|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 1, 2015 20:06:06 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. There is a comparison baggins, in that both were the biggest boy bands in the world in their day. In fact, along so much else in modern music, the Beatles virtually invented the concept of the boy band. Hence the birth of the Monkees a few years later. The difference is that in just eight years from their first hit, the Beatles constantly evolved and changed and produced an incredible body of work. They wrote some amazing diverse stuff the like of which we'd never seen and will probably never see again. Some astonishing songs from pure pop to spaced-out druggy music to heavy metal to ballads to white soul to everything else really. She Loves You Ticket to Ride Help Yesterday Paperback Writer Eleanor Rigby Tomorrow Never Knows Taxman Got To Get You Into My Life Strawberry Fields Forever All You Need Is Love A Day In The Life I Am The Walrus Hey Jude Revolution While My Guitar Gently Weeps Dear Prudence Something Come Together Let It Be Get Back And so many others. I like the Stones and the Who and Pink Floyd and others who started in the 60s but none of them can begin to approach the range of the Beatles. Maybe the best rock songs of the Stones were better than those of the Beatles, and Pink Floyd were an even better experience under the influence than the 1967 stuff by the Fab Four, but neither of those bands could even dream of writing classics in so many genres, year after year. And all the while they were the best selling band in the world. The Stones are still here, still occasionally doing the same stuff they started doing in 1966. Bloody U2 seem to have been around since 1852 churning out the turgid epic meaningless nonsense that sells millions each time. They must look at the Bealtes back catalogue and gasp in awe. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 20:11:17 GMT
Beatles wrote 13 multi million selling albums. One Direction have what, 4? And wrote about 2 tracks. There really is no comparison. There is a comparison baggins, in that both were the biggest boy bands in the world in their day. In fact, along so much else in modern music, the Beatles virtually invented the concept of the boy band. Hence the birth of the Monkees a few years later. The difference is that in just eight years from their first hit, the Beatles constantly evolved and changed and produced an incredible body of work. They wrote some amazing diverse stuff the like of which we'd never seen and will probably never see again. Some astonishing songs from pure pop to spaced-out druggy music to heavy metal to ballads to white soul to everything else really. She Loves You Ticket to Ride Help Yesterday Paperback Writer Eleanor Rigby Tomorrow Never Knows Taxman Got To Get You Into My Life Strawberry Fields Forever All You Need Is Love A Day In The Life I Am The Walrus Hey Jude Revolution While My Guitar Gently Weeps Dear Prudence Something Come Together Let It Be Get Back And so many others. I like the Stones and the Who and Pink Floyd and others who started in the 60s but none of them can begin to approach the range of the Beatles. Maybe the best rock songs of the Stones were better than those of the Beatles, and Pink Floyd were an even better experience under the influence than the 1967 stuff by the Fab Four, but neither of those bands could even dream of writing classics in so many genres, year after year. And all the while they were the best selling band in the world. The Stones are still here, still occasionally doing the same stuff they started doing in 1966. Bloody U2 seem to have been around since 1852 churning out the turgid epic meaningless nonsense that sells millions each time. They must look at the Bealtes back catalogue and gasp in awe. No argument from me. I'm sure One Direction put on a good show, I even like one or two tracks, but to say The Beatles are overrated is just ridiculous. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 1, 2015 20:19:34 GMT
There is a comparison baggins, in that both were the biggest boy bands in the world in their day. In fact, along so much else in modern music, the Beatles virtually invented the concept of the boy band. Hence the birth of the Monkees a few years later. No argument from me. I'm sure One Direction put on a good show, I even like one or two tracks, but to say The Beatles are overrated is just ridiculous. Just my opinion. I quite like a few OD songs too. That's because they were written by good professional songwriters. I also like some Take That songs as well. Gary Barlow has had his moments. Back For Good, A Million Love Songs. I sing them to the Mrs in bed sometimes just in case she's feeling amorous. Does the trick every time. She's asleep in 2 mins. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 20:21:30 GMT
There is a comparison baggins, in that both were the biggest boy bands in the world in their day. In fact, along so much else in modern music, the Beatles virtually invented the concept of the boy band. Hence the birth of the Monkees a few years later. The difference is that in just eight years from their first hit, the Beatles constantly evolved and changed and produced an incredible body of work. They wrote some amazing diverse stuff the like of which we'd never seen and will probably never see again. Some astonishing songs from pure pop to spaced-out druggy music to heavy metal to ballads to white soul to everything else really. She Loves You Ticket to Ride Help Yesterday Paperback Writer Eleanor Rigby Tomorrow Never Knows Taxman Got To Get You Into My Life Strawberry Fields Forever All You Need Is Love A Day In The Life I Am The Walrus Hey Jude Revolution While My Guitar Gently Weeps Dear Prudence Something Come Together Let It Be Get Back And so many others. I like the Stones and the Who and Pink Floyd and others who started in the 60s but none of them can begin to approach the range of the Beatles. Maybe the best rock songs of the Stones were better than those of the Beatles, and Pink Floyd were an even better experience under the influence than the 1967 stuff by the Fab Four, but neither of those bands could even dream of writing classics in so many genres, year after year. And all the while they were the best selling band in the world. The Stones are still here, still occasionally doing the same stuff they started doing in 1966. Bloody U2 seem to have been around since 1852 churning out the turgid epic meaningless nonsense that sells millions each time. They must look at the Bealtes back catalogue and gasp in awe. No argument from me. I'm sure One Direction put on a good show, I even like one or two tracks, but to say The Beatles are overrated is just ridiculous. Just my opinion. Will anyone ever be better than the Beatles? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 20:22:25 GMT
No argument from me. I'm sure One Direction put on a good show, I even like one or two tracks, but to say The Beatles are overrated is just ridiculous. Just my opinion. I quite like a few OD songs too. That's because they were written by good professional songwriters. I also like some Take That songs as well. Gary Barlow has had his moments. Back For Good, A Million Love Songs. I sing them to the Mrs in bed sometimes just in case she's feeling amorous. Does the trick every time. She's asleep in 2 mins. you wait for your wife to fall asleep before having sex? You gent. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 1, 2015 20:29:25 GMT
I quite like a few OD songs too. That's because they were written by good professional songwriters. I also like some Take That songs as well. Gary Barlow has had his moments. Back For Good, A Million Love Songs. I sing them to the Mrs in bed sometimes just in case she's feeling amorous. Does the trick every time. She's asleep in 2 mins. you wait for your wife to fall asleep before having sex? You gent. Before, during, after. Who knows? I can't tell the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 20:31:44 GMT
I quite like a few OD songs too. That's because they were written by good professional songwriters. I also like some Take That songs as well. Gary Barlow has had his moments. Back For Good, A Million Love Songs. I sing them to the Mrs in bed sometimes just in case she's feeling amorous. Does the trick every time. She's asleep in 2 mins. you wait for your wife to fall asleep before having sex? You gent. There's another way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 20:33:24 GMT
you wait for your wife to fall asleep before having sex? You gent. There's another way? not with his Mrs. No. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 20:35:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 1, 2015 21:01:39 GMT
Oi. Leave my wife alone. She's sleeping. Hang on......
