by lcombs
99 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
The next time I hear somebody say The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock-n-roll band ever, I think I'm gonna puke.


  • Profile picture of the author bravo75
    hey Icombs, remove the s from the https

    I love the Beatles as well. Always liked them more than the Stones. Actually, I always liked Aerosmith more than the Stones as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835748].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lcombs
      Originally Posted by bravo75 View Post

      hey Icombs, remove the s from the https

      I love the Beatles as well. Always liked them more than the Stones. Actually, I always liked Aerosmith more than the Stones as well.
      The Beatles - "Rock and Roll Music" - YouTube
      Don't know what happened to my html.

      But, yeah.
      If nothing else, just check out how many times the Stones, (like everybody else), copied what The Beatles were doing.

      I've been in discussions with people on the subject and their finally argument always seems to be,
      "Well, I don't think The Beatles were really a rock-n-roll band". :confused: :p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835761].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by bravo75 View Post

      Actually, I always liked Aerosmith more than the Stones as well.
      I've always preferred The Who over The Stones and The Beatles.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835767].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lcombs
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        I've always preferred The Who over The Stones and The Beatles.
        I'm a HUGE Who fan.
        In fact, I've always thought Townsend never got his full due.

        But, they came along well after The Beatles and were strongly influenced by them.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835813].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    The Beatles were and still are my all time favorites. Steely Dan is in second place. Essentially, two studio bands. I like the Stones but doubt they'd even make it into my top 10.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835781].message }}
    • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      The Beatles were and still are my all time favorites. Steely Dan is in second place. Essentially, two studio bands. I like the Stones but doubt they'd even make it into my top 10.

      I agree that Steely Dan was basically a studio band,but I don't think they Beatles were by choice. As someone said before,they were basically forced into becoming one because the audiences would scream so loud and long they couldn't hear themselves play when they played live.
      I don't remember any live music coming out after this,but I could be wrong.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7913936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
    beatles then the kinks closely followed by dave clark five

    soft spot for early stones, up to get off my cloud stuff
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7836197].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author themen710
    This band is loved by everyone from over the world. Their songs are marked not only by the sound, but by what you feel when you hear the music.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7908915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

    The next time I hear somebody say The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock-n-roll band ever, I think I'm gonna puke.
    If it makes you feel any better, I've never cared much for the stones. They've made about 4 or 5 songs I tolerate. If they come on the radio I almost always change stations.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7911164].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      In truth, the Stones are a rock band while the Beatles are a pop band. Yes, the
      Beatles have had some "rock" songs in their day, but their music is more pop
      oriented than rock oriented. Sure, if you want to use the generic term "rock
      band" I guess they'd fit, but it isn't that simple.

      The Stones were the bad boys of rock. That image was so stereotyped that
      they even parodies it in their song "It's Only Rock 'N' Roll".

      The Beatles music was more diverse, but they were not rockers. The Stones
      were. That's the difference.

      Now, greatest "rock 'n' roll" band of all time? You can argue that, as rockers go,
      the following bands are as good if not better.

      The Who
      The Doors
      Aerosmith
      Led Zep

      They certainly rock just as hard as the Stones and, especially in the case of
      The Who, have their own antics to parade around. Watch the Who parody on
      WKRP In Cincinnati with them smashing up their hotel room and you'll get how
      stereotyped that band is as well.

      As far as "all around" musicality goes, the Beatles are nowhere near the top
      of the food chain if you just want to consider 'technical" greatness. Yes,
      Paul wrote some very catchy tunes over the years (Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye)
      etc., but on a technical level, the Beatles music doesn't come close to bands
      like...

      Emerson Lake & Palmer
      Renaissance
      Electric Light Orchestra (the early years)
      Genesis (the early years)

      Listen to Karn Evil 9, Can You Understand, Wild West Hero and Supper's Ready
      and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

      The thing with the Beatles, if you grew up during that era like I did, was that
      you grew up as a starry eyed kid and idolized these guys. Their songs were
      the greatest. Hey Jude was the best song ever.

      But as time goes on, if you're objective and honest about the whole Beatles
      thing, they were good but certainly not the best at any one thing. George
      Harrison himself said in an interview, "I don't get it. We're not that great of
      musicians." And he was right. Ringo certainly wasn't the most "skillful"
      drummer in the world and I could name a half dozen bass and guitar players
      better than Paul, John and George. Anybody can.

      But the Beatles had an intangible that you just can't quantify. For one thing,
      they were the beginning of the British Revolution, so they were unique. Paul
      was cute as hell, so the girls went nuts over him. They didn't even have to
      play to be loved by half the world's population. Their early songs, to be quite
      honest, were so-so at best. But then Paul evolved as a songwriter and the
      group, for its time, was on its way up.

      Today? I doubt they'd even get airplay had they started out with the same
      kind of music that they played in 1963. Plus, competition today is off the
      charts. It wasn't like that back in the early 60s.

      In short, the Beatles had everything fall right for them. They were in the
      right place at the right time and had just the right "unique" sound to make
      a splash.

      If it sounds like I'm knocking the Beatles, I'm not. But almost 50 years later,
      I recognize them for what they actually were...a very good musical band that
      had charisma and one of the best "pop" writers we've ever seen in Paul
      McCartney.

      But think about it. The group only lasted 6 more years after their big break.
      They actually lasted longer individually than they did as a group. And some of
      their songs, individually, were just as good, if not better, than some of the
      stuff they did as the Beatles. Or have you never really "objectively" listened
      to "The White Album?" Honestly, most of it was God awful. Or do you really
      think "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" is great music?

      I rarely listen to Beatles music anymore, though I will still listen to Renaissance,
      ELP, ELO, and even early Genesis. I still will never forget the first time I heard
      "Watcher of the Skies" and "Supper's Ready" from Foxtrot.

      Yes, I've taken off the rose colored glasses concerning the Fab 4. There are
      still a good 10 to 20 of their songs that will be some of my favorites of all
      time. But as groups go, just one of so many good ones and hardly the greatest
      "rock" band of all time depending on what you're using as your criteria.

      If it's record sales, yes.

      If it's actual quality of music and/or ability to "rock" with the best, no.

      At least it's arguable anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7912691].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        Watch the Who parody on WKRP In Cincinnati with them smashing up their hotel room and you'll get how stereotyped that band is as well.
        That show is responsible for the single funniest line in sitcom history. I still crack up every time I hear it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8000317].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Underground
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        In truth, the Stones are a rock band while the Beatles are a pop band. Yes, the
        Beatles have had some "rock" songs in their day, but their music is more pop
        oriented than rock oriented. Sure, if you want to use the generic term "rock
        band" I guess they'd fit, but it isn't that simple.

        The Stones were the bad boys of rock. That image was so stereotyped that
        they even parodies it in their song "It's Only Rock 'N' Roll".

        The Beatles music was more diverse, but they were not rockers. The Stones
        were. That's the difference.

        Now, greatest "rock 'n' roll" band of all time? You can argue that, as rockers go,
        the following bands are as good if not better.

        The Who
        The Doors
        Aerosmith
        Led Zep

        They certainly rock just as hard as the Stones and, especially in the case of
        The Who, have their own antics to parade around. Watch the Who parody on
        WKRP In Cincinnati with them smashing up their hotel room and you'll get how
        stereotyped that band is as well.

        As far as "all around" musicality goes, the Beatles are nowhere near the top
        of the food chain if you just want to consider 'technical" greatness. Yes,
        Paul wrote some very catchy tunes over the years (Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye)
        etc., but on a technical level, the Beatles music doesn't come close to bands
        like...

        Emerson Lake & Palmer
        Renaissance
        Electric Light Orchestra (the early years)
        Genesis (the early years)

        Listen to Karn Evil 9, Can You Understand, Wild West Hero and Supper's Ready
        and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

        The thing with the Beatles, if you grew up during that era like I did, was that
        you grew up as a starry eyed kid and idolized these guys. Their songs were
        the greatest. Hey Jude was the best song ever.

        But as time goes on, if you're objective and honest about the whole Beatles
        thing, they were good but certainly not the best at any one thing. George
        Harrison himself said in an interview, "I don't get it. We're not that great of
        musicians." And he was right. Ringo certainly wasn't the most "skillful"
        drummer in the world and I could name a half dozen bass and guitar players
        better than Paul, John and George. Anybody can.

        But the Beatles had an intangible that you just can't quantify. For one thing,
        they were the beginning of the British Revolution, so they were unique. Paul
        was cute as hell, so the girls went nuts over him. They didn't even have to
        play to be loved by half the world's population. Their early songs, to be quite
        honest, were so-so at best. But then Paul evolved as a songwriter and the
        group, for its time, was on its way up.

        Today? I doubt they'd even get airplay had they started out with the same
        kind of music that they played in 1963. Plus, competition today is off the
        charts. It wasn't like that back in the early 60s.

        In short, the Beatles had everything fall right for them. They were in the
        right place at the right time and had just the right "unique" sound to make
        a splash.

        If it sounds like I'm knocking the Beatles, I'm not. But almost 50 years later,
        I recognize them for what they actually were...a very good musical band that
        had charisma and one of the best "pop" writers we've ever seen in Paul
        McCartney.

        But think about it. The group only lasted 6 more years after their big break.
        They actually lasted longer individually than they did as a group. And some of
        their songs, individually, were just as good, if not better, than some of the
        stuff they did as the Beatles. Or have you never really "objectively" listened
        to "The White Album?" Honestly, most of it was God awful. Or do you really
        think "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" is great music?

        I rarely listen to Beatles music anymore, though I will still listen to Renaissance,
        ELP, ELO, and even early Genesis. I still will never forget the first time I heard
        "Watcher of the Skies" and "Supper's Ready" from Foxtrot.

        Yes, I've taken off the rose colored glasses concerning the Fab 4. There are
        still a good 10 to 20 of their songs that will be some of my favorites of all
        time. But as groups go, just one of so many good ones and hardly the greatest
        "rock" band of all time depending on what you're using as your criteria.

        If it's record sales, yes.

        If it's actual quality of music and/or ability to "rock" with the best, no.

        At least it's arguable anyway.
        This view is so cliche. It's the view that people who think they have sophisticated and evolved musical tastes have. Those who think going against what's popular and mainstream instantly makes what they have to say more credible. (Often yes, popular opinion is flawed. But with the Beatles, even popular opinion of the limits them, although they are still seen as the greatest despite that limited view of them being just great pop music hit makers and big sellers).

        It's arrived at by viewing the Beatles only through their official releases and catalog of music.

