The Beatles...not that great

[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

But why should kids care about a group their grandparents danced to forty years ago? There is always a sneaking suspicion that the continued obsession with The Beatles is driven by media nostalgia. Has the band’s primacy become a self-perpetuating myth?

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?

[Usually Lurkin]

They were the first N-Sync or Color-Me-Badd and they influenced all of the other N-Syncs and Color me Badds that came after. LIke it or not, they defined much of the music that you (apparently unwillingly) hear in your life. And like it or not, that's the music that screaming, crying teen aged girls can't get enough of. They were geniuses for figuring out how to control thousands of dollar-filled screaming teenagers, and in doing so, they defined an industry.

On the other hand, Page and Plant were a couple potheads spitting out yuppie-teen-angst versions of what was someone else's very good blues.

[bobatundi]

I am 100% with you on this one. I fully understand why they were all the rage at the time--that's how fads work. What I don't get is how popular they remain, given that their early songs are just annoying & cheesy, and their later stuff is at times completely unlistenable. Yet somehow it's incredibly unpopular--in fact, some people will act like you're a total idiot--if you say you really don't like them.

Sure, they've influenced tons of other musicians, directly or indirectly--but that doesn't mean I have to like the Beatles just because I happen to like Vampire Weekend or somebody like that. Overhyped, overrated, oversold. Sure, there are people who love the Beatles because they really love their music, and I'm happy for those folks--but I'd bet that a huge majority of people who claim to be fans really just like the Beatles because they think they're "supposed to."

That said, I find Page & Plant to be even worse than the Beatles. No use for those guys at all.

[Rhylan]

So much misinformation behind these statements.

For starters, you can only compare the Beatles to a boy band based on their ages when they started and the reaction of their fans. THEY WROTE SONGS, people. Sure, only 3 minute pop songs in the beginning, but it was some of the best pop to be found in 62, 63, 64, etc.

After they came to America in '64, they only put up with the screaming for less than two years. By '66, they were done performing live. During that same timeframe, they slowed down their rate of recording (early albums had a split between originals and covers which was standard practice for rock bands at the time) and were already breaking new ground with albums like Rubber Soul and Revolver. Even Help - at the tail end of the true Beatlemania - was a far more mature album.

There is a tremendous creative arc in the Beatles' music from 1962 through 1969 that was essentially the primary creative force that turned "rock and roll," a 3-chord, 3-minute, backbeat teen dance genre into the "rock" genre that birthed dozens of styles of popular music we enjoy today.

To judge a band's merits solely on the behavior of its fans is ludicrous.

And this band never produced 40 songs a year for a decade. Not sure where you're getting that. Their recording was done primarily from 1962 - 1969, and half of the stuff that was so popular when they came to America in 1964 was from 1962 & 1963. Their output was pretty limited for the era, especially after their albums stopped including covers.

Saying Lennon & McCartney were just fluff and LSD is no different than saying Page & Plant were Muddy Watters with bigger amps. An uninformed statement made out of ignorance.

Stupid, just stupid. You can dislike the Beatles music, plenty of people do, but to put them in the same category as Menudo and Color Me Badd is a prime example of ignoring facts so that you can show everyone you have a hot sports opinion.

[Murphy3]

They wrote alot of crap.. that's one thing that's for sure. I've always kinda didn't care one way or the other. They have some catchy stuff, but ...they're usually an instant station changer for me.

I suppose it was cool to like The Beatles for some reason. And I suppose it will always be cool to like them for some reason. Hey, they were different. They were from across the ocean. The Beatles are a fad that'll never die not because there aren't better options.. but just because it's one thing that's engrained into your head from your parents.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

For starters, you can only compare the Beatles to a boy band based on their ages when they started and the reaction of their fans. THEY WROTE SONGS, people. Sure, only 3 minute pop songs in the beginning, but it was some of the best pop to be found in 62, 63, 64, etc.

yeah they wrote songs...it's mostly either fluff or unlistenable nonsense...

