West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => Outbound Connection => Topic started by: Trauma-san on December 10, 2002, 12:16:07 AM
-
I was sitting here going through some old beatles stuff... and man.... they're just gonna end up the best ever, aren't they? LOL I mean,.... I saw the billboard awards earlier, and frankly, there isn't an artist out right now that deserves to even MEET paul mccartney, much less deserve the respect the beatles have. Yall think anybody will ever step to them as far as being legends, and just representing pure talent? To this day, people are still pissed that George Harrison let Eric Clapton play guitar on a song, or that they let Billy Preston play keys on some of their songs... most people think they were too legendary to even do COLLABOS with people. I don't think they'll ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be another band on that level. They handed out the award for "Best Rock" tonight, and frankly, I was disgusted. Puddle of Mud? Creed? Staind? These guys are all f*ckin' jokes compared to the Beatles. What do yall think? Will they ever have competition?
-
Never have any competition...ever.
Hand's down best that ever did it....ImO
Or in new term's the Beatles are the G.O.A.T.
Lennon
Mccartney
Harrison
Star.....Classic music that will last forever.
I will never tire of a Beatles record....their greatest hits record 1967/1970 {AkA the Blue album} is my favorite compilation ever put out on any format.
John Lennon being the reason why the Beatles have a special spot for me....his solo shitt to me is just as amazing as his time spent with the group.
A group like this will never happen again cause music is dyng slowy, mainly I blame the marrige of different genres of music fuckin each other to make hybred version's of their stylez such as Bastard Rock/or bastard hip-hop.
Then again....Older peep's probably thought the same way when the Beatles dropped, I bet the O.G's were like what the fuck is this racket......lol
But danm!! I wish we had even a 10th of that type of creativity and power in music still.
OnE
Hatesrats 2oo2
-
Damn Right. Thanks for the reply. Read my other topic about music dying I made and reply, please, too.... I like your theory about music cross polinating itself, maybe we should just isolate and only listen to 1 type of music? LOL Man, at this point, I'm ready to try anything. Just take a step back, and look at what the F*ck we're idolizing these days. It's disgusting. Music has on a whole, with exceptions, of course, been flushed down the damn toilet.
-
the problem with these modern groups is that they're fabricated... they are all "pretty boys" picked for looks and not talent. the industry will always get blown sideways when some unmissable 'real' talent gets picked up.
-
Great post Hatesrats, I agree with every word you said.
And yea, it's difficult to ever see anybody touching The Beatles. Unless there's a music industry armageddon that kills the machine and people start listening to real music again, imagine that hehe. But for real, music in general is a horrible mess right now.
But as for any group being as good the Fab Four? I highly doubt it, but never say never.
8)
-
well... that depends... in terms of rock music i certainly can't see anyone stepping to em. not of the current new artists... sum 41 is really the only rock group that seems to have any potential... and they're more punk than straight rock... most of todays rock groups can only make one style of song....
on another note... i saw a thread on SOHH that called De La Soul "our" beatles... meaning that they're basically the equivelant in terms of hip-hop. any thoughts on this? I think the only group really fucking with them in terms of dopeness would be The Roots.. on a creative/musical/lyrical/consistency standpoint...
but no... I don't see anyone fucking with the beatles at all... maybe U2... but they're not exactly new ;)
-
Modern rock blows, and fuck the Billboard Awards, they sucked last night.
-
hey trauma have you heard day tripper with jimi hendrix and the beatles??????(its actually just mccartny and lennon singing with jimi on guitar and mitch mitchell on drums) its a really cool song not to many people know about it, its available to download. I dont know if you like jimi hendrix or not but he really rips that song to pieces with his guitar work. one of the best collaborations ever in my mind.
-
Yeah, I heard it... but be leary of that, they're not positive that's even legit. Jimi was awesome, though.
The roots and De La are both dope, 2 of my favorite bands, of course. But the beatles changed the world, they started the hippie movement, I mean, they actually changed society with music. No other band will ever come close to that, De La has'nt and the Roots haven't either.
-
im pretty sure its legit its on the jimi hendrix experience bbc sessions album jimi also did a live version of sgt peppers lonely hearts club band you probably heard it what did u think of it?? i thought it was excellent. when they were in london i bet they had some wild times together.
-
you know what about that srgt peppers thing jimi did?
he bought the album on a friday(the day it came out i believe) memorized it during the weekend (remind you jimi couldn't read music/tabs basically did everything by ear) then on monday played it for paul, i heard paul say this on a jimi special on vh1..that's AMAZING
anyways as far as bands go that rival the beatles you always got the 'stones up there
then personally i think Led Zeppelin are just as talented as the beatles.Zep was awesome
you also got the doors, the who, cream, aerosmith , pink floyd, who had potential throughout the 60's and 70's but IMO never lived up to their FULL potential
then in the 80's you had bands like u2, guns n' roses, metallica, the clash, queen that carried the tourch
then in the 90's you had bands like nirvana , peral jam, soundgarden ect. that carried the tourch again
but overall i dont think one specific band posses what the beatles had
heres what i think
zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative
Black Sabath is more influencial (they are what NWA are to rap.....people throughout the genre still resemble them) than the Beatles BUT weren't half as talented or creative as a whole
Metallica was just as creative if you see through the hard exterior , and instrumentally better...but (even though james and lars wrote good lyrics) arn't even on the toe nails of paul john and george's song writing abilities
IMO if you add these 3 bands together you get the Beatles....the beatles are a smorgishborg of what all the great bands are
they embodied everything great about good music
-
ALKAHOLIK, was that BBC thing like an official release, just came out not too long ago? It must be legit then, I didn't realize that happened... I just had lke a bootlegg they attributed to Jimi and John, but I heard somewhere it was fake (Just jimi playing the song, and they said John was there).
I've heard Sgt. Peppers, of COURSE it's awesome. I've got a few live versions, honestly... Jimi was amazing.
An even better story is this, lol. He bought Bob Dylan's Route 66 (I THINK was the album name), and played it. They all liked how "All along the Watchtower" was played, so they went straight down to the studio, that night, and cut it. Jimi told the guitarist what to play on acoustic, told the bass guy and the drummer what to play, and they cut the song the night they first heard it. Unbelievable.
Another legendary story about him is, when they were recording "Electric Ladyland", they were being filmed, they needed extra footage, so Jimi Plugged in, and said, "alright, we'll do a slight return to Voodoo Child" LOL... GOOD GOD ,then he just wrote "Voodoo chile" right there on the console, while he played it. Top that. That's why there's 2 versions of Voodoo Child, the second one was him just messing around so they'd have footage of him recording for the special, and it's considered like the greatest guitar work ever. He was unbelievable, man, unbelievable.
