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.
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.
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
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.
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.