        The Beatles have an unofficial catalog of outtakes, demo versions, first takes, skits in the studio that is nearly as voluminous as their officially released versions, spanning throughout their career.

        These guys are far above and beyond anyone else and will never be surpassed as a creative musical force and for the legacy they have left.

        It's laughable to mention prog rockers in the same breathe as the Beatles, or to scorn the white album and then laud others who built on the kind of experimentation done by the Beatles into different soundscapes on the White Album, with the rise of prog rock.

        Why don't we do in the road was a little, throwaway jam song by Paul to begin with. But listen to this version here, the easy changing of tone and vocal style, and then try to make the argument about the Beatles only making nice, smaltzy pop songs. There is no other band that has anywhere near the depth and breathe of material and the creative range the beatles had. They are their own genre, and no one is on their level. There are hundreds of stripped down Beatles records on Youtube that give a real insight into the Beatles behind the polished final product most people judge them on.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8214221].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by Underground View Post

          This view is so cliche. It's the view that people who think they have sophisticated and evolved musical tastes have. Those who think going against what's popular and mainstream instantly makes what they have to say more credible. (Often yes, popular opinion is flawed. But with the Beatles, even popular opinion of the limits them, although they are still seen as the greatest despite that limited view of them being just great pop music hit makers and big sellers).

          It's arrived at by viewing the Beatles only through their official releases and catalog of music.

          The Beatles have an unofficial catalog of outtakes, demo versions, first takes, skits in the studio that is nearly as voluminous as their officially released versions, spanning throughout their career.

          These guys are far above and beyond anyone else and will never be surpassed as a creative musical force and for the legacy they have left.

          It's laughable to mention prog rockers in the same breathe as the Beatles, or to scorn the white album and then laud others who built on the kind of experimentation done by the Beatles into different soundscapes on the White Album, with the rise of prog rock.

          Why don't we do in the road was a little, throwaway jam song by Paul to begin with. But listen to this version here, the easy changing of tone and vocal style, and then try to make the argument about the Beatles only making nice, smaltzy pop songs. There is no other band that has anywhere near the depth and breathe of material and the creative range the beatles had. They are their own genre, and no one is on their level. There are hundreds of stripped down Beatles records on Youtube that give a real insight into the Beatles behind the polished final product most people judge them on.

          The Beatles - Why Don't We Do It In The Road? (Take 4) - YouTube
          Well, I guess you told me. Hope if felt good to get all that off your chest.

          For the record, I was listening to the Beatles when you probably weren't even
          a speck in your mother's eye. To minimize my experience and evaluation of
          their music shows how little you know about other forms of music and how
          even less you know about me.

          I guess maybe I should have brought up the greats like Chopin, Liszt, and
          Schubert, just to name a few.

          The Beatles, for what they did, were good musicians at best. George Harrison
          himself in an interview said he didn't get it, that they weren't that great
          musicians.

          I love the Beatles. They are still one of my favorite groups of all time. But to
          put them head and shoulders above every group or artist that has ever come
          before or after them is an insult to all the great musicians we've had in this
          world.

          Or maybe Keith Emerson should just take his doctorate in music and toss it
          in the trash can.

          Limited view? I probably have more music knowledge in my finger than you
          have in your whole body.

          Hey, you wanna insult me I can hurl the insults right back.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8215502].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Underground
            Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

            Well, I guess you told me. Hope if felt good to get all that off your chest.

            For the record, I was listening to the Beatles when you probably weren't even
            a speck in your mother's eye. To minimize my experience and evaluation of
            their music shows how little you know about other forms of music and how
            even less you know about me.

            I guess maybe I should have brought up the greats like Chopin, Liszt, and
            Schubert, just to name a few.

            The Beatles, for what they did, were good musicians at best. George Harrison
            himself in an interview said he didn't get it, that they weren't that great
            musicians.

            I love the Beatles. They are still one of my favorite groups of all time. But to
            put them head and shoulders above every group or artist that has ever come
            before or after them is an insult to all the great musicians we've had in this
            world.

            Or maybe Keith Emerson should just take his doctorate in music and toss it
            in the trash can.

            Limited view? I probably have more music knowledge in my finger than you
            have in your whole body.

            Hey, you wanna insult me I can hurl the insults right back.
            Yes, clear evidence of the delusion of imagined superior musical taste. In the extreme. Unless you listen to grime, uk hip hop, soul, motown, brit-pop, indie music, rock and roll, hip hop, dubstep, classical, dancehall, reggae, ragga, grunge on a daily basis and have thousands of songs from all those genres, have listened to virtually every Beatles outtake on youtube, I'll wager you are deluded in your idea of superior musical knowledge. You are just opinionated.

            It wasn't an insult. It's just I've seen the same diatribe countless times, and the same mindset of perceived musical sophistication is behind it. I was just stating it how it is. I've seen it the same thing said, only different bands inserted as being superior because the person claiming that takes a subjective liking to a different band. U2. The Kinks. Oasis. Nirvana. The Who. The Stones. Cream. etc.

            I get the argument they weren't the best technical musicians (that requires speciality rather than diversity of styles). That George said that. That John admitted he was a mediocre guitarist. That Paul said to Keith that the Stones were better musicians whereas the Beatles were better vocally as singers.

            I also get, as an objective fact, that no other band has anywhere near the trajectory or musical evolution of the Beatles in such a short time frame. Where a few years before A day in the life, dear prudence, I am the Walrus, while my guitar gently weeps, they were playing things like Mister Moonlight and Kansas city.

            Objectively, no group has anywhere near the creative diversity or range of styles that touched on in their career. Of course George was no Clapton or Mick Taylor virtuoso on guitar, ect, as with the rest of them, but those others didn't have the creativity and diversity or ability to blaze so many trails and try so many different things.

            Mentioning Emerson's doctorate? Lol. Yes he should toss it in the trash.

            The Beatles weren't solo virtuoso's, but they were more than average musicians when together. So much so that most covers or alternative arrangements of Beatles tracks are nearly always inferior.

            Was it you that mentioned they had something you couldn't quantify? And no other band has or will hit such a creative vein as the Beatles did, regardless if people prefers other bands on genres.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8215967].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Underground View Post

          This view is so cliche. It's the view that people who think they have sophisticated and evolved musical tastes have. Those who think going against what's popular and mainstream instantly makes what they have to say more credible. (Often yes, popular opinion is flawed. But with the Beatles, even popular opinion of the limits them, although they are still seen as the greatest despite that limited view of them being just great pop music hit makers and big sellers).

          It's arrived at by viewing the Beatles only through their official releases and catalog of music.

          The Beatles have an unofficial catalog of outtakes, demo versions, first takes, skits in the studio that is nearly as voluminous as their officially released versions, spanning throughout their career.

          These guys are far above and beyond anyone else and will never be surpassed as a creative musical force and for the legacy they have left.

          It's laughable to mention prog rockers in the same breathe as the Beatles, or to scorn the white album and then laud others who built on the kind of experimentation done by the Beatles into different soundscapes on the White Album, with the rise of prog rock.

          Why don't we do in the road was a little, throwaway jam song by Paul to begin with. But listen to this version here, the easy changing of tone and vocal style, and then try to make the argument about the Beatles only making nice, smaltzy pop songs. There is no other band that has anywhere near the depth and breathe of material and the creative range the beatles had. They are their own genre, and no one is on their level. There are hundreds of stripped down Beatles records on Youtube that give a real insight into the Beatles behind the polished final product most people judge them on.

          The Beatles - Why Don't We Do It In The Road? (Take 4) - YouTube
          Exactly. You said it yourself. The Beatles "they are they own genre", which isn't Rock and Roll. Which is why the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

          The Beatles were great song writers and vocalists as a team, but I wouldn't say they were more influential on Rock and Roll than Chuck Berry or this guy were:

          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216409].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Exactly. You said it yourself. The Beatles "they are they own genre", which isn't Rock and Roll. Which is why the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

            The Beatles were great song writers and vocalists as a team, but I wouldn't say they were more influential on Rock and Roll than Chuck Berry or this guy were:

            Jimi Hendrix covers The Beatles Day Tripper - YouTube
            ...what Kurt said!

            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216444].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Underground
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Exactly. You said it yourself. The Beatles "they are they own genre", which isn't Rock and Roll. Which is why the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

            The Beatles were great song writers and vocalists as a team, but I wouldn't say they were more influential on Rock and Roll than Chuck Berry or this guy were:

            Jimi Hendrix covers The Beatles Day Tripper - YouTube
            At no point have I made any assertion that the Beatles were the best in every genre. They aren't the best reggae band ever. They aren't the best death metal band in existence. They aren't the best blues ensemble ever created. They aren't the best hip hop crew.

            If they'd have picked a niche, they would have dominated, because they are unsurpassed for creative talent and in the output of music they managed to create.

            It's such a flawed and obvious disingenuous argument I don't know how you could propose it.

            The Beatles had so much variety spread over styles from hard rock to 30's ragtime or whatever.

            Mick Taylor era Rolling Stones were/are the most awesome rock band ever. For blues rock of that era. Certainly on stage if you listen to the recording of their 70's gigs. I love them. The Beatles did not come close in that area. Had that chosen to specialize like the Stones in the same genre of music from the start, things might have been different.

            Music's my life. I'm not bound by styles or eras. Outside of those things, just in terms of a band hitting a creative peak and sustaining it and producing a body of work of unmatched creativity and brevity, then isn't even a contender who can match up to what they achieved in the time frame they did.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216542].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Underground
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Exactly. You said it yourself. The Beatles "they are they own genre", which isn't Rock and Roll. Which is why the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

            The Beatles were great song writers and vocalists as a team, but I wouldn't say they were more influential on Rock and Roll than Chuck Berry or this guy were:

            Jimi Hendrix covers The Beatles Day Tripper - YouTube
            The Beatles had a bigger effect on music overall than ever of them since then.

            Just seeing documentary a while back about interview with American teens, moving on to the next thing and writing the Beatles of as just a passing fad pop band like the Monkeys, in early 1967, saying they were finished, and then it showed a clip of Paul saying they were rubbing their hand thinking ''just you wait and see'' since they had Sgt Pepper's in the works and they went from being quite widely written of as a corny pop band who's time had come and gone to blowing people away and driving their American competitor Brian Wilson mad.