All you need is love, she loves you yeah yeah yeah, love love me do, we all live in a yellow submarine, you should see polythene pam, obli dee obla da, the song drags on....on and on and on and on.

I'll give you Abbey Road. Damn fine album. And Sgt Peppers -- novel and fun, the rest...not that special.

I think their musical career can be summarized thusly:

They put out a lot of trite stuff for a few years. Then, during an age when everybody and their dog was into TM and drugs, they got into TM and drugs and put out a bunch of psychedelic silliness and added some obnoxious Indian sounds to their music.

That's the creative arc -- they followed the trends of the day and capitalized in the process. Good for them.

I think UL is right on:

They were geniuses for figuring out how to control thousands of dollar-filled screaming teenagers, and in doing so, they defined an industry.

I think they were better marketers than musicians -- the rock movie and the original music video, the big stadium gigs, the well publicized haitus with a famous TM guy....very good marketing.

The other thing they did well was pick an excellent time to be born. The fact that their fatuous fluff was the fad of the massive baby boomer generation, a generation with more wealth and time on their hands then good sense, is a big part of their perceived greatness.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

They wrote alot of crap.. that's one thing that's for sure. I've always kinda didn't care one way or the other. They have some catchy stuff, but ...they're usually an instant station changer for me.

I suppose it was cool to like The Beatles for some reason. And I suppose it will always be cool to like them for some reason. Hey, they were different. They were from across the ocean. The Beatles are a fad that'll never die not because there aren't better options.. but just because it's one thing that's engrained into your head from your parents.

"The world bores you when you are cool."
-

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

The Beatles are a fad that'll never die not because there aren't better options.. but just because it's one thing that's engrained into your head from your parents.

Your parents and mine being mostly Baby Boomers.

30 or 40 years from now, we might be telling kids about the greatness of Nirvana or The Toadies or whomever. A big difference will be that we aren't such a dominant mass of the population, a generation to whom every endeavor caters, that our tastes and fashions won't be so universally accepted.

Yeah, I think one of most significant things the Beatles did was pick the right time to be born.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yeah, I think one of most significant things the Beatles did was pick the right time to be born.

. . . Being born in the same era wasn't incredibly significant for almost all of the other 4 or 5 billion people alive in the 60s and 70s.

[bernardos70]

I never cared for the beatles. But I do like this commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjfAXCKLcfk

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

. . . Being born in the same era wasn't incredibly significant for almost all of the other 4 or 5 billion people alive in the 60s and 70s.

you're kinda missing my point here.

I'm saying that the enduring nature of the Beatles fad is in large part due to the culturally hegemonic position of the Baby Boomers today...if the Beatles had come along during late 70's and early 80's or during the early 1950's, they wouldn't be nearly as regarded because there just aren't as many Gen-Xrs and Greatest Generationers as there are Baby Boomers.

[Mavdog]

wow. never know there was so much hate on the beatles.

lennon/mccartney were very, very creative, not to say it was all them as george martin had a lot to do with what came out of the studio.

we would not know rock and roll today if it wasn't for what these three did together.

they started the genesis that had brought us hard rock, punk rock and folk rock. unfortunately, with phil spector they also brought us glam rock and some unbearable pop rock too.

one could say that these genre would have developed anyway with or without lennon and mccartney, and there is no way to say it would or wouldn't.

yet what the beatles produced, with those old 4 track recording machines in the 60's, ranges from the ho hum to the very good. a great and varied catalogue that few can match.


the "best ever"? nah, it's impossible to label any musician that way. but it can be said that this collaboration affected (in a good way) what we listen to as much as anyone.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

you're kinda missing my point here.

I'm saying that the enduring nature of the Beatles fad is in large part due to the culturally hegemonic position of the Baby Boomers today...if they had done the same thing as Gen-X'rs or as so-called Greatest Generationers, they wouldn't be nearly as regarded because there just aren't as many Gen-Xrs and GGers.

