Freddie Mercury.GoldMind said:
Does anyone REALLY care if Elton John or Rob Halford is gay? Both are extremely talented singers.
GoldMind said:
Does anyone REALLY care if Elton John or Rob Halford is gay? Both are extremely talented singers.
The Hound said:
Which is the best Beatle?
That was my first album. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road by Elton John.GoldMind said:
Does anyone REALLY care if Elton John or Rob Halford is gay? Both are extremely talented singers.
You just KNOW the sitar was his influence. Don't discount George Harrison. Dude is still responsible for some of the greatest rock licks ever.The Hound said:
Which is the best Beatle? Personally I'm partial to Paul McCartney, but some argue that John Lennon took the group from silly teenage love songs to the more psychedelic classic rock group that made such albums as Abby Roads and Let it Be
exr29070 said:You just KNOW the sitar was his influence. Don't discount George Harrison. Dude is still responsible for some of the greatest rock licks ever.The Hound said:
Which is the best Beatle? Personally I'm partial to Paul McCartney, but some argue that John Lennon took the group from silly teenage love songs to the more psychedelic classic rock group that made such albums as Abby Roads and Let it Be
George Martin? Would we even recognize their sound without him?
It rolls over you either like a wave or the back of a failed trash hauling truck. Not sure which.Amy Pagitt said:
I don't know whether to be pissed off or just sit here in complete awe of this thread.
Ok, a minor point of clarification, but what most people would consider the Beatles "silly little love song" phase (Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Days Night, etc.) was really pretty revolutionary. Sure, there were some songs during those early years that didn't have a lot of meat on the bone, but there were also a lot of songs that were sneakily-complex. "I Saw Her Standing There" was a pretty wild track for 1963. The usage of Aeolian cadences (whether intentional or not) in "It Won't Be Long." "All My Loving" stands the test of time. "From Me to You" is pretty unique. "I Feel Fine" might have been the first use of recorded feedback and has a great riff.The Hound said:
Which is the best Beatle? Personally I'm partial to Paul McCartney, but some argue that John Lennon took the group from silly teenage love songs to the more psychedelic classic rock group that made such albums as Abby Roads and Let it Be
nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
BearSince2010 said:
Illmatic is the greatest album in hip hop history.
Come at me.
I agree with the bolded statement, but I never tried to make the case that the Beatles were the best because they were first. Or were you just addressing a general line of logic that is often used that you disagree with?GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
You weren't in my scope, but since this thread has withered into an open forum, I felt compelled. See bolded.Crash Davis said:I agree with the bolded statement, but I never tried to make the case that the Beatles were the best because they were first. Or were you just addressing a general line of logic that is often used that you disagree with?GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
And I certainly agree that the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc.
That Album was "What the Hell Happened to Me". The whole thing is amazing.Pd254 said:
I bought two albums and a disc man at the same time at incredible universe. They were Snoops doggystyle and the Adam Sandler album with the goat.
Gotcha. Agreed. I will fully admit that I think the Beatles are the best band of all-time, but definitely not due to that line of reasoning.GoldMind said:You weren't in my scope, but since this thread has withered into an open forum, I felt compelled. See bolded.Crash Davis said:I agree with the bolded statement, but I never tried to make the case that the Beatles were the best because they were first. Or were you just addressing a general line of logic that is often used that you disagree with?GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
And I certainly agree that the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc.
Im gonna go with Zeppelin, for personal and aesthetic reasons, but I respect.Crash Davis said:Gotcha. Agreed. I will fully admit that I think the Beatles are the best band of all-time, but definitely not due to that line of reasoning.GoldMind said:You weren't in my scope, but since this thread has withered into an open forum, I felt compelled. See bolded.Crash Davis said:I agree with the bolded statement, but I never tried to make the case that the Beatles were the best because they were first. Or were you just addressing a general line of logic that is often used that you disagree with?GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
And I certainly agree that the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc.