            Revolver was cool enough, but to drop Sgt Peppers a little while later, they changed the whole scene in an instant. There was nothing like a Day in the Life before they created it. Nothing like Sgt Peppers the song. The were musical inventors unmatched by anyone

            I love Jimi but that version was awful compared to the flow of the original.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216602].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Underground View Post

              ''just you wait and see'' since they had Sgt Pepper's in the works and they went from being quite widely written of as a corny pop band who's time had come and gone to blowing people away and driving their American competitor Brian Wilson mad.
              Give me a beak. Brian wilson has a sound they NEVER tried to emulate. They ARE different types of music. I, for one, like them BOTH, but you will NEVER mistake one for the other. I DOUBT Brian Wilson ever cared. What does wikipedia say?

              He later considered both Phil Spector and the Beatles as his chief rivals, and the latter in turn cited his work as a major influence.


              I listened to a lot of different bass players - mostly Motown records. They were great and the bass player, who I found out later was James Jamerson, was an influence. So smooth, melodic, and solid. I really liked Marvin Gaye records. And, of course, I’ve always liked Brian Wilson all the way through The Beach Boys. But Pet Sounds blew me away. It’s still one of my favourite albums. When I first heard it, I thought, Wow, this is the greatest record of all time! Brian took the bass into very unusual places. The band would play in C, and Brian would stay in G. That kind of thing. It gave me great ideas. That musical invention of Brian Wilson was eye-opening, I mean, ear-opening. It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much. I’ve just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life ... I figure no one is educated musically ’til they’ve heard that album ... I love the orchestra, the arrangements ... it may be going overboard to say it’s the classic of the century ... but to me, it certainly is a total, classic record that is unbeatable in many ways ... I’ve often played Pet Sounds and cried.[80]

              — Paul McCartney, The Beatles
              So brian considered them rivals. BIG DEAL! They WERE good competitors. And PAUL said it was ear blowing, and he bought an album for each of his kids.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8217797].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author lcombs
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Exactly. You said it yourself. The Beatles "they are they own genre", which isn't Rock and Roll. Which is why the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

            The Beatles were great song writers and vocalists as a team, but I wouldn't say they were more influential on Rock and Roll than Chuck Berry or this guy were:

            Jimi Hendrix covers The Beatles Day Tripper - YouTube
            I have to say, I disagree. I've heard many people make the remark that The Beatles weren't a 'Rock-n-Roll' band.
            Considering the fact that their biggest influence was Buddy Holly and The Crickets, (Hence the 'insect name', The Beatles), and Chuck Berry and Elvis, et al, I would argue that The Beatles were, indeed, a Rock-n-Roll band.
            And, they were a Pop band, and they were the first Psychodelic Rock band and were evolving into a 'Rock' band.
            John and Paul were once described as very good individually, pure genius together.
            And, although people often attribute certain songs to Paul and others to John, George Martin said this;
            Generally Paul, (A), would start with 2 lines and send them to John,(B), who then add 1 or 2 lines and send it back to Paul.
            So, most of their songs were something like this:
            AA,B,AA,BB,AA,B Or something to that effect.
            Now, consider this: Their first hit in the U.S. was "Love Me Do" in 1962.
            "Rock" didn't exist in 1962. And, "Love Me Do" was as 'Rock-n-Roll'
            as any rock-n-roll music coming out at the time. As was "I Want To Hold Your Hand", and "I Saw Her Standing There".
            The Beatles literally influenced every rock-n-roll/rock band that followed.
            As for Hendrix, Bob Dylan was his 2nd biggest influence AFTER the Beatles.
            "Revolution" comes to mind as, what I would consider musics introduction to 'Rock'.
            One could even make the argument that "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" was the introduction to Punk.

            And, in ending, I will say The Stones can't hold a candle to The Who, Cream, Hendrix, The Airplane/Starship, Zepplin, and a few others as the best Rock band.
            The are the best Garage band ever. And that's their appeal.
            John Lennon on Mick Jagger.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "At least it's arguable anyway."

    That is for sure.

    To me we are comparing apples to oranges, for as Kurt says, the Beatles were a prock-n-roll band to start,while The Rolling Stones ( they shortened to The Stones later) wanted to be more bluesly and gutsy. Some of the Bands mentioned already I would compare to the early Beatles like the Dave Clark Fice, while The Stones would have been in thje same style as The Animals.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7913545].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
    i got lots more beatles music than stones music so the beatles must be better
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7913840].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rodtyler
    I always thought the Beatles were creative and imaginative and used it to its fullest. The Stones meanwhile would beat their heads against the wall to get your attention. I'm not knocking the Stones, but I agree that their were in two different classes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7913912].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Fund this video that says what I did about this being the last time the Beatles played together live.
    It also shows they still were rock-n-roll.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7913965].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lcombs
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Fund this video that says what I did about this being the last time the Beatles played together live.
      It also shows they still were rock-n-roll.
      Don't Let Me Down - The Beatles at the rooftop! 720p - YouTube
      Can't remember the full story but, as I recall, they were almost arrested for creating a public disturbance during that performance.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7914106].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

        Can't remember the full story but, as I recall, they were almost arrested for creating a public disturbance during that performance.
        I can't remember it either but I'm pretty sure you are right.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7914139].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rodtyler
    I saw a video of the Dave Clark 5 the other day and have often wondered, why Dave Clark? He was just the drummer. Did he own the PA system or something?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8000256].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by rodtyler View Post

      I saw a video of the Dave Clark 5 the other day and have often wondered, why Dave Clark? He was just the drummer. Did he own the PA system or something?
      Why Gene Krupa's orchestra or The Buddy Rich orchestra. Why was the Band originally called Levon Helm and the Hawks?
      Take the drums out of any rock band and see what you end up with.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216044].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Really it's like Kim said, you're comparing apples to oranges.
        The only real similarities are that both bands have influenced many that came after them and the members of both bands have been influenced by many that came before them and by their peers from a variety of different musical styles.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The example here of the rolling stones lacks quality. The playing isn't as good. It is slower. Their singing isn't as good.

    With the beatles, shes leaving home, dear prudence, don't let me down? NICE! I heard they became a studio band because they had to use some gimics because others were. The rooftop video is good quality, and especially for a lie performance.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8214306].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    Paul McCartney was just on the Colbert Report a couple of weeks ago. It's amazing that he's still performing at 70+ years old.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...paul-mccartney
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8214532].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lcombs
      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

      Paul McCartney was just on the Colbert Report a couple of weeks ago. It's amazing that he's still performing at 70+ years old.

      http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...paul-mccartney
      You're right about McCartney.
      But Keith Richards still performing is a F**king MIRACLE!:confused:

      I believe HGH has a lot to do with it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8215819].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LarryC
        Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

        You're right about McCartney.
        But Keith Richards still performing is a F**king MIRACLE!:confused:

        I believe HGH has a lot to do with it.
        Yes, I saw him singing and jumping around the stage on SNL last year. Never been a huge Stones fan, but I was impressed with his performance nonetheless. Either HGH or the rumors are true about him selling his soul

        Edit: actually, that was Mick Jagger I saw. Really not a Stones fan, lol.
        Signature
        Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8215955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Go ahead -

    Insult the Beatles -
    Insult the Stones -
    Even Insult Steve Wags

    However do not insult the Ramones or I will be extremely offended and may be in your face FOR-EVAH!

    Or Jimmi Hendrix - watch your step.

    GABA GABA HAY!

    ONE
    TWO
    THREE
    FOUR
    HAY HO
    LET'S GO!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8215775].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    The Stones were the World's Greatest Rock Band after the Beatles broke up in the Mick Taylor days.

    The Beatles would've blown them off the stage in their heyday.

    Never could warm up very much to the Who. I was digging John Mayall and the Paul Butterfield Blues Band during that era.
    I was never much of a Beatles or Stones fan either back then.
    I'd add a couple more to the Mayall and Butterfield list like The Band, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Hawkins, and early Steve Miller.
    I do sort of like the Beatles and Stones now but I'd still rather listen to those others first.
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8215899].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216089].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Underground
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      Underground - your "diatribe" is as cliched as you say Steve's is.

      But that's quite alright. Musical "bests" are opinions of the listeners. Yours is simply different than Steve's.

      And Steve - I didn't read his opinion as an insult - just a different viewpoint. Although there WAS a lot of pretentiousness in his post

      No matter - we like who we like. I don't care how prolific someone's musical backgrounds or tastes are - they're still only opinions.

      If you want MY opinion, for the Beatles - it was as much timing as anything else. Something pretty new and different - and radical by some standards. The country was primed for musical change in the rock/pop genre and the Beatles brought it. In fact, if they had come here behind the Stones, and the Stones got Sullivan first - would the Beatles have been as popular? (Probably, but who knows...)


      It's facts. It wasn't a diatribe. I was a big Beatles fans as a teen in the 90's after seeing how they were the prime influence for some of my favourite bands at the time (although it did take me a while to get used to them). Then found their stuff boring and outdated after a while, even the anthologies. Then Youtube came along and provided an alternative catalogue of rare or unheard Beatles material and just hearing this band in the studio pissing about and making up funny songs or ditties but still making masterpieces and doing what they did.


      My point was everyone has their preferences and subjective likes and dislikes in music. Their favourite band or styles. That's their subjective tastes. Might be punks into the Clash and hate the Beatles. And many are stupid enough to claim their pet groups superior just because they like that sound or ethos. But don't try to tell me the Clash's legacy rivals that left by the Beatles.

      By regardless if the Beatles weren't as popular, their musical output would still be unrivaled.

      It's not opinion. It's fact.

      I don't really listen to Beatles stuff much these days. It's relatively outdated because of the sound production and because there is so much other music out there more relevant to today's time.

      I listen more to new remixes and mashups of their stuff. So many people love the Beatles for different reasons, even today's young generation.


      Your post is rather silly and without substance or a decent argument. ''It's all subjective'', seems to be what you are saying. In that case, I could claim Wham were the greatest musical force in history, and still be just as valid.

      Here's some new spins on timeless Beatles stuff that bring the Beatles into today's advances in sound technology. They still sound utterly amazing and fresh.





      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216136].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        Originally Posted by Underground View Post

        It's facts. It wasn't a diatribe. I was a big Beatles fans as a teen in the 90's after seeing how they were the prime influence for some of my favourite bands at the time (although it did take me a while to get used to them). Then found their stuff boring and outdated after a while, even the anthologies. Then Youtube came along and provided an alternative catalogue of rare or unheard Beatles material and just hearing this band in the studio pissing about and making up funny songs or ditties but still making masterpieces and doing what they did.