I'm glad you mentioned Paul McCartney, most people don't realize Paul and Mick Jagger had a lot to do with Jimi getting famous. They kinda 'discovered' him in London.
Peace~
Oh, BTW, You're pretty dead on with your evaluation of the bands... the beatles weren't REALLY extremeley talented, most bands could smoke them on their own instruments, but, the beatles had heart, desire, creativity, they had just everything jelling perfectly.
-
Oh, I dunno about Black Sabbath more influential, though. The beatles have influenced pretty much everything in music today... Look at your genres, in Rock, people like Nirvana, STP, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc. are obviously heavily influenced by the beatles. In Country, Garth Brooks, Shania Twain, Faith Hill, Tim McGraw, all the heavyweights are heavily influenced by the beatles. In Rap, Dre, Eminem, Snoop, etc. have ALL said they were influenced by the beatles, and you can hear it in their work. I'd say one of the biggest legacies they left was their influence. Peace~
-
yeah that bbc album was released in 98' .
Mick and paul did help him out alot with his succes but actually keith richards (stones guitar or bass player i think)girlfriend discovered jimi first and told chas chandler (the animals bass player turned into a manager) about him and when chas heard this dude he asked him to come to london immediatly and join his label!!jimi said yeah but under one circumstance and that was for him to meet eric clapton and soon as they got there he jammed with cream and eric. the story said that when jimi jammed with cream eric stopped playing in the middle of a song (killing floor i believe) in amazement!!!because he was playing with his teeth and behind his back etc... and after the gig chas chandler came up to eric clapton who had his hands in his face and said whats wrong eric?? eric said you told me he was good!! but not that fucking good!!!!!lol
Did you know jimi was a backup guitar player on the chitlin circut(diry south) with the isley brothers, wilson pickett???also for little richard. lol
to anwser your question trauma about can anyone touch the beatles??? the anwser is HELL NO!!!!! no one influenced the world like the beatles did!!!! i know you know this trauma but did anyone else know that all the songs they did were original!!! and correct me if im wrong but they made more songs than any other band i beleive. i think elvis was second and hendrix was third.
-
Well, they didn't make more songs, but they had more #1's, yeah.
Thanks for that Info about Jimi, I never really looked into his getting signed too much, I just know Mick Paul and Keith used to see him play live at clubs in London. Didn't John Phillips have alot to do with it too? (Mamas and Poppas)... he was in charge of the Monterey Pop music festival and got Jimi on late as a performer
-
i thougt jimi was discovered by the bassist of that band who sang "whats your name /whose your daddy/he rich/is he rich like me" (the animals??)
oh yeah jimi was also in the airforce
and he spent literally hours tuning his guitar before each and every performance
-
U sure about that hours tuning the guitar thing? I never heard that.
When he was in the airforce, he hocked his guitar to a pawn shop, and used to go down to shows and watch bands play. He'd ask them if he could jam with them and they never wanted him to, because he was better than them, LOL. So, the guys used to say "Yeah, you can, but you can't restring my guitar" (because he was left handed), thinking he wouldn't play. Jimi would just get on stage, and play upside down (with the bass on bottom, treble on top) and STILL outplay them, LOL. Good god.
-
No!, Beatles are legends and they cant be fucked with.
Straight from Liverpool brothers!
-
from reading the replies in this topic i know im going to get slated for saying this but imo the beatles are so overrted. im not saying they were rubbish they obviously were not and good and what they did, but they are not the best ever.
they couldnt produce their way out of a paper bag, george martin did all of that for them, and neither lennon nor mcartney could read music.
i aint an expert on their music but you said could anyone step to the beatles, well a guy named brian wilson out of the beach boys definatly did. he produced, arranged and did everything and his album pet sounds was years ahead of its time. mcartney said himself that this is one of the greatest albums ever and was inspired and heavily influenced by him.
anyway thats just my opinion.
-
from reading the replies in this topic i know im going to get slated for saying this but imo the beatles are so overrted. im not saying they were rubbish they obviously were not and good and what they did, but they are not the best ever.
they couldnt produce their way out of a paper bag, george martin did all of that for them, and neither lennon nor mcartney could read music.
i aint an expert on their music but you said could anyone step to the beatles, well a guy named brian wilson out of the beach boys definatly did. he produced, arranged and did everything and his album pet sounds was years ahead of its time. mcartney said himself that this is one of the greatest albums ever and was inspired and heavily influenced by him.
anyway thats just my opinion.
"Pet Sounds" is a fuckin sick album. Wilson is a genius.
I never cared for The Beatles either. I just see them as revolutionary, other than that I don't think their music is great. Sorry.
-
from reading the replies in this topic i know im going to get slated for saying this but imo the beatles are so overrted. im not saying they were rubbish they obviously were not and good and what they did, but they are not the best ever.
they couldnt produce their way out of a paper bag, george martin did all of that for them, and neither lennon nor mcartney could read music.
i aint an expert on their music but you said could anyone step to the beatles, well a guy named brian wilson out of the beach boys definatly did. he produced, arranged and did everything and his album pet sounds was years ahead of its time. mcartney said himself that this is one of the greatest albums ever and was inspired and heavily influenced by him.
anyway thats just my opinion.
That is a great album, but check the whole story. The beatles made "Revolver" which was years ahead of it's time. The Beach Boys felt they had to rival that, so Brian Wilson (a genius) went in the studio, and made "Pet Sounds" which was probably a better album than Revolver. The harmonies are unbelievable, and almost every song is just beautiful, it's really a pretty album. If you've ever heard "God Only Knows" you'll know what i'm talking about... stunning stuff. Paul McCartney's favorite song of all time is "You Still Believe in Me" off of the album. It was a concept album, about a guy growing up, falling in love, breaking up, then getting back together. One of the greatest albums of all time.
The problem with the Beach Boys, though, is this.... a few months later, the Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". The Beach boys were working on a follow up record, but after they heard "Sgt. Peppers" (Long considered the best album ever recorded), Brian Wilson RETIRED. He never even finished the album (Only a few tracks were done, one being "good Vibrations"). He went home, and went insane. He had a sandbox installed in his living room, so he could sit in it and write songs like he was on the beach. Mike Love had Charles Manson living at his house, and eventually, Brian Wilson retired to his bed for MONTHS where he listened to "Don't Worry Baby" by the Rhonettes over and over (He thought it was a perfect song; he had a housekeeper play it over and over for him).
the beatles went on to record the White Album, Abbey Road, and Let It Be, then all went on to successful solo careers. Brian wilson wrote Kokomo, that's pretty much his sole contribution to music after "Pet Sounds". So... The Beatles are his DADDY. He couldn't handle the pressure, everybody knows it, ... the beach boys could have been the greatest of all time, but they never matured like the beatles did.
