong on, we can discuss further.

Originally posted by bakerboy
They were the westlife of their time, and of alltime.

They did have talent, but I agree with you there. They were the Westlife of their time. Liked and hyped beyond belief.

To tell you the truth, my Dad has been a huge Beatles fan for many many years. He even said that they're more liked now than they were then. Back then they were just a good band who hit superstardom unseen before.

-AC

Originally posted by bakerboy
First popular group. Any group before wasnt as popular as the beatles were, and they were influential in another groups of their time or younger.

They were the westlife of their time, and of alltime. Im listening beatles songs in everypart, radios, tv, spots, etc. Original or versioned.

Excuse me? Elvis was just as popular as Lennon in the 50s, at that time period, if you didn't know who Presley was you probably lived in a cave. The Beatles were not the first popular rock group, the Elvis-Mania of the late 50s alone is enough to prove that.

Nope, you are wrong, they were as good as the people claims and even better.

Their different styles in their differents times were so much influential in many groups. Since his " tennage group" days to their "hippie group" days, they were original all the way. Plus, they created the video clip.

Gargabe that i wont answer. You are being as arrogant and unfunny as always.

Im talking about their group days. Not their solo careers. Those thongs that i posted were great songs, as good as lennon's. But macartney has many good songs as individual and with the wings. Band on the run, no more lonely nights, live and let die, etc.

Only two great songs?? And which one of those harrison songs isnt great? Because he is one of the best song writters ever,and he prooved it in his last beatles days and in his solo career.

Surely, rick astley never could written that song, because only one genious as lennon was could do it. And imagine is one of the best songs ever, you will find it in all the lists of better songs ever.

More non sense gargabe. nothing to anwser.

Nope, none of those bands were as good as the beatles.

None of those people who you has posted was so influential as the beatles, except maybe jimi hendrix, who is very close, but not more. You were the one who posted that imagine was great only for being writting by lennon or that macartney songs werent as good as lennons. Who is the undereducated in music here?

They are better writting and playing music.

You didnt proved anything. Absolutely nothing.

Im talking about group, not individual. Clearly, elvis is as popular as the beatles and he was as influential and original as the beatles.

More influential group ever: beatles

More influential solo ever: Elvis

Originally posted by bakerboy
Im talking about group, not individual. Clearly, elvis is as popular as the beatles and he was as influential and original as the beatles.

More influential group ever: beatles

More influential solo ever: Elvis

Technically Elvis can be considered a band since he had a drummer and a guitarist.

The Doors gets my vote.. but I just recently watched a movie about them and omg.. I never knew that Morrison was always strung out on Acid and all that heavy sh*t while performing but they still have the best songs... CLASSICS!

Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, you are wrong, they were as good as the people claims and even better.

Wanna tell me why? Excluding the reasons I've already proven wrong? I'm sure it'll be hilarious.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Their different styles in their differents times were so much influential in many groups. Since his " tennage group" days to their "hippie group" days, they were original all the way. Plus, they created the video clip.

Video clip doesn't make them an influential band. Not in the way that matters, because we're talking music. Secondly, all you keep doing is saying they were so much more influential. Show why or stop posting because you're wrong.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Gargabe that i wont answer. You are being as arrogant and unfunny as always.

And you're being ignorant and uneducated, coincidentally, as always.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Im talking about their group days. Not their solo careers. Those thongs that i posted were great songs, as good as lennon's.

Well I'm talking about Lennon on his own being the most legendary Beatle and how one of his songs is ranked higher than most Beatles songs, for music. So once again, off point.

Originally posted by bakerboy
But macartney has many good songs as individual and with the wings. Band on the run, no more lonely nights, live and let die, etc

Are they as legendary and revered as Imagine? No.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Only two great songs?? And which one of those harrison songs isnt great? Because he is one of the best song writters ever,and he prooved it in his last beatles days and in his solo career.

Earlier stuff by The Beatles is the best. Second, you named two really good songs. That doesn't mean The Beatles are the most talented songwriters of all time.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Surely, rick astley never could written that song, because only one genious as lennon was could do it. And imagine is one of the best songs ever, you will find it in all the lists of better songs ever.

Learn to type coherently, it's hurting my brain to read your poorly constructed posts. Second of all, you missed my point entirely and repeated what I said. If Imagine WAS written by him, it wouldn't be as popular because the main reason why lots of people rank that song is because it was written by John Lennon and because he's dead. How do I know that? Because it's not the best song ever by a long shot. Just like The Beatles are ranked by you as the best ever at everything when they're not.

Originally posted by bakerboy
More non sense gargabe. nothing to anwser.

What I'm saying is, don't claim I know nothing of music when I know worlds more than you and you don't even know the bands I mentioned.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, none of those bands were as good as the beatles.

Truly of no valid musical opinion.

Originally posted by bakerboy
None of those people who you has posted was so influential as the beatles, except maybe jimi hendrix, who is very close, but not more.

Stop saying they were so influential and so original without saying why. You know why? Because you know you can't give evidence because you're a helpless sheep.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You were the one who posted that imagine was great only for being writting by lennon or that macartney songs werent as good as lennons. Who is the undereducated in music here?

You, factually. Because not only do you not know most of the bands I mentioned, you're actually claiming that The Beatles are the absolute best at everything involved in any area of music. Which is f*cking ridiculous. Lennon's are better than McCartney's and I've said what I had to about Imagine.

Originally posted by bakerboy
They are better writting and playing music.

They're not. Start showing me why you think that or stop replying.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You didnt proved anything. Absolutely nothing.

I did, but you did too. You proved that you know nothing with some of your quotes.

-AC

On their own, George wrote the best music. Lennon could never put together a complete album on his own, and many of his songs without McCartney have the feel of being too ambitious or unfinished (hell, even most of his songs on The White Album were like that without McCartney to help). George had All Things Must Pass which is a classic album and the best from any of the Beatles after the group's demise.

I think that Lennon was a very very gifted songwriter who was too lazy or ADD to keep up at it. If he would have put half the effort he into songwriting that he put into his politics, he maybe would have been able to complete a full album of great music on his own.

McCartney's problem was that he tried to distance himself from the Beatles music. For years he deliberately did things opposite of how the Beatles would do things, just so he wouldn't be pigeonholed. Of course, it didn't work, but he did make some very good pop rock songs.

Ringo...well he's Ringo.

Why I think The Beatles are the best ever is that they went from a boy band to being on the forefront of popular music for their time. They pioneered new sounds, they influenced every band around them directly or indirectly; Alpha, you masturbate over the fact that you say Mike Patton made new categories of music or that Thom Yorke makes experimental music, but then say that The Beatles' efforts at the same were somehow less. It's not. They were making concept albums (Sgt Pepper's) before the term was even there. They were doing psychedelia before the term was invented.

