« Previous BILL AND TED | JUST REMEMBER Next »
TALENTED
The reason people say vinyl sounds better is because the music was better.
They also didn’t have major B.O.
(Paul McCartney)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: SteamingPile
 | Jambon-X on Damn, That’s Sick B… |
 | Vikavid on SO HARDCORE! |
 | minarri on How People Deal With A Cr… |
 | plasticfroggy on Sounds Like A Blast! |
| Vikavid on No Honour Among Divas |
| Vikavid on No Honour Among Divas |
| Vikavid on LOL Internet! Y U Mad Tho… |
 | Lynda B on Katy Perry Is Kind Of Terrifyi… |
 | Chris on Jurassic Park Theme Song, Melo… |
 | der Cili on Amiright?!?!?! |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Not really…The drugs only made them seem to be decent.
LIES!!!! They never took drugs. LOL
The people who listened took the drugs!
So explain to me why I think they’re the best and I’m not a drugged out old hippie. I’m a clean 27 year old.
Sorry to break it to you, but the music was actually music and the performers, for the most part, were actually the ones writing their music, unlike bands today who have people write songs for them.
unfortunately they weren’t too great at song writing. ‘she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah..’ yeah… masterpiece, apparently. oh dear. but i can’t help noticing so many people love them, mearly by suggestion. think i’m wrong? i liked them. then i heard them. okay music, perhaps (though some of their songs manage to get through on only 3 chords which no, does not make them great) but poets they ain’t, let’s be honest. now paul simon… that’s talent. the guy wrote many masterpieces (poetically and musically, and like them or not, they are truly brilliant) alone, whilst i’m not aware of one truely brilliant song that four beatles together managed to come up with. and no, ‘Lucy in the sky with diamonds’ repeated fifty times does not count. they come up with one good line…
Maybe you should actually listen to the rest of the song…not just the chorus.
As fledgling writers of early rock tunes they certainly were catchy tunes… if not lyrically challenging. Getting an earworm or two at the start of your career is a bit of a necessity- entire albums of earworms are rare… but they managed it. Happy birthday isn’t exactly a lyric masterpiece but everyone sings it
And yet, in a NY Times Magazine interview in 1968, Simon said: “The lyrics of pop songs are so banal that if you show a spark of intelligence, they call you a poet. But the people who call you a poet are people who never read poetry. Like poetry was something defined by Bob Dylan. They never read, say, Wallace Stevens. That’s poetry.” He also added that he did not consider himself, Dylan, or the Beatles real musicians because real musicians must be virtuosos on their instruments. However, Leonard Bernstein dug the Beatles.
Norwegian Wood
actually Paul rarely took LSD…
john thats a DIFFERENT story
Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Help, Yesterday, Norwegian Wood, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Penny Lane, HelloGoodbye, Hey Jude, Let it Be, She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, A Day in the Life (!!!?!?!?!?! Lyrically amazing song), Rain, Within You Without You, Something, Baby You’re a Rich Man…the list goes on
Not to mention that Within You Without You and Tomorrow Never Knows were the precursors to modern techno music. And Helter Skelter is widely recognized as the beginnings of hard rock.
i can’t help but question the argument given by someone who can’t spell a simple word. “mearly” isn’t a word. but anyway, musicians today all write about depression, how life sucks; they’ve lost the true meaning of music. hell, music was on a downward spiral since the 60′s, and it just flat out DIED in the 90′s. and yes, there are bands out there today who still know what real music is. but a majority of them are bands that began in the 80′s, when music still had some decency. every now and then, you’ll find a band that is in the music industry because they genuinely love music. but, they’ll soon sell out, and they’ll stay in music because they’re famous and they want more money. so to say that the Beatles aren’t good poets is wrong. you think poetry has to be ‘roses are red…’ kinda crap? no, poetry is FEELING. and that’s what the Beatles had.
Music didn’t die in the 80′s. American radio died in the 80′s. That’s not the same thing. There are great bands making great music on every continent, but you will never hear them on US radio. Midnight Juggernaut, Mackintosh Braun, Home video…the list is endless. The American public has been sold a bill of goods by the media here in the US. I’m sure I don’t know why we buy it.
umm if your going to pick on their lyrics, remember this.
The beatles started in the early sixties, music was alot different. so you can’t really compair it to the music now a days. and they were awesome for their time. Im a huge fan(and not by suggestion), i like them for their music, they were awesome musicians.
And they had bigger hits the paul simon.
I can’t help but doubt that you’ve heard anything but those two songs if you don’t think they’re fantastic songwriters. Have a listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, and White Album.
let it be, imagine (thats just john), across the universe and its better then “put up rude boy is u big enough”
I agree that Paul Simon wrote some beautiful pieces of music, I love simon and garfunkel and Paul Simon on his own too but I have to disagree with your bit about the Beatles. I think that yes, when they were a younger and less tight band their music and lyrics were elementary and nothing special eg she loves you but as they grew they did develop lyrically and musically. But the main appeal and talent of the beatles was the symbol they were back in their time. People worshipped them because they could write music that teenagers could dance to and feel rebellious listening to and that were catchy so that the adults of the time enjoyed it too. As for them being poets, I don’t think that they are any less poetic than Paul Simon in some of their songs. As for chords, I’m looking at the music for Homeward Bound right now and there are only six very basic chords used throughout the whole song and repetitiv lyrics, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a really enjoyable and great song.
I *am* a stoned out young hippie, and I agree — the Beatles (and others like them) sounded better because they *were* better musicians.
THANK YOU!! im 12 and ik that the beatles are better than the crap that everyone else my age and apparently sir henry listens to! =]
Strongly agree, age 30 (not old yet;)
Then explain Revolution 9, Magical Mystery Tour, the whole second half of Abbey Road, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Yellow Submarine, Day Tripper, and their confessions.
This reply was supposed to go to an earlier comment. I actually completely agree with you.