        My point was everyone has their preferences and subjective likes and dislikes in music. Their favourite band or styles. That's their subjective tastes. Might be punks into the Clash and hate the Beatles. And many are stupid enough to claim their pet groups superior just because they like that sound or ethos. But don't try to tell me the Clash's legacy rivals that left by the Beatles.

        By regardless if the Beatles weren't as popular, their musical output would still be unrivaled.

        It's not opinion. It's fact.

        I don't really listen to Beatles stuff much these days. It's relatively outdated because of the sound production and because there is so much other music out there more relevant to today's time.

        I listen more to new remixes and mashups of their stuff. So many people love the Beatles for different reasons, even today's young generation.


        Your post is rather silly and without substance or a decent argument. ''It's all subjective'', seems to be what you are saying. In that case, I could claim Wham were the greatest musical force in history, and still be just as valid.

        Here's so new spins on timeless Beatles stuff.



        The Beatles - Happiness Is A Warm Gun REMIX by Mister Mustard - YouTube

        Gentle Weep (Beatles Dubstep RMX) by LockOut - YouTube

        The Beatles - I'm Only Sleeping REMIX by Mister Mustard - YouTube
        You're right. What was I thinking? The Beatles are God's gift to musical
        greatness.

        I should bow my head in shame. :rolleyes:

        And with THAT...I am out of here because you can measure the amount that
        I care about any of this on the head of a pin.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216394].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Underground
          Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

          You're right. What was I thinking? The Beatles are God's gift to musical
          greatness.

          I should bow my head in shame. :rolleyes:

          And with THAT...I am out of here because you can measure the amount that
          I care about any of this on the head of a pin.
          And well you might, with all this talk of prog rockers, doctorates in music being a sign of musical ability and how crap the white album was. Well you might.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216529].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216399].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Underground
          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          So... is it fact or opinion?

          There are no facts when it comes to taste in music. Which is what you pretty much say in your second sentence there...

          You're entitled to yours. Steve's entitled to his. And so on.
          If you didn't grasp the distinction I drew between opinion and subjective tastes versus objective reality, I'm not going to persist in any further attempts to help you understand the simple point.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8216527].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8217320].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Underground
              Twice you completely missed the point or got it back-to-front in two consecutive threads. I didn't want to waste time with a third in some pointless exchange.

              No malice. I just didn't want to go back for in that manner going over the same thing.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8217536].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8217570].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Underground
                  Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                  You know, if no one is "getting" what you're saying, then perhaps it's the message delivery... just sayin'...

                  No malice here either. To be clear...
                  I maybe should have simplified things for your level, that way the simple message might actually have gotten delivered.

                  I'd rather not engage with you at all to be honest.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8217725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    OK. If some clown jumps on a thread and wedged themselves into a discussion with you based on some pointless, easily rebuked attempt at argument, consistently argues like a child back and forth, each time failing to grasp or understand what was being said, and then just trolls you with inane, ridiculous comments, adding nothing of worth or value to the debate, I'm sure you'd feel no desire to entertain them anymore than you have to.


    You're a simple-minded troll who is hijacking this thread. I'd rather discuss the topic with adults like Kurt, who can formulate valid points and make interesting points and observations then someone who can't.

    Nothing thin-skinned. Pointless, sad person.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8217847].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218024].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Underground
        Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

        If you would rather discuss with others, then why do you continuously answer me? Could it be your need to call people simple-minded, etc. in a lame attempt to feel better about yourself?

        I am curious - but hey! Don't feel obligated to respond. After all, whether you want to believe it or not, your very own attitude and "superiority complex" is what brought this on.

        What do I know - I am a simple minded troll... hahaha.

        By the way - there's a neat little "Ignore" feature on this forum. You can use that to ignore anyone you think is a troll. Try it out! You'll love it!

        So, if it will help you - I will bow out now. Feel better now?

        Yes, I do. I hate being set upon out of nowhere by morons and their stupid ideas and jumbled thought processes and getting entangled in them. The MO is to take a personal swipe (since resentment rather than constructive thought is the driver) and make some charge or claim or another, and then continuing to do that, so you have to keep rebutting their ridiculous snipes and claims. My message is wrong. I'm thin skinned. I have a superiority complex, objective fact is only my opinion and no more valid than any other etc, etc, because you haven't got the brains to actually understand any point I was making.

        So, yes thank you for bowing out and desisting in subjecting me to more pointless BS.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218079].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
          Originally Posted by Underground View Post

          Yes, I do. I hate being set upon out of nowhere by morons and their stupid ideas and jumbled thought processes and getting entangled in them. The MO is to take a personal swipe (since resentment is all the drives them) and make some charge or claim or another, and then continuing to do that, so you have to keep rebutting their ridiculous snipes and claims. My message is wrong. I'm thin skinned. I have a superiority complex, etc, etc, because you haven't got the brains to actually understand any point I was making.

          So, yes thank you for bowing out and desisting in subjecting me to more pointless BS.
          Ok, one more...

          Your name calling says more about you than anyone else. Frankly, I at this point don't care what your point was. YOU dug up this old post with your uppity "know everything about music" attitude. I made ONE response stating I didn't think you were trying to be rude (or whatever). Then you jumped on me.

          And everyone else who responded to you.

          You need to take a good, long look in the mirror because I understand you - and your type - much more than you could understand me. Not about my "understanding" of your posts, my opinions of music or the Beatles or anything else. You are about as clueless as anyone you accuse of being clueless. I guess you're still young yet and simply don't get it.

          Get over yourself. :rolleyes:
          Signature

          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218103].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Underground
            You're a head case. You jumped on here because you thought my posts were pretentious and thought I thought I had superior musical taste and have been at m personally ever since, like an annoying, incessant, pointless pest. Personally I prefer other bands and sounds to the Beatles in a lot of cases, but my personal tastes are beside the point.

            If you had enough intelligence to understand what I was saying and grasp it, which you clearly don't, as you are simple minded in the extreme, I was saying ''beyond subjective musical tastes and preferences and opinions'', mine included, beyond petty human thinking, no one had or will do what the Beatles did in music or be so prolific. It's a fact that no-one had/has before or since.

            And you're post is typical of that online weirdo type who sets on you out of know and focuses personally on you and not your argument.

            This time my name calling, being a certain type, etc, any old bullshit you can trot out to try to smear me.

            You haven't got a valid argument or view point to give on this subject. And I don't care what you think about me.

            Fool.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218143].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
              Originally Posted by Underground View Post

              You're a head case. You jumped on here because you thought my posts were pretentious and thought I thought I had superior musical taste and have been at m personally ever since, like an annoying, incessant, pointless pest. Personally I prefer other bands and sounds to the Beatles in a lot of cases, but my personal tastes are beside the point.

              If you had enough intelligence to understand what I was saying and grasp it, which you clearly don't, as you are simple minded in the extreme, I was saying ''beyond subjective musical tastes and preferences and opinions'', mine included, beyond petty human thinking, no one had or will do what the Beatles did in music or be so prolific. It's a fact that no-one had/has before or since.

              And you're post is typical of that online weirdo type who sets on you out of know and focuses personally on you and not your argument.

              This time my name calling, being a certain type, etc, any old bullshit you can trot out to try to smear me.

              You haven't got a valid argument or view point to give on this subject. And I don't care what you think about me.

              Fool.
              Okay, I've had just about enough of this. I don't care if what I'm about to
              say gets me banned from this forum for life.

              You are an opinionated, obnoxious, ******* jackass. I cannot believe anyone
              could be THAT full of themselves.

              You need to get a life and badly.

              Awaiting my banning from this zoo.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218189].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Underground
                Steve Wagenheimer. The teenage mutant ninja turtle toy obsessive peter pan.

                If you had any character or spine, you would have defended your point, instead of taking your ball and running off when your nonsense talk was called out. And then having that other hyper-sensitive malcontent do your bidding, he also unable to rise above the emotive, wimpish reasoning of someone incapable of frank debate and reasoned argument.

                When someone say the Beatles were ''insert very limited and stereotyped view here'', and then gives a list of their favourite little pet bands, you can see their arguments are subjective and based on a perception they have of their own superior musical tastes. Not fact, or non-biased, realistic observation.


                It's pure ego-centrism and solipsism. I prefer early genesis and think they are better, therefore they are.

                Grow up. If you can't take honest, constructive criticism of your points, and the thinking behind them then that's your own failing.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218208].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
                  Originally Posted by Underground View Post

                  Steve Wagenheimer. The teenage mutant ninja turtle toy obsessive peter pan.

                  If you had any character or spine, you would have defended your point, instead of taking your ball and running off. And then having that other hyper-sensitive malcontent do your bidding.

                  When someone say the Beatles were ''insert here'', and then gives a list of their favourite little pet bands, you can see their arguments are subjective and based on a perception they have of their own superior musical tastes. Not fact, or non-biased, realistic observation.


                  It's pure ego-centrism and solipsism. I prefer early genesis and think they are better, therefore they are.

                  Grow up. If you can't take honest, constructive criticism of your points, and the thinking behind them then that's your own failing.
                  I don't bother defending points with people who are so rude and obnoxious that I can't stand to be in the same room with them.

                  But okay, I've got a few minutes to kill so I'll play this stupid game.

                  Defend my point.

                  Background:

                  Classically trained musician. Mother was a concert pianist and opera singer. I grew up with music and made my first vocal recording at age 3. That was in 1960 before the Beatles were even a thought.

                  Grew up listening to:

                  Classical:

                  Mozart
                  Chopin
                  Schubert
                  Tchaikovsky
                  Beethoven
                  Brahms
                  Bach

                  Broadway

                  My Fair Lady
                  Sound Of Music
                  Carousel
                  Showboat

                  Rock/Pop

                  Beatles
                  Stones
                  Moody Blues (Early)
                  Who (Early)

                  I played piano, drums and guitar.

                  I got a music minor from college while I was majoring in business because I
                  couldn't let all my musical training go to waste. I aced the curriculum without
                  cracking a book.

                  In 35 years (I am now 55) I have composed over 1,000 songs. If you want to
                  hear real music, pick up a copy of my Modern Classics CD when it becomes
                  available. My father says it sounds like 19th century Romantic, which makes
                  sense since most of my favorite composers are from that era.

                  And you know what? None of this means jack shit because musical taste is
                  still musical taste. It's subjective.

                  So, you want to talk facts? Fine, let's talk facts.

                  The Beatles had more # 1 singles than any other rock band in history up to
                  that point in time when they finally broke up in 1969 - 70. Oh, by the way,
                  Let It Be was not their last LP. Abbey Road was.

                  The Beatles had more debut songs on the top 100 Billboard charts at
                  ridiculously high positions than any band in history.

