The Beatles...not that great - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Flacolaco · 09-09-2009, 11:58 PM

There seem to be a lot of mini threads blossoming from the original. I'm not even sure what the original post was meant to critique, really.

There are some criticizing the lyrical content.

There are some some criticizing the technical skill/musicianship

There are some who are thinking "song writing" (and I am in this group. If you've ever tried to write a song or 20, you can surely appreciate the beatles in this way at least, right?)

Suffice it to say....none of this is going to arrive at any kind of consensus.

The thing that is 100% for sure, is that the original comparison to the backstreet boys is completely inappropriate and idiotic.

One was an extraordinarily contrived, organized search for a group of young "men" who who would be thrown together to sing songs that someone else wrote....

The other was a band that formed organically, who played instruments, wrote and produced a lot of their own stuff that has survived 40+ years of scrutiny.

What an idiotic comparison. (wait....N Sync? backstreet boys?....ah....same thing

)

mary · 09-10-2009, 12:15 AM

Not all Beatles songs were created equally.

In general, music is overrated. Trying to figure out lyrics is usually pointless (as are most lyrics). Comparing music from different decades seems kinda silly.

But if I were stranded on a desert island and could only listen to one band, it would be the Beatles.

If I were a death row inmate, I'd happily listen to Polythene Pam with my final chicken fried steak.

If I were trapped in a Ray Bradbury novel, I would cut a bitch for trying to take away my Helter Skelter.

To each his own.

rmacomic · 09-10-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think Beatles are vastly overrated.

She Loves You yeah yeah yeah <--- pure crap, and their later stuff was mostly lsd induced nonsense. Yeah they put out a few good tunes, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then and if a band cranks out 40 new fluff songs every year for a decade then something is going to appeal to somebody....but on the whole weren't anything special. (Page & Plant >>>>>> Lennon and McCartney)

From the Telegraph

I share this sneaking suspicion that the Beatles were nothing more than N-Sync or Color-Me-Badd for the baby boomers--witness screaming, crying teen aged girls watching these mop-headed twits get off the plane in the original british invasion and then watch sreaming twittering teenaged girls watch the freaking Jonas Brothers today....it's the same phenomena. Anyhoo....I think the beatles are sort of a British version of Menudo, their legendary status is a product of the most worthless and banal generation of all time, the Baby Boomers.

yeah, that's the beatles....marketing driven lightweight fluff, a product of the lightweight fluff generation of all time, the Baby Boomers.

Am alone in my lack of regard for the Beatles?

One thousand republican, conservative posts I disagree with, and this is the one I hate you for?

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 08:10 AM

I start awesome threads.

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I start awesome threads.

That needs to be a sig....

Murphy3 · 09-10-2009, 08:56 AM

I would gouge my eardrums if I was forced to listen to nothing but the beatles when stuck on a desert island.

Honestly, I suppose I should mention that I couldn't even name the 4 Beatles until sometime around senior year in high school/freshman year in college.

I don't know... if stuck on a island with only one thing to listen to, let me listen to Eric Nadel..and in the off season, I'll take the best of Eric Nadel.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

if musical talent was what it was all about, then this girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpzQsJkC3u0 would be more well known than the Beatles or Led Zepplin. The Beatles weren't about sophisticated lyrics or complicated riffs. That's not what they did, and it's not what the times called for. They were about selling tons of music, making girls scream, and influencing a generation. And they did all that better than Led Zeppelin

oh, and:
"Gilmour said: "I really wish I had been in The Beatles. I was always a massive fan. The Beatles taught me how to play guitar, I learnt everything. The bass parts, the lead, the rhythm, everything. They were fantastic.""
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/mu...s_Beatles_wish

you're right...everybody else is wrong....except for Murphy's comment about Eric Nadel.

Justin Credible · 09-10-2009, 09:52 AM

I caught myself reading through some of this thread again and laughing at the audacity within. People are comparing a band from the 60's with a band that came out 40 years later...

