The Beatles vs The Who

#51
#51
The Beatles are not overrated for what they did. They changed rock n' roll. They changed what it meant to like rock n' roll. Whether you like their music or not, you can't disregard how they changed the industry. People consider them overrated because their sound isn't appealing to their 2011 ears. They were properly rated. They revolutionized rock.
 
#52
#52
Thrasher865 said:
How would I know? What in the world kind of stupid question is that? It was an opinion.

If "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" are the most progressive songs you can think of, my original position stands, you haven't heard enough of their music. You've apparently only heard their really popular songs. I really suggest listening to some of their discography that has never been featured in a commercial.
Click to expand...

I just mentioned those two. I am certain I've listened to the Beatles at least as much as you. I own every single album. Been listening to them since 1966.

Maybe you didn't mean to say "true Beatles music", but I am with you. Their progressive stuff is far and away, the best
 
#53
#53
Co. Aytch said:
Gahlee- on your comment on Ringo's drumming...Novice comment is absurd! He played with alot of feel. A perfect compliment to a perfect sound. I too am amazed by what Keith Moon does, but the absolute perfect feel Ringo had for the songs blow my mind.

When I finally got a real hifi stereo system going, was when I really started appreciating Ringo and Charlie Watts, a whole lot more than Bonham/Moon/Mitch Mitchell.
Click to expand...

Perfect fell?

You mean the ability to maintain a 4/4 beat and just blend in?

Impressive.
 
#54
#54
I think Paul McCartney is the best bassist by far (Drive My Car always blows me away). Pete was more of a chord guy, I think Harrison was better on the guitar. Keith Moon was THE perfect drummer for The Who......never been impressed with Ringo.

I love the Beatles and dig the melodies but no one gets the blood going like The Who.

If I had to choose between the White Album and Who's Next as my one and only album on the theoretical desert isle, it would be The Who every time (and I'd call it a bargain....the best I ever had).
 
#55
#55
Plano Vol said:
I think Paul McCartney is the best bassist by far (Drive My Car always blows me away). Pete was more of a chord guy, I think Harrison was better on the guitar. Keith Moon was THE perfect drummer for The Who......never been impressed with Ringo.

I love the Beatles and dig the melodies but no one gets the blood going like The Who.

If I had to choose between the White Album and Who's Next as my one and only album on the theoretical desert isle, it would be The Who every time (and I'd call it a bargain....the best I ever had).
Click to expand...

Disagree with the assessment of Townsend and think Entwhistle clearly outdoes McCartney as a bassist but the finish of your post redeems you :)
 
#56
#56
Thrasher865 said:
There is a difference between technical abilities and musical abilities on an instrument. That is what a lot of people in this thread are overlooking. Not that you can't have both, but IMO, musical abilities are far more important.
Click to expand...

This. The best have just the right balance of technical and musical abilities. Musicians have to put feeling into what they play in order for the listener to get feeling out of what they hear. That being said, I get that from both groups, whether it's Let It Be or Baba O'Reilly.
 
#57
#57
Yeah. I mean there are some shred guitarists that have absolutely insane technical abilities far exceeding anybody from either band, but do I ever, under any circumstances, want to listen to that garbage? Absolutely not.
 
#60
#60
crusse10 said:
The Beatles are not overrated for what they did. They changed rock n' roll. They changed what it meant to like rock n' roll. Whether you like their music or not, you can't disregard how they changed the industry. People consider them overrated because their sound isn't appealing to their 2011 ears. They were properly rated. They revolutionized rock.
Click to expand...

Lot's of bands fit this description - not the extent of The Beatles but plenty changed RnR but don't fit the current mainstream. I'm not minimizing what they did.
 
#63
#63
BelAirVol said:
Haven't seen anyone say it was, but it was written while on an LSD trip
Click to expand...

Maybe nobody on this message board said it (until you), but everybody thinks it has something to do with LSD. If you read the hilarious article you would see it has nothing to do with LSD. It was about a picture drawn by John Lennon's kid Julian.

3+lucy+in+the+sky+with+diamonds,+julian+lennon.jpg
 
#64
#64
nbakerld said:
Maybe nobody on this message board said it (until you), but everybody thinks it has something to do with LSD. If you read the hilarious article you would see it has nothing to do with LSD. It was about a picture drawn by John Lennon's kid Julian.

3+lucy+in+the+sky+with+diamonds,+julian+lennon.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes and it was written while on LSD. It's not about LSD. They were experimenting with it while writing this music
 
#65
#65
BelAirVol said:
Yes and it was written while on LSD. It's not about LSD. They were experimenting with it while writing this music
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe that is right. Is it an assumption, or they said they were on LSD when they wrote it?

The Beatles freely admit to using drugs as inspiration for songs, and odds are LSD was one of them. But as for this particular song being a metaphor for the drug itself? Sorry, but no. John Lennon said, "It was purely unconscious that it came out to be LSD. Until someone pointed it out, I never even thought of it. I mean, who would ever bother to look at initials of a title? It's not an acid song."
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top