That's nice, but a few hundred years from now they will written about and remembered as opposed to 99.99% of the rest of the performers in the era. Good or not.

It goes like this:

The Beatles
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
everyone else.

nice editing, douchemitter.

the actual line from the article is, "the beatles weren't that good when they first formed."

The Beatles Suck

Yeah, even George Martin didn't think too much of them when they auditioned for Parlophone. Of course they got a little better as time went on.

You've got to admit they're getting better.
they're getting so much better all the time.

When it comes to music, you don't have to be "good" to be important or influential.
Sometimes "different" is all it takes.

I can finally have some respect for him.

Great musician. Liked Amputees. Should get a honorary TF account for that alone.

Harrison - Great Musician.

Ringo - NOT a good drummer(Yeah, I said it)

Lennon - Good songwriter. Needed to shut up. Terrible taste in women.

Never liked the bug band.

arkansas: That's nice, but a few hundred years from now they will written about and remembered

I have absolutely no way of backing this up, but I would be *extremely* surprised if they are. I mean, sure, they're influential, but they aren't farking mozart.

EatHam: I have absolutely no way of backing this up, but I would be *extremely* surprised if they are. I mean, sure, they're influential, but they aren't farking mozart.

It's weird to think about. Is Godfather our Shakespeare?

EatHam: they aren't farking mozart.

you're right; they were/are far more influential than mozart.

Hobodeluxe: You've got to admit they're getting better.
they're getting so much better all the time.

Can't get no worse.

/I love the Beatles.

SnakeLee: EatHam: I have absolutely no way of backing this up, but I would be *extremely* surprised if they are. I mean, sure, they're influential, but they aren't farking mozart.

It's weird to think about. Is Godfather our Shakespeare?

Godfathers 1 and 2 taken together is the greatest achievement in film. I still say no to your question.

I heard one of today's hottest bands the other day, and aside from none of them playing the same song (which, had they been able to, would have sucked big time), none of them being able to sing a note, and all of them prancing around like they had fire ants in their clothing, they were every bit as good as the Beatles.

SnakeLee: It's weird to think about. Is Godfather our Shakespeare?

It's been said that movies are the Literature of the 20th Century. Five hundred years from now, to understand our culture, a person is going to have to understand our greatest movies.

/does that make Twitter and Facebook the Literature of the 21st Century?

I've always loved Beatles lyrics, but the sound? Ugh, their sound gives me a headache.

Paul is, IMHO the LEAST talented of the Beatles, pretty much EVERYTHING he has done since 1969 has sucked. If it weren't for the Beatles this no talent nipple would probably be sweeping floors at Harrods. Just my opinion since the Ram album.

Kilted_Dude: Ringo - NOT a good drummer(Yeah, I said it)

I'm dying to hear your rationale for this.

FlashHarry: nice editing, douchemitter.

I take it you're not a fan of the 'cheap' headlines...


/some people will do anything for a greenlight

lajimi: Paul is, IMHO the LEAST talented of the Beatles, pretty much EVERYTHING he has done since 1969 has sucked.

There's a theory that his contribution of pop-pablum just might have pushed Lennon/Harrison in the right direction.

/it's a theory, anyway.

Fast B: Kilted_Dude: Ringo - NOT a good drummer(Yeah, I said it)

I'm dying to hear your rationale for this.

He doesn't have half the rack that Meg White does!


/this thread is now about Meg White pics

lajimi: Paul is, IMHO the LEAST talented of the Beatles, pretty much EVERYTHING he has done since 1969 has sucked. If it weren't for the Beatles this no talent nipple would probably be sweeping floors at Harrods. Just my opinion since the Ram album.

Wow, really? I can think of two albums off hand that were brilliant McCartney albums:

mekkab: lajimi: Paul is, IMHO the LEAST talented of the Beatles, pretty much EVERYTHING he has done since 1969 has sucked.

There's a theory that his contribution of pop-pablum just might have pushed Lennon/Harrison in the right direction.

/it's a theory, anyway.

I think it has merit. John on his own went overboard with sarcasm and sanctimony; George on his own went overboard with mysticism and navel-gazing. Paul's ability to write a catchy hook and sweeten things with a little bubblegum mediated their tendencies nicely.

excellent headline troll subby! People will be frothing at the mouth for hours
+1

FlashHarry: nice editing, douchemitter.

the actual line from the article is, "the beatles weren't that good when they first formed."

Reading comprehension FAIL, FlashHarry.

The submitter was simply transcribing what the trolls at the Daily FAIL
wrote.

"What's the name of the band?"

"The shiatty Beatles"

"Are they any good?"

"They suck."

"Then it's not just a clever name."