- You mentioned N-Sync and Color-Me-Badd, so you are saying something more than that. You're making an argument about the quality of their music (ie, that the boomers could have pumped N-Sync to the level of Beatle-mania). You are ignoring that the 60s had their version of N-Sync. They were called the Monkeys. You are also ignoring that those later generations have had success hyping people like Madonna and Michael Jackson. (and Tom-Kat and Paris Hilton and a whole bunch of other people who have reached obscene levels of fame without the delicate generational timing of the Beatles).

You are also ignoring that the Beatles position as early pop mega-stars has value. The Beatles had to invent how to do it. And they had to have music that could be sold to people who weren't already looking for it. There were plenty of other bands at the time who just didn't have it.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

we would not know rock and roll today if it wasn't for what these three did together....one could say that these genre would have developed anyway with or without lennon and mccartney, and there is no way to say it would or wouldn't.

Do you realize that you managed to say, in practically the same breath, that we wouldn't have rock and roll today were it not for Lennon/McCartney and also that there is no way to know that we wouldn't have rock and roll without Lennon/McCartney?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Do you realize that you managed to say, in practically the same breath, that we wouldn't have rock and roll today were it not for Lennon/McCartney and also that there is no way to know that we wouldn't have rock and roll without Lennon/McCartney?

actually what was stated is that these different genres were all part of the lennon/mccartney tree, we have these different sounds today because of their work. without them not so sure we would have the genres yet.

music is a continuum. it's built on the work of others.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

You're making an argument about the quality of their music (ie, that the boomers could have pumped N-Sync to the level of Beatle-mania).

Yes, I'm making an argument about the quality of their music -- their popularity is beyond dispute.

1) They were immensely popular for reasons other than the quality of their music; and 2) They were immensely popular in the right generation.

These two factors explain a lot of their lasting power, imo.

But irrespective of their popularity -- their music isn't any better than a lot of other folks, their innovations don't seem particular innovative to me, and their lyrics make the Beastie Boys look like poetic genius.

That's not to say that 'Shake it up Baby' isn't a jiggy tune or that Abbey Road (as previously mentioned) isn't a helluva good album....I'm saying the Beatles were good, they just weren't all that great.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

music is a continuum. it's built on the work of others.

yeah, we get this.

I think, for instance, David Gilmore would have had a great voice and he would have been a helluva innovative and creative musician and he would have written haunting lyrics with or without "he loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah"...It's not like we'd all be listening to nothing but the Carpenters and Michael Bolten bands were it not for

In the town where I was born
Lived a man who sailed to sea
And he told us of his life
In the land of submarines

So we sailed up to the sun
Till we found the sea of green
And we lived beneath the waves
In our yellow submarine

We all live in our yellow submarine,
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in our yellow submarine,
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine

What I'm saying is that this ^^^ is crap. It's not innovative, it's not transcendental, it's an irritating tune with stupid lyrics....that's all it is....it's the 1960's version of Achy Breaky Heart.

Actually....Achy Breaky Heart was a much better song than this, but I digress.

[Mavdog]

^^ that was written and recorded for the sole pupose of having a song for ringo.

not much different than

When night comes down
You lock the door.
The book falls to the floor.
As darkness falls
The waves roll by,
The seasons change
The wind is wry.

Now wakes the hour
Now sleeps the swan
Behold the dream
The dream is gone.
Green fields are calling
It's falling, in a golden door.

heck, it's really more about the music anyway, the lyrics aren't what is critical.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yes, I'm making an argument about the quality of their music -- their popularity is beyond dispute.

1) They were immensely popular for reasons other than the quality of their music; and 2) They were immensely popular in the right generation.

These two factors explain a lot of their lasting power, imo.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with that, as long as "other than" is the same as "in addition to". Wouldn't you say the same for Michael Jackson and Madonna? I'd argue that if Led Zeppelin weren't such successful partiers and if they didn't cover so many blues songs - if they tried to hype the same act now, they'd look a lot more like Spinal Tap than Led Zeppelin.