Peace~
-
aint nobody fuckin with the beatles..
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How far back did you go to dig this up?
It's interesting to see how Trauma almost downplayed Wilson 2 years ago. I guess he grew to appreciate him a lot more since this was posted.
As for topping the Beatles; well it hasn't happenned yet, but to say never is foolish. I'm not counting on it, but anything can happen.
(Correction; Trauma stated the Beatles were responsible for the hippie movement. No one person can claim to have started it, but it was Bob Dylan's music that was the catalyst for it).
-
^ i did find that wilson thing funny.. but he didnt downplay him.. just seems he apriciates him more now..
-
^ i did find that wilson thing funny.. but he didnt downplay him.. just seems he apriciates him more now..
I said "almost" downplay, because compared to how he praises him now, what he said then is almost insulting. Obviously, he didn't say anything bad about him.
-
There are many bands who were amazing, to name a few, Hendrix, sabbath, zeppelin....
but i dont think you could compare any band to the beatles.
-
Shallow... off the nuts please.
-
Shallow... off the nuts please.
I'm not quite following you here. An old thread came up and it appeared that you didn't like Wilson as much then as you do now. I felt like pointing it out. I wasn't insulting you or trying to make a statement. It was merely an observation.
-
black sabbath are actually more influencial than the beatles in my opinion
the beatles' influence was strong throughout the 60's and died slowly in the 70's and kinda floated around through the years, their songs held up well but ain't too many people running around trying to make Lucy in the sky with diamonds or yesturday
sabbath on the other hand when they came out they created a whole genre, their influence was very strong in the 70's , even stronger in 80's and just as strong in the 90's and is still very very strong today.
when you talk about over all songs yes the beatles are better , but influence sabbath and zeppelin are more influencial
-
sum 41 is really the only rock group that seems to have any potential
wow...lol
-
i agree with you entirely trauma....me and my roommate were talking about this yesterday actually....seriously....when we're all older (say our parents age...40's or 50's)....what bands are still going to be talked about....none. i cant think of any bands that have just the all around full package that will be talked about for decades....theres bands that i will listen to for years to come (coldplay, oasis, snow patrol, keane, modest mouse, u2, etc....) but none of those will still be talked about 30 years from now (maybe u2 but they are kinda slowly fading away...even though how to dismantle an atomic bomb was a great album).
as far as rock n roll goes personally i think its just kind of dying....all of the great bands out now are either bands that were big 10 years ago and are still kinda there...or they are referred to as "indie" and arent getting any publicity or anything. instead you turn on mtv and see the latest britney spears, linkin park (who i like), and justin timberlake video....not to mention the constant plague of new american idol 'stars' and 'teen sensations'
-
i think its dying.. cause they just cant be good enough to compete with the greats..
-
i think its dying.. cause they just cant be good enough to compete with the greats..
see i dont agree with that.....you dont think coldplay or dave matthews or even a lesser known band like death cab for cutie have just as much talent and just as good of songs?
i like the beatles a lot....they have some amazing songs....but there are bands out there that can compete with them....
-
Fuck the beatles. That is some shit crackas praise, like Elvis, music with no soul.
-
^ sickmy duck.. ur just an idiot.. luke.. see i dont think they can.. see the beatles had it all.. they were the 1st to try so muich shit.. they had a great mix of talent.. ringo wasnt the best at drumming, paul and john, esp john, were amazing at singing and writing songs, harrison on the guitar, pauls bass.. their ability to compose such great music.. i cant see many bands that are out now competing.. i mean.. i only listened to 8 beatles albums and they are all amzing.. and all so different.. unless bands start to learn to play instruments better and write better music and lyrics and try to strart building a legacy by doing something original (very rare now).. aint nobody even coming close
-
i agree with you jake about how influencial sabbath was.
-
^ sickmy duck.. ur just an idiot.. luke.. see i dont think they can.. see the beatles had it all.. they were the 1st to try so muich shit.. they had a great mix of talent.. ringo wasnt the best at drumming, paul and john, esp john, were amazing at singing and writing songs, harrison on the guitar, pauls bass.. their ability to compose such great music.. i cant see many bands that are out now competing.. i mean.. i only listened to 8 beatles albums and they are all amzing.. and all so different.. unless bands start to learn to play instruments better and write better music and lyrics and try to strart building a legacy by doing something original (very rare now).. aint nobody even coming close
wow sick my duck....that was so lame i cant even think of a reply to that....whatever
white boy - ....the thing is...bands like....lets use death cab for cutie as an example....not because they are any better than the others i listed but because they are a lesser known band and yet i feel they still have just as much talent...
i have seen them live twice, i own all of their albums (theres like 8 or 9 of them)....and every single one of them is good....they are incredible live...i dont know one band out right now that can convey as much emotion in their music as they can. ben gibbards voice is incredible. he is an amazing writer. this band has everything the beatles had as far as talent and great songs goes except 1 thing....fame.
i could say the exact same thing for atleast 10 other bands out there but unfortunately those bands would be pretty well unknown...i dont think the problem is that bands dont have enough talent....but that the mainstream has no demand for any amount of talent.
-
^ tell me their 3 bestest songs
-
i agree with you entirely trauma....me and my roommate were talking about this yesterday actually....seriously....when we're all older (say our parents age...40's or 50's)....what bands are still going to be talked about....none. i cant think of any bands that have just the all around full package that will be talked about for decades....theres bands that i will listen to for years to come (coldplay, oasis, snow patrol, keane, modest mouse, u2, etc....) but none of those will still be talked about 30 years from now (maybe u2 but they are kinda slowly fading away...even though how to dismantle an atomic bomb was a great album).
as far as rock n roll goes personally i think its just kind of dying....all of the great bands out now are either bands that were big 10 years ago and are still kinda there...or they are referred to as "indie" and arent getting any publicity or anything. instead you turn on mtv and see the latest britney spears, linkin park (who i like), and justin timberlake video....not to mention the constant plague of new american idol 'stars' and 'teen sensations'
U2 will be remembered in 30 years. Particularly if Bono keeps up his charity work. It's not like when the Beatles broke up they stopped everything. Lennon continued his quest and McCartney still recorded and toured, and Harrison formed a super group in the late 80s with Orbison, Dylan, Petty, and Lynn. I could see Nirvana being remembered and talked about in 30 yeas. A lot of the kids that Cobain influenced will be in high power positions and make sure of it. Much like Beatles fans are now. Metallica probably will too. If GnR kept going they probably would have been too. If the Peppers pull out one more come back they'll be remembered too.