Nevermind. I was looking at the wrong thing disregard that last comment.
the beatles took a lot of drugs… u can probably look it up on youtube lol… i think ill do that
ya they did, multipul like lsd, pot, marajauna, and more
I don’t know if you could really call Paul McCartney ‘talented’. Lennon, yes, Harrison, yes, Ringo… eh. But McCartney, nah.
Seriously. Paul McCartney is horribly overrated, all he ever wrote were cheesy pop tunes, and his voice wasn’t anything to write home about. Where’s the love for George, eh?
While I’d rather see Lennon up there, McCartney was a fairly good composer, and an excellent bass player.
Not to mention George was just plain hot.:)
Amen!
While George is my favorite Beatle and yes, McCartney by himself isn’t THAT phenomenal, you can’t deny the sheer awesomeness in Lennon-McCartney writings.
They were very awesome, but then again, so was John Lennon’s first solo album. And Paul’s was not.
I liked Maybe I’m Amazed, and he had a few other good songs, but you’re right. Paul’s solo career really wasn’t all that great. BUT I do think he had a great voice. As he got older, it went away fast, but he was a really good singer when with The Beatles.
i love george!
taxman, here comes the sun, love you to, i need you, blue jay way, etc
genious songs!
paul:helter skelter, golden slumbers, hey jude
john: i am the walrus, girl, julia
ringo:…he wrote like one song, which wasn’t that good
i actually liked both of ringo’s songs. they werent very good, iagree, but they were cute, u have to admit, octopus’s garden was my favorite song when i was little, and im 14 and still love them… lol “id like to be under the sea in an octopus’s garden in the shade”:)
I agree. His stuff with Wings was crap. I was actually never a Beatles fan, but still. I liked all the others on solo projects. (Even Ringo in Caveman, lol) But McCartney? Nope.
McCartney crap? Look to the ’80′s! Especially the cheesy collaborations with Michael Jackson!
Ebony and Ivory is easily the worst song ever written.
Yeah. it was. But I still love Paul McCartney.
You guys are delusional…Paul’s solo stuff was consistently better than anything any of the others did alone. Not to mention he’s still putting out great stuff today.
Lennon put out GREAT stuff! I bet he still would be, if he were still around!
ur a doosh hombretubes. anyone else on this page who says paul mccartney isn’t talented (ha!) and didn’t have anything less than an amazing voice, is also a doosh. go crawl somewhere and never come out because you don’t know jack shyte and humankind doesn’t need your sorry ass.
Yet here we see Paul, who also played Bass, playing a six string guitar. A standard “right-handed” guitar, which you would normally chord with your left hand-and he’s chording right-handed. (Note the position of the pick guard). there is some talent involved there. and he does keyboards too…oh and was writer or co-writer of numerous million selling tunes…so how do you define talent then if that is not taken into account?
Paul was cute, could play the bass well, and had a soothing voice….that’s really all I think of him.
John was the talented one.
While George Harrison and John Lennon are without a doubt my favorite Beatles, it always makes me sad when I hear people talk down about Paul McCartney. He wrote some amazing songs with and without Lennon. He’s at writing great pop songs… and that isn’t a bad thing.
^…. That should say “He’s great at writing great pop songs”. The fingers were quicker than the eyes.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean Paul isn’t better with the right collaborator than by himself.
OTOH I think John’s best work came after the Beetles split.
What the F***!!!!! Paul is the best out of any of The Beatles!! He is definitely talented! What the f*** is your problem?!?! He is so talented!!!!!
then y does he have THE most covered song ever??
you may be the dumbest person ever if you dont think paul was talented, you cant say paul couldnt write songs by himself because it is well known that even if it says the writer of the song was lennon-mccartney, usually the singer of the song did almost all of the writing and i think if you break it down paul wrote better music than john, paul is one of the best bass players ever, try to replicate the bass on hey bulldog, its impossible, he also played a 6 string, was incredible on piano and even played drums on the recording of a few songs including bungalow bill, he could play every instrument and is still touring today selling out stadiums of 50,000 people, eveyr member of the beatles was talented, or else they wouldnt be the greatest band of all time, and we all know that paul is much more talented than you could ever imagine being, just look where you are and then where he is
THANK YOU. I agree.
Name five albums that came out in the last ten years that didn’t suck. It’s not possible.
only 10? bjeeezuz I could name 10 non suck albums just from last year…
If you’re only hearing suck you gotta put your fingers on that radio dial and change the station
Let me start off by saying: I’m not looking to be a troll or flame anyone, so please take my next words seriously.
I would honestly like you to tell me the names of these ten albums.
OK so I in my dyslectic way thought you said 10 albums in 5 years .. I was out a bit but I’ll stand by my words
OK let me fire up my iPod….. hmmm OK albums lacking suckage (IMHO) in the last 12 months
Mountain Battles – The Breeders
In The Future – Black Mountain
Is It The Sea? – Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy
Just Like Kicking Jesus – BTM (OK that’s an EP but it does have the aptly titled “Bring Me The Head Of Paul McCartney On Heather Mills’ Wooden Peg” track on it)
Succumb- David Birdie
Dream Delay – David Garza
Who Killed Amanda Palmer – Amanda Palmer
Neptune – Duke Spirit
Me and Armini – Emiliana Torrini
Fleet Foxes – Fleet Foxes (for all the hype still a stunning album)
Ladyhawke – Ladyhawke
oh noez that’s 11 all lean, mean and suck free albums (OK OK 10 albums and 1 EP) released in the last 12 months and I’ve only got to “L” in the iPod… …
HELLS YES, Amanda Palmer.
Kudos for having 10% good taste.