Look at the evolution of music just throughout the last decade. Then last 20 years. Then last 30 years. Then last 40. The Beatles' music has withstood all of that and, throughout their tenure as musicians, molded themselves to a newer style of music whilst keeping true to exactly what made them superstars in the first place. Not many bands in Rock history have been able to pull that off..

Regarding Paul's/John's lyrics; read some of the later Beatles songs. They were absolutely brilliant from a lyrical standpoint, and the simplicity of the music it was set to just seemed to add to the overall aura of the music itself.

Some people say they were a pop band that could be compared to nsync.. I'd say they were more like Nirvana, only much better and waayy before their time.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

The thing that is 100% for sure, is that the original comparison to the backstreet boys is completely inappropriate and idiotic.

One was an extraordinarily contrived, organized search for a group of young "men" who who would be thrown together to sing songs that someone else wrote....

The other was a band that formed organically, who played instruments, wrote and produced a lot of their own stuff that has survived 40+ years of scrutiny.

What an idiotic comparison. (wait....N Sync? backstreet boys?....ah....same thing

)

Flaco,

I love you dearly and I wish that I were the one carrying your demon seed....

...that said, I think you go to far when you say with 100% certainty that the comparison between the Beatles and Generic Boy Band is incorrect.

First of all...yeah the Beatles wrote their own stuff, but the early stuff they wrote is amazingly silly. I imagine that if Color-Me-Badd had been allowed to write their own tunes, they couldn't have written anything more silly or trite than the Beatles wrote.

More importantly, the comparison between N-Sync (or Menudo) and the Beatles is mostly based on the target audience for these bands. The overwhelming theme in the Beatles early twiddle is stuff like....

I wanna hold your hand...
I wanna be your man....

'your' being the target audience, mostly comprised of giggly, trite 13 year old girls. That is, the Beatle's target audience was exactly the same (a couple of generations early) as N-Synch's.

Hence, the Beatles built their brand by singing silly and unsubstantive songs to teenaged girls -- boy band!

(also, the Beatles covered 'Wait a Minute Mr. Postman'....any guy that likes 'Wait a Minute Mr. Postman' is probably a flaming homosexual, the Beatles covered 'Mr. Postman'...by the property of transitivity, any guy who likes the Beatles is a probably a flaming homosexual...i'm not 100% certain on the math, but i'm fairly sure)

-------------------

a little digression.....there is a type of person who is quite adept at getting out in front of the pack and pretending to lead (my boss is one). They see the herd moving in one direction and they jump way out in front of the herd and wave their arms and say, 'follow me, follow me.' If the herd changes direction and starts going somewhere else, they circle around in that direction and get back in front. These type of people aren't leaders in any real sense, they're sort of 'trend parasites.'

With this archetypical 'trend parasite' in mind, the beatles wore black suits and sang songs that were 1000% in accordance with the cultural mores of the time in the very early 1960's...as we move later in the debaucherous, utterly worthless 1960's, the Beatles got goofier and goofier and more 'psychedelic'.

^^^ here I submit that the Beatles were not so much trend setters as they were adept trend parasites.

-------------

anyhoo....as I was saying, the Beatles built their brand in the early 60's singing silly songs to silly little girls... As those girls got to be 17 and 18 and started burning bras and dropping acid and doing in the transcendental meditation thing, the Beatles started singing goofy psychedelic pap that silly 17 year old bra-less stoned hippy chick might think is deep and philosophical and genius.

So....basically the Beatles targeted the same cohort of giggly girls from their early teens (in the early 60's) through their late teens (late 60's)....and they did this quite well with silly music early and nonsense later....mixed in with the silly music and the nonsense are some good tunes, but the defining element of the beatles (to me) is their sillyness and their nonsense.

(Also...I have to utterly concede Usually Lurkin's point -- if getting mountains of young girls to throw their panties onto the stage isn't the essence of rock and roll greatness, then what is?)

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 10:41 AM

Food for thought: One of Lou Pearlman's (producer of the Backstreet Boys and NSYNC) first music biz accomplishments was replacing Sex Pistols bassist Glen Matlock with "more appealing" bassist, Sid Vicious (who didn't even know how to play bass, nor was he ever featured in any of their recordings, yet remains the most famous member of that band to this day...)