-
^ tell me their 3 bestest songs
narrowing it to 3 is tough but i'll do my best...these are in no particular order
the new year
transatlanticism
we looked like giants
a movie script ending
steadier footing
405
all is full of love (bjork cover....cool version...bjorks is still better)
those are my favorites even though there are more than 3....if you really are looking to check them out download the latest cd "transatlanticism"...its incredible
shallow....i agree about nirvana....to a point....i think the real reason nirvana will still be talked about is because of the fact that they were huge for a few years and then kurt cobain killed himself. but what im talking about is bands that are still making music today....there arent that many that will still be talked about.
-
^ tell me their 3 bestest songs
narrowing it to 3 is tough but i'll do my best...these are in no particular order
the new year
transatlanticism
we looked like giants
a movie script ending
steadier footing
405
all is full of love (bjork cover....cool version...bjorks is still better)
those are my favorites even though there are more than 3....if you really are looking to check them out download the latest cd "transatlanticism"...its incredible
shallow....i agree about nirvana....to a point....i think the real reason nirvana will still be talked about is because of the fact that they were huge for a few years and then kurt cobain killed himself. but what im talking about is bands that are still making music today....there arent that many that will still be talked about.
But there aren't that many from then that are still talked about today anyway. You got the Beatles, Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Stones (if they count since they still make music sometimes). To a lesser extent there's the Doors, the Who, and Pink Floyd. Does anyone in the general public remember Strawberry Alarm Clock, the Dave Clark 5, BTO, Kansas, Boston, or about a hundred other forgotten bands? We'll only see a select few rise above the times and stay relevent. U2 has been going strong for 20+ years. Metallica is still loved. As for the recent bands, well time will tell who will rise. The White Stripes get all the critcal acclaim. There is a chance Jack White could blow up in some regard. And who knows what else is on the way in the next few years. The bands seem to be making a come back. All it takes is for one or two to break out like the Stones and Beatles did in the early 60s.
-
So overated , so overated . Just like the SmilE album
-
^ beatles are.. i agree the smile album is overated.. i dont like it at all .. and i love pet sounds.. but beatles overated is a joke of a statement
-
i think its dying.. cause they just cant be good enough to compete with the greats..
see i dont agree with that.....you dont think coldplay or dave matthews or even a lesser known band like death cab for cutie have just as much talent and just as good of songs?
i like the beatles a lot....they have some amazing songs....but there are bands out there that can compete with them....
You really think coldplay and dave matthews have songs that equal the Beatles? "All you Need Is Love" is greater than their combined catalogues, and that's just 1 song out of dozens that are perfect.
-
Fuck the beatles. That is some shit crackas praise, like Elvis, music with no soul.
Dumbass post of the week.
-
i bought the beatles greatest hits with the number 1 on the cover. nothin special about them. kinda get the impression that they were the n sync of their time.
-
i bought the beatles greatest hits with the number 1 on the cover. nothin special about them. kinda get the impression that they were the n sync of their time.
if you are trying to judge a band, never get a greatest hits let alone 27 #1 singles on a cd. Buy Abbey Road and find out if you still think they were the n sync of their time.
-
I'd take Bone in the mid-90's over the Beatles anyday.
-
I'd take Bone in the mid-90's over the Beatles anyday.
but you're an idiot so no-one cares... ;)
-
wow .. people are funny.. but i dont like greatest hits cds.. me.. personally. out of the 9 albums i listened to.. there are over 30 great songs, and a like 10 that are purely amazing, luke. that band is in noway on beatles level... music, voices, are just not that good...
-
I'd take Bone in the mid-90's over the Beatles anyday.
but you're an idiot so no-one cares... ;)
I doubt everyone on this forum has been bumpin the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap groups. Get real. So maybe Trauma's for real, but there's no way anyone can convince me that I'm the only one at this hip-hop forum who doesn't put the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap group.
-
I doubt everyone on this forum has been bumpin the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap groups. Get real. So maybe Trauma's for real, but there's no way anyone can convince me that I'm the only one at this hip-hop forum who doesn't put their favorite rap groups ahead of the Beatles.
You fucking nerd.
Really.
-
I'd take Bone in the mid-90's over the Beatles anyday.
but you're an idiot so no-one cares... ;)
I doubt everyone on this forum has been bumpin the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap groups. Get real. So maybe Trauma's for real, but there's no way anyone can convince me that I'm the only one at this hip-hop forum who doesn't put the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap group.
its ok, i place my dog above you.
-
I'd take Bone in the mid-90's over the Beatles anyday.
but you're an idiot so no-one cares... ;)
I doubt everyone on this forum has been bumpin the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap groups. Get real. So maybe Trauma's for real, but there's no way anyone can convince me that I'm the only one at this hip-hop forum who doesn't put the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap group.
yeah and you got to realize that just about everyone on this board are a bunch of 15 and 16 year olds and if they're ot 15 or 16 they still think they are
the thing about people like you is YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND MUSIC that isn't rap, all these kids running around saying "adults dont' understand hip hop that's why they don't like it" well the same applies for you too. i use to run around saying stupid shit like "fuck anything that has guitars and drums sets in it" but then as i got older i had an epiphany and got an open mind and now i'd rather listen to dark side of the moon rathe than listen to the chronic....i'd rather listen to the white album as opposed to jay-z's black album (metallica has the REAL black album btw)
it's about maturity, when i think about rap all it bascially is as a whole and from where it started from is party music, when it gets serious and deep it's applaudable and great but you got to understand that there are deeper artists out there than 2pac, there are better political figures out there in music than chuck d, there are better word smiths than Rakim, there are better producers out there than dre and premo
-
can we stop this thread already? i'ts been at the top of the list for like a week now
-
yeah and you got to realize that just about everyone on this board are a bunch of 15 and 16 year olds and if they're ot 15 or 16 they still think they are
the thing about people like you is YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND MUSIC that isn't rap, all these kids running around saying "adults dont' understand hip hop that's why they don't like it" well the same applies for you too. i use to run around saying stupid shit like "fuck anything that has guitars and drums sets in it" but then as i got older i had an epiphany and got an open mind and now i'd rather listen to dark side of the moon rathe than listen to the chronic....i'd rather listen to the white album as opposed to jay-z's black album (metallica has the REAL black album btw)
it's about maturity, when i think about rap all it bascially is as a whole and from where it started from is party music, when it gets serious and deep it's applaudable and great but you got to understand that there are deeper artists out there than 2pac, there are better political figures out there in music than chuck d, there are better word smiths than Rakim, there are better producers out there than dre and premo
This is a blatant fallacy, borderline racist, and definitely prejudice. One becoming a more frequent listener of Rock and Roll music has absolutely nothing to do with one's "maturity". In America, we have a deep history of racism that dates all the way back to commiting genocide on the Indians, to enslaving blacks, and the current war against Arabs. If you notice the general nature of white men is distrust. On the opposite extreme, sometimes African's trust too soon, and get taken advantage of. Look at Africans, they are quick to permenantly accept other cultures, art forms, and ways of life. A good example of this, is the fact that West Africa actually made it over to America before Spain.