1. Jonny Lang – Long Time Coming (2003)
2. Bon Jovi – Lost Highway (2007)
3. Bruce Springsteen – Magic (2007)
4. Seven Nations – Thanks for Waiting… (2005)
5. Gaelic Storm – Bring Your Wellies. (2006)
I could go on…
Uhmmm none of these are from ‘last year’
never mind… CORRECTION: you are replying to the 5 albums in 10 years… not the 10 albums in the last year. sorry… (btw I have only ever heard of Bruce and BonJovi… who are these other three?)
Jonny Lang is a blues/rock guitarist from North Dakota. Most notably, he released the multi-platinum and critically acclaimed album Lie to Me when he was 15.
Seven Nations is a celtic rock band that has been around for the past decade or so. If you search their songs “up to me” and “mama” (actually called one foot) on YouTube, you’ll get an idea of who they are.
Gaelic Storm is a celtic folk band from New York. Most people remember them as the celtic band in Titanic, which is where they got their start.
Ya’ll do yourselves a favor and go get some King’s X.
Jonny Lang?? You’re comparing him to McCartney.
Sheesh. Get some depth.
In 45 years, I can pretty much guarantee that people won’t be talking about Mr. Land, not that I have anything against him.
Check with me in 45 years, and I’ll be you they’ll be talking about McCartney, still.
Was everything Paul did great? No. But dig this: Trendsetter, amazing songwriter, performer, producer, multi-instrumentalist, and awesome vocalist.
Did I mention “trendsetter”? Think about that.
I’m not comparing. He asked for bands in the last decade that don’t suck.
Checked out the three that you mentioned.
I watched a video for Jonny Lang’s Lie To Me and it is a standard blues riff with some nice Jimi-ish bits. The video reminded me of the video for “Roll With It” by Steve Winwood only no sexy dancing. He vomits his words like Mick and has a haircut straight out of Nelson. Otherwise, I liked it.
I liked Seven Nations it looked a bit like Tommy Shaw with a violin and bagpipes. back up- fun.
Gaelic Storm (I saw the Titanic video) looks like something I could see at any of the local pubs tomorrow night. Not to say I don’t like the music- very fun.
The Beatles still kick all their a$$es, though.
Good stuff though.
Yeah, Jonny’s haircut was a bit distracting in that video…he keeps it short now; probably for the best. That was actually one of my less favorite songs on the album, despite being the biggest hit. He’s evolved over time some too…the only song on YouTube (of decent quality) off the album I mentioned is “Give me up again” Not my favorite, but it’s pretty good. Shows how he’s grown too.
Gaelic Storm and Seven Nations are probably the biggest names currently in the Celtic circles at the moment (Not that there’s that big of a circle
), and both are fun to see live if you get the chance; Gaelic Storm’s definitely got that laid back “I’m here to have fun” pub attitude. If you get the chance, try and find their song “Johnny Tarr” and some of the different openings they do for it.
If you can think of anything, I’m always open for suggestions on music. Expand one’s bounds and all.
I am afraid I am not a good source of new music these days.
sorry
Well, here’s some that I have loved:
Kings of Convenience – Riot on an Empty Street
)
Johnny Cash – American IV: The Man Comes Around
Gorillaz – Demon Days
Daft Punk – Discovery
Bat for Lashes – Fur and Gold
Doves – Some Cities
Amy Winehouse – Back to Black (ignore the fact that she’s messed up, this is some beautiful music, with production like the good old days
Foals – Antidotes
Red Hot Chili Peppers – By the Way
Rodrigo y Gabriela – Re-Foc
I could have filled this list with a lot more albums that I loved, but I recognise that they are probably not masterpieces (things like Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Maximo Park), but I have totally loved.
I feel sad for you that you haven’t taken the time to seek out any of the great music that has been available in the last 10 years. I love the classics, but it’s important to recognise that music moves on, changes with time, and is constantly evolving, and joy and wonder can be discovered from any period of time. Old isn’t necessarily good, and new isn’t necessarily bad. Even my dad, with his prog rock ways, keeps up with new music and is constantly recommending new artists for me to try as well as lending me his classics.
Oh, and personally I’m more of a Rolling Stones fan. Beatles had some good songs, but too sweet and cutesy for some of it, the Stones had the edge
Just STFU and listen to The Killers and REM KTHXBAI. You FAILer.
“Name five albums that came out in the last ten years that didn’t suck. It’s not possible.”
I can name that and more. Easily!
Sunshine Lies – Matthew Sweet
In Your Honor – Foo Fighters
Rainy Day Music – The Jayhawks
Highway Companion – Tom Petty
Brainwashed – George Harrison
Reality – David Bowie
The Wind – Warren Zevon
Gift of Screws – Lindsey Buckingham
Limits of The Sky – The Bridges
Mudcrutch – Mudcrutch
The Thorns – The Thorns
Hard Candy – Counting Crows
My Ride’s Here – Warren Zevon
Free Expression – The Velvet Crush
In Reverse – Matthew Sweet
Echoes, Silence, Patience, and Grace – Foo Fighters
The Last DJ – Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
On An Island – David Gilmour
Zoom – Electric Light Orchestra
Volume One – She & Him
I could keep going, but I won’t!
I agree. One day I will be a stubborn old lady shaking my fist and saying, “Darn kids and their music!”
I’m twenty three and already am doing that.
I’m twenty one and also doing the same.
19. but then again, i grew up on Kool 94.5, Oldies in Phoenix, Arizona. I think i’d like The Beatles and everyone else regardless of listening to Kool tho.
Ha. I’m 13 and I do that. I adore The Beatles.
I see Diesel Sweeties’ “Indi Rock Pete” is now making macro pictures.
yup, big talent to come with
“She love you, yeah yeah yeah”
“She love you, yeah yeah yeah”
“She love you, yeah yeah yeah yeeeah”
You’ve got a point there. The melody was good, but the lyrics left something to be desired.
Quote fail. “She loveS you.” they had decent grammer back then in comparison to what is out there now.