Other bands, other artists culd keep up with them for an album or two, but no one could keep pace with the beatles ever changing sound. And somehow they did all this while maintaining a popular sound, which is something that folk artists like Dylan and Tim Buckley couldn't do.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
On their own, George wrote the best music. Lennon could never put together a complete album on his own, and many of his songs without McCartney have the feel of being too ambitious or unfinished (hell, even most of his songs on The White Album were like that without McCartney to help). George had All Things Must Pass which is a classic album and the best from any of the Beatles after the group's demise.

So, I'll need your address. What name do I engrave onto your trophy for Best missed point of all time?

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
I think that Lennon was a very very gifted songwriter who was too lazy or ADD to keep up at it. If he would have put half the effort he into songwriting that he put into his politics, he maybe would have been able to complete a full album of great music on his own.

Right. What are you trying to prove exactly?

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
McCartney's problem was that he tried to distance himself from the Beatles music. For years he deliberately did things opposite of how the Beatles would do things, just so he wouldn't be pigeonholed. Of course, it didn't work, but he did make some very good pop rock songs.

You're proving me right, of course. With regards to Lennon/McCartney. But do go on...

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
Ringo...well he's Ringo.

Haha, he sure is. Continue though, I'm sure you'll come up with something that counters what I've said sooner or later.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
Why I think The Beatles are the best ever is that they went from a boy band to being on the forefront of popular music for their time.

Justin Timberlake did this. Forefront means jack shit.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
They pioneered new sounds, they influenced every band around them directly or indirectly; Alpha, you masturbate over the fact that you say Mike Patton made new categories of music or that Thom Yorke makes experimental music, but then say that The Beatles' efforts at the same were somehow less. It's not. They were making concept albums (Sgt Pepper's) before the term was even there. They were doing psychedelia before the term was invented.

Before we talk about who masturbates over who, you're the one making the claim that The Beatles (a, while great, extremely overhyped pop band from Liverpool) are the best band of all time and history. So even if I did masturbate over the talent of Mike Patton, it'd be justified. Because he's more talented than The Beatles on his own. I expect major backlash from you for this comment, or major "you know nothing" (despite that not being true) from bakerboy, but it happens to be true. So there ya go.

Making a concept album just means making an album that sticks to a theme or concept. They didn't create the term "Concept". The fact that the label hadn't been created does not mean they created the concept album. It just hadn't been labelled yet. They were doing psychedelia before the term was invented, ok. So what? If I go out and take up a sport without a name, but already in existance, does that mean I created it? No. You give The Beatles credit for major things they didn't even have a hand in the creating of. No wonder you think they're the best ever. There were emo bands in the real sense before the term emo ever got created. If The Beatles created anything, it wasn't so far removed or independant from any other type of music as the stuff Patton creates. Faith No More is probably the closest you'll get to a normal Rock band and some of the stuff on their albums is unclassifiable.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
Other bands, other artists culd keep up with them for an album or two, but no one could keep pace with the beatles ever changing sound. And somehow they did all this while maintaining a popular sound, which is something that folk artists like Dylan and Tim Buckley couldn't do.

So they continued to make music that was popular despite it being different, and this is your basis for them being the best band ever? Because if that's the case The Cure have always been extremely popular and have 16 albums to their name. Prince has always maintained an extremely popular fan base, the man has around 60 albums. Don't use the excuse "Yeah but there's some shit in there" because if The Beatles had 60, there'd be alot more shit.

-AC

1) actually the term emo came along when Rites of Spring and Embrace were making their music, and that was the beginning of 'emo' music. unless you are claiming that something else was emo before these bands, in which case i'd love to hear your rationale. also, popular artists (this doesn't just mean pop) before the Beatles generally did not make full albums -s ure they released LPs, but they were 9 times out of 10 just a vehicle to sell the single to people twice. the beatles changed all this when they started releasign albums full of original material (around the Help! era). the reason they could do this is because they were writing a full album's worth of good to great material.

If you put a band who can make intelligent pop records, something that is both complex enough for music snobs and catchy enough for the mainstream fan, that's the perfect storm. they balanced the line better than anyone else has over a career

and as for them 'only' recording 18 true albums in their career (not counting past masters or greatest hits volumes) that is an incredible number still - even more so when you consider that they only lasted six years. And "if the Beatles had 60 there'd be alot more shit." that is 1) unprovable 2) not a knock against the beatles, but a knock against the bands who held on too long. also the only bad album the beatles had one, maybe two bad records in that entire span, and none past Beatles VI.

PS: Prince has about 30 albums including greatest hits compilations.

You hadnt proove anything. And their influence in the music and not music culture is very clear. Most influential group ever.

Video clip is very important, and is a proof of their innovation. And not, you are the one who is wrong, because you hadnt posted any logical or valid reason on why they arent the most influential band ever.

You are the one who is a total musical ignorant posting gargabe like patton was so influential as the beatles. Man, that is simply bullshit.

Nope, you are the one off point. Because althought lennon was the most legendary beatle, Macartney songs are ranked as high as lennons. And what is most, hey jude, composed by paul, is considered by many people and especialized critics and magazines the best song by the beatles. Or songs like let it be, yesterday, get back , the long and winding road or eleanor rigby, composed by paul, are in all the top ten of the group. So , dont post that nonsense that shows your musical ignorancy.

Macartney, specially with the wings, has many and many very good songs that are consired pop hits and legendary in the 70s. But as usual, you dont know it.

I named three great songs, something, here comes the sun and while my guitar gently weeps. And as always, you couldnt be more wrong. George not only wrote those thongs , he wrote old brown shoe who is great too, and his solo career is amazing. And not, again wrong. The best beatles stuff are their latest years, with songs like hey jude, revolution, let it be, strawberry fields forever, sargents peppers, luci in the sky with diamonds, the fool on the hill, get back, the long and winding road and george songs.

Imagine is one of the best songs ever, not the best song. Where do you get that? And is good even if lennon wasnt his composer. But he was, and that is why he was a genious. And explain for good sake who is better than the beatles and why, in your opinion.

You cant give any evidence that they werent. You are only repeating that they werent, without any valid reason.

That thing was anwsered in my previous posts.

Show you why they arent

Not you didnt, any valid argument was posted in your posts. Try again.

George has prooved what a great composer he was. And a group with Lennon, Macartney and harrison together is the best songwritting ever. No doubt.