The West African Leader, Mansa Musa used to send many ships over to America, long before the genocides of Columbus. But rather than conquering the indigenous natives, Africans mixed with the indigenous population, and there is proof of this in the history books, and still now today, Native American Indians have a history of West African words in their languages, proof is that some of our cities and states are named with names imported from West Africa and the Moors (Moreskos). (California-Khalifa, Hon-o-lulu, Hawiai, Koran Lousiana, Mecca California, etc.) Whites named these cities and states with the same names that the Native population was already using at that time.
Yet, then you see the downside of African's natural instinct to trust other cultures. The West Africans who were imported into America as slaves, you see now how they have accepted all the habits of drug abuse, alcoholism, classism, racism, from imitating their oppressor. An example of this is when free slaves were given the oppurtunity to be leaders in Liberia, West Africa, and they treated the natives of that land, their former brothers and sisters and tribesmen, as inferior, and they were highly oppressive. This is the effects of the racism being projected onto them as African Americans. There former brothers and sisters still living in places like Senegal, a major port city, show none of these characteristics that are prevelant in African Americans.
Now, through hip-hop culture (breaking, grafiti, dj, mc), African American's were able to carve their own culture out of the diaspora of America. Rather than openly accepting this beautiful culture from African Americans, racist whites view it as an immature phase, and an inferior form of art. They forget that it was these same African Americans that created Rock and Roll in the first place, before whites stole and manipulated that culture away from them.
I'm only being real. That's cool that you love Rock and Roll, but please don't identify it as being the "mature" form of music. This only displays either A) your lack of culture or B) the most shameful, fanatical, fawning, sycophantic love of whites.
-
can we stop this thread already? i'ts been at the top of the list for like a week now
That's because people want to reply to it... why are you telling them to stop? Obviously they are replying because they want to. You're an idiot. If you're not interested, don't fucking click on it.
-
i actually agree with hip hop is dead...to pass off your personal prefrences as fact is prejudice. To even go as far a to say that Jay-z cant have a cd called The Black Album beause Metallica does is borderline racist.. Which is kinda funny cause it was officially just self-titled(Metallica-Metallia) its called that only cause the cover is black. " there are better political figures out there in music than chuck d"...How do you prove such a statement? Hip Hop/Rap may not be a mature art form in your eyes but clearly around here it is. We all have diffrent tastes and opinions on music but thats all they are... Opinions. You want One persons veiw on whats right or wrong or what music is relevant move to China or N.Korea.
-
I'd take Bone in the mid-90's over the Beatles anyday.
but you're an idiot so no-one cares... ;)
I doubt everyone on this forum has been bumpin the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap groups. Get real. So maybe Trauma's for real, but there's no way anyone can convince me that I'm the only one at this hip-hop forum who doesn't put the Beatles ahead of their favorite rap group.
yeah and you got to realize that just about everyone on this board are a bunch of 15 and 16 year olds and if they're ot 15 or 16 they still think they are
the thing about people like you is YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND MUSIC that isn't rap, all these kids running around saying "adults dont' understand hip hop that's why they don't like it" well the same applies for you too. i use to run around saying stupid shit like "fuck anything that has guitars and drums sets in it" but then as i got older i had an epiphany and got an open mind and now i'd rather listen to dark side of the moon rathe than listen to the chronic....i'd rather listen to the white album as opposed to jay-z's black album (metallica has the REAL black album btw)
it's about maturity, when i think about rap all it bascially is as a whole and from where it started from is party music, when it gets serious and deep it's applaudable and great but you got to understand that there are deeper artists out there than 2pac, there are better political figures out there in music than chuck d, there are better word smiths than Rakim, there are better producers out there than dre and premo
basically what happened to me... but in general, i think most people, as they get older, will grow from rap, because most of it is very childish, espesially the comercial and gangsta rap, like after years and years, many will get tired as fuck of it..
-
I dunno if they will man. There's an old saying, Women grow up, men just get older.
-
i actually agree with hip hop is dead...to pass off your personal prefrences as fact is prejudice. To even go as far a to say that Jay-z cant have a cd called The Black Album beause Metallica does is borderline racist.. Which is kinda funny cause it was officially just self-titled(Metallica-Metallia) its called that only cause the cover is black. " there are better political figures out there in music than chuck d"...How do you prove such a statement? Hip Hop/Rap may not be a mature art form in your eyes but clearly around here it is. We all have diffrent tastes and opinions on music but thats all they are... Opinions. You want One persons veiw on whats right or wrong or what music is relevant move to China or N.Korea.
Word. That's real.
What's sad is that these people equate growth and maturity with musical listening habits anyway. Maturity is about many things, such as responsibility, upright character, moral values, leadership, patience, knowledge, character, discipline, knowledge of self, self-respect, respect for others, cultural awareness, many things, I don't see where Rock in Roll[/i] music fits into that list.
-
yeah and you got to realize that just about everyone on this board are a bunch of 15 and 16 year olds and if they're ot 15 or 16 they still think they are
the thing about people like you is YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND MUSIC that isn't rap, all these kids running around saying "adults dont' understand hip hop that's why they don't like it" well the same applies for you too. i use to run around saying stupid shit like "fuck anything that has guitars and drums sets in it" but then as i got older i had an epiphany and got an open mind and now i'd rather listen to dark side of the moon rathe than listen to the chronic....i'd rather listen to the white album as opposed to jay-z's black album (metallica has the REAL black album btw)
it's about maturity, when i think about rap all it bascially is as a whole and from where it started from is party music, when it gets serious and deep it's applaudable and great but you got to understand that there are deeper artists out there than 2pac, there are better political figures out there in music than chuck d, there are better word smiths than Rakim, there are better producers out there than dre and premo
This is a blatant fallacy, borderline racist, and definitely prejudice. One becoming a more frequent listener of Rock and Roll music has absolutely nothing to do with one's "maturity". In America, we have a deep history of racism that dates all the way back to commiting genocide on the Indians, to enslaving blacks, and the current war against Arabs. If you notice the general nature of white men is distrust. On the opposite extreme, sometimes African's trust too soon, and get taken advantage of. Look at Africans, they are quick to permenantly accept other cultures, art forms, and ways of life. A good example of this, is the fact that West Africa actually made it over to America before Spain.