You forgot about the lyrical genius that was “I wanna hold your haaaaaand”
The Rolling Stones had better songs and were MUCH better performers.
The Beatles in 1964 = the Jonas Brothers in 2009. F’reals.
You’re comparing the BEATLES with the JONAS BROTHERS???
No way. No effing way.
The only thing slightly comparable to the Jonas Brothers from the 60s is probably the Monkees, but even they were MUCH better than the Jonas Bros are. Jonas Brothers 2009=Disney Channel crap
There is no real resemblance between the Monkees and the Jonas Bros. The Monkees were a totally manufactured band with talent; the Jonas Bros are brothers with neither talent nor brains.
You also forgot the lyrical genius that was Across the Universe, Strawberry Fields Forever, I Am the Walrus, Within You Without You, I Me Mine, Dig a Pony, and honestly I could go on for a while. She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand weren’t the more lyrically mind-blowing songs, but not * every * single song they put out had to be amazing. No band is like that.
Nice try, though. A for effort.
u DONT compare the beatles to the jonASS brothers theres no effing possible way
“The Rolling Stones had better songs and were MUCH better performers.”
Hmm. I don’t recall The Rolling Stones writing a song for The Beatles.
(I.E. “I Wanna Be Your Man” was written by Lennon/Macca and given to the Stones.)
I… like the Stones, just not as much as The Beatles. (Or Queen. But Queen doesn’t belong in this duscussion. Because you can’t compare Queen to anyone. <3)
The Beatles were the over-marketed boy band of their day.
Thank goodness for the Jonas Broth…..
::BARF!!!::
What’s Scouse?
Someone from Liverpool, wouldnt go as far as calling ‘em scouse bastards though….
yeah… um… they actually wrote music, played their own instruments and sang their songs… which puts them leaps and bounds above any ‘boyband’- which, by definition does none of the above.
Nah see, they say it sounds better because Baby Boomers are self-obsessed narcissists who think that anything that happened during their lifetime is the pinnacle of human achievement, merely for the fact that they were there to witness it rather than it having any true value.
While the Beatles didn’t invent rock and roll, it was they, along with people like Elvis Presley, who brought it to the attention of the mass market. Chuck Berry, Big Joe Turner, the Marvelettes, etc., were the Beatles’ inspiration, but their blackness deterred record sales to the white market. The Beatles, though their hair was “long,” had good publicists who made them look cute and harmless. No, their early songs aren’t particularly complicated, but people seem to forget that this was the early 1960s, and rock and roll as we know it today didn’t exist yet. If not for Chuck Berry, the Beatles, etc., the rock and roll in the 1960s, 1970s, etc., wouldn’t have progressed the way it did.
How can you say it has no true value? Just because you don’t appreciate it doesn’t mean it lacks value. You don’t have to like the Beatles, but you should understand that they were important, at least culturally.
I’ll eat my shorts if you can name 5 musicians or bands that have appeared in the 2000s and won’t be forgotten in less than 20 years.
HEAR HEAR!!!
Well, your challenge is kind of impossible. There were artists that were very prolific in the 60s that no one gives a crap about now, and I’ll bet at the time everyone thought they were significant and important.
I can only think of 2 currently that may be remembered. Coldplay (which I know isn’t to everyone’s taste, but they are kind of huge) and Amy Winehouse (currently destined to be tragic heroine, but I think her music will last, and I’m not even that big a fan).
I agree with that fully. Not because the music *wasn’t* good (though a LOT of it wasn’t…the Beatles were good though), but because they think that nothing has ever been good since. Thinking that only your generation has talent, now THAT is narcissism.
They might be less inclined to think the music was better if a good chunk of the younger generation didn’t agree with them. I know that a good chunk of the music/bands my friends and I listen to have been around 20 years or so.
This might have been a bit more convincing had the loler not used the man who plagued the world with Wings.
*shiver*
Paul McCarntney and Wings… Now I won’t sleep for days.
Howabout changing your name to Capt Oblivious?
Aw, but Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five is a great song
Perhaps, but it’s trumped by the lyrical catastrophe that is “Live and Let Die” and the completely unlistenable trainwreck “Band on the Run.”
SUB-QUESTION (er, comment): is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins… is it better to burn out or fade awaaay?
haha, but Stevie gave us so much, that case is quite unfair
Music fan catfight in 3…2…oh, wait! It already happened
I like Sarah McLaughlin, Bryan Adams and Habib Koite (an African traditional-music artist) but I hope I’m not, twenty years from now, on whatever technology exists, writing “Bryan Adams had talent, __________ can’t compare…you don’t know it.”
“They called me the fifth Beatle,”–Apu, ‘The Simpsons’
(“sure we did, Apu…”)
Beach Boys > Beatles.
That is all.
BLASPHEMY!!!
Rock and Roll has been going downhill since Buddy Holly died.
Duh, that’s why they called it “THE DAY THAT MUSIC DIED”.
That is such a load of crap.
Some things have stood the test of time and are still enjoyable. I’m a 20-something and I love The Beatles. Sure there is newer music I also like, but any more the market is so saturated with any one who can pay have their voice digitaly scrubed… any more you realy have to dig for something deacent to listed to.
I’m twenty, and I don’t like the Beatles. Thats not every twenty-year-old’s opinion, it’s just mine. There are some music I love that many ppl would think its a load of crap. To each their own.
Hmmm.
Im not trying to bash on you Brittani,
But HOW can you be into MUSIC and NOT like the Beatles.
that my opinin
*Opinion
This makes me happy, although I think you would’ve been better off if it was a picture of all of the Beatles so that you could at least avoid the “Paul is a no-talent HACK!!!” that comes from militant John/George/Ringo fans.
I saw something on YouTube that had Linkin Park, Jay-Z, and Paul McCartney doing a song together, and someone had commented that Jay-Z was the only one with any talent. I laughed for about ten minutes. I don’t think “talent” means what they think it means.