As you can see, the music business is slightly less honorable than prostitution...

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 10:46 AM

...and a comment on the inherent subjectivity of music and the ability or lack thereof of non-musicians to make reasonable judgements about the quality of music.

I think if we compared

a) a skilled orchestra playing something from motzart or bach;

b) a commercially successful rock and roll band playing original tunes; and

c) a fat old man playing 'old mcdonald' by making fart noises with his armpits

we could probably reach some consensus as to the relative quality of these artists and their product notwithstanding the fact that music-taste is inherently subjective and not all of us are trained musicians.

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

...and a comment on the inherent subjectivity of music and the ability or lack thereof of non-musicians to make reasonable judgements about the quality of music.

I think if we compared

a) a skilled orchestra playing something from motzart or bach;

b) a commercially successful rock and roll band playing original tunes; and

c) a fat old man playing 'old mcdonald' by making fart noises with his armpits

we could probably reach some consensus as to the relative quality of these artists and their product notwithstanding the fact that music-taste is inherently subjective and not all of us are trained musicians.

As a trained musician, I'd honestly be most impressed with the third option...

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 10:50 AM

Have the Mavs traded Buck for Ringo yet?

EricaLubarsky · 09-10-2009, 11:04 AM

Anyone who universalizes their dislike of the Beatles into a judgement of them is asking for a correction. Not everyone likes the Beatles just like many people hate Elvis, but the fact is that they were the single most influential rock band that ever existed. They released 19 albums in 7 years that spanned everything from 50s-style rock, to modern rock-pop, to psychodelia. They basically were the touchstones of musicianship for pop-rockers from the beginning of the 60s up until the 80s and even till now.

They inspired the british invasion, they created arena rock, they were the first catalysts for show rock, music videos and revolutionized the idea of multi-layered recording techniques. Thats all in addition to being the voice of a generation, plus human beings have listened to beatles songs hundreds of billions of times in total. They also still hold the record for most number one singles, which hasnt been surpassed by Elvis, Mariah, or even the King of Pop. The Beatles keep selling well even to this day which is just a testament to how important theyve been to not only US culture but world culture. You can dislike them, but its just silly to challenge how important they are to musical and general culture.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mavsman

You have to judge the quality of their music against the quality of their peer's music. Who left a legacy? In the 60s it was the Beatles, the Stones, the Beach Boys, Dylan, maybe Cash. Now, you say, musically, they weren't all that great, ok, who was better than them at their time?

I would say the Stones were far edgier, the Beach Boys were much better musicians, Dylan was a better lyricist and Johnny Cash .... well I can take or leave Johnny Cash.

Staying with the 90's thing....

Nirvana, Soundgarden, REM & Back Street Boys....

Which of these groups was most likely to be a heavily commercially marketed band who's early work was overwhelmingly fluffly little love songs written for teenaged girls?

Usually Lurkin · 09-10-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

So....basically the Beatles targeted the same cohort of giggly girls from their early teens (in the early 60's) through their late teens (late 60's)....and they did this quite well with silly music early and nonsense later....mixed in with the silly music and the nonsense are some good tunes, but the defining element of the beatles (to me) is their sillyness and their nonsense.

I think you would be doing yourself a great favor if you learn to appreciate a good fluff tune as a good song. It won't make you gay.

And very, very few bands are able to successfully mix up the fluff tunes with even a few of what you're calling good tunes. And the Beatles had a couple albums worth of weightier good tunes.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think you would be doing yourself a great favor if you learn to appreciate a good fluff tune as a good song. It won't make you gay.

That's not a risk I'm willing to take.

Rhylan · 09-10-2009, 11:40 AM

The fluff argument assumes you buy into the idea that somebody else somewhere is making non-fluff that is so culturally indispensible that it crushes anything that even smacks of fluff. And you're talking about the fluffy pop of the Beatles, of all people, which is the top of the pop heap.