                  The Beatles were, by definition of the word, a phenomenon. When John
                  Lennon commented that they were more popular than Jesus, which he did
                  in jest, he wasn't far from the truth. There was a reason it was called
                  Beatlemania. We've never seen anything like it since and probably never will.

                  But that has as much to do with the world we live in today as it does the
                  group itself. In short, we've seen and done too much. Songs that were fairly
                  big hits 50 years ago would never make the charts today. They are dated.
                  They are old. They are not interesting anymore. Early Beatles songs were
                  only as popular as they were because, quite honestly, music of the period
                  before it was rather sterile. 50s music progressions were essentially C-Am-F-G with almost no variation. Yeah, there were a few exceptions, but for the most
                  part, at least on a technical level, 50s music was more about a movement
                  than it was about music. Outside of "The Great Pretender" and "Smoke Gets
                  In Your Eyes", which by the way was originally recorded by Gertrude Niesen on October 13, 1933, I had very little use for 50s music. But again, that's
                  just my opinion and not a fact that 50s music sucked. I just didn't care for it.

                  Again, taste is subjective.

                  The Beatles, technically, went places that nobody had gone before. Sgt
                  Pepper was, for its time, a landmark album. There is no denying it. Today, I
                  can't listen to it anymore. It's become a cliche of itself. It's like Stairway To
                  Heaven. The first time you heard it, it was amazing. On the 10 thousandth
                  listen, not so much.

                  In fact, I think the Beatles may have been the catalyst for may early
                  underground bands such as 1965s 13th Floor Elevators. In fact, I think the
                  Beatles probably influenced a crap ton of bands, the list I won't bore you
                  with.

                  And as good as they were together, you really could see how talented they
                  were when they disbanded thanks to songs such as:

                  Isn't It A Pity
                  Imagine
                  What Is Life
                  Photograph
                  Pipes Of Peace

                  And that's just off the top of my head. Ringo, for me, was the biggest
                  surprise. But then again, HE made "With A Little Help From My Friends." Paul
                  or John singing it would have just been wrong.

                  And that's where these guys were also smart. They knew what to do and
                  when to do it. They knew when to let George start to shine with the band.
                  Something is still one of the best Beatles songs ever. Even I had to record
                  a cover of it and I don't do covers.

                  The 2nd side of Abbey Road was pure genius. They didn't have any complete
                  songs for it so they just said, screw it. We've got all these "hooks" so let's
                  just make an album out of it.

                  I don't know who was the real brains behind the band, John or Paul. If I had
                  to guess, I'd say John because he always seemed to be more about the image
                  and Paul seemed to be more about the music. I do believe Paul was the better
                  writer and this is evidenced by their later years and the fact, yes, fact,
                  that almost all their big hits were Paul compositions and almost all of John's
                  songs were relative failures. I am sure this had to bug the hell out of John
                  which had to affect an already deteriorating relationship thanks to Yoko.

                  I loved the Beatles. I never said I didn't. But I have heard way too much
                  music in my life to put them on the top of Mt Olympus. My yearly record
                  budget was close to $3,000. And this was during a time when albums cost
                  $3.99 and 45s were 79 cents a piece.

                  I could probably name more bands right here in this thread that I have
                  listened to in 55 years than you could even think of. And that doesn't
                  even touch my exposure to classical, broadway and even opera. At one time,
                  I knew the entire score to the opera Carmen because my mother had to play
                  it day after day for an opera company she worked for.

                  You are not talking to some wet behind the ear, doesn't know crap about
                  music kid here. My whole life from age 3 has been about music.

                  You want to knock prog rock? That's fine. You can knock it all you want. But
                  technically, you won't find better than some pieces written by Emerson,
                  McCarty, Dunford, Thatcher (you probably want to look up those last 3
                  names) and others.

                  I saw Renaissance in concert back in the 70s. They weren't much of a stage
                  presence, though Annie was nice to look at, but boy could they play and could
                  she sing.

                  Listen to Scheherazade when you get a chance, or Ashes Are Burning CD or
                  Ocean Gypsy.

                  Sorry, but the Beatles "music" has never come close to this stuff if you want
                  to talk about technical virtuosity.

                  If you want to talk about whose music is "better" to listen to, that's all
                  subjective shit and a matter of opinion.

                  My comment was simply that "musically" (and yes, in my opinion I guess)
                  the Beatles were not the greatest band that ever lived. They wrote a lot of
                  garbage, mostly in their later years. And in the early years, a lot of their
                  songs were generic and bland.

                  One thing they did have that no "trained" musician can deny is amazing
                  harmony. Do you know that there is a musical vocal machine that reproduces
                  harmonies. I am sure that one of the "sounds" has to be "Beatles" I do know
                  that Carpenters and Beach Boys were among them.

                  Anybody who says that the Beatles sucked obviously doesn't know much
                  about music. But to categorically proclaim them the greatest band that
                  ever strapped on an electric guitar is doing a great injustice to many other
                  bands out there, some of which you've probably never even heard of.

                  Yeah, there is a lot of great music in the world that will probably never be
                  heard.

                  So yeah, if you want to say that "technically" the Beatles had more impact
                  on rock/pop music than any other band in history, that can't be argued. That's
                  a fact.

                  But to say that because of that they are "musically" the greatest band
                  ever, sorry, but that's where I say that this is "arguable" at least.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218423].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

                Okay, I've had just about enough of this. I don't care if what I'm about to
                say gets me banned from this forum for life.

                You are an opinionated, obnoxious, ******* jackass. I cannot believe anyone
                could be THAT full of themselves.

                You need to get a life and badly.

                Awaiting my banning from this zoo.

                Hey Steve, I think I remember you getting banned for a week or two - around the time MJ died because...

                ... you jumped all over some European who asked me how dare I compare Michael Jackson to the classical composers.


                Take it easy guy.


                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    Don't worry. Anyone with any intelligence can see your a pointless moron with no substance or point to your posts and that you're a troll sidetracking this discussion with uninteresting drivel.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218181].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bravo75
    If John Lennon read this thread, he would piss himself laughing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    There are people who when you get caught in their slip-stream (like making eye contact with a madmen on a train and then having him not let up till you get off), you aren't going to come out of looking good. These maladjusted people are experts at dragging things to a certain level and keeping their grip on you and keeping you there, making you look retarded by association.

    Which is part of their plan.

    In his own words,


    ''Which is all part of my plan... BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!''

    Pointless, damaged people.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218254].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bravo75
      Originally Posted by Underground View Post

      There are people who when you get caught in their slip-stream (like making eye contact with a madmen on a train and then having him not let up till you get off), you aren't going to come out of looking good. These maladjusted people are experts at dragging things to a certain level and keeping their grip on keeping you there.

      Which is part of their plan.

      In his own words,


      ''Which is all part of my plan... BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!''

      Pointless, damaged people.

      So you think Wagger's is a Psycho? This thread is starting to intrigue me.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218265].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218278].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bravo75
          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          No-no. Not Steve. Me.

          Follow along, Man!
          My bad. I got a bit lost with all the name calling. So you're the madman with the psychotic stare that one might encounter on a train?

          You couldn't make this stuff up.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218311].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Underground
        Originally Posted by bravo75 View Post

        So you think Wagger's is a Psycho? This thread is starting to intrigue me.

        John Lennon would be laughing at the suggestions in this thread of his band and their supposed inferiority to the likes of Genesis and ELO.


        He'd be in hysterics.

        I think there is something personally disturbed and dysfunctional in people who zero in on other people on the net for some slight or perceived slight and don't let up and just troll that person relentless for some very flimsy, completely erroneous reason, just spiteful resentment. A bit mental. A bit offkey.

        Like there is in stalkers.


        I won't go into things further about Steve. It's not fair. But I've seen some not so favourable things.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218313].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218374].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Underground
            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

            Oh, I don't feel slighted in the least! I am simply giving you an outlet to show how intelligent and superior you are. You obviously need it since you keep on "feeding the trolls".

            In all seriousness, if you want me to stop and leave the thread, it's very simple.

            Just say "please".
            You're in for the most tedious, draining trolling experience in your life. Go for it. Be your full repulsive, repugnant, pointless self in all your pomp and glory.


            I'll just do what people do with heavy breathing silent phones calls and wear you out
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218392].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218431].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Underground
                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                Heeheeheehee. You are actually starting to get entertaining.

                Thanks for the laughs. And don't worry - sooner or later I will either be too busy or get too bored to continue.

                But for now...
                Probably like your ability in the bedroom, your trolling ability is dreadful and ineffective and not captivating enough to have me riled enough to persist.

                You're just a pretty sad, spiteful figure full of malice doing your best to act unaffected and to get a rise out of me. That's how they all act. Lot of smiley faces and jokey soundbites, trying to put on a cool front. Really you are just eaten up with resentment and want to get at me and affect my mood.

                Which speaks for itself.


                But the way Steve your post was just a very long justification for why you do HAVE superior musical taste, or perceive that.

                What I said was true. You said those things because you feel your tastes are sophisticated enough to make those assertions. Partly to do with them being popular. Although not just that. You did make the argument for there being better technical bands out their with better music skill. Cream were better instrumentalists than the Beatles. All three were. A lot of bands were in their field.

                But the Beatles were a phenomenon like no other before or since and as a musical group that created songs music and broke new ground, please name anyone that comes close?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218630].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Underground View Post

          John Lennon would be laughing at the suggestions in this thread of his band and their supposed inferiority to the likes of Genesis and ELO.


          He'd be in hysterics.


          I think there is something personally disturbed and dysfunctional in people who zero in on other people on the net for some slight or perceived slight and don't let up and just troll that person relentless for some very flimsy, completely erroneous reason, just spiteful resentment. A bit mental. A bit offkey.

          Like there is in stalkers.


          I won't go into things further about Steve. It's not fair. But I've seen some not so favourable things.
          I highly doubt that. Lennon had an appreciation of other musicians and groups that is apparently beyond your comprehension. He played and/or composed with people like Stevie Wonder, Harry Nilsson, Davis Peel, Frank Zappa, Tommy Smothers and Petula Clarke to name a few.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218479].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    Anyway, we have a troll, a baffled shit stirrer on the sides lines trying to instigate drama, and a man in his 60's who recently sold his treasured ninja turtle toy collection who thinks a doctorate in music makes one a superior musician, 'It's all too much for me to take, The madness that's shining all around you''.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218340].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    You can argue back and forth about the Beatles, Rolling Stones and so on, but those of us who really appreciate the nuances of great music know that the greatest rock song ever is:

    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    For the clueless observers here,here's what's going on. I sharply opposed an argument Steve gave in this thread, and gave reasoned arguments for my position.