I LOVE Paul McCartney! I am 21. I agree that music had more integrity in the 60s, but there was also so much going on during that time to give them inspiration. That said, it’s no excuse for my EVER having to hear Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers singing. You want to talk about REALLY subpar singing? Talk to them. And listen to Paul McCartney sing “Helter Skelter”. Tell me he is not great, or show me you can do better.
This.
I love the old stuff Beatles,Doors CCR and I also love some of the newer stuff-but I will never understand country music-icky!!!
totally concur.
You need to get some Johnny Cash in your life. I felt exactly the same until I heard the American Recordings and his best of.
What you don’t think “Ridin’ Dirty” or “Chain Hang Low” have lasting potential?
See the thing is, I don’t think this was just about the Beatles like everyone is saying. It’s the music of the era. I am 23 and if I had to listen to one decade of music for the rest of my life It would be either the 50′s or 60′s. Sure, great music is still being made today, but very little with the lasting power of the oldies. Seriously, multiple generations can turn on the oldies and enjoy. Can you do that with today’s music? The 90′s? The 80′s? Not very often. And a lot of today’s songs are covers of other people’s because those songs were just classic, and the writers had talent. Not this BS banging hoes, random means nothing crap we are fed on the radio today.
This is why you need to stop listening to the radio and pick up a website like Pandora, so you can find music on your own without having to be led by corporate BS. That’s not to say it won’t be without a bit of corporate BS, but systems like Pandora base their searches on how the music sounds, not what record label promotes them.
Pandora FTW
W00T Let’s hear it for Pandora!!!
*chants loudly* Pandora! Pandora!
I prefer my music from the ’70′s and ’80′s, that was the time when the best heavy metal was made (with a few notable exceptions in the ’90′s and today).
Metal!! Yeah!!!!
I prefer to listen to music in black and white too.
Awesome.:)
I figured you’d only heard of those two. Jonny Lang is a blues/rock guitarist out of North Dakota. His album Lie to Me (1997) went multi-platinum…he was 15.
Seven Nations is a Celtic-Rock band from the US. They’ve been around for the past decade or so. If you search “up to me” and “mama” (actually called one foot) along with their name on YouTube, you’ll find a couple of their songs.
Gaelic Storm is an celtic folk band out of New York. Everyone knows them as the celtic band from Titanic, which is the role that made them popular.
Wait…why did this go here??? Dang server timeout
Nevermind this…reposted in the right area.
‘sokay, I found it. That sort of crap happens to me all the time…I am certain there are several postings of mine that are just floating around and landing where ever…
ah. I will see if i can listen to it when I am off of work… for some reason these silly people want me to get something done… tch..
SO true!
There’s a lot that can touch the Beatles…I’d say there’s a lot that surpasses them. There were dozens of bands similar to them at the time (my personal favorite being Herman’s Hermits). Also to say that music has been on the downfall since them is absolutely ludicrous. Most of their music doesn’t take that much talent to play, and lyric writing has evolved. Genesis, Aerosmith, Styx, and many others are empirically better than the Beatles were. The problem is personal taste doesn’t take that into account.
IMO, the Beatles, while a good, semi-revolutionary band at their time, are horribly over-rated now; and this is only perpetuated by elitists who either grew up with the music or want to look sophisticated. I do like Harrison, and figure he would have done much better with other artists (see: Eric Clapton).
In short, yes they were a good band. Half of them are dead, get over it.
Herman’s Hermit’s never successfully evolved past ‘enery the eighth I am. The Beatles were in front and leading the way.Their real competition was The Beach Boys (even though the Stones were the public ‘competition’). Considering Clapton took Harrison’s wife, I am amazed that they get along as well as they did.
Paul, John, George, and Ringo all brought something to the table to combine to become the Beatles. Paul brought the lyrical ‘love-songs’ (and face it, most bands need at least ONE of those to ‘get the girls’), Harrison brought his clear tones and catchy solos and ‘mystic’ quietness, John brought the edge/politics, and Ringo held them steady in the back with a well defined and consistant beat. The perfect storm for the time when the post war boomers were looking for new and different things. They evolved with the times and their generation, they delved into new sounds and rhythms with the emergence of new technology in the recording studios. They literally changed music as we all know it. Many have come since, I am not saying they are better or worse, just different… but all have been influenced by the Beatles. (Phil Collins was actually an extra in A Hard Day’s Night, Aerosmith (my fav. american band) was the only band involved in that “SGT PEPPER” movie that actually came out with a better career. And Styx… yeah- If Dennis DeYoung didn’t want to be Paul while singing ‘Lady’, I would be much surprised)
They are standing on the backs of giants.
Herman’s Hermits are most well-known Henry the Eighth, but they had much better songs than it; Can’t you hear my heartbeat, I’m into something good, and Mrs. Brown You’ve got a lovely daughter are some examples. I mentioned them mostly because they were essentially the same style as the Beatles (and the Animals, and Beach Boys, and the Turtles, and the Clovers,…) at the time the Beatles marketing department brought them to the top.
If you want to mention That those bands were influenced/their careers were helped by the Beatles, which makes the Beatles so great, I’d say you should rate Chuck Berry, Chubby Checker, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Holly, and the countless others that pioneered blues and rock are higher than the Beatles, as they were who the Beatles, Stones, and the other bands of the British Invasion studied and were influenced by.
I understand the contributions the Beatles made, and that they were one of the leading faces that changed the face of Rock ‘n’ Roll to what we know it as today. I never said they were a bad band, or we should forget them. I just don’t understand the people who say they were the best band to ever grace the earth.