The West African Leader, Mansa Musa used to send many ships over to America, long before the genocides of Columbus. But rather than conquering the indigenous natives, Africans mixed with the indigenous population, and there is proof of this in the history books, and still now today, Native American Indians have a history of West African words in their languages, proof is that some of our cities and states are named with names imported from West Africa and the Moors (Moreskos). (California-Khalifa, Hon-o-lulu, Hawiai, Koran Lousiana, Mecca California, etc.) Whites named these cities and states with the same names that the Native population was already using at that time.
Yet, then you see the downside of African's natural instinct to trust other cultures. The West Africans who were imported into America as slaves, you see now how they have accepted all the habits of drug abuse, alcoholism, classism, racism, from imitating their oppressor. An example of this is when free slaves were given the oppurtunity to be leaders in Liberia, West Africa, and they treated the natives of that land, their former brothers and sisters and tribesmen, as inferior, and they were highly oppressive. This is the effects of the racism being projected onto them as African Americans. There former brothers and sisters still living in places like Senegal, a major port city, show none of these characteristics that are prevelant in African Americans.
Now, through hip-hop culture (breaking, grafiti, dj, mc), African American's were able to carve their own culture out of the diaspora of America. Rather than openly accepting this beautiful culture from African Americans, racist whites view it as an immature phase, and an inferior form of art. They forget that it was these same African Americans that created Rock and Roll in the first place, before whites stole and manipulated that culture away from them.
I'm only being real. That's cool that you love Rock and Roll, but please don't identify it as being the "mature" form of music. This only displays either A) your lack of culture or B) the most shameful, fanatical, fawning, sycophantic love of whites.
First off, I think a lot of the maturity the guy was speaking about was his ability to look past his original prejudice or non rap and accept it. It would be foolish to say that 70s rock as a whole is more mature than 80s hip hop as a whole.
Secondly, Mansa Musa, a Muslim leader, was theorized to have sent ships over North America, but the theories date back long before his existence. There is no absolute proof, but even if there was let's look at how it probably went down. Ships would go from Muslim Spain to North America. How did Muslims get into Spain? By taking over. I thought only white people did that? I must've been wrong.
You speak of the genocide that Columbus was a part of, what about the Armenian genocide that the Turks were responsible for? These were Muslims killing Christians, and it was hardly in defense. The Ottoman Empire had enslaved all of what used to be Eastern Rome and had done so for hundreds of years. Greece in the 1800s started a revolution and drove the Turks out, Armenia wasn't as lucky. Just before WWI the Turks murdered all high powered Armenians and proceeded with the genocide. How can this be? Non whites acting evil? They must've been brainwashed by the white way of life, right?
Seriously though, are you really stupid enough to believe that the human mind is different with in races?
Do you really think it is part of nature that causes whites to hate and non whites to love?
How many people do you think were slave owners in America?
-
Hey Shallow, I've got a quote for ya... Jesus said don't cast your pearls before Swine.
-
Seriously though, are you really stupid enough to believe that the humsan mind is different with in races?
Do you really think it is part of nature that causes whites to hate and non whites to love?
How many people do you think were slave owners in America?
you beat me to it
-
First off, I think a lot of the maturity the guy was speaking about was his ability to look past his original prejudice or non rap and accept it. It would be foolish to say that 70s rock as a whole is more mature than 80s hip hop as a whole.
Secondly, Mansa Musa, a Muslim leader, was theorized to have sent ships over North America, but the theories date back long before his existence. There is no absolute proof, but even if there was let's look at how it probably went down. Ships would go from Muslim Spain to North America. How did Muslims get into Spain? By taking over. I thought only white people did that? I must've been wrong.
You speak of the genocide that Columbus was a part of, what about the Armenian genocide that the Turks were responsible for? These were Muslims killing Christians, and it was hardly in defense. The Ottoman Empire had enslaved all of what used to be Eastern Rome and had done so for hundreds of years. Greece in the 1800s started a revolution and drove the Turks out, Armenia wasn't as lucky. Just before WWI the Turks murdered all high powered Armenians and proceeded with the genocide. How can this be? Non whites acting evil? They must've been brainwashed by the white way of life, right?
Seriously though, are you really stupid enough to believe that the human mind is different with in races?
Do you really think it is part of nature that causes whites to hate and non whites to love?
How many people do you think were slave owners in America?
You can take all of that to Train of Thought, I'm not interested in talking to anybody at this forum about anything but hip-hop music. Someone dissed hip-hop music and claimed that they were more mature now because they listened to Rock&Roll, so I had to set the record straight, that's it. I'm only here for the music, peace.
-
First off, I think a lot of the maturity the guy was speaking about was his ability to look past his original prejudice or non rap and accept it. It would be foolish to say that 70s rock as a whole is more mature than 80s hip hop as a whole.
Secondly, Mansa Musa, a Muslim leader, was theorized to have sent ships over North America, but the theories date back long before his existence. There is no absolute proof, but even if there was let's look at how it probably went down. Ships would go from Muslim Spain to North America. How did Muslims get into Spain? By taking over. I thought only white people did that? I must've been wrong.
You speak of the genocide that Columbus was a part of, what about the Armenian genocide that the Turks were responsible for? These were Muslims killing Christians, and it was hardly in defense. The Ottoman Empire had enslaved all of what used to be Eastern Rome and had done so for hundreds of years. Greece in the 1800s started a revolution and drove the Turks out, Armenia wasn't as lucky. Just before WWI the Turks murdered all high powered Armenians and proceeded with the genocide. How can this be? Non whites acting evil? They must've been brainwashed by the white way of life, right?
Seriously though, are you really stupid enough to believe that the human mind is different with in races?
Do you really think it is part of nature that causes whites to hate and non whites to love?
How many people do you think were slave owners in America?
You can take all of that to Train of Thought, I'm not interested in talking to anybody at this forum about anything but hip-hop music. Someone dissed hip-hop music and claimed that they were more mature now because they listened to Rock&Roll, so I had to set the record straight, that's it. I'm only here for the music, peace.
You brought it up moron, not me. I always that you were stupid, but now I lost respect for your stupidity, because you can't even stand behind it. Just stop posting if your going to bring up stupid arguments and then run off on technicalities when someone proves you wrong.