    Only Kurt responded like an intelligent mature person in this thread. The rest are just incapable of that and this thread has descended to a ludicrous spectacle where some absolute clown is open attempting to bait me and troll me, because he disagreed with something I said and completely mistook it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218440].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Underground View Post

      For the clueless observers here,here's what's going on. I sharply opposed an argument Steve gave in this thread, and gave reasoned arguments for my position.


      Only Kurt responded like an intelligent mature person in this thread. The rest are just incapable of that and this thread has descended to a ludicrous spectacle where some absolute clown is open attempting to bait me and troll me, because he disagreed with something I said and completely mistook it.
      Now we're all clueless? Man you are a piece of work.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218505].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Now we're all clueless? Man you are a piece of work.
        He's obviously an avid reader of Dale Carnegie.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218515].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Underground
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Now we're all clueless? Man you are a piece of work.
        You are, in the sense of just not being very bright. That's clear.

        What I meant was there was so much nonsense that this thread had descended into, that most people new to the discussion would be clueless as to what was going on.

        What usually happens on the net, is people take the side of the majority as they like to be part of the herd, regardless of what gets said, and then they join the fray, adding fuel to the fire. They don't care about the underlying subtext.

        You're proof of that, wading in like a fool, getting my comment wrong, where as if I had someone with similar views outnumbering say Steve alone, you'd join that clique.

        One minute that bravo guy was a baffled neutral, not knowing the top or bottom of things, then the herd mentality kicked in and he join the douche side, who were either trolling, or throwing their toys out of the pram.


        What lunacy.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218578].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Underground;8218578[B

          ]You are, in the sense of just not being very bright. That's clear.[/B]

          What I meant was there was so much nonsense that this thread had descended into, that most people new to the discussion would be clueless as to what was going on.

          What usually happens on the net, is people take the side of the majority as they like to be part of the herd, regardless of what get's said, and then they join the frey, adding fuel to the fire. They don't care about the underlying subtext.

          You're proof of that, wading in like a fool, getting my comment wrong, where as if I had someone with similar views outnumbering say Steve alone, you'd join that clique.

          One minute that bravo guy was a baffled neutral, not knowing the top of bottom of things, then the herd mentality kicked in and he join the douche side, who were either trolling, or throwing their toys out of the pram.


          What lunacy.
          Really now I'm not bright? Listen punk I was making music and hanging out with real musicians long before you where born.
          Even now at 60 I play with musicians that have been making music for decades and some that are just starting out. I play in practically every genre of music you can name from classical to rock to country to rap and even traditional Irish folk music. I've also been a student of different types of music. My peers know me as a percussionist not a drummer. I own and play drums you probably haven't even heard of. Hell I've built drums. I can sight read and also write percussion pieces.
          So spare me and the others here your little judgments on what we know and our intelligent levels. All you're doing is showing your ignorance.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218668].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Underground
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Really now I'm not bright? Listen punk I was making music and hanging out with real musicians long before you where born.
            Even now at 60 I play with musicians that have been making music for decades and some that are just starting out. I play in practically every genre of music you can name from classical to rock to country to rap and even traditional Irish folk music. I've also been a student of different types of music. My peers know me as a percussionist not a drummer. I own and play drums you probably haven't even heard of. Hell I've built drums. I can sight read and also write percussion pieces.
            So spare me and the others here your little judgments on what we know and our intelligent levels. All you're doing is showing your ignorance.
            Ok, before I address this, let me address an actual interesting point you made that I happened to miss.

            I highly doubt that. Lennon had an appreciation of other musicians and groups that is apparently beyond your comprehension. He played and/or composed with people like Stevie Wonder, Harry Nilsson, Davis Peel, Frank Zappa, Tommy Smothers and Petula Clarke to name a few.
            He did. But like with the Stones, he was very forthwith about how much they copied the Beatles and imitated them.

            He would have looked at the prog rockers, who in the end these middle-class, heady, privileged musicians just got bloated on their own excesses and pretentiousness and the genre died, as a formal version of what he often tried to do in the Beatles, with the White Album and his stuff with Beatles.

            He might have respected the skill of some, but any suggestion of how lame the white album or cliche the Sgt Peppers was that really opened the doors to complete musical experimentation in rock music, that prog rock built on, would probably get the same treatment as the Stones imitating the Beatles. Even though Lennon was often one of the biggest outspoken critics of the Beatles and their flaws, even giving George Martin the boot at one point to get a more looser, natural sound.


            As to the latest comment, I did say those things because I thought your only contribution was to chime in with the insult and missed the other one.

            But even so, I don't care what your credentials are or that you are a musician. Nor Steve. It doesn't matter that I've been in bands. It wouldn't matter if I was secreted Eric Clapton sitting here and commentating, it's not personal or opinion or subjective. That's not to be insulting, as personally I do respect both of backgrounds and the depth of your knowledge after you both revealing them, but in the context of this argument, it's irrelevant.


            Any people giving their musical resume on this thread, flashing their credentials so as to make an arrogant appeal to authority trying to say their opinion counts because they're musicians of have been listening so long, is the very reason I commented on this thread.

            It's that egocentrism that people have. That arrogance that their tastes are so superior than and they are so accomplished that they can talk shit about the greatest musical collective in history, in an objective sense, and should be listened to on that basis. Purely subjective.

            And not very good reasoning. I've been playing piano since I was to and listening to 5 different categories of music for so many years, therefore if I say the Beatles were overrated and not the greatest band in history, all told, then you bloody well listen. And how dare you even think to criticise that.


            The Beatles had a greatness that lives on even today. Even among the young teen generation, they are still one of the most popular bands.

            They had a greatness. Like Mohammed Ali. Micheal Jordan. Elvis. Which puts them in a league of their own, despite their flaws.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218750].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218759].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Underground
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              Ah, don't waste your breath Thom. What he doesn't get is that in reality, the only troll in this thread is himself.

              Disagree with him - or not - and you will get an earfull of child-like name calling.

              Yes Underground - you are superior. You know it all. Your 2 dollar words are impressive too (no - really. I had to look one up).

              There now. Is your ego sufficiently stroked?

              Be a man, with some balls to stand your ground, some intelligence and something interesting to say, and people will have no problem with me.

              Be a snide, wimpy, insecure, weird, spiteful idiot and you won't get a free pass with me on that.


              And yes, that's enough. Glad sanity has been restored and you've seen sense.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218831].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218954].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Underground
                  Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                  Wow, all those names in one post!

                  So I am guessing... 15? 16? That's the age my own sons were when they thought they were right about everything. You sound like that age...it's ok. You'll grow out of that stage.

                  Ok, now I'm bored. Take care Mr. Under! :rolleyes:
                  They're not 'names' and wanton abuse. They are accurate adjectives. You've lingered on this thread like a bad smell making no secret of your desire to do nothing other than wind me up and piss me off.

                  I told you it would be tedious for you. I don't back down when someone is trying to make a fool of me and get a rise.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218979].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                    Originally Posted by Underground View Post

                    They're not 'names' and wanton abuse. They are accurate adjectives. You've lingered on this thread like a bad smell making no secret of your desire to do nothing other than wind me up and piss me off.

                    I told you it would be tedious for you. I don't back down when someone is trying to make a fool of me and get a rise.

                    Oh, it wasn't tedious at all. I have 4 kids - trust me, this isn't close to tedious.

                    But no, I'm not in the same category as Mike. I didn't come on this thread solely to give someone grief and try to piss them off. I have contributed stuff around this discussion.
                    Frankly, I didn't disagree with your first post. My response is something YOU took offense to. There was nothing I said in it that should have been offensive to you either. But when you keep telling me who stupid I am because I was not "getting" what you were trying to say, well, you opened the door.

                    But for the sake of lcombs... enough from me. Time to close this door.
                    Signature

                    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    Well thank you Steve. Interesting read. I understand your points completely. Like Curt's.

    I was just listening to ELO's greatest hits and their sound in the 70's and musicality is much better.

    Dirty Mac, with Clapton on Lead and Mitch on the drums, shows how the Beatles could have improved their sound and musicality.

    I wouldn't argue any of what you said. But for non-trained musicians who started out on early rock and roll with its relative simple chord structures, to 'creating' and inventing all the different pieces of music they did, rather than just improving on it like the prog rockers and other bands did and sound productions values and technology, hasn't been matched.

    Every other band has specialized in a certain narrow range of sound of genre. If Mick Taylor took some of his virtuosity blues rock lead guitar and kept the same kind of standards in different types of music, or all these other great specialists, then they be the best creative musical force in modern history.

    The Beatles sacrificed excellence in any one particular style from the hundreds they experimented in, to be far greater then average as a collective in probably 50-100.

    That variety is a phenomenon in a musical sense, even more so than their popularity and the effect that had in culture terms.

    I'm sorry, but there is no other band even close the Beatles in that regard. Some radiohad fans like to see similarities in evolution of sound and style from 1 album to the next and liken them to the Beatles. But Radiohead, like most bands, have a narrow range that is uniquely them and don't differ all that much. As talented musicians as some say they are.


    Let's name 1 Beatles era.

    Their hamburg days.


    Most bands stay within one era or one genre. The Beatles had many, and invented them themselves for the most part. There isn't anyone near that kind phenomenon.

    And that counts for something.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218551].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by Underground View Post

      Well thank you Steve. Interesting read. I understand your points completely. Like Curt's.

      I was just listening to ELO's greatest hits and their sound in the 70's and musicality is much better.

      Dirty Mac, with Clapton on Lead and Mitch on the drums, shows how the Beatles could have improved their sound and musicality.

      I wouldn't argue any of what you said. But for non-trained musicians who started out on early rock and roll with its relative simple chord structures, to 'creating' and inventing all the different pieces of music they did, rather than just improving on it like the prog rockers and other bands did and sound productions values and technology, hasn't been matched.

      Every other band has specialized in a certain narrow range of sound of genre. If Mick Taylor took some of his virtuosity blues rock lead guitar and kept the same kind of standards in different types of music, or all these other great specialists, then they be the best creative musical force in modern history.

      The Beatles sacrificed excellence in any one particular style from the hundreds they experimented in, to be far greater then average as a collective in probably 50-100.

      That variety is a phenomenon in a musical sense, even more so than their popularity and the effect that had in culture terms.