HH’s songs (although, yes those were better than Henry the 8th, lyrically, they were still musically extremely similar- although i love them all for their fun and catchy-ness) they didn’t evolve or really grow as the Beatles did. They were the same style as the Beatles for what the Beatles were in 1964 and maybe a little of 65. Oh I whole heartedly admit that the above-mentioned blues/rockers were a HUGE influence (everyone has to be influenced by something), and we are essentially agreeing about the roll they played. I just think that being the first to shove it into the light of day and onto the radio at large makes them pretty important and fabulous… and well… great!
Alright, so we’re really not in any disagreement unless you want to change your earlier stance to “TEH BEATLES ARE TEH ROXXORS AND OTHR BANDS SUX !!!1!one!!”
Well, I liked and concurred with everything he said. I am a bit doubtful if there are any bands coming out these last few years that will be considered as influential. The bands that were named 2 of them had already been around for at least 20+ years- the other three, have not had anywhere NEAR the impact that the Beatles had.
Nah, there’s not going to be anyone considered that influential. There’d need to be a new (talented) genre to pop it’s head out for anyone to be considered that influential. That’s why they’re still mentioned, they were one of the biggest names to shape rock into what it is. It really doesn’t come down to talent or how good they were, but when they got in the game.
As I’ve said a couple other times in this, they’re a good band. I have nothing against them, but I also don’t listen to their music because I’ve found things I prefer over them.
My only problem with some Beatles fans (and fans of early rock in general) is the opinion that I started replying this chain to — that x band is the greatest, and even though technique has been refined, re-explored, and built upon, everything that came after them is utter crap.
Alright, so the current pop bands are popular for the only reason that the Beatles made it on top; marketing. But to be so ignorant to assume that there is no good music coming out, or to be so conceited to think that one band can be universally hailed as “the best” hits a nerve with me.
Having the most impact != being the best; it’s a result of being the most marketed, being the most popular. This makes me weep because look at what influences are going to come into play here in the next 10 years or so, when everyone who grew up on bubblegum pop starts to form the majority of bands. They won’t be the only influences, but they’ll be there, and that scares me.
Well, *I* personally think they are the best because I haven’t found a group
with a body of work that I like anywhere near as much as The Beatles.
But what was said was that the bands of today won’t be talked
about 20 years from now- completely agree- well at least not for
their music. They will be talked about for their scandals etc., but the music will go under ‘one-hit wonders’ and pop fluff. The heavier stuff won’t make
it to the ‘top 40′ airwaves to be heard because it doesn’t have the
right combination of rock and pop sentiment to grab the attention
and sneak some substance into the popular airwaves- just enough
of it so as to not bore the crap out of the short-attention-span
crowd that spends their money downloading ringtones.
The Beatles managed to do that. (yes, they had substance…
the later stuff had more to do with the politics of the day than
love and sunshine).
Oh shnap!
Part of the difficulty in thinking about the Beatles is that while they did have exceptional talent, at the same time it IS true that they were marketed into stardom. It’s very hard to look at the forceful and often silly “boy-band” style marketing that went into creating their fame and still see the real songwriting and singing ability they had. It’s also hard for those of us who grew up believing that they made it on raw talent to forget what we learned in hindsight and remember that the 1963 Beatles became a worldwide sensation largely because some record company executives decided to put a ton of marketing money behind them.
Actually, you are incorrect. They became big at a ground level first,through the fans. It took forever to even get a record deal. When they made the record, it took off mainly on its own. There was no massive amounts of money thrown at them in the beginning. Back then, a radio dj was given a 45,they played it and the audience decided if they liked it. It’s completely unlike today.
Well, that’s partly true, but largely not true. They were big in England with relatively little “push”, but the break into the U.S. happened because of marketing.
The Beatles (and some other so-called “good” bands) were just the boy bands of that generation. They were the backstreet boys of whenever the hell it was.
You are so ignorant. A boy band doesn’t write their own music, play their own instruments, or start an entire band by themselves. Don’t EVER compare the Beatles to a boy band…unless you like being thought of as a moron.
It would seem that you are the ignorant one; several pop music “boy bands” wrote their own songs and even played their own instruments. Comparing the Beatles to a boy band (like, say, the Jonas Brothers) is an entirely accurate comparison. Listen to any of the songs off of “Help” and you’ll realize that, whether or not they wrote their own songs, they were definitely a bubblegum pop boy band.
What makes a lot of older music seem more amazing is that many were pioneers. Before Pink Floyd, NO ONE made music like that. No one rocked the heck out of Rock/Blues before Zep and the psychedelia of the Beatles was all their own doing. This allows for tremendous creativity. There are others that have followed in their footsteps, but the pioneers will always stand out.
I just have a hard time seeing ‘Beatles’ and ‘talent’ in the same image. They’re nothing but the Jonas Brothers of their time. Really, I suppose it’s the other way around, but the sentiment is the same.
Now, I know this comparison offends some folk. That whole “But boy-bands don’t write their own music, so they can’t be compared to the Beatles!” bit. I’ll give you the fact what the Beatles wrote their own music, but that’s exactly WHY I’m comparing them. Their music is just… Simplistic. Great stoner music (according to the friends of mine who happen to be stoners), but aside from that?
Three chords and being popular with most the women in a country does not equal talent anymore than it does NOW with the Jonas Brothers.
The Beatles just sucked on their OWN power.
See here is where the comparison falls flat on it’s face. The Beatles started with a lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass guitar and a drum kit rockin’ it out in the Cavern club and touring clubs in Germany they weren’t old enough to go into etc…. and some of their stuff was simple but brilliantly catchy using the blues base and rhythms that they were in love with from America and the pop sentiment- a combination the girls LOVED. Eventually they got access to equipment and their music became more… much more complicated, technically and lyrically- they did things that engineers these days would just goggle at because now there are just buttons for doing what they had to do one track at a time. The Jonas brothers have access to millions of dollars worth of equipment and Disney studios to boot… and they still don’t have anything more than three chords and simple lyrics (written by someone else).
While I can see where you’re coming from, go listen to “While my Guitar Gently Weeps” and tell me they suck.