-
hrm... my opinion..
Well to be honest and go against the flow of the topic, The Beatles had their moments, but for my taste in music they kinda bored me, actually preferred The Stones. However for any group that can achieve as many #1 hits as they did, i respect them.
Music wise they probably were the most influencial, individually they weren't the greatest (i.e. John Bonham > Ringo Starr, Hendrix was a better guitarist etc etc), however together they were able to pull off this combination of amazing talent that a lot of other .
There's also another factor that plays into it... Time-Related Bias. When one group emerges on to and creates a scene of mass influence it's hard for to people to try and see past comparing new artists to old artists.
Another factor that has to been compared is the music diversity of back in 60's to the present. Now days there's so many different forms of genres and sub genres that exist that it would be hard for a new band to come up and ster people away to an exclusive type of music. For example back in the 60's The Beatles didn't have to compete with a wide music diversity, i.e. punk, rap, metal, etc did not exist. So when a group comes along with a mixture of talent and doesn't have to compete with as many different styles of music as there is today, then it's going to be hard for people to ignore them.
I guess that could be likened to Nirvana's success, when they came through with the so called "grunge" sound, they basically decreased the amount of metal/hard rock music along with a change in pop music and with an anthem of Teen Spirit it's hard to ignore them. Not by any means am I saying it was easy for The Beatles to gain popularity, but i think it's a reason why it's hard for bands today to outshine.
As for still being classes into todays standards there are plenty of groups that have with stood the test of time. i.e. Led Zeppelin/Jimi Hendrix - over 35yrs, Black Sabbath - almost 35yrs, The Eagles - over 32yrs, AC/DC - over 30yrs, U2 - almost 25yrs, Metallica - over 20yrs, Nirvana - over 15yrs, etc etc. But it's hard to compare these to The Beatles because only time holds the answers to which turned out bigger.
I think the biggest disaster in music was the progression into industry made music, along with girl/boy-bands and the new era of that emo shit.
I can't remember the exact quote or who said (maybe someone might know) but it went something along the lines of "trying to review music is like trying to teach architects to dance" .. basically saying it's pointless. If you told a die-hard Metallica fan that The Beatles are better than their favourite group they'd probably tell you to fuck off.
Because in the end their greatness is all a matter of opinions, and there are no right or wrong opinions. However their influences are more a measure of their talent, however one band that is influencial upon another doesn't neccessarily make them greater. In some cases it does, but not always.
Music is what it is...
-
john bonham is sick.. is he considered one of the best ever?
-
john bonham is sick.. is he considered one of the best ever?
Yes he is.
-
john bonham is sick.. is he considered one of the best ever?
Yes he is.
damn, thats sick, Plant, Page, and Bonham, all some of the best in their "field".. amazing band
-
Well, not really Plant. Of course he had a great voice, but I think the guy's a loser myself. Page and Bonham were incredible.
-
Well, not really Plant. Of course he had a great voice, but I think the guy's a loser myself. Page and Bonham were incredible.
who cares about the guy himself if his voice is great...
-
lets bring this bitch back 1 more time :)...
to luke .. ive recently got more into death cab for cutie, i like the guys voice, and musicaly they are above average, but they are not inovative,
and can someone tell me some solo beatles shit, i got imagine but lennon, wats some other great albums
-
and can someone tell me some solo beatles shit
Get Paul's Band On The Run and both George and Ringo's self titled albums.
-
JIMI HENDRIX - Greatest Rock Musician of all time. Come on, he changed the sound of rock forever. And if you wanna talk about pure talent, this is a man who never learned to even read music. Just pure natural talent and vision. I aint a Beatles fan, but I respect them for the contributions they made, but they cant compare to Jimi.
-
http://www.areddy.net/beatles_suck/ ;)
-
lets bring this bitch back 1 more time :)...
to luke .. ive recently got more into death cab for cutie, i like the guys voice, and musicaly they are above average, but they are not inovative,
and can someone tell me some solo beatles shit, i got imagine but lennon, wats some other great albums
You've got to get "Double Fantasy", too. That was a great Lennon album. Also I really like "Mind Games". "Plastic Ono Band" is wonderful, but sad and depressing. Paul Macca, get "Band On The Run", the whole album's great... get "McCartney II" if you want some weird shit (he recorded the whole thing in his bedroom, it's crazy). Urgh, "Flaming Pie" from about 95 or so is just an awesome album. A good place to go if you want good Macca stuff is to just buy the "Wingspan" 2 disc set. Every song on it's fucking supersonic. George Harrison never made a bad album. "All Things Must Pass" is great.
-
lets bring this bitch back 1 more time :)...
to luke .. ive recently got more into death cab for cutie, i like the guys voice, and musicaly they are above average, but they are not inovative,
and can someone tell me some solo beatles shit, i got imagine but lennon, wats some other great albums
You've got to get "Double Fantasy", too. That was a great Lennon album. Also I really like "Mind Games". "Plastic Ono Band" is wonderful, but sad and depressing. Paul Macca, get "Band On The Run", the whole album's great... get "McCartney II" if you want some weird shit (he recorded the whole thing in his bedroom, it's crazy). Urgh, "Flaming Pie" from about 95 or so is just an awesome album. A good place to go if you want good Macca stuff is to just buy the "Wingspan" 2 disc set. Every song on it's fucking supersonic. George Harrison never made a bad album. "All Things Must Pass" is great.
Trauma, are you familiar with Ringo's solo work at all? I'm going to a pretty big record show in a couple weeks and I'm planning on expanding my Beatles' solo collection, as well as picking up their albums I don't have.
-
the beatles are absolutely genius but i believe quincy jones has shaped the music industry even more than the beatles
-
i dunno what this is all about, i hate the beatles.
-
^ but your asian, so take your small penis and opinions who nobody acknowledges elsewhere.
-
^ but your asian, so take your small penis and opinions who nobody acknowledges elsewhere.
lol, chiiiiillll ouuut, it´s ooonly a message board where people exchange opinions :)
-
I hate most of the music my parents listen to, but the beatles are actually good imo. That's enough said already. I guess I'm just too young to really love their music, but they probably are the greatest and best pop act ever.
-
^ but your asian, so take your small penis and opinions who nobody acknowledges elsewhere.
2 things are funny about this post.
1. this boy gettin his feelings hurt cause somebody said he dont like the beatles
2. a white boy tellin somebody else they got a small dick
-
1. this boy gettin his feelings hurt cause somebody said he dont like the beatles
2. a white boy tellin somebody else they got a small dick
1. seems i gotta co-sign lol
2. whites have larger dicks than asians by average tho
-
1. this boy gettin his feelings hurt cause somebody said he dont like the beatles
2. a white boy tellin somebody else they got a small dick
1. seems i gotta co-sign lol
2. whites have larger dicks than asians by average tho
Newsflash!