But irrespective of their popularity -- their music isn't any better than a lot of other folks, their innovations don't seem particular innovative to me, and their lyrics make the Beastie Boys look like poetic genius.

I also don't think anyone in their right mind would seriously suggest that they weren't musically better than N-Sync. And I'm guessing your judgments of musical innovation are made by musical ears that were heavily constructed by the Beatles and Beatles influenced musicians.

That's not to say that 'Shake it up Baby' isn't a jiggy tune or that Abbey Road (as previously mentioned) isn't a helluva good album....I'm saying the Beatles were good, they just weren't all that great.

Good or great at what, then? they obviously did something that very few have done or could do. And they made a bunch of music that a bunch of people have enjoyed for a bunch of years. And they did it better than most others. That's pretty great, and it took more musical talent and media savvy than a jiggy tune and a single hella album. The boomers did the hyping, but they had to have the right band to hype.

[GermanDunk]

Come on guys. Let´s be serious. It´s Rock´n´Roll music. It´s simple. People like it. Right? There is nothing special about it. Tune in or choose another record.

[left texas]

Damn this almost pissed me off! First of all if you did not live back in the era when this all happened you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE!! Just imagine buying an album and there is only one song worth listening too (why did we buy them? because it was all there was!)

The music of the Beatles changed the whole course of Music world wide. I can sit here and try to explain it, as I am sure my grandkids will try to explain to me how full of it I am (except I have taken over their music listening habits already)

I will not sit here and argue over lyrics, musicianship, or lenght of hair, the Beatles changed rock and roll forever and you should be grateful!!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'd argue that if Led Zeppelin weren't such successful partiers and if they didn't cover so many blues songs...

The thing about Led Zeppelin is

a) they were great blues musicians -- How Many More Times? can blow the doors off a concrete re-inforced safe. Saying that Led Zepplin wouldn't be all that if they hadn't covered so many blues songs is a bit like saying that Michael Jordan wouldn't have been so great if he hadn't played basketball.

b) Led Zeppelin had far, far greater range than blues -- take a listen to the Battle of Evermore or Going to California or Achilles Last Stand...or how about Kashmir for a song that can stick in your head for a while, or Immigrant Song for the best rock and roll lick on the face of the earth (which also inspired the greatest cover band of all time)

they obviously did something that very few have done or could do.

No they didn't....musically what they did is something that very many can and have done. Their early stuff wasn't any better than Buddy Holly and the Crickets and their latter stuff wasn't as good as the Rolling Stones....

[left texas]

PS alexamenos, I always enjoy your post! There is no age posted on your profile, (man,I hope you are over 15) You have this one totally wrong.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

Come on guys. Let´s be serious. It´s Rock´n´Roll music. It´s simple. People like it. Right? There is nothing special about it. Tune in or choose another record.

Agreed...


(I choose another record personally, but to each their own...)

[92bDad]

Overrated???

I'm not that big of a Beatles fan, but nobody can argue the impact that the Beatles have had on Rock and Pop since they came onto the scene.

How many artists have come after them that found inspiration from them.

Beatles overrated is like saying Bach, Beethoven, etc...were overrated.

No doubt there are those who are fans of and those who NOT fans of...count me as one who can take em or leave em...but I do believe they have earned the ranking as one of the best bands of all time.

Think about it, I don't like RAP music, but I do believe it is music and that it has its place as one of the great genres of music. I like Heavy Metal, but there are many who believe that we should not consider this music. I like Country & Western...I do like 80's Rap (Whodini, Run DMC)

What we like or don't like has little to do with something being overrated on the public scene.

How I can come to the defense of the Beatles is beyond me, again I don't like their music, but again...they have made one of if not the largest impact to the music scene from the 60's and beyond!!!

[Justin Credible]

You have been reported to homeland security...


Terrorist.