They may be over-hyped, but it’s not all fantasy.
FLAG ON THE PLAY
That was one of Harrison’s songs. Those were the best ones.
That’s mostly false. By no means was the Beatles’ music “three chords and being popular”. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
It’s just plain silly to say that the Beatles were nothing but a “boy band”. They had that appeal, but deliberately rejected it after a couple of years, and musically were more sophisticated than that from the very beginning.
One word.
“Imagine.”
(goes to dust off the frame holding Mom’s prized Beatles record)
In the immortal words of the great Elvis Costello:
“Wasn’t it a millionaire that said ‘imagine no possessions’?”
John Lennon was a douche.
How so?
Jeez, you people are all missing the point. On really good equipment, vinyl records sound better than optical digital disks, even with the same source material. Digital sounds immeasurably better on less than stellar equipment, and the sound does not degrade until it fails completely. Vinyl degrades after over-playing. But the sound of new vinyl is the sweetest. It doesn’t matter what the act is.
I’m a recording engineer and your insane. If your talking vintage, a strong case could be made for reel-to-reel. I own a 40yr old reel-to-reel player and occasionally make a very high quality mix tape. Very good for parties and such. Vinyl I can’t stand to really listen to. The limit in clarity imposed by that little needle having to physically move up and down is undeniable.
Um, Paul wasn’t the talented one. Show me John Lennon, and you may have a case. For this, you might as well show Ringo in a Thomas the Tank Engine get-up.
LOL!!
Well, yeah, ‘cos Ringo on Thomas the Tank Engine = Awesome.
I am baffled by the people who think that goodness = complexity. Something doesn’t have to be the rock music equivalent of a Baroque symphony to be good.
But the Beatles *aren’t* simple. They might not have finger-tangling chord sequences in every song, but they’re far from “Happy Birthday”. It’s not just blues or just rock or even bluegrass, folk, big band, or ballad. Seemingly antagonistic music styles mash-up was their delight. Try reading through Alan W. Pollack’s commentary on their work.
She Loves You? Did you write anything better when you were 21? It was also, being early in their career, deliberately simple and unadventurous.
Excellent point. In fact some of the best songs ever written are exceedingly simple in their chord structure, and in fact the Beatles were followed by a tangle of “art rock” bands that clearly confused complexity with music.
The Beatles’ songwriting was chiefly about melody and harmony. True, John had a tendency to throw in an extra beat here and there or a measure of 2/4 in the middle of a string of 4/4, but their bread and butter was melody and harmony, and in those areas they were excellent by any standard.
I have a beef about the criticism of “She Loves You”. The “yeah yeah yeah” was of course a “hook”, just like the riff in “I Feel Fine”, and the guitar figure in “Ticket to Ride” (BTW, if you ever want to hear what great drumming sounds like, listen carefully to that one). But “She Loves You” is not a throwaway piece of boy band garbage. That vocal harmony 6th chord was a genuine innovation to guitar pop music, at least, and it’s not simply a gimmick thrown into the song: it’s a real part of the melody. The carefully planned harmonies on every other line of the verse and the lead guitar line echoing the “yeah yeah yeah” are songwriting craftsmanship at its best. Certainly Gershwin and Porter had done better, but if you take a look at the top pop hits of 1963 you’ll see that “She Loves You” is not by any stretch of the imagination an embarrassment.
It’s easy to target the “yeah yeah yeah” part of that song, but in fact any songwriter with any sense at all would be proud to have produced just one song of the quality of “She Loves You”.
Wait.. didn’t the Beatles write a birthday song? That would make them the opposite of far from “happy birthday”….
Actually Birthday is far from simplistic “Happy Birthday”
My point earlier about Happy Birthday was that it didn’t have to be complex to be a well loved song. but point taken above they were not simplistic and all of their stuff was well crafted. They wanted to be song writers and so they concentrated on that aspect.
All this talk about She Loves You being crap songwriting, ok – not the best lyrics, we get it. But Paul wrote Yesterday a year and a half later (which is what he’s singing in this pic, for Blackpool Night Out.) Paul is not untalented in the least. He can crap out a pop song in his sleep, and they can be catchy, but crap nonetheless. But we’re talking about the man who wrote Eleanor Rigby, Hey Jude, Let It Be, Yesterday, and Maybe I’m Amazed – without the help of Lennon. Maybe a few suggestions on Hey Jude, if you read any Beatles bio, you’d find that. Muscianship is where McCartney beats out Lennon – Lennon was a good rythmn guitarist, good singer, and moderate piano player. Paul a very talented bassist, good guitatist all round, can keep the beat as well as Ringo, incredible vocals up until a few years ago, great piano player, and can play brass instruments. Lennon was the songwriter, but Lennon is pretty much one of the top lyricist of all time.
Boy band?
What boy band could come up with Sgt. Pepper, Revolver, and pretty much every album past ’65.
No kidding. Why’s everyone picking one of their earliest songs when their song writing abilities hadn’t even developed to it’s fullest potential? It makes no sense and it makes their point kind of moot.
There’s very few artists and bands over the past so many years since the beatles that weren’t somewhat influenced by SOME album this band had created. Gripe all you want to about who’s overrated, who was more talented, flap flap flap. They’re up there with being one of the most influential forces in not just music history but cultural history. Sometimes, hype has a good reason for being hype. You don’t have to like their music (And honestly, trying to quote She Loves You to make your point is the biggest pile of fail I’ve ever seen, picking on some of their earliest stuff? Christ, of course they weren’t as good back then as they were say, veering off into their Sgt Pepper era, ect? Try telling me that damn album wasn’t massive) but you cannot deny their influence and their ability as a band to completely reshape the world.
There are just as many talented people now as there were then. It’s just a matter of taste and personal preference.