But the truth is, no matter who it is, it's only rock and roll. It's not curing cancer. It has to be considered in context. It's all a matter of taste. So it doesn't make any logical sense to dismiss something so huge on account of a matter of taste. This is the sort of thing where logical people say, "I don't care for the Beatles' music much at all, but their place in the course of rock and roll is undeniably important."

There's no validity whatsoever in, "I don't care for the Beatles' music much at all, AND I think that screaming girls are stupid, therefore, the Beatles are excruciatingly overrated."

This is really about having a contrarian-for-the-sake-of-contrarian hot sports opinion that's only a few notches shy of hating puppies or chocolate, on the cultural acceptability scale, just to see what people will say.

Justin Credible · 09-10-2009, 11:42 AM

Again, comparing the lyrics of a band in the 60's to the lyrics of a band in the 00's is absurd. You're talking about a simpler time in which rock music was still relatively new and had yet to face challenges of creativity to the extent that it has now.

In short: Listen to nothing but other bands before the beatles came to be. Do that for about a month and then listen to the beatles. Start with their earlier work, then hop straight to their later work. If you still aren't impressed then you are, indeed, a terrorist.

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 11:59 AM

"If it sounds good to you, it's bitchin, and if it sounds bad to you, it's sh!tty." -Frank Zappa

EricaLubarsky · 09-10-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Credible

If you still aren't impressed then you are, indeed, a terrorist.

/thumbs up

u2sarajevo · 09-10-2009, 12:51 PM

Why are we talking about him? What does he have to do with any of this?

Just211 · 09-10-2009, 12:53 PM

I think the most influential band on modern rock is Black Sabbath. Not saying they were greatness. but you can hear their influence of every form of current rock. obviously metal, and grunge borrowed heavily on the tuned down grinding sound of sabbath. and most current bands borrow heavily from post grunge. be it emo, screamo, metal, mainstream rock. I think sabbath turned all the poppy and bluesy rock into what we hear today.
Now the pop music was influenced by the Beatles. musically, and how to follow a formula to be POPular. I hear a lot more Beatles in the music you hear a 15 year old girl listening to, then on adult music.
I think most of us (25-40) year olds listen to music that was influenced by led zep/sabbath/grunge/and hip hop. it all melted together to be the rock we hear now.

and the Beatles are overhyped, but thats what pop music is. do you really think Kayne is a genius??
and also. most musicians are influenced by music that isnt mainstream... the voilent femmes, misfits, sabbath, alice in chains, tool. great bands are rarely the most popular

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Why are we talking about him? What does he have to do with any of this?

Who?

EricaLubarsky · 09-10-2009, 01:10 PM

Sabbath wouldnt have come around without the blues revival of the Stones and Beatles. Just sayin...

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Sabbath wouldnt have come around without the blues revival of the Stones and Beatles. Just sayin...

And the Stones/Beatles wouldn't have happened if Elvis/Carl Perkins hadn't stolen southern black music and marketed it to the masses...

(actually, I could take this debate all the way back to when the Dutch allowed African slaves to bring the only instrument to survive the Middle Passage - the banjo...)

fluid.forty.one · 09-10-2009, 01:18 PM

Elvis sucks.

Just211 · 09-10-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Sabbath wouldnt have come around without the blues revival of the Stones and Beatles. Just sayin...

true, i think that eventually everything was influenced by everything if you know what i mean. you hear all types of music, and take what you will, but you hear it all. I don't discount any form of band or music, no matter of how much you dislike. chances are at some point a band you love borrowed from a band/genre you hate. that's why music is great.

u2sarajevo · 09-10-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Who?

-----------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhylan

The fluff argument assumes you buy into the idea that somebody else somewhere is making non-fluff that is so culturally indispensible that it crushes anything that even smacks of fluff. And you're talking about the fluffy pop of the Beatles, of all people, which is the top of the pop heap.

But the truth is, no matter who it is, it's only rock and roll. It's not curing cancer. It has to be considered in context. It's all a matter of taste. So it doesn't make any logical sense to dismiss something so huge on account of a matter of taste. This is the sort of thing where logical people say, "I don't care for the Beatles' music much at all, but their place in the course of rock and roll is undeniably important."