Can't go wrong with Zep.GoldMind said:Im gonna go with Zeppelin, for personal and aesthetic reasons, but I respect.Crash Davis said:Gotcha. Agreed. I will fully admit that I think the Beatles are the best band of all-time, but definitely not due to that line of reasoning.GoldMind said:You weren't in my scope, but since this thread has withered into an open forum, I felt compelled. See bolded.Crash Davis said:I agree with the bolded statement, but I never tried to make the case that the Beatles were the best because they were first. Or were you just addressing a general line of logic that is often used that you disagree with?GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
And I certainly agree that the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc.
Probably because the most influential rock bands were influenced more by Delta blues acts from the deep south than by their counterparts.GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
My wife walked down the aisle to Going to California in classical guitar style. It was legit.GoldMind said:Im gonna go with Zeppelin, for personal and aesthetic reasons, but I respect.Crash Davis said:Gotcha. Agreed. I will fully admit that I think the Beatles are the best band of all-time, but definitely not due to that line of reasoning.GoldMind said:You weren't in my scope, but since this thread has withered into an open forum, I felt compelled. See bolded.Crash Davis said:I agree with the bolded statement, but I never tried to make the case that the Beatles were the best because they were first. Or were you just addressing a general line of logic that is often used that you disagree with?GoldMind said:The Beatles were just the first in a long line of succession of great British bands. And just because they came first, doesnt make them the best. Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd are equally as good. Does it make the Fab 4 overrated garbage? Certainly not. The idea that the band or person who started a new trend in music is better than all subsequent acts is short sided, IMO. Like people who say Hank Williams is better than any other country singer, they discount the artists that built on his legacy.Crash Davis said:nein51 said:
The Beatles are entirely overrated. I give credit to them for helping transition music and I am willing to concede that I enjoy some songs. However, large swathes of their music is unlistenable acid fueled garbage.
Would rock be what it is without the Beatles? Would the Beatles have been able to craft their sound had they never heard Elvis or Buddy Holly? No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
And I certainly agree that the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc.
I always assumed the first album you bought was the Pootietang soundtrackkenozebi said:That Album was "What the Hell Happened to Me". The whole thing is amazing.Pd254 said:
I bought two albums and a disc man at the same time at incredible universe. They were Snoops doggystyle and the Adam Sandler album with the goat.
First Album I ever bought was 'The Simpson's Sing the Blues".
If you lived in Dallas and all you had access to was a radio, you would think that Modern Rock is simply a bunch of Top 40 pop junk. We have 4 or 5 stations that have the exact same playlist, so you when your favorite pop song is finished on one station, the odds are good that it is coming up next on a second station.GoldMind said:
No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
wada taDioNoZeus said:I always assumed the first album you bought was the Pootietang soundtrackkenozebi said:That Album was "What the Hell Happened to Me". The whole thing is amazing.Pd254 said:
I bought two albums and a disc man at the same time at incredible universe. They were Snoops doggystyle and the Adam Sandler album with the goat.
First Album I ever bought was 'The Simpson's Sing the Blues".
Most pop acts aren't significant, musically. Every now and then theres a diamond in the rough like Drake, John Mayer etc.kcarlson said:If you lived in Dallas and all you had access to was a radio, you would think that Modern Rock is simply a bunch of Top 40 pop junk. We have 4 or 5 stations that have the exact same playlist, so you when your favorite pop song is finished on one station, the odds are good that it is coming up next on a second station.GoldMind said:
No, but they are the foundation of the temple upon which future acts built the temple of Modern Rock.
R.I.P. KDGE 94.5 FM (it was never the same on 102.1)
In Houston we have The Eagle, classic rock. But they play a lot of Rush (cringes and grits teeth)kcarlson said:
Completely agree. I just think it is amazing that in a market as large as DFW we can't have a decent rock station.
I know you jam out to Tom Sawyer when nobody is watching.GoldMind said:In Houston we have The Eagle, classic rock. But they play a lot of Rush (cringes and grits teeth)kcarlson said:
Completely agree. I just think it is amazing that in a market as large as DFW we can't have a decent rock station.