Ringo is very underrated, not only he was a very good drummer, he was a good singer and a good composer. But people underrated him because he was with three genious.

To compare justin timberlake with the beatles is something so crazy, stupid , nonsense and laughable that i wont anwser that.

They innovate in album concepts, video clip, bands style, diferent musical styles in a same band, etc.Isnt enough clear?? And as bugaloo has said very well, you masturbate over the thing that mike patton could be considered better or more innovate than beatles, What is laughable and ridiculous.

The fan base of the beatles is the most powerful ever, only the elvis fan base could be compared with that. And the beatles died as group 35 years ago, but they are one of the most selled group, most versioned, many and many bands try to copy their style, their songs could be heard in a lot of spots, tv programs, radios , etc. I think that is very clear that they were the best band of the 60s and the best and more influential band ever.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
1) actually the term emo came along when Rites of Spring and Embrace were making their music, and that was the beginning of 'emo' music. unless you are claiming that something else was emo before these bands, in which case i'd love to hear your rationale. also, popular artists (this doesn't just mean pop) before the Beatles generally did not make full albums -s ure they released LPs, but they were 9 times out of 10 just a vehicle to sell the single to people twice. the beatles changed all this when they started releasign albums full of original material (around the Help! era). the reason they could do this is because they were writing a full album's worth of good to great material.

Right, so this proves that they started making longer albums. Where in this does it show that they invented the concept album?

You missed my point about labels. I'm saying that just because something hasn't been labels, it doesn't mean those doing it, created it.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
If you put a band who can make intelligent pop records, something that is both complex enough for music snobs and catchy enough for the mainstream fan, that's the perfect storm. they balanced the line better than anyone else has over a career

You can argue that loads of bands do that though. They had beatlemania but we're discussing actual music, not reaction to. The Cure have done that pop/complex thing for ages, and better.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
and as for them 'only' recording 18 true albums in their career (not counting past masters or greatest hits volumes) that is an incredible number still - even more so when you consider that they only lasted six years. And "if the Beatles had 60 there'd be alot more shit." that is 1) unprovable 2) not a knock against the beatles, but a knock against the bands who held on too long. also the only bad album the beatles had one, maybe two bad records in that entire span, and none past Beatles VI.

You seriously believe that if The Beatles put out a huge amount of albums, that there'd be no shit in there? You're not that naive and I refuse to believe you are.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
PS: Prince has about 30 albums including greatest hits compilations.

'Twas an exaggeration.

-AC

Originally posted by bakerboy
You hadnt proove anything. And their influence in the music and not music culture is very clear. Most influential group ever.

Prove it, give me reasons and evidence or stop saying it. You've got nothing, no validity.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Video clip is very important, and is a proof of their innovation. And not, you are the one who is wrong, because you hadnt posted any logical or valid reason on why they arent the most influential band ever.

Video clip isn't important if we're discussing music.

You haven't posted any reason as to why they are, at all. I have posted with examples of why they aren't and you're not doing anything but saying "Yeah they are. No doubt." It doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You are the one who is a total musical ignorant posting gargabe like patton was so influential as the beatles. Man, that is simply bullshit.

Garbage? Patton? You're absolutely positive, or are you joking? Just so I can clarify that your opinion is truely worthless.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, you are the one off point. Because althought lennon was the most legendary beatle, Macartney songs are ranked as high as lennons. And what is most, hey jude, composed by paul, is considered by many people and especialized critics and magazines the best song by the beatles. Or songs like let it be, yesterday, get back , the long and winding road or eleanor rigby, composed by paul, are in all the top ten of the group. So , dont post that nonsense that shows your musical ignorancy.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about The Beatles song when I'm referring to them two. I'm referring to who is better our of Lennon and McCartney. None of McCartney's songs are as legendary or revered as Imagine. Simple as, fact. FACT.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Macartney, specially with the wings, has many and many very good songs that are consired pop hits and legendary in the 70s. But as usual, you dont know it.

I do know it, but it's not relevant because I'm referring to his solo work. Stop being a moron and trying to twist words. You don't know anything about any of the bands I've mentioned.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I named three great songs, something, here comes the sun and while my guitar gently weeps. And as always, you couldnt be more wrong. George not only wrote those thongs , he wrote old brown shoe who is great too, and his solo career is amazing. And not, again wrong. The best beatles stuff are their latest years, with songs like hey jude, revolution, let it be, strawberry fields forever, sargents peppers, luci in the sky with diamonds, the fool on the hill, get back, the long and winding road and george songs.

You prefer their older stuff, fine. Point is that you are continually naming Beatles songs as proof that each individual Beatle can compete with Lennon. If you can show me a song by any of them on their own that has been met with as much hailing as Imagine, I'll discuss with you some more. How many times has McCartney's, Ringo's or Harrisson's stuff topped a best song ever chart compared to Imagine?

Originally posted by bakerboy
Imagine is one of the best songs ever, not the best song. Where do you get that? And is good even if lennon wasnt his composer. But he was, and that is why he was a genious. And explain for good sake who is better than the beatles and why, in your opinion.

You're not doing anything besides saying "No doubt, the best. No doubt." I've actually explained to you why in previous posts. All you do is reply by saying "No you're wrong. They're better at writing songs." You're not proving anything, you're not giving any evidence. I am.

Imagine isn't one of the best songs ever, I'm saying it's RECOGNISED as one.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You cant give any evidence that they werent. You are only repeating that they werent, without any valid reason.

Hahahaha, that's exactly what you do. It's all you do.

Originally posted by bakerboy
That thing was anwsered in my previous posts.

Show you why they arent

Not you didnt, any valid argument was posted in your posts. Try again.

Post evidence, tell me EXACTLY and specifically why they are the best at EVERYTHING INVOLVING MUSIC ever.

Show me why you think they are the best at doing everything.

-AC

Originally posted by bordom
The Doors gets my vote.. but I just recently watched a movie about them and omg.. I never knew that Morrison was always strung out on Acid and all that heavy sh*t while performing but they still have the best songs... CLASSICS!

Yep, were you watching the Val Kilmer movie? How was it, I haven't seen it yet.

The Beatles aren't the most influential band ever.

What's the argument here- that without them there would be no x,y and z?

By the same token, without various black American musicians of the period and just prior, there would be no Beatles. The Beatles didn't invent music, they are a stepping stone along the line.

Same goes for innovation.

most influential band of the pop era.

Quite possibly, but then many bands are if you use the time they came about as year zero for music.

Originally posted by intoxicatedpoet
It was the greatest ****in' era of music, you can think of something.

****'in right you are...maybe you'd might add Led Zeppelin, Canned Heat, Johnny Winter and THe Rolling Stones to the chart...