[muzak]

this is laughable. are any of you beatles-bashers even musicians?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by muzak

this is laughable. are any of you beatles-bashers even musicians?

I was kind of wondering the same thing. The beatles aren't exactly my favorite...far from it actually...but some of the things being said in this thread seem woefully ignorant to me.

[jthig32]

The idea that you have to be a musician to have an opinion on the quality of a band is pretty ridiculous.

I don't think the discussion is about whether Paul was/is great on his lefty guitar. If that debate breaks out, you musicians have at it.

Otherwise, I believe music listeners are every bit as entitled to opinions on the quality of music as musicians, in the same way that we all have basketball opinions without being players ourselves.

Beyond all that, arguing about the quality of music is a giant waste of time in my opinion. It's more subjective than just about any other art form.

[muzak]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I was kind of wondering the same thing. The beatles aren't exactly my favorite...far from it actually...but some of the things being said in this thread seem woefully ignorant to me.

and everyone is entitled to like or not like something. i'm just curious if these peeps have ever in their life written/recorded a song. Sure, "I want to hold you hand" are cheese lyrics. the Beatles in true form are their mid-to-late works; music so far ahead of its time: Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Myster Tour, et al. Brian Wilson, arguabely one of the greatest musicians/song-writers of all time gave up on his concept album, Smile, because Sgt. Peppers blew his mind so much that he just gave up. Primarily because it was the sound he wanted to make - one that hadn't been done before. it wasn't until 40 years later he finished that album. all because of the Beatles. I could go on....but, this topic is overrated.

[muzak]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The idea that you have to be a musician to have an opinion on the quality of a band is pretty ridiculous.

I don't think the discussion is about whether Paul was/is great on his lefty guitar. If that debate breaks out, you musicians have at it.

Otherwise, I believe music listeners are every bit as entitled to opinions on the quality of music as musicians, in the same way that we all have basketball opinions without being players ourselves.

Beyond all that, arguing about the quality of music is a giant waste of time in my opinion. It's more subjective than just about any other art form.

how can you have such a strong dislike for something to start an asinine thread about how their music is overrated if you have no idea or concept of what goes into or compromises a good recording/song? no one ever said you can't have an opinion. but, being a musician, you know what goes into a song and you can appreciate certain aspects that other can not. i don't mean to come off as an elitist in any way, im sorry if i do; but it's just a fact.

guys, im sorry. i don't mean to come off like this. i just take some offense because 90% of what i listen to is at least heavily beatles-influenced. i listen to alot of bands from the Elephant 6 Collective. i think the beatles were brilliant musicians like others have already stated, they drew the lines in the sand for the rest to follow.

i will leave this thread. carry on.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by muzak

how can you have such a strong dislike for something to start an asinine thread about how their music is overrated if you have no idea or concept of what goes into or compromises a good recording/song? no one ever said you can't have an opinion. but, being a musician, you know what goes into a song and you can appreciate certain aspects that other can not. i don't mean to come off as an elitist in any way, im sorry if i do. but, it's just a fact.

Well you fail.

Sorry dude, but the argument you present is absolutely ridiculous. Your case is basically that if you don't have an understanding on the intricacies of an art or profession, you are precluded from having an opinion on a product of that art/profession.

So as long as you have never:

- Felt like a basketball team underperformed
- Thought a movie sucked
- Thought a painting sucked
- Thought a sculpture sucked

..then you get to have this position on who can and can not have an opinion on music.

Oh, and based on your logic, I don't want to hear a single word out of anyone about how much Microsoft sucks, how much Mac OSX rules, how awesome Photoshop is, etc. etc. I'll have none of it. Me, Flaco, Rhylan, and perhaps a few others are the only ones qualified to have opinions on software. Only we know what goes into making good software, and the rest of you don't get to have an opinion.

I don't mean to go overboard here, but honestly, doesn't that sound ridiculous when put in that context?

