The Beatles

Im sorry but I dont see what the big HOO RAA over the beatles. Personally I think they suck. They have like a couple okay songs, besides that they were just the first boy band. And so many people say they love the beatles and they cant even name 3 songs from them. They just say they love them because they were the biggest band in the world . So all these followers just add to the beatles hype with having no knowledge of the MUSIC. They just say we love the beatles cause that what everone says. FUC that I will say it THEY SUCK the biggest OVER HYPED OVER CREDITED BAND IN HISTORY! They werent even good at their instruments (compared to TRUE greats Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd/ HEndrix etc.). Also I hate when people get mad when I say that, I judge music based on music not what everyone says.. PAUL Mccartney looks like tweety bird.

OHH John Lenon as a person was amazing, also Imagine is timless besides that :finger:
 
The fact is The Beatles are very over-rated. I love their music, but they weren't the greatest musical act in the world. Possibly Britians best act, but certainly not the worlRAB greatest rock band.
 
I meant with The Beatles, solo material notwithstanding.

But maybe I'm unfair for including b-sides as well.

One thing that can be said is that none of Lennons songs are as popular as McCartneys Yesterday or Hey Jude.
 
It's not so much that they don't get enough credit as it is that some people down play their accomplishments or think of them as overrated that you feel as though that they are under appreciated.
 
beatles for sale- although that album does have some cool songs, like 'im a loser' and 'no reply'. but in comparison to the other albums this is definately lesser.
 
I don't think Georges solo stuff is better than Johns, but I agree that its better than Pauls. But I still think Wings have some really good stuff, and people give Paul way too much crap.

And I agree with jgd85 that John and Paul both made The Beatles what it was, so its stupid that so many Beatles fans are devided over somsething as stupid as "Whos the better songwriter?".

Paul could never write a song as powerful and engaging as Julia or as funny and complex as I Am The Walrus, at the same time John could never write a song as fun and addictive as Helter Skelter or as pretty as Blackbird. Their styles and subjects were so different, this is why they compliment each other perfectly.

And yes, George was an amazing songwriter too, its a shame that John and Paul held him back for so long.
 
I love Abbey Road. I love the song Something but more than that, I love the way if you listen to the album from start to finish it sounRAB as if that was the way it was meant to be listened to. It really is genius.

It was my favourite album for years and years before I discovered the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
 
Radio Friendly can mean its just good music. Radio will conform to the will of the dollar, if metallica sells millions their music doens't become radio friendly, the radio becomes metallica friendly. Master of Puppets should not be on the radio by comparitive standarRAB, but it is, because you can't deny good music. People demand it...well some people
:pimp:
 
The only reason I dislike The Beatles is because they were forced upon me growing up. And living here, everywhere you look it's THE BEATLES. They're just everywhere and I get sick and tired of it, their music is alright and I do like a couple of their songs, but generally they're just not my cup of tea as such.
 
The British versions of the albums are the "real" versions. And yeah, with a few solid tracks an album can branch out. Without any there's no reason to sit down and listen to the whole thing.
And In My Life + I'm Looking Through You aren't nearly as good as the singles released at the same time.
 
What the bloody hell does his father have to do with how good of a musician Paul is? Being a super talented musician doesn't mean as much as being a good songwriter. Who's more known Bob Dylan or Steve Vai? Bob Dylan, who's the better musician? Well obviously Steve Vai, but does that make him better? Nope, George Harrison proved with his solo albums to be a much more capable songwriter than McCartney. He wrote a bunch of great songs sure but that's because he had Harrison and Lennon with him. Paul's solo career has been pretty laughable.



That's something that is completely subjective and isn't up for wikipedia to decide.



Okay...so they're both multi-instrumentalist. That puts them on a level playing field.



Rolling Stone is a joke and Harrison albums still sold more and are held in higher esteem by much more credible sources.



So what? All your little Beatles fun facts really don't mean much. Just because you're covered a lot doesn't make you better than somebody else. Green Day has been covered way more thank Frank Zappa are you going to go on and say Green Days better? Also All Things Must Pass was the most successful Beatles solo album ever.



And his opinion means what? Harrison is an excellent guitar player. He's the man who wrote While My Guitar Gently Weeps and though he didn't play it it's generally considered one of the best solos ever. McCartney didn't write a guitar piece that iconic did he?



Yeah I never said he played on them now did I?



I disagree with that, I think they're all rated pretty fairly guitarist wise.
 
Back
Top