I’m with Steph, the Beatles were (and still are) pretty influential. Yeah, there are some talented people in rock music today, but most (dare I say, almost all?) of them were influenced somewhat by the Beatles.
Sorry to say it but music is in the eye of the beholder. Not saying they were bad, or that current music is even good. But IMHO people who make something like this are just as bad as those who scoff at the Beatles because they are “old”.
I was practically RAISED on the Beatles! I know, respect, and enjoy their talent and I’m pretty sure Jhon Lennon rolled over in his grave when the Jonas Brothers did that horrible cover of “Hello Goodbye”.
I’m seventeen years old, and I think that this post is very much the truth. The Beatles were musical geniuses. Nothing today compares. Some of their early stuff was fairly brainless, I’ll admit. But they must have been doing something right, because they gained unparalleled fame and success. Not all music from their generation was any better than the crap of this generation, but there was certainly a lot more good music then than there is now. Personally, I’m embarrassed by my generation and the music it has produced. It’s pathetic what mainstream, popular “music” gets all the attention. Most of it is talentless, brainless, crap. That’s not to say that there aren’t good musicians today, but they rarely get the respect and attention that they deserve. Plus, it’s safe to say that most worthwhile music that is produced today was in some way influenced by The Beatles. I can’t even talk to my friends about music, because they’ll sit there and worship some rap singer, the Jonas Brothers, or Taylor Swift, and it makes me want to puke. Lennon and McCartney were talented geniuses, and no one today even comes close.
Amen to that! I’m 14 and whenever I talk 2 the kids @ this school, theyre all, “I don’t know why u hate the Jonas Brothers, they wrote ‘Hello, Goodbye’, and that was good.”
ARRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (pirate!)
Screw the Disney Dimwits.
Strawberry Fields Forever!!!
J’ADORE les beatles et tout comme ça! Je n’ai que 13, trop!! vous les gens sont fous! Paul Simon, mon cul! Vive macca!
I didn’t understand a word of that except “Vive Macca”, which is enough to make me agree with you.
Right on!
from the cheezy free online translator, the gist of it was: ASC up there is 13, loves the Beatles! …Paul Simon… not so much… and people are crazy… it doesn’t translate ‘macca’ but whatever it is… it is ‘lively’.
No, no, ‘Macca’ is a nickname for ‘McCartney’…
Buying several new vinyls every month, I can’t possibly agree.
.
Vinyl still rocks.
But do I miss the Beatles! Brilliant
Rilly. Grandpa rock. Who cares about it?
Um…the Beatles’ albums are all available on CD also.
O_o
Or it could be that vinyls are an uncompressed analog audio signal whereas CD’s are digitally compressed to 16 bits and 44.1 khz/sec.
Back in my day people respected each other’s opinions. Like your own music. Wheeeeeee!
I’ve listened to the same son on vinyl and on cd back to back – the vinyl sounded MUCH better.
Tends to happen when you convert analog signal to digital signal and then reconvert it back to analog, whereas with vinyl it’s an analog signal encoded with analog equipment and decoded with analog equipment – it’s a much truer reproduction of sound.
Sometimes I feel that the people who say they don’t like the Beatles never listened to anything other than their really light and fluffy stuff. While that stuff was still good listen to things like The White Album, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road, that’s around the time one realizes the full genius of The Beatles.
hehe, yeah
i love the beatles
who cares if alot of people like them, it’s not a good reason not to like them
a day in the life and something are a couple of my favorites
pfff. i’m 13 and i love the beatles. heck, i also love queen! i started to love their musi cuz my dad had loads of their cd’s and he would play them in the car, in my boomnox, on my computer… and well, i started to like the music!
Epic Win compared to 50 cent, jonass (yes ass) brothers, smiley virus, and other music from today.
A true statement, but a bit too wordy to be witty. Also, a it too unoriginal.
A true statement, but a bit too wordy to be witty. Also, a bit too unoriginal.
Paul freakin McCartney is a freakin rock GOD!!!!
(but Ebony and Ivory sucked. Oh, well.)
PS: i am 14.
Screw the Disney Dimwits
Strawberry Fields Forever!!!!!!!!!
She loves you wasn’t one of their masterpieces. Have you ever heard their album Revolver? I bet not. The people that critisise their music are the ones who have heard she loves you not Revolver or Rubber Soul for that matter and even Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road. Also I am a 19 year old girl who, btw, isn’t a hippie or a drug taker.
Most of my complaints relate to karaoke boy (or girl) “bands”; you know the ones who contain pretty faces who dance a bit, and sing nothing but covers of songs that the original artists did better.
To analyse some modern cases:-
1) Girls Aloud – Best material being the original (but not by them) material they did for “St Trinians”.
2) Amy MacDonald – talented sing/songwriter/guitarist in her own right, but IMO her best material so far is actually her covers, which move her out of a slightly samey comfort zone on her album.
3) Duffy – talented sure, but I’m sorry, that doesn’t mean I have to like her voice.
You are living proof that opinions can in fact be wrong.
The Beatles were talented WITHOUT drugs. They only smoked. Trust me, I’m world’s largest Beatlemaniac.
I LOVE The Beatles. Toatally agree!! Music nowadays sucks. The Beatles, I will admit, had some songs in which their talent did NOT shine through(I wanna hold your hand, Revolution 9, a lot of their super-early stuff), but nonetheless they rock. I’m wondering why they didn’t add the rest of The Beatles in their picture. Frankly, I think John is the only Beatle who made solo work worth hearing enough to memorize, and anyway, Paul was part of a revolutionary band in those days. So this isn’t exactly legit…But I appriciate it nonetheless!!! And I agree; vinyl sounds better because the music was better. About 80% of the artists I like only had vinyl. And the other 20% are parody artists…
Simple fact is music taste is an opinion and therefor cannot be rated.
Yay! I Love this, its so true!
I’d give anything to live then.
PAUL McCARTNEY FTW
he’s a good musician…