THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 14 Apr 2024, 17:47
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Elvis vs The Beatles  (Read 58729 times)

Daft pun

  • Curry sauce
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
  • hugs not ughs
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #100 on: 07 Jul 2008, 07:44 »

I can somewhat relate to what Caspian's saying, as the oldest bands I regularly listen to are My Bloody Valentine and the Pixies. It's not like I draw the line in the late eighties or anything, nor do I regard anything recorded before then as shit. Not actively listening to anything older was never a conscious decision. Is this ageism?
« Last Edit: 07 Jul 2008, 07:46 by Daft pun »
Logged
All this won't do you any good; you cannot return to the moon!

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #101 on: 07 Jul 2008, 07:52 »

No, I think ageism would be more along the lines of "that stuff is for old people, so I'm not going to listen to it." I never made a conscious decision to listen to older music, I just like it. I love a lot of the music that came out of the 60s, as well as the 70s and 80s. I know not everyone is like that, though, but I don't have many friends who only listen to music made within the past 20 years. I do have several friends who dislike the Beatles, but it's more to blame on them being in marching band when everyone had the "OMG LET'S PLAY ALL BEATLES MUSIC LOL" or just growing up liking other bands better, e.g. The Rolling Stones.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

imapiratearg

  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,168
  • Oh thanks. They're not mine.
    • http://www.myspace.com/superpunkdout
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #102 on: 07 Jul 2008, 07:57 »

No, I think ageism would be more along the lines of "that stuff is for old people, so I'm not going to listen to it."

God damnit, my friends do that exact thing.  It pisses me off.
Logged

MadassAlex

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,050
  • "Tasteful"?
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #103 on: 07 Jul 2008, 08:26 »

So where's the precise date at which you stop giving a shit about music? 1975? 1980? Are you going to stop listening to stuff from the 1990s in ten years' time?

Dude, out of context much? All he's saying is that the impact of music is relative to what you were brought up with. Caspian is a fan of metal, IIRC, so it's natural that the music from the 60s he'd like is that which points in its direction quite obviously. Hendrix experimented quite a lot with dissonance, distortion and improvisation so it's only natural he'd favour that in comparison to the rest of 60s music, which was largely limp-wristed until Led Zeppelin came along.

Then Black Sabbath released their self-titled and blew everyone away (as did other 70s bands, where hard rock and heavy metal came into their own). What you think you're doing is criticising Caspian because you think he sees quality through dates, while he's really seeing common factors in each decade of music that he likes or dislikes. If he does not like 60s music, it's probably because it doesn't interest or excite him. Fair enough.
It's kind of like, instead of interpreting him saying "I dislike 60s music because I find it uninteresting", you're hearing "60s music is bad" or some kind of personal slight against bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones. Not everyone has to like 60s music, and for good reason. Rock was still infantile at that stage.
Logged

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #104 on: 07 Jul 2008, 09:20 »

I believe I should have extended my 'har' to further indicate the location of my tongue relative to my cheek.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

guitar_master_2334

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #105 on: 08 Jul 2008, 19:48 »

hmmm...
i have to be on the middle ground here, cuz, while elvis IS an overglorified star, he did kinda lay the ground for rock and roll and just rock music in general...
if you look at his things, you'll see that he covers everything from counrty to jazz even to metal, though it wasnt called that back then.
the beates is the same deal, they played a lot of different stuff... from revolution to hey jude, the beatles covered swing, jazz, country ,alt rock, punk, and of course, the then popular "classic" rock
look at these things from both sides before contributing, guys
Logged

David_Dovey

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,451
  • j'accuse!
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #106 on: 08 Jul 2008, 21:13 »

Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

tomselleck69

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
  • Now We All Have Metal Skin
    • Harold Bloom
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #107 on: 08 Jul 2008, 23:39 »

Growing up, my answer to this would have been The Beatles and a condescending look, but now that I have an actual identity, I am an Elvis man through and through. Getting over the fact that country music exists was significant in balancing this equation.
Logged
"Cocks." - Harold Bloom

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #108 on: 09 Jul 2008, 04:31 »

Now all you need to do is get over the fact that country doesn't always suck.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

gardenhead_

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
  • we live as we dream; alone
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #109 on: 09 Jul 2008, 06:02 »

the beates is the same deal, they played a lot of different stuff... from revolution to hey jude, the beatles covered swing, jazz, country ,alt rock, punk, and of course, the then popular "classic" rock
I don't see how a band can cover musical genres or scenes before they existed...