Serioulsy, the beatles was the most important group of the pop/rock era. Most influential, best group, etc.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Serioulsy, the beatles was the most important group of the pop/rock era. Most influential, best group, etc.

Try giving reasons instead of sounding like a broken record.

Well they're factually not the best technically, or originally. So he must be speaking from a strictly biased P.O.V.

-AC

Why dont you try on post why they wasnt? Because you are the ones who are sounding like a broken record, posting all the time that they werent and not why they werent.

Its so easy, try to back to the first 60s, they were the first tennage group, they were the first popular band, they were the first band who mixed various styles: pop, rock, ballad, and the hippie style in the 70s. Best composer band, any band have three talents like lennon, macartney and harrison composing in the same group. First band on use the videoclip. Their albums style were revolutionary. They did albums like revolver with 20 or 22 years old, never any another band was so musically mature at that age. First group the use the video clip, most versioned group, most selled group in story, even 35 years later of his end as a group, etc. Do you want more???

And now, your reasons on why they werent

Originally posted by bakerboy
Why dont you try on post why they wasnt?

If you are claiming they are, you have the burden of proof.

And i posted it.

Both camps have- is still inconclusive. Which is surprising because AC is especially camp.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Why dont you try on post why they wasnt? Because you are the ones who are sounding like a broken record, posting all the time that they werent and not why they werent.

Obviously missed the point where I proved why, in my many posts.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Its so easy, try to back to the first 60s, they were the first tennage group, they were the first popular band, they were the first band who mixed various styles: pop, rock, ballad, and the hippie style in the 70s. Best composer band, any band have three talents like lennon, macartney and harrison composing in the same group.

First boyband, so? That doesn't make them the most original band ever to exist in terms of the music they make. If you look before them, you can clearly see their influences and pinpoint music that they weaved in with their own style.

Being the first band to become ultra popular worldwide does not make you the most original sounding band ever does it? No it doesn't.

Originally posted by bakerboy
First band on use the videoclip.

We're talking about music being made. Not how many girls can scream at them.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Their albums style were revolutionary. They did albums like revolver with 20 or 22 years old, never any another band was so musically mature at that age.

Mike Patton was 23 when Mr. Bungle (the most original band of all time) made their debut. There's more musical innovation and genius in their debut than in most albums ever. Never before had there been a band who influenced so many styles and created so many styles within their own. Jumping from hard rock, to jazz, to funk, to metal, to whatever else they chose to work with. That's not opinion. Faith No More's The Real Thing came out when Patton was in his early 20s. That album single handedly helped create and influence many of the bands that are looked to as legends now. Metallica for example.

So not only are Beatles not the most original sounding by far, they're definately not the most influential. You haven't even heard or heard OF Mr. Bungle so I suggest you do that before commenting.

Rush are a million times more talented than The Beatles can ever hope of being. So are Faith No More, Opeth, Tool, Dream Theatre, Radiohead...I could go on forever.

Originally posted by bakerboy
First group the use the video clip

This again....it's not relevant.

Originally posted by bakerboy
most versioned group, most selled group in story, even 35 years later of his end as a group, etc. Do you want more???

I would like more that shows why you still believe they are the best band to ever grace Earth. Because all you are showing is how popular they were, you're not proving half of what you claim.

Originally posted by bakerboy
And now, your reasons on why they werent

I've gave you mine, for the 4th time. Now answer the following questions:

/Why do you wrongly think that The Beatles are the most original band of all time WITH REGARDS TO THE MUSIC THEY MADE?

/Why do you wrongly think they are the most influential? Besides the fact that loads of bands and artists just say "The Beatles" to sound credible.

/Why do you also wrongly believe that they are the most talented on their instruments?

None of this BS about the video clip, being popular among many girls, or being teenagers. This is about music. So answer those questions.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Faith No More's The Real Thing came out when Patton was in his early 20s. That album single handedly helped create and influence many of the bands that are looked to as legends now. Metallica for example.



-AP

Although they had already released 4 albums when The Real Thing came out.

Yeah but that wasn't with Patton.

And stop calling me AP.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah but that wasn't with Patton.

And stop calling me AP.

-AP

What wasn't with Patton? What are you on about?

Oh you meant Metallica, I thought you meant Faith No More.

Yes I know. Still were influenced, according to Uncle Jim.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh you meant Metallica, I thought you meant Faith No More.

Yes I know. Still were influenced, according to Uncle Jim.

-AP

Pre-Patton.

Yeah I know, but only part of my point was highlighting Patton. The point was showing that again, The Beatles aren't the most influential band. Because they aren't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah I know, but only part of my point was highlighting Patton. The point was showing that again, The Beatles aren't the most influential band. Because they aren't.

-AP

The whole point was about The Real Thing you mug. Read it.

Yeah, that album did influence Metallica also, so said Uncle Jim.

Shitron.

-AC

Laugh if everyone in this thread just started kicking you indiscriminately. Following each jerky retaliation with another kick.

Hahaha, never ceases to amaze me how much of a shitcase you are.

-AC

before we continue this debate about patton influencing metallica...i'd like to point out that in recent years lars said that oasis were one their biggest influences...

didn't really have much to do with the patton issue...but i thought i'd mention it

I think that Pink Floyd was the the best 60's band.

The had music out in the 60's
Three albums

The piper at the gates of Dawn - 1967
A saucerful of secrests - 1967
Music from the film More - 1969

putting out three of their worst albums doesn't make them a best band of the decade

To be terribly cliche, Dark Side of the Moon is only Pink Floyd album I can tolerate.

-AC

Worst Albums

Only Music from the film more I'd label as a worst album.

The other the other two are both quite good.

Pink Floyd

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To be terribly cliche, Dark Side of the Moon is only Pink Floyd album I can tolerate.

-AC

'The Wall' was better.

Lets see centauri:

Not, you didnt proove anything. Could you post in wich line from you thare are any proove about something? because i dont find anything.

Man, if they were the first popular band is logic that they influentied the groups after them. And their mix of different styles were copied by many bands, since the stones to the who.

What are you talking about? im talking about the videoclip, what was , is and will very important to the music and you talk me about girls screaming. Dont be that fool.

Boy, dont insist bringing Mike Patton here. He wasnt as imporant as the beatles, the stones, the who, the doors, hendrix or dylan. Dont try again and again to bring patton to the discussion because he is miles away from those people. Plus, those people who you mentioned are miles away of the beatles too. Try with people like the rolling stones, the who, the doors or queen, not that people. Your musical taste is weird and you have a very curious concept of the music history and influence, comparing people like patton or faith not more with the beatles.

