ChanMan Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I agree. You cannot build your career doing dated sixties style covers of Aerosmith (Come Together) and Mötley Crüe (Helter Skelter). Who do they think they are? Tiffany? Ok now THAT'S funny!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredAstaire Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm sorry but their early stuff was a complete bore. The Beatles didn't get good until Rubber Soul With all due respect, not in my opinion. That would include tunes like "I Saw her Standing There", "Hard Days Night" and "Can't Buy Me Love".... some of my favorite Beatles tunes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heymisterk Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Madona will be remembered way more than Metallica. Just as Robbie Williams and shakira. I actually think Madonna is extremely talented. Some of her stuff in the late '80s (True Blue) and early 90s (Like a Prayer) is, in my opinion, great pop music. Unfortunately, her penchant for publicity overshadowed her musicality and lyric writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm sorry but their early stuff was a complete bore. The Beatles didn't get good until Rubber Soul This has been "cussed and discussed" ad nauseam, many times, before. However...first, you have to take it all, within the context, of the era. Sorry, Duane...IMHO, they were Great, even in "the early days!" If You don't like those songs, that's fine... that's your privilege. However, to ask a question...How old, were you, in 1964? Were you even born, then? If not, then looking back on it, through news articles, TV spots, or old new reels, DOESN'T even begin to tell you, the real impact, in feeling/experience, those of us, who witnessed it, experienced it, first hand, had. It gives you a visual, and a "sound" idea, of the era, but not the feeling one gets, when you experience something, that powerful, first hand. It just can't. Much like seeing war movies, and reading about combat, pales in impact, unless you've experienced it, first hand. All, that came later, was in direct response, to their "kicking down" the doors, of America's own prejudice, toward it's own (harder edged, bluesier) music. They, being White, and British, made it even more acceptable, to "White" America, and therefor, to a much large buying audience. The early stuff, was geared toward 12-14 year olds. Especially girls! That was the "Pop Market," back then. Most of the guys, liked their "harder" edged stuff...the real "rockers," of the period... "I Saw Her Standing There," "Boys," "Don't Bother Me," "All My Loving'," "Twist and Shout," "Slow Down," etc., several of which WERE covers. But, like any good artist(s), they made them their own... maybe especially "Twist and Shout," and "Slow Down" (2 of my favorite covers, of that period, in their early career.). But, every album, really, progressed...sometimes amazingly so. Macca has stated, many times, that they never wanted to make "the same records, over and over" (AKA... different songs, but the same basic sound) as too many vocal groups, of the period, seemed prone to do, either by design, or having no real choice, in the matter. They wanted to do "something new," all the time. And, they accomplished that, and much more...way more often, than not. Still, one likes what he/she likes, regardless, I suppose. It's just that for their fans, all over the world, the "early stuff," was "The Beatles!" The later Beatles, became even more amazing, as they progressed, and grew up, with us. They were, and will always be, a phenomenon. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Metallica is not an icon of a generation - every child of the generation does not know any of their songs by heart. Unless the music industry reverses itself, I don't think there will ever be anything like The Beatles or Elvis or Sinatra again. I'd agree less one little bit here. How would anyone know Metallica's songs or be able to sing along with them? Don't they just get made up as they play notes? Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaysEpiphone Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Depends on who you ask, we all have memory's. Some more selective than others, I like both band's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 We are all very lucky, as the internet means most things will be searchable... i.e in years to come, there will be records of even the most obscure bands; let alone bands like Metallica, who are giants in the world of metal! Besides I think it is just healthy to love and enjoy the music you love and not care how many sales it achieves, who rates it, or whether it will one day achieve posterity Live in the now, enjoy what you have and be happy! :) Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 We are all very lucky, as the internet means most things will be searchable... i.e in years to come, there will be records of even the most obscure bands; let alone bands like Metallica, who are giants in the world of metal! Besides I think it is just healthy to love and enjoy the music you love and not care how many sales it achieves, who rates it, or whether it will one day achieve posterity Live in the now, enjoy what you have and be happy! :) Matt what this young lad said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 young ha ha! A cheeky newspaper mentioning a gig said "young - ish guitarists Matthew Sear..." I thought what!!! Young - 'ish'... 'ish' Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzoboy Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yada yada yada-great,articulate response.I wasn't talking about liking or liking or disliking a group and I made that crystal clear we are all free to make our own choices.What I was talking about is that nobody can really dismiss their music as being bad or junk when the most knowledgeable and respected people in the world of music fully endorse them as being brilliant songwriters plus their countless awards from the music community confirm that they are a great musical entity.Anyone can say that Beatles music isn't up their alley and nobody can fault them for that but nobody can make a blanket statement that their music is garbage especially if they have nothing concrete to back it up.For anyone to say that the Beatles are terrible or under par songwriters and composers thus going against the thinking of the worlds most brilliant musical minds is basically saying that you are more knowledgeable about music than they are,well then good for you,I can't wait to hear your next symphonic treasure.I've made my point again for anyone with poor comprehension, and won't belabour it any more,I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaysEpiphone Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yada yada yada-great,articulate response.I wasn't talking about liking or liking or disliking a group and I made that crystal clear we are all free to make our own choices.What I was talking about is that nobody can really dismiss their music as being bad or junk when the most knowledgeable and respected people in the world of music fully endorse them as being brilliant songwriters plus their countless awards from the music community confirm that they are a great musical entity.Anyone can say that Beatles music isn't up their alley and nobody can fault them for that but nobody can make a blanket statement that their music is garbage especially if they have nothing concrete to back it up.For anyone to say that the Beatles are terrible or under par songwriters and composers thus going against the thinking of the worlds most brilliant musical minds is basically saying that you are more knowledgeable about music than they are,well then good for you,I can't wait to hear your next symphonic treasure.I've made my point again for anyone with poor comprehension, and won't belabour it any more,I'm done. OK, call Sony Music and ask them how much it will cost to secure synchronization right's for any Lennon/McCartney toon, and before you do..... sit-down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredAstaire Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 ...and you thought Buckethead fans were sensitive!