There's no validity whatsoever in, "I don't care for the Beatles' music much at all, AND I think that screaming girls are stupid, therefore, the Beatles are excruciatingly overrated."

This is really about having a contrarian-for-the-sake-of-contrarian hot sports opinion that's only a few notches shy of hating puppies or chocolate, on the cultural acceptability scale, just to see what people will say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think you would be doing yourself a great favor if you learn to appreciate a good fluff tune as a good song. It won't make you gay.

And very, very few bands are able to successfully mix up the fluff tunes with even a few of what you're calling good tunes. And the Beatles had a couple albums worth of weightier good tunes.

And I didn't realize he was even a musician.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhylan

The fluff argument assumes you buy into the idea that somebody else somewhere is making non-fluff that is so culturally indispensible that it crushes anything that even smacks of fluff. And you're talking about the fluffy pop of the Beatles, of all people, which is the top of the pop heap.

There is undeniably a fluffiness scale, even if it doesn't lend itself easily to quantification. If we're talking writing instead of music, surely you'd agree that there is a fluffiness difference between, say, The Brothers Karamazov and the latest Harlequin Romance novel. If we're talking movie production then surely there is a fluffiness difference between Schindler's List and High School Musical 3. Point being....it's not entirely unreasonable to regard some artistic endeavors as more fluffy than others, and there is a relevance to this fluffiness scale that is independent of the popularity of a harlequin romance novel v. Dostoevesky.

And in regard to this fluffiness, the early Beatles stuff was lite-weight boy band stuff aimed at teen-aged girls. This is not contrarian hot sports opinion "I hate puppies" kind of stuff, this is what I think of

"wait, wait a minute mr. postman"...

A song also covered by the Carpenters among others, giving us some indication of the gravitas of the Beatles early years.

So while the Beatles were singing...

Eight days a week...
I loooooove you....

(wow, yet another love song telling yet another teenaged girl how much she is loved by the cute guy on stage...."ooh I love you so much, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no make that EIGHT days a week" -- this is quintessential fluff, there is no fluff fluffier than this, it's fluffy now, it was fluffy then, it's eternal fluff...Hallmark Cards are less fluffy, poems written by smitten 13 year old boys have more substance)

Anyhoo, while the Beatles were fluffing, Pete Townsend was already smashing guitars on stage, the Kinks had already done "You really got me".....if you compare the Beatles to their contemporaries, they were a fluffly boy band.

Speaking of CONTEXT, I'm the only freaking one looking at the larger context....returning to the article I linked in the first post of this thread:

Quote:

The Beatles were so tied into the technological, social and cultural advances of the Sixties that they became the prism through which people viewed that most revolutionary of decades.

The reason the Beatles are so amazingly popular is not because of the quality of their music (which was reasonably good, but not great), it's instead because they are "tied into the technologoical, social and cultural advances of the Sixties".

^^^^That's the entire context.

FWIW, at lunch today we got into this discussion and a baby boomer commented on interviews he remembered of Lennon and McCartney a few years after they broke up....when asked how they viewed the Beatles in retrospect, both Lennon and McCartney said proudly, "We were a really good little band."

I think that's a fair assessment -- they were a good little band in the right place at the right time, saying more than this about the quality of their music is a stretch.

Underdog · 09-10-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

There is undeniably a fluffiness scale, even if it doesn't lend itself easily to quantification.

"Fluff" pushes familiar buttons in the human psyche, whereas "pioneering" music pushes buttons that have never been pushed before...

There are a million tried-and-true methods to get people to listen to pop music - the reason most songs on the radio sound formulaic is because they quite literally ARE formulaic (for example, most pop music plays at 120 BPM is because the human heart beat averages around 120 BPM...)

Here's a shameless plug for the antithesis of "fluffy" music...

Rhylan · 09-10-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Anyhoo, while the Beatles were fluffing, Pete Townsend was already smashing guitars on stage, the Kinks had already done "You really got me".....if you compare the Beatles to their contemporaries, they were a fluffly boy band.

The Beatles were already into their middle period before the Who released an album.

