Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 20:19:33 GMT
Ok. I've immediately pressed reply on the top right before reading because I'm going to say this and then see if anyone agrees... The Beatles. The Beatles are the most overrated band ever and with the exception of one or two songs (that were covered better by subsequent bands anyway), they are poop. There. I said it. You mean the biggest, most successful band ever known? Overrated you say? Exactly why their dreary, boring ballads are overrated. Anything good they ever did was Lennons anyway and even then...  |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jun 30, 2015 20:37:53 GMT
You mean the biggest, most successful band ever known? Overrated you say? Exactly why their dreary, boring ballads are overrated. Anything good they ever did was Lennons anyway and even then... Ah well. |
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Jun 30, 2015 20:46:49 GMT
The Beatles couldn't play live for toffee.They were a terrible live band.Musically individually The Who,Floyd and Led Zeppelin watered all over The Beatles.
No doubt The Beatles were very successful and popular but so are Take That and One Direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jun 30, 2015 20:53:20 GMT
The Beatles couldn't play live for toffee.They were a terrible live band.Musically individually The Who,Floyd and Led Zeppelin watered all over The Beatles. No doubt The Beatles were very successful and popular but so are Take That and One Direction. You're seriously comparing the Beatles to One Direction? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 21:10:28 GMT
The Beatles couldn't play live for toffee.They were a terrible live band.Musically individually The Who,Floyd and Led Zeppelin watered all over The Beatles. No doubt The Beatles were very successful and popular but so are Take That and One Direction. You're seriously comparing the Beatles to One Direction? yeah. But unfair on the One'rs really. |
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Jun 30, 2015 22:04:54 GMT
The Beatles couldn't play live for toffee.They were a terrible live band.Musically individually The Who,Floyd and Led Zeppelin watered all over The Beatles. No doubt The Beatles were very successful and popular but so are Take That and One Direction. You're seriously comparing the Beatles to One Direction? Sure am one was fabricated by Epstein the other by Cowell the only difference is One Direction tour and do live shows. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jun 30, 2015 22:12:36 GMT
The Beatles couldn't play live for toffee.They were a terrible live band.Musically individually The Who,Floyd and Led Zeppelin watered all over The Beatles. No doubt The Beatles were very successful and popular but so are Take That and One Direction. but who have one direction influenced, or take that,music these days has become sterile samey sh**, what we need is another beatles, pistols type band to come along and shake music to it's core once again, im not the biggest beatles fan but do like some of their weirder stuff, they changed musically often, shook the status quo to the core and still inspire people today, the only other band, who seem on a never ending quest to change musically and experiment from album to album are rush. |
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Jun 30, 2015 22:27:13 GMT
Rush are influenced by The Who rather than The Beatles.Don't get me wrong I'm not saying The Beatles were rubbish just overated and their best work was so overdubbed mixed and messed around with the end product was very little Beatles original work hence why they didn't play live as they couldn't replicate anything they did in the studio.
|
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jul 1, 2015 8:23:26 GMT
A lot of early bands have some stuff that cant be done on stage, but the point i was trying to make is like the buddy holly, beatles ,who, lemmy pistols(and many others) . those bands had a far reaching influence on music allowing other bands to come along and do their own things, the main thing is music will stagnate at times, when the pistols damned etc came along music had become very samey stadium orientated not disliking bands like reo speedwagon,foreigner or others of that ilk, but Punk arriving was a breath of fresh air, as was stuff to follow, but for too long now a lot of modern stuff is aimed at little kids so nothing fresh is coming through.
Interesting you mention zep, as they could also fall into the manufactured band mould, depending on which way to read into the forming of the band, zep is my goto chill out music when im too stressed to chill out, a lot of zeps early stuff is so tight musically it's untrue(hence the so called selling their souls to satan ha ha ha ). if i listen to moby dick even a live recording the hairs on my arms stand up. zep also experimented with recording stuff, i think it was recording the untitled album they wired up the drums i think on the staircase of a mansion one of em owned.