Yes, is relevant.

To be one of the most selled groups after 35 years of his end as a group and being the most versioned band is a clear sign of his quality and permanence.

The beatles were the best band of all time and they mixed several styles at their time, nothing of that was seeing before them.

Once again, you are mixing things. The beatles were the most influential group even on people who never reconigze it to sound credible. See balads of the stones like ruby tuesday or wild horses, clearly influentied by the beatles.

I didnt say that, i posted that none of them were the best one or even one of the best in their instruments. But they were overall the best band composing songs, three of the most talented songwritters of all time in the same group. plus, they neednt to be the best ones of their instruments to be the best band, they complemented each other in a perfect way.

I didnt say anything about girls screaming, you are mixing the things again. I said that at first the were the first tennage group, after that, the evolucionated on being a hippie group with more mature and deep music, making albums like sargent peppers or white album, who are consired two of the best albums of all time. Plus, sargent pepper album influentiated the form and the style and the format of many and many albums. But here is some facts more to proove that the beatles is the best and more influential group of all time:

They are the group with more songs in any top list made by specialized critics and magazines, with songs like hey jude, yesterday or strawberry fields forever that can be founded easily in any of those lists. Plus, the same for some lennon songs like imagine or a jelous guy.

They are the group with more albums in any top list made by specialized magazines and critics. Albums like sargent peppers, revolver, abbey road or white album could be founded easily in any of those lists. Plus, sargent peppers is the best album of all time by the specialized magazines of England, Scotland, Ireland or Germany.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Not, you didnt proove anything. Could you post in wich line from you thare are any proove about something? because i dont find anything.

The fact that you don't find anything doesn't mean that I didn't post anything. I've posted multiple times and if you're not going to take the time to read them, I'm not going to take the time to keep posting them to you, only so you can go "Nah, you're not proving anything. The Beatles are best, most influential etc".

Originally posted by bakerboy
Man, if they were the first popular band is logic that they influentied the groups after them. And their mix of different styles were copied by many bands, since the stones to the who.

Copied? I don't hear The Beatles massively when I listen to The Stones, nor when I listen to The Who. Being a fan of a band doesn't mean your music sounds like them. I can't make music like Jimi Hendrix because I like him.

Originally posted by bakerboy
What are you talking about? im talking about the videoclip, what was , is and will very important to the music and you talk me about girls screaming. Dont be that fool.

If we're gonna reply to each other for long periods of time with me providing the proof and you providing the.....the erm....well, with you replying, can you at least type properly? Good.

This is a discussion about music, not image. Video clip has nothing to do with music.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Boy, dont insist bringing Mike Patton here. He wasnt as imporant as the beatles, the stones, the who, the doors, hendrix or dylan. Dont try again and again to bring patton to the discussion because he is miles away from those people. Plus, those people who you mentioned are miles away of the beatles too.

They're factually better than The Beatles in many aspects. Provable areas. They're better musicians, fact, because as it becomes forgotten on here, technique is provable.

Patton is better than The Beatles, to listen to his work, all of it, and suggest otherwise is just ignorant and silly. You've never even heard Patton's stuff extensively admittedly so you're in no position to judge.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Try with people like the rolling stones, the who, the doors or queen, not that people. Your musical taste is weird and you have a very curious concept of the music history and influence, comparing people like patton or faith not more with the beatles.

What are you talking about? You're just rambling.

You have no music taste outside of The Beatles. When you actually know who I'm talking about, THEN maybe we can discuss other bands.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Yes, is relevant.

Not sure what you're referring to since you are just posting random lines to random parts of my post with no quote, but if you mean the video clip, no it's not.

Originally posted by bakerboy
To be one of the most selled groups after 35 years of his end as a group and being the most versioned band is a clear sign of his quality and permanence.

The Backstreet Boys are among the highest selling, so is 50 Cent. Is that a sign of quality and permanence? No. This isn't about videos or record sales, so stop it.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles were the best band of all time and they mixed several styles at their time, nothing of that was seeing before them.

Nothing that Mr. Bungle did was seen before them. They were way more talented in music produced and ability on instruments. Not to mention they were (and this is a borderline fact, just listen to them) way more original than any other band ever. But, that's wasted on you since you don't know who they are. They weren't the best band of all time, nor are they now.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Once again, you are mixing things. The beatles were the most influential group even on people who never reconigze it to sound credible. See balads of the stones like ruby tuesday or wild horses, clearly influentied by the beatles.

It's getting harder to read your posts, if I'm doing you the honour of replying, please spell properly.

Why are you using a couple of songs to insist that The Beatles are the most influential group ever?

1) They aren't.

2) Faith No More have had BANDS created because of them, important bands. System of a Down are arguably the most unique band today, mostly coming from Serj Tankien's voice. Which he stole from one Patton song.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I didnt say that, i posted that none of them were the best one or even one of the best in their instruments. But they were overall the best band composing songs, three of the most talented songwritters of all time in the same group. plus, they neednt to be the best ones of their instruments to be the best band, they complemented each other in a perfect way.

You finally make SOME sense, but you're still wrong. They aren't the most talented at composing songs. I can hold any Rush album up to theirs and show you how The Beatles pale in comparison. The very fact that you have claimed that Opeth, Tool, Faith No More, Mr. Bungle and Rush are "miles" away from The Beatles really does show your musically opinionated ineptitude.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I didnt say anything about girls screaming, you are mixing the things again. I said that at first the were the first tennage group, after that, the evolucionated on being a hippie group with more mature and deep music, making albums like sargent peppers or white album, who are consired two of the best albums of all time.

Evolucionated? Wow...

Having two of the (very arguable) best albums of all time doesn't make you the best band in every aspect, ever. Which is what you claimed they are and which I have proved to no challenge, that they aren't.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Plus, sargent pepper album influentiated the form and the style and the format of many and many albums.

Stop making up words.

Second, so did Faith No More's The Real Thing. What do you want? A medal?

Originally posted by bakerboy
But here is some facts more to proove that the beatles is the best and more influential group of all time:

They are the group with more songs in any top list made by specialized critics and magazines, with songs like hey jude, yesterday or strawberry fields forever that can be founded easily in any of those lists. Plus, the same for some lennon songs like imagine or a jelous guy.

That doesn't mean anything. Music polls are loads of people saying what they think, doesn't make it fact. A FACT is that many people feel obligated to vote for The Beatles because they either don't know better or just want to be cool.

Originally posted by bakerboy
They are the group with more albums in any top list made by specialized magazines and critics. Albums like sargent peppers, revolver, abbey road or white album could be founded easily in any of those lists.