Anyway, Britney Spears i think has now surpassed the Beatles by popularity, although i definitely enjoy the Quartet's music more than i do the slut's
-
NO...
Hatesrats 2oo0V
-
1. this boy gettin his feelings hurt cause somebody said he dont like the beatles
2. a white boy tellin somebody else they got a small dick
1. seems i gotta co-sign lol
2. whites have larger dicks than asians by average tho
Newsflash!
Anyway, Britney Spears i think has now surpassed the Beatles by popularity, although i definitely enjoy the Quartet's music more than i do the slut's
No way, I guarantee The Beatles have sold more albums and have more worldwide recognition than Britney Spears. That would surprise me a lot.
-
whites have larger dicks than asians by average tho
i hope yall talking about south east and far east asians and not all asians in general.....or i might have to pull the rampuri out on yall
and about the beatles.....they are the untouchable GOAT
peace
-
^^ you think indians beat whites? I wasn´t thinking of anything west of bangladesh in the first place though, if that calms you down
-
whites have larger dicks than asians by average tho
i hope yall talking about south east and far east asians and not all asians in general.....or i might have to pull the rampuri out on yall
LOL. :D
-
^^ you think indians beat whites? I wasn´t thinking of anything west of bangladesh in the first place though, if that calms you down
i was just playing around....peace
-
zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative
Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.
-
zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative
Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.
The Beatles also ended in 69, so of course they couldn't challenge Zeppelin after 1969.
-
zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative
Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.
The Beatles also ended in 69, so of course they couldn't challenge Zeppelin after 1969.
Not to downplay the Fab Four, but I don't think they could have went up against Zep at that time. The Beatles' time was up when Zep became huge, and a new sound was the now in. None of McCartney's or Lennon's albums could compete with those early Led Zeppelin records. This doesn't mean I think if Zep came out in '65 that they would have ended the Beatles run early. It just means there is a time and a place for everything, and the 70s was not going to be bigger for Paul and John, compared to Zep, no matter how you slice it. Just like even if Bonham didn't die Led Zeppelin still would have been finished in the 80s (or went hair metal, but I don't even want to think about that).
-
I really don't think so in terms of influence or sales but whatever.
-
zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative
Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.
The Beatles also ended in 69, so of course they couldn't challenge Zeppelin after 1969.
Not to downplay the Fab Four, but I don't think they could have went up against Zep at that time. The Beatles' time was up when Zep became huge, and a new sound was the now in. None of McCartney's or Lennon's albums could compete with those early Led Zeppelin records. This doesn't mean I think if Zep came out in '65 that they would have ended the Beatles run early. It just means there is a time and a place for everything, and the 70s was not going to be bigger for Paul and John, compared to Zep, no matter how you slice it. Just like even if Bonham didn't die Led Zeppelin still would have been finished in the 80s (or went hair metal, but I don't even want to think about that).
I agree, I was just pointing out that what he said about them overshadowing The Beatles after 1969. Very few will ever compete with Zeppelin's 1 through 4.
-
Led Zeppelin > the Beatles
yea, I said it. And meant it. Beatles are very overrated to me.
-
Not to downplay the Fab Four, but I don't think they could have went up against Zep at that time. The Beatles' time was up when Zep became huge, and a new sound was the now in. None of McCartney's or Lennon's albums could compete with those early Led Zeppelin records. This doesn't mean I think if Zep came out in '65 that they would have ended the Beatles run early. It just means there is a time and a place for everything, and the 70s was not going to be bigger for Paul and John, compared to Zep, no matter how you slice it. Just like even if Bonham didn't die Led Zeppelin still would have been finished in the 80s (or went hair metal, but I don't even want to think about that).
lol at hair metal Led Zep, but co-sign
-
They`re not bad, but they shure is overated
-
I really don't think so in terms of influence or sales but whatever.
If you look at original album for original album then Zep has the Beatles beat. Alot of THe Beatles record sales from all those double disc compilations. No Beatles album comes close to IV. Zep's first album is 11x platinum, their second is over 12x platinum, their third is 6X platinum, and their fourth is 22x platinum. Their fifth is 11x platinum, and their double album is 15x platinum. They then capped off their career with the 6x platinum In throuth the out door. Giving their 7 albums a total of 83 million records sold in the US alone, with an average of 11.8 million a record. These are just the oroginal releases. This does not count any live stuff or special edition hidden tracks.
Now the Beatles had 11 oroginal albums released (I think). Meet the Beatles went 5, Beatles '65 went 3, Rubber Soul went 6, Revolver went 5, Help went 4, Hard Day's Night went 4, Sgt. Pepper went 11, Magical Mystery Tour went 6, The White Album (couble album) went 19, Let it Be went 4, and Abbey Road went 12. This gives us a total of 79 million records sold with a 7.2 average per album.
As for influence, well that's closer than some want to admit. The Beatles obviously had a major influence on just about every band after them, but so did Zep. For every major band that was more influenced by the Beatles, I can name one that was more influenced by Zep.
The Beatles were the golden boys from nearly day 1, and America pushed them as much as they loved them. Zep was the counter culture that snuck up on the world and took it over. I'd give it a tie. On personal choice I'd pick Zep probably just because of live shows and musicianship. Plant sand better than any Beatle, Paige played better guitar, and Bonham played way better drums. Paul gets the edge over John Paul but that 3 out of 4. This doesn't mean I rate bands based on mucisianship. I just decide to use it as a tie breaker when I can't decide who I think is better.
-
i thougt jimi was discovered by the bassist of that band who sang "whats your name /whose your daddy/he rich/is he rich like me" (the animals??)
oh yeah jimi was also in the airforce
and he spent literally hours tuning his guitar before each and every performance
wats that song called?
-
i thougt jimi was discovered by the bassist of that band who sang "whats your name /whose your daddy/he rich/is he rich like me" (the animals??)
oh yeah jimi was also in the airforce
and he spent literally hours tuning his guitar before each and every performance
wats that song called?
That's the same Time of the Season you were asking about.
-
ahhhh, it all makes sense, well since i dug this shit up, no need to waste it, so, the beatles are pretty good eh?
-
The greatest of all time, no matter what the dumbass above you says. Nobody will ever touch them, here we are two or three years after I started this topic, and it's still dead on. Not only did the Beatles rule the pop music world, they even changed the social climate of the world (or helped to).