Anyway back to topic.
Kate Bush. 2 albums in 20 years and it's like the return of the Messiah. Last album full of dull meaningful (less) songs about aging and angst.
Most of the old stuff was pretty dull too. One or two OK. Don't Give Up, Running Up That Hill. But all the album stuff was boring. Yet she's seen as a legend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 21:03:36 GMT
Oi. Leave my wife alone. She's sleeping. Hang on...... Anyway back to topic. Kate Bush. 2 albums in 20 years and it's like the return of the Messiah. Last album full of dull meaningful (less) songs about aging and angst. Most of the old stuff was pretty dull too. One or two OK. Don't Give Up, Running Up That Hill. But all the album stuff was boring. Yet she's seen as a legend. The clue is in the name....  |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 21:06:36 GMT
Oi. Leave my wife alone. She's sleeping. Hang on...... Anyway back to topic. Kate Bush. 2 albums in 20 years and it's like the return of the Messiah. Last album full of dull meaningful (less) songs about aging and angst. Most of the old stuff was pretty dull too. One or two OK. Don't Give Up, Running Up That Hill. But all the album stuff was boring. Yet she's seen as a legend. You would though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 21:08:03 GMT
Oi. Leave my wife alone. She's sleeping. Hang on...... Anyway back to topic. Kate Bush. 2 albums in 20 years and it's like the return of the Messiah. Last album full of dull meaningful (less) songs about aging and angst. Most of the old stuff was pretty dull too. One or two OK. Don't Give Up, Running Up That Hill. But all the album stuff was boring. Yet she's seen as a legend. You would though. no, I would not |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 1, 2015 21:09:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jul 1, 2015 21:47:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jul 2, 2015 9:05:26 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? Hugo read no irish no blacks no dogs (pm if you want a copy to read) . certainly lays the mclaren myths to bed. Manufactured or not the pistols were one of if not the most influential bands in history, they caused so many changes to the industry, If they emerged for the first time today the record companies would not survive. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jul 2, 2015 9:50:02 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. But nor could a lot of bands once they started playing in the studios, even zep couldn't play a lot of their stuff live as it sounded on the albums, you could argue that zep were the original supergroup, dependent on which history you believe in. But i've yet to hear a band that was that tight musically since, loved the way people jumped on that and decided that some sold their souls to the devil, nah they were born to play together  Interestingly years back Radio ran a poll to find the ultimate musicians which would in theory create the best band in the world, any one could vote for anyone , the winners were lead jimmy page bass john paul jones drums john bonham vocals yes you guessed robert plant. What were the odds of that |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 12:20:53 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. But nor could a lot of bands once they started playing in the studios, even zep couldn't play a lot of their stuff live as it sounded on the albums, you could argue that zep were the original supergroup, dependent on which history you believe in. But i've yet to hear a band that was that tight musically since, loved the way people jumped on that and decided that some sold their souls to the devil, nah they were born to play together Interestingly years back Radio ran a poll to find the ultimate musicians which would in theory create the best band in the world, any one could vote for anyone , the winners were lead jimmy page bass john paul jones drums john bonham vocals yes you guessed robert plant. What were the odds of that what?? No John Paul George or Ringo? f**k me, better not tell Bags. |
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Jul 2, 2015 16:13:00 GMT
Feck me there's some sh** posted in this thread i think we get it 'you don't like The Beatles' deary me
|
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Jul 2, 2015 19:16:19 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. But nor could a lot of bands once they started playing in the studios, even zep couldn't play a lot of their stuff live as it sounded on the albums, you could argue that zep were the original supergroup, dependent on which history you believe in. But i've yet to hear a band that was that tight musically since, loved the way people jumped on that and decided that some sold their souls to the devil, nah they were born to play together Interestingly years back Radio ran a poll to find the ultimate musicians which would in theory create the best band in the world, any one could vote for anyone , the winners were lead jimmy page bass john paul jones drums john bonham vocals yes you guessed robert plant. What were the odds of that I would have Entwistle on bass ahead of Jones. Plant is a terrific vocalist but I think there have been better. When it comes to The Beatles a great quote from Pete Townshend in the mid 60s."I was listening to The Beatles earlier in stereo where we could hear the backing track coming out of one speaker and their voices the other" "when you listen to The Beatles without their voices they are flipping lousy". |
|