See above.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Plus, sargent peppers is the best album of all time by the specialized magazines of England, Scotland, Ireland or Germany.

It's not is it? You just made that up. Infact, Kerrang are a specialist magazine. They've cited Lateralus by Tool and Ghost Reveries by Opeth as the best albums ever, recently. Never seen em do it for Sargeant Peppers. Why? Because The Beatles are just really good. They're not the best anything.

Moreover, they're no longer relevant. There are more bands and there are better bands. Simple truth.

Next time, quote my posts, learn to spell and learn...actually, just learn anything. Assimilate.

-AC

Yikes, what a combination. The Beatles, The Doors, The Who, The Byrds, Jimi Hendrix, Allman Brothers Band & Bob Dylan were all fantastic. The rest were, well, sh**. I went with The Who since I saw them so many times. Dylan is awesome and The Beatles, well, who can say they weren't great? I wonder what music would be like today had they never existed. I'm surprised the Stones aren't on this list, though.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The fact that you don't find anything doesn't mean that I didn't post anything. I've posted multiple times and if you're not going to take the time to read them, I'm not going to take the time to keep posting them to you, only so you can go "Nah, you're not proving anything. The Beatles are best, most influential etc".

I didnt find anything because there arent anything. Your posts are only vague nonsense without any valid proof.



Copied? I don't hear The Beatles massively when I listen to The Stones, nor when I listen to The Who. Being a fan of a band doesn't mean your music sounds like them. I can't make music like Jimi Hendrix because I like him.

When i posted copied, i wanted to say that people like the stones or the who, mainly the first one, copied some things of the beatles. People like Jagger or Richards have reconigzed it.



If we're gonna reply to each other for long periods of time with me providing the proof and you providing the.....the erm....well, with you replying, can you at least type properly? Good.

Sorry, but i havent enought time to be on the computer. I preffer to waste my time in another different things.

This is a discussion about music, not image. Video clip has nothing to do with music.
Once again, same discussion, same anwser. Video clip its very important in the music, it gives to the groups and singers to help his music with images, that is a very important thing.



They're factually better than The Beatles in many aspects. Provable areas. They're better musicians, fact, because as it becomes forgotten on here, technique is provable.

Not, they arent. Which aspects are you talking about? explain yourself. Better in thechnique. Probably. The beatles werent the best ones playing their instruments, but as a group they complemented each to other in a perfect way, as i have said before. As a group, only a few groups could be at their same height.

Patton is better than The Beatles, to listen to his work, all of it, and suggest otherwise is just ignorant and silly. You've never even heard Patton's stuff extensively admittedly so you're in no position to judge.

Patton is miles away from the beatles. You are being a fan boy again. The fact that patton is your idol doestn mean that he was that important in the music history. Not as the beatles, the stones, hendrix or dylan. He is in another league . And dont be that arrogant, you dont know what i hear and what not. I have heard patton and he is a good musician, but not at those levels. Once again , you are masturbating with your fanboysm.



What are you talking about? You're just rambling.



You have no music taste outside of The Beatles. When you actually know who I'm talking about, THEN maybe we can discuss other bands.

You are being an idiot once again. You havent any idea on what i heard and what not. I know a lot about any other bands. In fact, beasides beatles, i love queen, rolling stones or the doors. And people like elvis, bowie, elton john, bob dylan, hendrix or springteen.


Not sure what you're referring to since you are just posting random lines to random parts of my post with no quote, but if you mean the video clip, no it's not.
That stuff was anwsered before.



The Backstreet Boys are among the highest selling, so is 50 Cent. Is that a sign of quality and permanence? No. This isn't about videos or record sales, so stop it.

Once again, mixing the things. The comparation with the backstreet boys is cheesy and nonsense. im not only talking about sells, im talking about a group who is one of the most versioned and important 35 years after their death as a group.



Nothing that Mr. Bungle did was seen before them. They were way more talented in music produced and ability on instruments. Not to mention they were (and this is a borderline fact, just listen to them) way more original than any other band ever. But, that's wasted on you since you don't know who they are. They weren't the best band of all time, nor are they now.

The beatles was and is the best band of all time.



It's getting harder to read your posts, if I'm doing you the honour of replying, please spell properly.

Stupid stuff once again.

Why are you using a couple of songs to insist that The Beatles are the most influential group ever?

1) They aren't.

They are.

2) Faith No More have had BANDS created because of them, important bands. System of a Down are arguably the most unique band today, mostly coming from Serj Tankien's voice. Which he stole from one Patton song.

None of those groups has meaned anything comparable to the beatles.



You finally make SOME sense, but you're still wrong. They aren't the most talented at composing songs. I can hold any Rush album up to theirs and show you how The Beatles pale in comparison. The very fact that you have claimed that Opeth, Tool, Faith No More, Mr. Bungle and Rush are "miles" away from The Beatles really does show your musically opinionated ineptitude.

Are you saying that rush was better composing songs than the beatles??? better than lennon, macartney or harrison? Man, you are posting bullshit and showing your total ignorancy on music. Any of the songs by those people could compare to the poetry, meaning or musical importance of songs like hey jude, yesterday, let it be or strawberry fields forever.



Evolucionated? Wow...

Having two of the (very arguable) best albums of all time doesn't make you the best band in every aspect, ever. Which is what you claimed they are and which I have proved to no challenge, that they aren't.

Once again, you are masturbating yourself with those proofs that you havent poste in any moment. A group that has, not only two or three, but 15 or 20 of their songs in almost all the top 100 of all time songs and 4 or 5 albums in those lists, the group with more albums and more songs in the majority of those lists, it means something.



Stop making up words.

Second, so did Faith No More's The Real Thing. What do you want? A medal?



That doesn't mean anything. Music polls are loads of people saying what they think, doesn't make it fact. A FACT is that many people feel obligated to vote for The Beatles because they either don't know better or just want to be cool.
Those pools on what im talking about are by SPECIAL MUSICAL CRITICS, no by fans.


See above.



It's not is it? You just made that up. Infact, Kerrang are a specialist magazine. They've cited Lateralus by Tool and Ghost Reveries by Opeth as the best albums ever, recently. Never seen em do it for Sargeant Peppers. Why? Because The Beatles are just really good. They're not the best anything.
Kerrang??? well, see rolling stones or another magazines, because they have sargent peppers in all the top 10 or 100 of all time.

Moreover, they're no longer relevant. There are more bands and there are better bands. Simple truth.
Simply bullshith. They are consireded the best band of all time.