I don't have anything to contribute here, just being a pedant.
Logged
Quote from: Midnight Umbreon
You guys are all such douches.

pwhodges

  • Admin emeritus
  • Awakened
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17,241
  • I'll only say this once...
    • My home page
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #110 on: 09 Jul 2008, 06:39 »

They existed before they were recognised.
Logged
"Being human, having your health; that's what's important."  (from: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi )
"As long as we're all living, and as long as we're all having fun, that should do it, right?"  (from: The Eccentric Family )

guitar_master_2334

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #111 on: 09 Jul 2008, 08:25 »

yeah...
just because they werent NAMED doesnt mean that different music genres werent PLAYED before that....
i mean, it wasnt named blues until presley played what he played
Logged

benji

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #112 on: 09 Jul 2008, 08:46 »

it wasnt named blues until presley played what he played

I hope I'm just completely misunderstanding what you're saying, but Elvis Presley didn't coin the term blues.

I have recordings made in the 1930s of Jelly Roll Morton where he refers to it as blues and it wasn't new then. The term probably came about in the early years of the 20th century, I believe sometime around 1908.

As a blues musician, Presley wasn't all that innovative. What he did with Rhythm and Blues is take something already popular in the Juke Joint scene and bring it together with elements of the white dominated pop-music scene to create music that was palatable to a white middle-class audience but still felt rebellious. Don't get me wrong, this was a great thing to do, but you can't really claim that Elvis started the blues (or even started calling it that) any more than you can claim he started rock & roll or country.
Logged
This signature is intentionally left blank.

tomselleck69

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
  • Now We All Have Metal Skin
    • Harold Bloom
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #113 on: 09 Jul 2008, 12:28 »

Now all you need to do is get over the fact that country doesn't always suck.
Okay my post did not go so far as to imply this, but I absolutely love country music.
Logged
"Cocks." - Harold Bloom

Albatron

  • Obscure cultural reference
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #114 on: 09 Jul 2008, 12:37 »

enh, pop country is the scourge of the earth, but bluegrass effing rules.
Logged

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #115 on: 09 Jul 2008, 13:33 »

enh, pop country is the scourge of the earth, but bluegrass effing rules.

Lol.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #116 on: 09 Jul 2008, 13:57 »

...Then Black Sabbath released their self-titled and blew everyone away (as did other 70s bands...

Black Sabbath was released in 1969.

Also, yes, Helter Skelter.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #117 on: 09 Jul 2008, 14:26 »

Please don't tell me we've gotten to the stage where a post can consist of nothing but a lol.

I honestly had no clue how to respond to that, and it made me laugh. So, what would you have done?
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #118 on: 09 Jul 2008, 14:35 »

lol
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #119 on: 09 Jul 2008, 14:36 »

The QC public has spoken.
Logged

Jepser

  • Larger than most fish
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #120 on: 09 Jul 2008, 14:40 »

it wasnt named blues until presley played what he played

I hope I'm just completely misunderstanding what you're saying, but Elvis Presley didn't coin the term blues.

I have recordings made in the 1930s of Jelly Roll Morton where he refers to it as blues and it wasn't new then. The term probably came about in the early years of the 20th century, I believe sometime around 1908.

As a blues musician, Presley wasn't all that innovative. What he did with Rhythm and Blues is take something already popular in the Juke Joint scene and bring it together with elements of the white dominated pop-music scene to create music that was palatable to a white middle-class audience but still felt rebellious. Don't get me wrong, this was a great thing to do, but you can't really claim that Elvis started the blues (or even started calling it that) any more than you can claim he started rock & roll or country.

The blues was around since halfway through the nineteenth century, and Elvis, 100 years later, just happened to have a nice singing voice. And then people go around giving him credit for the work of thousands of musicians lesser known than him. Elvis wasn't even new in being the first white guy playing the blues, he just was the first one with that many fans. I seriously think that rock & roll wouldn't be much different even if he hadn't been there. He was just one part of a bigger phenomenon. He didn't even write the bulk of his own songs.

And if the Beatles are more popular than Jesus, who's Elvis Presley to beat that?  :mrgreen:

[/rant]
« Last Edit: 09 Jul 2008, 14:44 by Jepser »
Logged
I wasn't going to d/l any of that, but once I read "oldest lesbian", I kind of had to.

Patrick

  • where did it cost?
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,263
  • Used to be a cool kid
    • Troubador! bandcamp page
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #121 on: 10 Jul 2008, 00:59 »

I think they were all musical geniuses. Maybe not Ringo, (snip)

You do realize that Ringo never EVER plays a drum groove that doesn't fit the rest of the song perfectly, right? Ringo is the most underrated Beatle just because everybody hates every drummer but John Bonham and Ginger Baker.

