cody78 Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Charlie Brown, I see your point, but as Scales said it's easier said than done! Everyone has an opinion and it's only fair that each person has the right to share them, whether you agree with them or not. I respect your views, but personally I always thought the Beatles were very overrated and they really get on my nerves! If your comments mean I have to start loving the Beatles and people like Beyoncé then I will pass thank you!! Furthermore, I am a big fan of Jazz and many people hate jazz! If they want to tell me jazz sucks, that doesn't bother me! If everyone agreed on everything life would be very dull indeed! Btw, why wouldn't you put Billy Ray in the same league as the Beatles? Some people probably prefer him to the Beatles! This is my point! Each to their own Ps, as far as 'famous' bands go I always thought The Band and Led Zeppelin were far superior to the not so fab four If the Beatles could have written a song as good as The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down or Achilles Last Stand then I might agree with all the love for them, but they didn't!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 Charlie Brown, I see your point, but as Scales said it's easier said than done! Everyone has an opinion and it's only fair that each person has the right to share them, whether you agree with them or not. I respect your views, but personally I always thought the Beatles were very overrated and they really get on my nerves! If your comments mean I have to start loving the Beatles and people like Beyoncé then I will pass thank you!! Then pass. Your welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Of course you're welcome to express your opinions, I Never said you couldn't. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyMoon Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I may get harpooned for this, but Ringo was no joke! He was exactly what was needed for The Beatles 'to be'. His drumming style is/has been praised by countless technically savvy and amazing drummers. Look it up. Richard Starkey was an equal one-fourth of the greatest band of all time. OK, I'm ready to duck! I agree...he is what was best for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I may get harpooned for this, but Ringo was no joke! He was exactly what was needed for The Beatles 'to be'. His drumming style is/has been praised by countless technically savvy and amazing drummers. Look it up. Richard Starkey was an equal one-fourth of the greatest band of all time. OK, I'm ready to duck! I agree...he is what was best for them. For decades I played drums as well as guitar and sometimes bass guitar with many different drummers. My experiences say that virtuosity is one thing. Then there are matching song styles and playing together with the band. Virtuosity as such won't ever spare these abilities. Listening to drummers combining all three will enlighten this. E. g. Ian Paice, Stewart Copeland and Simon Phillips belong here in my opinion. In my guess, Ringo wouldn't be able to replace them. On the other hand, them three could well serve a Beatles cover band but also apart from age no way have replaced Ringo from the start. No one of The Beatles was exchangeable. This fact isn't diminished by the statement that it applies to virtually every artist due to personality. E. g. Paul Rodgers is a great vocalist in his own right but not a replacement for Freddie Mercury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Personally, I think the Stones were way better than the Beatles in every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Personally, I think the Stones were way better than the Beatles in every way. I'm a big Stones AND Beatles fan! I (personally) don't feel the Stones were better, just different! I enjoyed them both, from the beginning, for=because of those differences. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I'm a big Stones AND Beatles fan! I (personally) don't feel the Stones were better, just different! I enjoyed them both, from the beginning, for=because of those differences. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Personally, I think the Stones were way better than the Beatles in every way. For the only time I can remember I disagree with you, Stein. IMO the Stones never approached the same level or breadth of originality in terms of songwriting as enjoyed by the Scousers in terms of musical form; lyrical content; instrumentalisation; production levels; latterly album concept...etc..etc.... The Stones are, perhaps, peerless as a Rock'n'Roll band in their own way but The Beatles were always so much more than just another Rock'n'Roll band. But, as I say, just IMO. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 If I am able to keep a straight face, (I'm not, but I am trying): Stones- that drummer plays JAZZ, and also, he plays a blues/Jazz feel that he makes rock. Ringo can't do that. I would even argue Mr. Watts invented a style. Beatles: Gretch, Epiphone. Stones: Gibson, Tele's and Strat's, and even a Zamitus. The STONES play BLUES!! It can be said the Beatles have a lot of different styles, but I don't know that I would say they have ever done any real convincing blues. And, AND- when the Stones do it, at times has all the nuance, feeling, and articulation of the likes of Robert Johnson. That's deep, man. Heavy. Album origonality: Do the Beatles have a Zipper? Or what about one with stickers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I think it's hard to tell what one might be able to but nobody ever heard her/him play or sing. There's lots of surprise like the Miley Cyrus cover of Babe I'm Gonna Leave You - definitely awesome. It also depends on influences from other players and environment. In the past I have listened to some accidental live recordings containing myself playing drums or guitar and could have sworn it was not me due to being unable doing that. Moreover, I doubted that for some other players, too, as they did for themselves. It was about the band's composition, typically depending on just one member's charisma and way of playing enabling us doing so. Imagine that for any musician. Nobody can fulfil all the "what ifs" in one's life, but some do happen, and I am grateful for having experienced a few. In my opinion it is unfair comparing musicians by their gear. It counts what they get out of it. Flashy album designs come a lot to my mind but they don't contribute anything to music I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 In my opinion it is unfair comparing musicians by their gear. I would say I agree ....but when you have two origional tweed twins (the 4 6l6 ones, mind you) and you play an ES-355 through them, well, it just ain't fair is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I would say I agree ....but when you have two origional tweed twins (the 4 6l6 ones, mind you) and you play an ES-355 through them, well, it just ain't fair is it? As long as well deserved by the owner, it's OK for me. Fortunately, I never experienced by myself what it means missing them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 As long as well deserved by the owner, it's OK for me. Fortunately, I never experienced by myself what it means missing them... My brother, I think in one way or another, we are ALL missing them. Every distortion box, every amp with a pre-gain(distortion), all of this is to try and make the effort to recreate a little bit of heaven that happens when those old power tubes where overloaded through a transformer into speakers that could not give off those kinds of energies. It was the tweed fenders that REALLY created the tone. Have we as a human race ever re-created it? There's only like 4 or 6 or something like that of the 100 watt tweed twins even built. They are the only amps of that uotput at all, from that era. I think the only hope of ever hearing one would be to see KEEF live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.49081d75ce94077203baa1e72e58c1de.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.