"You Really Got Me" came out about exactly the same time the Beatles came to the US. Early 1964. From a musical and lyrical perspective I don't see how you can claim that particular song is significantly different than the Beatles' boy-and-girl songs from the same period. Ah, and it's interesting to point out that the Kinks' first single in February 1964 was a cover of "Long Tall Sally" that was also covered and released at the same time as an album cut by... The Beatles.

You're basing all your arguments off of the impression that the Beatles released scores of little simpleton songs and define them by their pre-Help output. Which is funny in two cases.. one that it only represents a little over 2 years' worth of recordings, and two, it's not any more "fluffy" than other stuff that was popular at the time.

Honestly, even by the Hard Day's Night / Beatles For Sale albums from 1964 the music was starting to show what was to come.

Beginning with Help, released the same time as The Who's debut album by the way, your quoting of the bridge from "Eight Days a Week" as your argument just doesn't hold up.

I'll spare quoting the lyrics to "You Really Got Me" because it's obvious they're not Shakespeare.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

I don't see how you can claim that particular song is significantly different than the Beatles' boy-and-girl songs from the same period.

I meant it more as an indication that the Beatles weren't doing anything terribly special -- their successes were more commercial than artistic.

What they did with their later work, likewise, wasn't any better (understanding the subjective nature of things) than stuff being put out in the US and in Great Britian.

What was undeniably different about the Beatles from their contemporaries was that they had a massive following amongst teenaged girls.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 02:19 PM

also....I googled "fluffiest words ever written in the english language" and this is what I found:

Quote:

Ooh i need your love babe,
Guess you know it's true.
Hope you need my love babe,
Just like i need you.
Hold me, love me, hold me, love me.
Ain't got nothin'but love babe,
Eight days a week.

Love you ev'ry day girl,
Always on my mind.
One thing i can say girl,
Love you all the time.
Hold me, love me, hold me, love me.
Ain't got nothin'but love babe,
Eight days a week.

Eight days a week
I love you.
Eight days a week
Is not enough to show i care.

Ooh i need your love babe, ...

Eight days a week ...

Love you ev'ry ...

Eight days a week. eight days a week. eight days a week.

jthig32 · 09-10-2009, 02:54 PM

Let me just say that I'm certainly no huge fan of the Beatles. I'm not sure I could name you 10 songs of theirs.

But nothing is more stupid than "I don't enjoy *Band x*, so they suck/are over rated/are generic/ec."

Few things beat me more in this world than snooty music guy.

Mavdog · 09-10-2009, 03:15 PM

honestly, picking out "eight days a week" as an example of the quality of beatles work is odd to say the least. the catalogue is soo much broader. lennon was quoted as saying the song was "lousy".

but....

the intro to the song fades in, which was very unique at the time, and copied by many performers after. second the song contains layered harmonies that took what had been done previously to a new level. last there are some elements in the song. such as the syncopated handclapping, which was new to the genre.

the beatles were not followers of trends, they were the trend setters.

alexamenos · 09-10-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

But nothing is more stupid than "I don't enjoy *Band x*, so they suck/are over rated/are generic/ec." Few things beat me more in this world than snooty music guy.

This is certainly fair with respect to *Band X*, but the Beatles are routinely held up as the GREATEST BAND EVER--I think it's entirely reasonable to ask "What's so great about the ostensible GREATEST BAND EVER?"

Kirobaito · 09-10-2009, 05:39 PM

A fellow musician here in Waco puts "Eight Days a Week" to an acoustic blues-rock arrangement, and despite the words being pretty crappy, the song is totally bad-ass.

Murphy3 · 09-10-2009, 06:05 PM

I think we had a poll here on this very site that proved that Elvis was far superior to the beatles.

dude1394 · 09-10-2009, 08:10 PM

This thread makes me sad.

Their early music was fresh and completely different. And there was nothing like the Beatles after they quit touring. Nothing, strings, all sorts of different sounds, technical changes, harmonies, different sounds, concept albums. They were earth-shattering in how they moved music forward.

They opened up a tremendous amount of energy by folks who now could write their own music, do it differently and possibly find an audience.