Now, if you want to say that as a musician you perhaps can appreciate the smaller details, fine. But you don't need smaller details to have an opinion on whether someone is over rated (IN YOUR OPINION) and you having a better grasp of music technicality does not make you better qualified to decide what is *good* to other people in something as subjective as music.

[mavsman]

Yes, I'm making an argument about the quality of their music -- their popularity is beyond dispute.

1) They were immensely popular for reasons other than the quality of their music; and 2) They were immensely popular in the right generation.

These two factors explain a lot of their lasting power, imo.

But irrespective of their popularity -- their music isn't any better than a lot of other folks, their innovations don't seem particular innovative to me, and their lyrics make the Beastie Boys look like poetic genius.

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? You say, they were all but N'Sync, well I think I could name you at least 20 acts that left a bigger legacy in the 90s than them. Start with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, go to Hip-Hop, next stop Metallica, Bon Jovi, late Guns N' Roses, over to the Backstreet Boys, and on and on, Garth Brooks, Hootie and the Blowfish, you name it, all with a lot of impact. In their time they left a big footstep, because they were freaking good. You just sound like a teenager with an iPhone in his his hand going all "oh that Alexander Graham Bell wasn't that good, he couldn't even imagine a touchscreen"

[muzak]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well you fail.

Sorry dude, but the argument you present is absolutely ridiculous. Your case is basically that if you don't have an understanding on the intricacies of an art or profession, you are precluded from having an opinion on a product of that art/profession.

So as long as you have never:

- Felt like a basketball team underperformed
- Thought a movie sucked
- Thought a painting sucked
- Thought a sculpture sucked

..then you get to have this position on who can and can not have an opinion on music.

Oh, and based on your logic, I don't want to hear a single word out of anyone about how much Microsoft sucks, how much Mac OSX rules, how awesome Photoshop is, etc. etc. I'll have none of it. Me, Flaco, Rhylan, and perhaps a few others are the only ones qualified to have opinions on software.

you make a valid point. i cant really argue against that. by no means do i mean that someone can't have an opinion. you are misconstruing my argument; and maybe i wasn't clear enough. these people are saying their song writing is cheesy and simplistic and comparable to NSYNC - who didn't even write their own songs. does that argument hold any validity if they've never tried to write/compose a song themselves, or have any concept of what goes into said process? no.

[Murphy3]

I can agree that they're overrated. They do have some greatness, but there are quite a few out there that produced a much greater percentage of quality songs.

But, the beatles do have a little greatness in them.. don't get me wrong. They're overhyped.. I guess you can say they're kinda like Michael Vick was a few years ago. People liked the guy because they were supposed to like him.. He was fun. He was different. But, he really wasn't all that great when you looked at the actual numbers.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

I was always more into The Who.

[Kirobaito]

It's pop music. How 'good' it is is solely based on how much it sells. The Beatles win that, end of story. If you're looking for revealing and interesting lyrics, don't listen to pop music. That's not what it's there for.

I don't really like the Beatles all that much. I can listen to them (I actually bought the Beatles Rock Band game today because I wanted an actual GH/RB game that was full of songs that I could actually stand to listen to), but I'm not a fan. I still harbor all-together ill feelings toward the British Invasion because it suffocated the Folk Song Revival and ended it far too early.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The thing about Led Zeppelin is

a) ... is a bit like saying that Michael Jordan wouldn't have been so great if he hadn't played basketball.

or like saying the Beatles wouldn't be who they are if they didn't come about in the generation that they did.

b) Led Zeppelin had far, far greater range than ...
No they didn't....musically what they did is something that very ......

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

[Usually Lurkin]

For Kirobaito, some British Folk Song Revival Invasion:
http://www.snotr.com/video/347

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

For Kirobaito, some British Folk Song Revival Invasion:
http://www.snotr.com/video/347

Awesome. The song by Modern Man "Like a River" does a similar thing to the other kind of folk song, non-protest. I don't remember all the words, but it starts:

My life is like a river, my life is like a tree
My life is like a sunrise, but it's mostly like a river.