Next time, quote my posts, learn to spell and learn...actually, just learn anything. Assimilate.
Maybe your should assimilate some things like truth, fact, logic, musical knowlegde, etc. It would be good.

-AC

First, sort out your ability to post or I'm gonna stop replying to you.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I didnt find anything because there arent anything. Your posts are only vague nonsense without any valid proof.


Stop being ridiculous. Everyone has seen the wealth of examples I've used to prove you wrong.

Originally posted by bakerboy
When i posted copied, i wanted to say that people like the stones or the who, mainly the first one, copied some things of the beatles. People like Jagger or Richards have reconigzed it.

Yeah, so you were inaccurate then weren't you? What you meant was, a few members of those bands are fans of The Beatles. Proves nothing.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Once again, same discussion, same anwser. Video clip its very important in the music, it gives to the groups and singers to help his music with images, that is a very important thing.

No, it's not. It's image, not music. Then again, they were the first boyband. Maybe they wouldn't have done so well without their boyish good looks and such. Thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Not, they arent. Which aspects are you talking about? explain yourself. Better in thechnique. Probably. The beatles werent the best ones playing their instruments, but as a group they complemented each to other in a perfect way, as i have said before. As a group, only a few groups could be at their same height.

That's your belief and you're entitled to that. In terms of music produced, I cannot make you agree that they are nowhere near the best ever. I can't hear the music for you. However, I think you're extremely overrating their ability due to believing they are the best band ever.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Patton is miles away from the beatles. You are being a fan boy again. The fact that patton is your idol doestn mean that he was that important in the music history.

Hahahahahaha! Oh that is truly priceless. Truly.

"The fact that patton is your idol doestn mean that he was that important in the music history."

Precisely. It doesn't. The fact that he has done more for music that The Beatles ever will, does. You are the one judging on your love of the band, not what they did. You haven't even heard, extensively, Patton's work. So you're not able to comment.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Not as the beatles, the stones, hendrix or dylan. He is in another league . And dont be that arrogant, you dont know what i hear and what not. I have heard patton and he is a good musician, but not at those levels. Once again , you are masturbating with your fanboysm.

I don't believe you've heard Patton at all, or if you have, certainly not enough to judge. You didn't even know his band when I mentioned them.

I masturbate with fanboyism? Dude, from the way you talk it wouldn't be a surprise if you had candid captures of John Lennon doing a beach workout.

Just kidding of course. But I do find it funny when people reply with no evidence to back up their claims followed by insults. Pretty funny. Especially seeing as the only reason you're still replying is ignorance.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You are being an idiot once again. You havent any idea on what i heard and what not. I know a lot about any other bands. In fact, beasides beatles, i love queen, rolling stones or the doors. And people like elvis, bowie, elton john, bob dylan, hendrix or springteen.

You just named some of the most famous musicians ever, it doesn't mean you have any knowledge.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Once again, mixing the things. The comparation with the backstreet boys is cheesy and nonsense. im not only talking about sells, im talking about a group who is one of the most versioned and important 35 years after their death as a group.

What in the red HELL are you talking about? Sales mean nothing AT ALL. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. Stop bringing that up.

You continue saying they're this, they're that and I'm proving to you or AT LEAST providing alot of example to show that they're not. All you ever do is say "The Beatles are the most...etc etc". However, I do have faith that you're not so far up Lennon's soiled (probably over your head) passage that you truly believe they are the best ever.

Infact, I bet you're gonna give me a good reply to my informed Mr. Bungle comment. Maybe you'll actually start providing relevant evidence as to why you think that too! Let's see:

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles was and is the best band of all time.

Oh...never mind. Still, I do believe you just had a brain relapse. You're holding all your knowledge and proof back to counter the evidence and examples I've provided in this thread, only to unleash them. Like now!:

Originally posted by bakerboy
None of those groups has meaned anything comparable to the beatles.

Oh....same again. Still, let's press on. Maybe you'll actually stop buffing McCartney and provide the answer to why you believe this instead of just saying "Nah The Beatles are the best."

Originally posted by bakerboy
Are you saying that rush was better composing songs than the beatles??? better than lennon, macartney or harrison? Man, you are posting bullshit and showing your total ignorancy on music. Any of the songs by those people could compare to the poetry, meaning or musical importance of songs like hey jude, yesterday, let it be or strawberry fields forever.

Hahaha oh dear. This is what I get when I have faith in you.

Firstly, Rush are unquestionably better. Second, all you have done in this thread is say the same comments (literally, in many cases) over again, post song titles, hurl insults and reply with "Man you're talking bullshit." Never have you actually shown, substantially, why you believe what you do. It's really pointless. If you believe so strongly that they are what you say, show me why. I've heard all The Beatles stuff you have. So tell me what I'm missing with your oh so wide and developed opinion (aka The Beatles).

Originally posted by bakerboy
Once again, you are masturbating yourself with those proofs that you havent poste in any moment. A group that has, not only two or three, but 15 or 20 of their songs in almost all the top 100 of all time songs and 4 or 5 albums in those lists, the group with more albums and more songs in the majority of those lists, it means something.

First, stop referring to masturbating, it makes me uncomfortable. Next, you are spouting unfounded nonsense. Where are you getting these claims from? Nowhere, you're making them up. People mention The Beatles because they're The Beatles. That is a fact. Lists mean nothing. They are what people believe to be the best in their opinion. I could make one and The Beatles wouldn't be in it. To make a rather founded generalisation, the only people who still think The Beatles are the best band ever are old crones who still think that music hasn't evolved, and old crones stuck in young bodies who think that by saying The Beatles are the best, they're some how gaining credibility. The Beatles were, they aren't anymore.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Those pools on what im talking about are by SPECIAL MUSICAL CRITICS, no by fans.

SPECIAL music critics? I not only detect a hefty whiff of the old butt putty but to add to that, I'm a music critic. I critique music. Music critics are fans. That doesn't make it fact. It's loads of fans saying what they like. See above.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Kerrang??? well, see rolling stones or another magazines, because they have sargent peppers in all the top 10 or 100 of all time.

Yeah because Rolling Stone are the same bunch of old/young crones I talked about. Half of their writers wouldn't know good music for real if it smacked them. Kerrang are actually dedicated completely to music, not celebrity sounds.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Simply bullshith. They are consireded the best band of all time.

The Beatles are no longer relevant. There have been better bands since and there will continue to be. They're legends more from who they are than what they did. If The Beatles didn't have the reputation they did, the hype, they wouldn't ever be considered anything close to what they are. My Dad is someone who was into The Beatles when they were actually still around and touring, in their prime. He actually says that they were just a really good band at the time. As time's gone on they've become legendary more so from who they are than the stuff they created. Anyone around then would know that, anyone with a perceptive ability beyond that of a nazi could tell that.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Maybe your should assimilate some things like truth, fact, logic, musical knowlegde, etc. It would be good.

