|
|
Post by Insomniac on Dec 31, 2007 8:18:23 GMT -5
I'll probably get a lot of heat for this one, but I have to say it: I think the Beatles are maybe the most overrated band of all time. I personally think Pink Floyd is deserving of that title. I'll go with the Beatles myself. Never really was an Elvis fan, not in the least. |
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Dec 31, 2007 8:25:43 GMT -5
sorry, but the 'king' of music does not equate to the 'king of rock' as your 2 choices would imply, i could name ten musicians better and that had more impact on music than either of those 2 choices and back on topic, the 'better' of the 2 choices is obviously the beatles, elvis stole his whole style from arthur crudup, bo diddley and others and just happened to be around in the right place at the right time because everyone loved the music the blacks were making but didnt want to support a black guy, so elvis stole their styles and sold it as his own and cashed in Once again...if you take the argument that Elvis "stole" from black artists, you have to accept that the Beatles "stole" FROM THE VERY SAME ARTISTS. |
|
|
|
Post by rubber johnny on Dec 31, 2007 8:44:11 GMT -5
Elvis was far more talented. The Beatles were the U.K. version of *NSYNC, an over-glorified boy band with little to no true talent. At least *NSYNC has a catchy song or two, the Beatles music was boring and depressing. you've never listened to the beatles ever |
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Dec 31, 2007 8:51:50 GMT -5
Ringo is underrated as a drummer, even by George Martin. He thought his playing was crap on 'Love Me Do,' but he was actually playing on the offbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Dec 31, 2007 10:41:33 GMT -5
Ringo is underrated as a drummer, even by George Martin. He thought his playing was crap on 'Love Me Do,' but he was actually playing on the offbeat. Ringo wasn't a bad drummer, he just wasn't a flashy drummer. The drummer shouldn't be the star of the show anyways; they're there to keep the other jerks in line and give the kids a good beat to tap their toes to. At least, that's the way I was taught to drum, dammit!! Give me a Funk Brothers beat over a 20 minute arena rock jerk-off drum solo any day of the week. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Womack on Dec 31, 2007 10:53:51 GMT -5
sorry, but the 'king' of music does not equate to the 'king of rock' as your 2 choices would imply, i could name ten musicians better and that had more impact on music than either of those 2 choices and back on topic, the 'better' of the 2 choices is obviously the beatles, elvis stole his whole style from arthur crudup, bo diddley and others and just happened to be around in the right place at the right time because everyone loved the music the blacks were making but didnt want to support a black guy, so elvis stole their styles and sold it as his own and cashed in Once again...if you take the argument that Elvis "stole" from black artists, you have to accept that the Beatles "stole" FROM THE VERY SAME ARTISTS. the difference is that elvis stole particular peoples exact styles and ripped them off with the only difference being that he was white, while the beatles were in a (previously) black genre but made their own sound and style |
|
|
|
Post by The"threadicidal"bristolspapa on Dec 31, 2007 11:08:56 GMT -5
And the Beatles didn't "steal" from those very same artists? The Beatles wrote most of the best songs ever, so no. I agree with Batman. It's akin to the Madonna/RNRHOF argument from a week or so ago. Some acts are derivative from a "grandfather," but they also are responsible for shifting the curve. I think folks like the Beatles, Brian Wilson, and Stevie Wonder did enough to shift the curve on their own merits. They shouldn't be penalized simply because they came after Berry. It's like the Patriots. Can't we just admit that they're better than the Dolphins already? Sheesh! |
|