      I'm sorry, but there is no other band even close the Beatles in that regard. Some radiohad fans like to see similarities in evolution of sound and style from 1 album to the next and liken them to the Beatles. But Radiohead, like most bands, have a narrow range that is uniquely them and don't differ all that much. As talented musicians as some say they are.


      Let's name 1 Beatles era.

      Their hamburg days.

      The Beatles - live - I'm Talking About You (1962) - YouTube

      Most bands stay within one era or one genre. The Beatles had many, and invented them themselves for the most part. There isn't anyone near that kind phenomenon.

      And that counts for something.
      That's another aspect of the Beatles phenomena. Their sound progressed
      drastically over the years. That can't be said for many bands. I think, had
      Badfinger been given a chance and didn't have such a heartwrenching story
      and bad management (by the way a Beatles discovery) they might have
      been the next Beatles. In fact, if you listen to Magic Christian Music and
      then listen to Wish You Were Here, you can plainly see how the band evolved.

      I think towards the end you could tell that the Beatles were just getting tired
      of it and burnt out. Of course the string arrangement by Phil Specter on
      "The Long And Winding Road" pissed Paul off to no end. As a romantic
      teenager, I liked it. But as the years went on, I could see where it was a little
      on the melodramatic side. But the song itself was missing something. I can't
      put my finger on it. It just sounds tired. It would turn out to be the Beatles
      last hit single together and it never even made #1, which was unheard of
      for them.

      I think they were smart in calling it quits when they did. I think they needed
      to branch out and go their separate ways. In some ways, I think their music
      individually was as good if not better than the music they did in the later
      years. You might have liked the White Album but I thought it was a terrible
      disappointment, though Martha My Dear is still one of my all time favorite
      Beatles tunes. Even learned to play that one on the piano.

      By the way, people don't give McCartney enough credit as a bassist. His
      bass lines were very catchy, even if he wasn't the most skillful player in the
      world.

      In short, the Beatles were greater than the sum if their parts. They all had
      talent, individually (yes, even Ringo) but together, as I said in my initial post,
      they had something that you couldn't quite put your finger on.

      But let's be honest about a lot of their early popularity.

      1. Catchy tunes
      2. Great looking guys
      3. A dull period musically
      4. Timing

      Maybe part of the reason we've never seen anything like them since is
      because it's just not possible anymore. Certainly over the years there have
      been composers (John/Taupin) and performers (Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman,
      Tout, etc.) who wrote and played just as well if not better than The Beatles.
      But nobody has yet to match their popularity.

      You really have to wonder why if it wasn't just talent that did it.

      Because certainly none of the fab 4 sing as well as Annie Haslam or even
      Gary Puckett for that matter. Now that was a man who could sing.

      Imagine you could erase the Beatles from recorded history and the group
      came out today doing the exact same songs in the exact same chronology.

      Would they become the phenomenon that there were 50 years ago?

      It's at least something to think about.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218852].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Underground
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        That's another aspect of the Beatles phenomena. Their sound progressed
        drastically over the years. That can't be said for many bands. I think, had
        Badfinger been given a chance and didn't have such a heartwrenching story
        and bad management (by the way a Beatles discovery) they might have
        been the next Beatles. In fact, if you listen to Magic Christian Music and
        then listen to Wish You Were Here, you can plainly see how the band evolved.

        I think towards the end you could tell that the Beatles were just getting tired
        of it and burnt out. Of course the string arrangement by Phil Specter on
        "The Long And Winding Road" pissed Paul off to no end. As a romantic
        teenager, I liked it. But as the years went on, I could see where it was a little
        on the melodramatic side. But the song itself was missing something. I can't
        put my finger on it. It just sounds tired. It would turn out to be the Beatles
        last hit single together and it never even made #1, which was unheard of
        for them.

        I think they were smart in calling it quits when they did. I think they needed
        to branch out and go their separate ways. In some ways, I think their music
        individually was as good if not better than the music they did in the later
        years. You might have liked the White Album but I thought it was a terrible
        disappointment, though Martha My Dear is still one of my all time favorite
        Beatles tunes. Even learned to play that one on the piano.

        By the way, people don't give McCartney enough credit as a bassist. His
        bass lines were very catchy, even if he wasn't the most skillful player in the
        world.

        In short, the Beatles were greater than the sum if their parts. They all had
        talent, individually (yes, even Ringo) but together, as I said in my initial post,
        they had something that you couldn't quite put your finger on.

        But let's be honest about a lot of their early popularity.

        1. Catchy tunes
        2. Great looking guys
        3. A dull period musically
        4. Timing

        Maybe part of the reason we've never seen anything like them since is
        because it's just not possible anymore. Certainly over the years there have
        been composers (John/Taupin) and performers (Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman,
        Tout, etc.) who wrote and played just as well if not better than The Beatles.
        But nobody has yet to match their popularity.

        You really have to wonder why if it wasn't just talent that did it.

        Because certainly none of the fab 4 sing as well as Annie Haslam or even
        Gary Puckett for that matter. Now that was a man who could sing.

        Imagine you could erase the Beatles from recorded history and the group
        came out today doing the exact same songs in the exact same chronology.

        Would they become the phenomenon that there were 50 years ago?

        It's at least something to think about.

        This post has sent me into deep thought and posed many things for me to think about. Will answer it in a while. Very interesting.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218944].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    Humanity will never wise up. Never be fully rational and level headed and reasoned. Always be prey to human emotions that cloud their judgement.


    Thom was watching this, thumbing up his boys and their nonsense, and then decides to chime in with an insult based on misreading a comment I made.

    Where are the sane, level headed people in this discussion? Where's Kurt gone. People grown up enough and secure enough to hold proper impassioned musical debate without going into complete meltdown?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Underground
    A simple test. If there are bands that are better than the Beatles, have a more diverse range and catalogue of music, done more styles and done them better than the Beatles, then highlight them and show the objective proof and facts.


    I get accused of being arrogant. But some think providing real proof is unnecessary. Because they're a musician themselves and a certain age, their opinion is enough.

    How arrogant is that?

    I'm not the one who thinks me and my opinions are superior.

    I guess some people are just too plain dumb to see what I'm actually saying.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218862].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by Underground View Post

      I always take a heavy approach when going into a debate to get the discussion going. I'm learning though that some people welcome that and are secure enough in themselves that they can engage in lively debate, and on other places that isn't the case.

      You get a load of insecure people taking exception and seeing convictions in one's arguments and points, as superiority.

      The only thing I've been playing up as superior in this thread is facts and objective truth.

      Saying they are superior to subject opinions, preferences and beliefs. Mine or anyone else's/

      Yet there are any people so fragile in their own egos that any criticism is take personal and they go into estrogen overload.

      A simple test. If there are bands that are better than the Beatles, have a more diverse range and catalogue of music, done more styles and done them better than the Beatles, then highlight them and show the objective proof and facts.


      I get accused of being arrogant. But some think providing real proof is necessary. Because they're a musician themselves and a certain age, their opinion is enough.

      How arrogant and deluded is that?

      I'm not the one who thinks me and my opinions are superior.

      I guess some people are just too plain dumb to see what I'm actually saying.
      Well, you see, there are degrees of diversity and we can nit pick that to
      death but where would it get us?

      If you want to be "technical" about all this diversity thing, most classical
      music from the 19th century pretty much all sounded the same to the
      untrained ear. You'd really have to study the styles of each composer to
      hear the subtle differences.

      But that doesn't mean that all classical music from the 19th century was
      the same. Question is, how far down do you want to analyze musical
      structure, because let's face it ... there are only 12 notes in music unless
      you want to include micro-tonal scales that almost nobody uses.

      Hell, even George Harrison got sued for "My Sweet Lord" and lost.

      Early Beatles music can be classified as:

      Love Me Do
      8 Days A Week
      I Want To Hold Your Hand
      She Loves You

      It's all the same stuff. I mean it's not really, but the sound of their early
      works was formula. It had to be in order to sell. That's a different subject
      altogether that I don't even want to get into because then we're opening
      up another can of worms.

      Then you've got their "experimental" stuff that can be classified as:

      I Am The Walrus
      Strawberry Field Forever
      Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
      A Day In The Life

      And so on. Yeah, it was clever, it was different, it was unusual, it was very
      interesting and all at the same time, very catchy. This is where, at the time,
      the Beatles were really ahead of most other contemporary bands.

      But then their music deteriorated into a parody of the group itself, tired tunes
      or just plain crap that can be classified as:

      Why Don't We Do It In The Road
      You Know My Name Look Up My Number
      Revolution 9
      Dear Prudence

      And the list goes on for quite a while. In fact, by 1969, I couldn't listen to
      this band anymore. They had become either so pretentious or indifferent to
      what they were putting out that I had moved on to other things and actually
      saw their demise around the corner.

      In short, they had a brief few years were they did what most groups take
      a lifetime to do. And that's quite an accomplishment in itself.

      But in truth, Elton John has had a much better career quality wise as far as
      length of time doing it. Sure, he proved he was nothing without Bernie (God
      his songs were terrible during that period) but with him, there was nobody
      like Elton John. Nobody.

      And the real test of time is this. If I were to sit down and objectively list
      my 100 favorite songs of all time (something incredibly difficult to do) I
      seriously doubt that The Beatles would have more than one or two in that
      top 100.

      And this is coming from somebody who was a fan, who bought the stupid
      Beatles dolls with the rubber heads that you pushed in and their hair popped
      up.

      By the way, my favorite Beatles songs

      Hello Goodbye
      Eleanor Rigby
      Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight
      Martha My Dear
      You're Going To Lose That Girl

      I also like the song he wrote for Mary Hopkin "Goodbye" which wasn't a big
      hit.

      Lots of other songs I liked but when I look at the list of absolute garbage
      that they spit out, they made me realize that they're mortal.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218967].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Underground
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        Well, you see, there are degrees of diversity and we can nit pick that to
        death but where would it get us?

        If you want to be "technical" about all this diversity thing, most classical
        music from the 19th century pretty much all sounded the same to the
        untrained ear. You'd really have to study the styles of each composer to
        hear the subtle differences.

        But that doesn't mean that all classical music from the 19th century was
        the same. Question is, how far down do you want to analyze musical
        structure, because let's face it ... there are only 12 notes in music unless
        you want to include micro-tonal scales that almost nobody uses.

        Hell, even George Harrison got sued for "My Sweet Lord" and lost.

        Early Beatles music can be classified as:

        Love Me Do
        8 Days A Week
        I Want To Hold Your Hand
        She Loves You

        It's all the same stuff. I mean it's not really, but the sound of their early
        works was formula. It had to be in order to sell. That's a different subject
        altogether that I don't even want to get into because then we're opening
        up another can of worms.