Floyd i Think floyd are a band you either love or hate, I love dark side of the moon, and many other but hate equally the same amount of stuff they did
The who blinding band
the other side are bands like the kinks very underrated as they were dealing with tabboo's years before most people
there's so many bands out there that are underrated for many reasons, i think the main reason is for being several years ahead of others musically on the flip side,
these days anyone can record a song and make it sound reasonable with technology, so many singers are overated as without the tech they cant hold a note
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 9:26:06 GMT
Good post but the Pistols were completely manufactured.
McLaren and Westwood were all over them from the off.
Ever get the feeling you've been had?
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 1, 2015 18:07:10 GMT
Elvis Presley.
Seriously. Couldn't write or play. Didn't make a decent record after 1958
|
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Jul 1, 2015 18:12:59 GMT
Good point aghast IMO Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran were the true kings of Rock n Roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 18:24:33 GMT
You're seriously comparing the Beatles to One Direction? Sure am one was fabricated by Epstein the other by Cowell the only difference is One Direction tour and do live shows. Beatles wrote 13 multi million selling albums. One Direction have what, 4? And wrote about 2 tracks. There really is no comparison. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 18:55:13 GMT
Sure am one was fabricated by Epstein the other by Cowell the only difference is One Direction tour and do live shows. Beatles wrote 13 multi million selling albums. One Direction have what, 4? And wrote about 2 tracks. There really is no comparison. its not a question of talent it's about them being over rated. f**k me, they've been dead 25 yrs and still people won't allow anyone to be better than the Beatles. They were alright and they influenced other bands that came after them. Whoopie doo. They are not gods and not everyone liked them. Therefore they are over rated. I dont own a Beatles record and I'm doing ok in life. Actually, that's a lie. I have my mum's old vinyal in the loft. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 19:02:25 GMT
Beatles wrote 13 multi million selling albums. One Direction have what, 4? And wrote about 2 tracks. There really is no comparison. its not a question of talent it's about them being over rated. feck me, they've been dead 25 yrs and still people won't allow anyone to be better than the Beatles. They were alright and they influenced other bands that came after them. Whoopie doo. They are not gods and not everyone liked them. Therefore they are over rated. I dont own a Beatles record and I'm doing ok in life. Actually, that's a lie. I have my mum's old vinyal in the loft. Well, what's overrated mean then? That they're not that good? Based on what, sales? Number of concerts? Number of weeks at No 1? Album sales: 2.3 billion. 1 album No 1 for 30 weeks Over 400 live concerts. Created Richest musician ever. Yep, overrated, totally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 19:12:17 GMT
its not a question of talent it's about them being over rated. feck me, they've been dead 25 yrs and still people won't allow anyone to be better than the Beatles. They were alright and they influenced other bands that came after them. Whoopie doo. They are not gods and not everyone liked them. Therefore they are over rated. I dont own a Beatles record and I'm doing ok in life. Actually, that's a lie. I have my mum's old vinyal in the loft. Well, what's overrated mean then? That they're not that good? Based on what, sales? Number of concerts? Number of weeks at No 1? Album sales: 2.3 billion. 1 album No 1 for 30 weeks Over 400 live concerts. Created Richest musician ever. Yep, overrated, totally. based on them being not as good as everyone says |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 19:19:02 GMT
Well, what's overrated mean then? That they're not that good? Based on what, sales? Number of concerts? Number of weeks at No 1? Album sales: 2.3 billion. 1 album No 1 for 30 weeks Over 400 live concerts. Created Richest musician ever. Yep, overrated, totally. based on them being not as good as everyone says Obviously not everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Jul 1, 2015 19:51:52 GMT
Based on them being a poor live act.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 20:02:32 GMT
Based on them being a poor live act. Can't confirm or deny as I never saw them. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateman on Jul 1, 2015 20:04:48 GMT
The Dagenham Girl Pipers - not that good
|
|
