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."

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.

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: 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.

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.

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."

Most over-rated band ever.

Your preferred musical combo is viewed as insufficiently talented by those with worthwhile insight

major-kong: Your preferred musical combo is viewed as insufficiently talented by those with worthwhile insight

Your favorite beer sucks.

Neil Peart wishes he could play like Ringo. Peart has been playing the drums for 40 years and still hasn't learned what NOT to play.

Ringo was one of the most instinctive, natural soulful players in rock and roll history. He played the perfect drum part for every song and was so good at it that he screwed up a take in the studio exactly ONCE in their entire recording career.

If you want flash, ridiculous fills, overplaying and bombast, then you should stay away from Ringo. He was the PERFECT drummer for the greatest rock band of all time.

Just like Keith Moon was a perfect fit for The Who, a band that was all about bombast, sonic explosions, volume and raw emotion, Ringo was perfect for the class and timelessness that was The Beatles.

This room stinks like stupid. I'm getting the fark out of here before I pop a vein in my forehead.

And as I was writing, in comes AdolfOliverPanties to say something intelligent.

I used to make Ringo jokes all the time too, but in recent years I've come to appreciate how truly great he was. And any idiot who doesn't think he's an awesome drummer should give Beatles Rock Band drums a spin on the Expert setting.

Unless you were there to witness and hear what occurred to American pop music in 1964 you have no idea what actually happened. The Beach Boys, Bobby Darin, Jan and Dean, Leslie Gore...these were the recording artists American radio played for the public. Then with three consecutive Sunday night shows and two performances each show, Ed Sullivan and The Beatles transformed everything about pop music. They opened the door for The Stones, The Animals, The Kinks and so many more during the "British Invasion." Unlike today's bands that make one CD and sit on their asses for years before cutting another one, which usually fails...The Beatles produced 13 albums in eight years, at least six of them considered classics. You may not like their sound today, just as back then I didn't much care for the big band music my mother loved so much, but to deny their talent and influence indicates one's closed mindedness to the past that shaped the present

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.

paul's knack for melody is rarely matched. you don't have to like him to admit he's incredibly talented.

my undergrad had one of the world's most renowned music schools. all the classical professors agreed on one thing: "rock n' roll is an abomination, but "yesterday" is just about perfect." that was all paul.

so, there's that.

OK kids, if you weren't there, you can't understand what the Beatles were all about. They were far more than just a band. They were a cultural phenomenon. The music was great, but the clothing, the attitude, the humor, and everything about them was different. You have to look at the whole package in context with the era to understand why they were so popular. Listen to some of the other music from the mid-sixties and compare it to the Beatles music. Everything else was crap in comparison. The Rolling Stones were great, but they would have been just another local house band at some pub if not for the Beatles. Every other band of the time was directly influenced by the Beatles. Some were complete rip-offs of the Beatles.

And the Beatles changed with the times. Each album was different and unique. They didn't just keep producing the same music over and over, they remained fresh and inventive with every song and every album. Sgt. Pepper was the single greatest album ever recorded and always will be.

CruiserTwelve: OK kids, if you weren't there, you can't understand what the Beatles were all about. They were far more than just a band. They were a cultural phenomenon. The music was great, but the clothing, the attitude, the humor, and everything about them was different. You have to look at the whole package in context with the era to understand why they were so popular. Listen to some of the other music from the mid-sixties and compare it to the Beatles music. Everything else was crap in comparison. The Rolling Stones were great, but they would have been just another local house band at some pub if not for the Beatles. Every other band of the time was directly influenced by the Beatles. Some were complete rip-offs of the Beatles.

And the Beatles changed with the times. Each album was different and unique. They didn't just keep producing the same music over and over, they remained fresh and inventive with every song and every album. Sgt. Pepper was the single greatest album ever recorded and always will be.

While I have to agree with most of your points, I sumbit that Dark Side of the Moon edges out Sgt. Pepper for the #1 spot. Yes, Sgt. Pepper was hugely groundbreaking, Dark Side is utterly fantastic in every way.

CtrlAltDelete: Siiiimply... HaaAaving.... a WONderful CHRIS-MASS-TIME!
Siiiimply... HaaAaving.... a WONderful CHRIS-MASS-TIME!
Siiiimply... HaaAaving.... a WONderful CHRIS-MASS-TIME!
Siiiimply... HaaAaving.... a WONderful CHRIS-MASS-TIME!
Siiiimply... HaaAaving.... a WONderful CHRIS-MASS-TIME!
Siiiimply... HaaAaving.... a WONderful CHRIS-MASS-TIME!

/f*ck you, Paul McCartney

Damn. You. To. Hell.

/earworm now

well, since it got redlit, someone sent me a pretty cool mashup^ of all of the beatles' solo work.

ne2d: CruiserTwelve: OK kids, if you weren't there, you can't understand what the Beatles were all about. They were far more than just a band. They were a cultural phenomenon. The music was great, but the clothing, the attitude, the humor, and everything about them was different. You have to look at the whole package in context with the era to understand why they were so popular. Listen to some of the other music from the mid-sixties and compare it to the Beatles music. Everything else was crap in comparison. The Rolling Stones were great, but they would have been just another local house band at some pub if not for the Beatles. Every other band of the time was directly influenced by the Beatles. Some were complete rip-offs of the Beatles.

And the Beatles changed with the times. Each album was different and unique. They didn't just keep producing the same music over and over, they remained fresh and inventive with every song and every album. Sgt. Pepper Revolver was the single greatest album ever recorded and always will be.

Other than that, I agree completely.

yeah, revolver was amazing. the bass lines were noticeably more prominent in that album, which is something i enjoy in music.

Kliffoth: TL/DR version: There is no 'best band'. The Beatles are the most overrated band in history. Our favorite bands suck.

serious question: if music is subjective, and there is no "best band," then how can there be a "most overrated" band? suggesting that there is suggests also that there is a great band out there that is the "lease overrated," thereby making that band the "best band." thoughts?

bottom line ... don't be so uptight. it's a music thread. you'll have an early heart attack if you go around getting worked up at things that are completely inevitable.

Kliffoth: Feel free to attack me and my musical tastes (check my profile if you wish) but I'm not the one saying OMG this band owns every other band's face!.

It's not worth it. There isn't a single band there I've heard of and you have categorized them all as Favorite Metal Bands, which leads me to believe you are into that guttural screaming crap from the Netherlands or something.

It's no surprise that you don't like the Beatles or think of them as simplistic. Enjoy your individualistic edginess.

Kliffoth:

I can't take The Beatles or their rabid fans seriously.

And yet you can take this (new window)seriously?

At any rate, you can't deny the obvious "Eleanor Rigby" influence on that song.