Good one, slick .

Seriously though, I don't mind doing this. But next time, be relevant, QUOTE AND POST PROPERLY and actually answer my questions. If I see another "No The Beatles are the best" with a list of songs and random false assumptions, I'm gonna concede your surrender .

-AC

AC, all you do is say your same opinions over and over like they're facts. we get it. you don't think the beatles are the best. jesus.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
AC, all you do is say your same opinions over and over like they're facts. we get it. you don't think the beatles are the best. jesus.

I don't think my liking a band is fact, I think Rush are more talented songwriters. I can't prove that. I think they're better on their instruments coz they are. The man continually posts pages of the same line, literally in some cases. He asks for who I believe to be better and why, I show him. He replies with "No, you're wrong. The Beatles is and was the best band ever."

I find it ironic that you don't say to him "Baker, all you do is say your same opinions over and over like they're fact. we get it. you think the beatles are the best. jesus." Maybe it's a fan thing.

That and I've seen you put across your opinion as if fact many times. Let's not call the kettle black.

-AC

maybe its because his sig isn't as noticeable.

and because i tend to ignore him.

Fair play, guvnor.

No harm or foul.

-AC

i think the main difference between me and you is that you take even the least musically knowledged person as seriously as the most. i just ignore those that have no idea what they're talking about.

Beatles and other. There's too many to specify.

Well, this discussion is dead for my part. Centauri, your opinions or my opinions arent facts, only opinions. You dont like the beatles so much as me, ok, end of discussion. I think that is very boring to the people pages and pages about the same discussion without any conclusion. It just boring and a waste of time. For me, the beatles are the best, for you, not. End of discussion.

Bugaloo,please, explain for me that ignore thing and that not musical knowlegde thing, because if its for me, you are totally wrong. Im just post my opinion like you or centauri, i like music and i have some music knowlegde, i love music and i love many and many bands and singers, my opinion is as relevant as yours or centauri or any other people. If you are posting that i havent any musical idea, you are wrong.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, this discussion is dead for my part. Centauri, your opinions or my opinions arent facts, only opinions. You dont like the beatles so much as me, ok, end of discussion. I think that is very boring to the people pages and pages about the same discussion without any conclusion. It just boring and a waste of time. For me, the beatles are the best, for you, not. End of discussion.

You weren't helping matters by requesting examples which I gave, only to reply with the same lines. It's dead because you killed it.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Bugaloo,please, explain for me that ignore thing and that not musical knowlegde thing, because if its for me, you are totally wrong. Im just post my opinion like you or centauri, i like music and i have some music knowlegde, i love music and i love many and many bands and singers, my opinion is as relevant as yours or centauri or any other people. If you are posting that i havent any musical idea, you are wrong.

In EB's defence, I never agree with his opinion on The Beatles, but he knows alot more than you appear to. He knows other bands, for a start.

You don't really have any idea. That's plain to see.

-AC

Man, you are being a total idiot again.

First of all, the discussion is dead because we are only posting our personal opinions, any conclusion or definitive proof. Only matter of opinions. Because of that, the discussion doesnt go to anyplace.

Second of all, i know and like many bands beasides the beatles. As i have said before, queen, rolling stones, who, doors , bee gees, u2, etc. So,you are only posting false crap. And well, if you think that he knows more than me about music, fine. Not problem with that. Its your opinion. But please, dont doubt about the musical knowlegde of people who you dont know, its very stupid and arrogant. I dont know you or bugaloo in real life, so i dont know what music you know or not. The opposite is pretty absurd.

Originally posted by bakerboy
First of all, the discussion is dead because we are only posting our personal opinions, any conclusion or definitive proof. Only matter of opinions. Because of that, the discussion doesnt go to anyplace.

You continually requested more and more examples of why I believed what I did, I provided them. You couldn't provide the same, so now you're bailing. Understandably.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Second of all, i know and like many bands beasides the beatles. As i have said before, queen, rolling stones, who, doors , bee gees, u2, etc. So,you are only posting false crap. And well, if you think that he knows more than me about music, fine. Not problem with that. Its your opinion. But please, dont doubt about the musical knowlegde of people who you dont know, its very stupid and arrogant. I dont know you or bugaloo in real life, so i dont know what music you know or not. The opposite is pretty absurd.

Well done on namechecking the world's most famous bands. You must be very proud.

-AC

Oh man, you are so boring. You have to discuss on everything. Its a kind of mental frustration or something? So, in your opinion, musical knowlegde is only a matter of knowing unknowed or not so popular bands or singers. Interesting.

No it's not, but your idea of proving that you know alot is by naming some of the world's most famous bands.

How do you expect to be taken seriously in a "best band" debate if you know about 10?

-AC

Lets see, we are in a thread about best 60s bands. I dont think that the bunch is so big in this time. Many bands in that period? sure. Many real great bands in that period? not so many.

We got into a discussion of all time though, didn't we?

-AC

Man, i cant post all the bands that i like his music because the list would be too long to post here.

Other: The KinKs band

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/hot_knight/kinks.jpg

Other : Pink Floyd

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Seriously, my vote goes to The Who.

thumbsup

the beatles, the doors, the who, and jimmi hendrix are all good! but i voted for the beatles. more songs. and great lyrics.

not sure. but i think led zeppelin was out around that time. in the late 60's.

The Beatles were not only the best band in the 60s, but are also the greatest band ever.

Jefferson Airplane

Originally posted by BobbyD
The Beatles were not only the best band in the 60s, but are also the greatest band ever.

That was said a bit too matter of factly for something so able to be countered.

It was funny the first time. You're becoming canned-laughter now, Bob.

-AC

Originally posted by BobbyD
The Beatles were not only the best band in the 60s, but are also the greatest band ever.
Umm no. They were the greastest band in the world....in that era. Now their record sales are nothing compared to some bands of today.

Personally the best band was The Who!

Record sales mean nothing.

The Beatles have never been the greatest band ever.

-AC

I can't get anything past you, huh AC?

Who's AC?

Oh...

-AC

Pretty clever.

The Doors were my favourite, but the Beatles were definitely the best.

Intoxicated, you left the Beach Boys out. Though not my favorite, they were verrry popular in the 60's also.

Jeepers, you left the Rolling Stones out too?

Originally posted by TigerEyes
Personally the best band was The Who!

thumbsup

The Kinks

Hendrix for me