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruznolfart Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 ...and you thought Buckethead fans were sensitive!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The Beatles entire body of work spanned only 7 years. That's kind of staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 ...and you thought Buckethead fans were sensitive!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57classic Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 This has been "cussed and discussed" ad nauseam, many times, before. However...first, you have to take it all, within the context, of the era. Sorry, Duane...IMHO, they were Great, even in "the early days!" If You don't like those songs, that's fine... that's your privilege. However, to ask a question...How old, were you, in 1964? Were you even born, then? If not, then looking back on it, through news articles, TV spots, or old new reels, DOESN'T even begin to tell you, the real impact, in feeling/experience, those of us, who witnessed it, experienced it, first hand, had. It gives you a visual, and a "sound" idea, of the era, but not the feeling one gets, when you experience something, that powerful, first hand. It just can't. Much like seeing war movies, and reading about combat, pales in impact, unless you've experienced it, first hand. All, that came later, was in direct response, to their "kicking down" the doors, of America's own prejudice, toward it's own (harder edged, bluesier) music. They, being White, and British, made it even more acceptable, to "White" America, and therefor, to a much large buying audience. The early stuff, was geared toward 12-14 year olds. Especially girls! That was the "Pop Market," back then. Most of the guys, liked their "harder" edged stuff...the real "rockers," of the period... "I Saw Her Standing There," "Boys," "Don't Bother Me," "All My Loving'," "Twist and Shout," "Slow Down," etc., several of which WERE covers. But, like any good artist(s), they made them their own... maybe especially "Twist and Shout," and "Slow Down" (2 of my favorite covers, of that period, in their early career.). But, every album, really, progressed...sometimes amazingly so. Macca has stated, many times, that they never wanted to make "the same records, over and over" (AKA... different songs, but the same basic sound) as too many vocal groups, of the period, seemed prone to do, either by design, or having no real choice, in the matter. They wanted to do "something new," all the time. And, they accomplished that, and much more...way more often, than not. Still, one likes what he/she likes, regardless, I suppose. It's just that for their fans, all over the world, the "early stuff," was "The Beatles!" The later Beatles, became even more amazing, as they progressed, and grew up, with us. They were, and will always be, a phenomenon. CB Though this is what I was thinking, CB put it more eloquently than I would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57classic Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The Beatles entire body of work spanned only 7 years. That's kind of staggering. Exactly, and what a catalog it is!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm sorry but their early stuff was a complete bore. The Beatles didn't get good until Rubber Soul Haha and that was released in 65. Their second year as a hit act in the states. Keep trying though this is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Well it only took em 6 studio albums to get it right ..... The previous five are a snooze fest for the most part..... I cant remember the last time I listen to a beatles album before rubber soul. ...... I think it was the album with I need you by George. Whatever the case, I like what I like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teer Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 No matter what anybody says about The Beatles, the boys had excellent vocals/harmonies! (even in their early years Duane) Can someone post a link to a Metallica song with great vocals/harmonies? I'd give it a listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Well it only took em 6 studio albums to get it right ..... The previous five are a snooze fest for the most part..... I cant remember the last time I listen to a beatles album before rubber soul. ...... I think it was the album with I need you by George. Whatever the case, I like what I like LOL CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Natural Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 ...and you thought Buckethead fans were sensitive!!!! Hey! Let's not get too personal, now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 No matter what anybody says about The Beatles, the boys had excellent vocals/harmonies! (even in their early years Duane) Can someone post a link to a Metallica song with great vocals/harmonies? I'd give it a listen. I agree, I love 99% of the Beatles stuff, when I was young I preferred the early stuff actually. I am also a huge Metallica fan, and they do not need great vocals or harmonies, they're not that kind of band. This thread is the silliest thing that has come through since Nathan got the banning hammer, These two bands are not in the same league, genre or level and yet here we all are with our panties in a bunch trying to justify why one is great or the other one sucks. Stupidiest thing ever. The Beatles were together for 10 years, stopped touring completely and devoted themselves 100% to writing recording. Metallica has been around for 3 full decades with intense touring, they've been on the road since 2008 with Death Magnetic just as an example. This is just an example to show how different bands they are even if you left their music genre aside. Picture this: 1- if Metallica broke up after 10 years and right before Thrash Metal became non-mainstream 2 - if the Beatles stayed together for 30 years and never stopped touring... Frankly I don't even want to know how the Beatles would have faired in the 70's, they performed the greatest act of showmanship in the history of music and quit while they were on the top...and 30 years later they are still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredAstaire Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Don't you guys know a troll thread when you see one? :) You guys complain about trolls all the time, but I think you really love them. They get conversations started around here....98 replies!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.