        Then you've got their "experimental" stuff that can be classified as:

        I Am The Walrus
        Strawberry Field Forever
        Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
        A Day In The Life

        And so on. Yeah, it was clever, it was different, it was unusual, it was very
        interesting and all at the same time, very catchy. This is where, at the time,
        the Beatles were really ahead of most other contemporary bands.

        But then their music deteriorated into a parody of the group itself, tired tunes
        or just plain crap that can be classified as:

        Why Don't We Do It In The Road
        You Know My Name Look Up My Number
        Revolution 9
        Dear Prudence

        And the list goes on for quite a while. In fact, by 1969, I couldn't listen to
        this band anymore. They had become either so pretentious or indifferent to
        what they were putting out that I had moved on to other things and actually
        saw their demise around the corner.

        In short, they had a brief few years were they did what most groups take
        a lifetime to do. And that's quite an accomplishment in itself.

        But in truth, Elton John has had a much better career quality wise as far as
        length of time doing it. Sure, he proved he was nothing without Bernie (God
        his songs were terrible during that period) but with him, there was nobody
        like Elton John. Nobody.

        And the real test of time is this. If I were to sit down and objectively list
        my 100 favorite songs of all time (something incredibly difficult to do) I
        seriously doubt that The Beatles would have more than one or two in that
        top 100.

        And this is coming from somebody who was a fan, who bought the stupid
        Beatles dolls with the rubber heads that you pushed in and their hair popped
        up.

        By the way, my favorite Beatles songs

        Hello Goodbye
        Eleanor Rigby
        Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight
        Martha My Dear
        You're Going To Lose That Girl

        I also like the song he wrote for Mary Hopkin "Goodbye" which wasn't a big
        hit.

        Lots of other songs I liked but when I look at the list of absolute garbage
        that they spit out, they made me realize that they're mortal.


        Apologies. Wires are being crossed here. I'd like to call a truce and end the nonsense and bad vibes because I find your posts fascinating and thought provoking and share a lot of the same views.

        I'd like to get back onto proper discussion rather than insults.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218984].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by Underground View Post

          Apologies. Wires are being crossed here. I'd like to call a truce and end the nonsense and bad vibes because I find your posts fascinating and thought provoking and share a lot of the same views.

          I'd like to get back onto proper discussion rather than insults.
          Fine with me. I could talk about music for weeks on end. I have no problem
          keeping it civil.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Ok, kids! That's enough!
    I started this thread and MikeAmbrosio and Underground have devolved it into a childish,
    personal feud.
    How petty and pretentious are you guys to get this angry over ******* music?
    For the most part music is purely subjective.
    (And, by the way, for anybody in this forum to argue music with Waggenheim is foolishness).

    This thread is about whether The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones.
    Answer the question with your opinion and don't get angry because somebody 'offends your sensitivity' you by disagreeing.But before you do, dry your eyes and go sit in the corner quietly for 10 minutes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218924].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      Ok, kids! That's enough!
      I started this thread and MikeAmbrosio and Underground have devolved it into a childish,
      personal feud.
      How petty and pretentious are you guys to get this angry over ******* music?
      For the most part music is purely subjective.
      (And, by the way, for anybody in this forum to argue music with Waggenheim is foolishness).

      This thread is about whether The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones.
      Answer the question with your opinion and don't get angry because somebody 'offends your sensitivity' you by disagreeing.But before you do, dry your eyes and go sit in the corner quietly for 10 minutes.

      Actually I'm not angry at all. Just scratching my head at his responses to almost every post of anyone. Plus like I said - I got bored.

      I apologize to you on this. I will go and delete all my posts. Fun time is over anyway.
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218961].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Underground
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      Ok, kids! That's enough!
      I started this thread and MikeAmbrosio and Underground have devolved it into a childish,
      personal feud.
      How petty and pretentious are you guys to get this angry over ******* music?
      For the most part music is purely subjective.
      (And, by the way, for anybody in this forum to argue music with Waggenheim is foolishness).

      This thread is about whether The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones.
      Answer the question with your opinion and don't get angry because somebody 'offends your sensitivity' you by disagreeing.But before you do, dry your eyes and go sit in the corner quietly for 10 minutes.
      This is what I hate most when people do what Mike did and go on a thread with the sol intention to drag you down to a certain level and keep you there.

      Most people not involved don't care enough to find out what is behind it, and therefore class the two as the same.

      I had to stoop to his level to shut him and his nonsense up. I would have much preferred to skip all the BS and gotten straight to Steve's last interesting replies, and its a subject that fascinates me.

      I wish I didn't go in all guns blazing on Steve to try to get lively debate going and was less full on, as I know I invited those reactions.

      But no, I'm not in the same category as Mike. I didn't come on this thread solely to give someone grief and try to piss them off. I have contributed stuff around this discussion.

      I get equally pissed of when people won't even try to gage what's what on a thread. It's like someone getting punched in the face out of nowhere and all the people see are the fight and both get cast as violent thugs, when one was just defending themselves against someone given them shit.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218968].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lcombs
        Originally Posted by Underground View Post

        This is what I hate most when people do what Mike did and go on a thread with the sol intention to drag you down to a certain level and keep you there.

        Most people not involved don't care enough to find out what is behind it, and therefore class the two as the same.

        I had to stoop to his level to shut him and his nonsense up. I would have much preferred to skip all the BS and gotten straight to Steve's last interesting replies, and its a subject that fascinates me.

        I wish I didn't go in all guns blazing on Steve to try to get lively debate going and was less full on, as I know I invited those reactions.

        But no, I'm not in the same category as Mike. I didn't come on this thread solely to give someone grief and try to piss them off. I have contributed stuff around this discussion.

        I get equally pissed of when people won't even try to gage what's what on a thread. It's like someone getting punched in the face out of nowhere and all the people see are the fight and both get cast as violent thugs, when one was just defending themselves against someone given them shit.
        I learned years ago if there's already one Ass in the room, I'm not going to make it two.
        You did not have to stoop to his level. You went there by choice.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218999].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Underground
          Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

          I learned years ago if there's already one Ass in the room, I'm not going to make it two.
          You did not have to stoop to his level. You went there by choice.
          You're right. I wish I could just laugh them off, but I have a confrontational streak that makes me go want to go toe to toe so they gain no satisfaction and don't get enjoyment from getting a rise out of me.

          But I think everyone has had their fill and the topics of discussion related to this thread are far more compelling, so I'll stick to that.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219047].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by Underground View Post

            You're right. I wish I could just laugh them off, but I have a confrontational streak that makes me go want to go toe to toe so they gain no satisfaction and don't get enjoyment from getting a rise out of me.

            But I think everyone has had their fill and the topics of discussion related to this thread are far more compelling, so I'll stick to that.

            Ok, so after talking with someone whose opinion I value, it was made clear to me that I really took this to a level that was uncalled for and unnecessary.

            So...

            First, I apologize to Lcombs for hijacking this thread.

            Second, I apologize to Underground for taking it to the extreme that I did. It was uncalled for.

            I deleted the posts I made and will refrain from these types of "battles" (for lack of a better word) in the future. Anyone who has been here a long time knows I don't do the trolling thing. I have NO idea what came over me today.
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219070].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Underground
              Thanks for this Mike. I provoked you a lot and goaded you just as much and we both just chose go at it rather then back down.

              But good to get it resolved in a civil fashion. Cheers.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219139].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Actually, why don't you just leave this thread and go start your "I Hate MikeAmbrosio" and "I Hate Underground" threads.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218940].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    I believe this page will open some eyes about Ringo.
    And, I believe, you could plug in any of the other Beatles and their respective instruments.

    I've always been impressed with the drums in "A Day In The Life" so
    I particularly like this quote;

    Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper, 1992)

    http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/drumpage.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219265].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      I believe this page will open some eyes about Ringo.
      And, I believe, you could plug in any of the other Beatles and their respective instruments.

      I've always been impressed with the drums in "A Day In The Life" so
      I particularly like this quote;

      Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper, 1992)

      http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/drumpage.html
      Ringo wasn't the most technically talented drummer but he had a gift for
      coming up with drum licks that were just right for the song.

      The drum roll he does in revolution is actually an alternating kick and snare
      roll which takes a hell of a lot of coordination. I could never do it quite like
      he could.

      His fills, for the most part, were just plain catchy as hell.

      Yes, he was very underrated in that respect.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219299].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      I believe this page will open some eyes about Ringo.
      And, I believe, you could plug in any of the other Beatles and their respective instruments.

      I've always been impressed with the drums in "A Day In The Life" so
      I particularly like this quote;

      Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper, 1992)
      http://www.warriorforum.com/newreply...eply&p=8219265
      http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/drumpage.html
      It took me many years before I appreciated the talent of Ringo.
      One thing that made Ringo unique and some of his fills complex was his playing style. He is naturally left handed but plays a right handed kit. So where a right handed drummer can easily travel around the drums from left to right, it takes some work to go from right to left. Ringo had the opposite problem. Oh heck I'll just let Ringo explain it.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219349].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      I believe this page will open some eyes about Ringo.
      And, I believe, you could plug in any of the other Beatles and their respective instruments.

      I've always been impressed with the drums in "A Day In The Life" so
      I particularly like this quote;

      Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper, 1992)

      http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/drumpage.html
      From the "Living In The Material World" documentary, Ringo talks about the timing on Here Comes The Sun. I thought it was interesting because unless you play the instrument you don't always understand the difficulty...


      I drum and I had trouble with quite a few Ringo fills
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rick B
    I was a young man going through puberty when the Beatles came to America. A girl I had a huge crush on went on an on about how cute they were and how she would love to "love" them. It took me years to get over that. Somehow in my mind, they were dirty bums who stole my girl. That made it difficult for me to really get into their music. I did later become a big Paul McCartney fan though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Did you know that even Peter Sellers covered a Beatles song?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEMncv140s


    Hysterical...
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219813].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    I can't remember the circumstance or context but, I once heard someone say, "Ringo isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles." Referring, of course, to Paul.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219861].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Also, I read a semi-biography about the Beatles in which it stated that, (despite what Pete Best and his father said), The Beatles were on the verge of hitting the Big Time and Ringo was the most sought after drummer in England.
    He was playing a Summer gig at a vacation resort in Northern England so John and Paul drove up and talked him into joining them. Much to the dismay of the leader of the band he was playing for.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219879].message }}

Trending Topics