The drummer in Elvis's "Hound Dog", on the other hand, can't keep tempo for shit. Notice how he speeds up like a motherfucker when he does the fill after the "You ain't no friend of mine" line? That is unjustifiable on a recording made by the "King of Rock and Roll".
Logged
My long-dead band Troubador! licks your gentlemen's legumes on the cheap

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #122 on: 10 Jul 2008, 04:27 »

Ringo wasn't a musical genius but he was a hell of a drummer. He could just lock into something and play exactly what was needed for it.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

guitar_master_2334

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #123 on: 10 Jul 2008, 08:44 »

ok......
i totally did not mean that presley made up blues or even coined the term
actually, i forgot what i WAS trying to say...
hmmmmmm......,
and whether ringo starr is good or bad is a matter of opinion.  yeah, a lot of people said that he sucked when they first came out, just like a lot of people say hes amazing nowadays...
personally i like his style, if only because of the pure and simple fact that i wish MY drummer could play solos like that man did, but also like somebody said earlier, he could fit into any song perfectly.
the man had absolutely NO musical knowledge, in fact what he did know he learned from the toher three beatles, but just the way he could fit into the songs, even if it was by accident, was amazing.
oh, and i love the yellow submarine
Logged

benji

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #124 on: 10 Jul 2008, 09:25 »

The blues was around since halfway through the nineteenth century, and Elvis, 100 years later, just happened to have a nice singing voice.

I know the style was that old, but do you know when the term first appeared? I feel like 1908 was the first time it appeared in print (and it's hard to know when terms appear if they aren't put in to print immediately).

Quote
Elvis wasn't even new in being the first white guy playing the blues, he just was the first one with that many fans. I seriously think that rock & roll wouldn't be much different even if he hadn't been there. He was just one part of a bigger phenomenon. He didn't even write the bulk of his own songs.

While this all may be true, I think the genius of Elvis was probably that her brought the music just close enough to the mainstream that certain important demographics (suburban teenagers) could get in to it but still feel rebellious for being in to it.
Logged
This signature is intentionally left blank.

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #125 on: 10 Jul 2008, 12:39 »

Conversely, I'm actually tired of the 'Ringo was Good' truism, which is now as popular as the original 'Ringo was Bad' theory.

He was a mediocre drummer and a forgettable songwriter. Occasionally he'd do something mildly interesting behind the kit but it was usually in the same manner that a blind chicken finds a kernel of corn every now and then. It's bound to happen eventually.

I still love 'Octopus's Garden,' dammit.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

billiumbean

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
  • "Clamsss... Waa!"
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #126 on: 11 Jul 2008, 00:12 »

(Sorry about the newbiness and not reading the conversations preceding this post, but I adg6jb;ojvoiz'z...)

I think Led Zeppelin contributed more to the indie scene than the Beatles, as they were completely and totally independent from their managers and their manager's opinions, which you can't  say about the Beatles.  That's why their fourth album has no name, because nobody besides the band could legally tell them not to leave the title blank.  Fact is, it was fucking beautiful that they did that, could you imagine what could have happened if they hadn't?  Like, a "Simple Plan" of the seventies, I reckon.

Simple Plan...  *Shudders*

Also, in a bit of contrast, Pink Floyd wanted to leave "Wish You Were Here" with no name or markings, but their manager got pissy and made them name it.  Pink Floyd deserves their own planet, they were so incredible, but could you imagine what could have resulted from them being independent?  I don't think there would be another band for a century because it would be that amazing. 

But that's just me.

Ah, record labels.  Seriously, sorry about the rant, but they don't do anything but hold artists back.  People can record and make their own shit in their living rooms and sell it online at a profit with no need for a label whatsoever, not to mention the fact that they can just sell their music on iTunes...  Record labels are just there to water music down and force their clients to wear eye shadow.

I'm running on a tangent.  The Beatles.  Between the two contenders, only the Beatles looked cool in sequins.  Out of everybody in the world, even, they looked cooler in sequins.  Like Jimi Hendrix and the Strat...
« Last Edit: 11 Jul 2008, 01:03 by billiumbean »
Logged
Quote from: Alex C
I do agree that this could potentially have some dire ramifications in regards to purple drank.

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #127 on: 11 Jul 2008, 00:53 »

newfagginess

Please avoid using term "fag" or similar words around here, it's not appreciated.

. . . Unless you're talking about cigarettes or bundles of sticks, I guess.

Thankyou!
Logged

billiumbean

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
  • "Clamsss... Waa!"
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #128 on: 11 Jul 2008, 01:02 »

Sorry, I'll edit it.

I guess you could apply it to cigarettes, though.  I'm addicted to being compulsively ill-informed when it comes to forum etiquette.  I'll learn, I'll learn.
Logged
Quote from: Alex C
I do agree that this could potentially have some dire ramifications in regards to purple drank.

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #129 on: 11 Jul 2008, 01:04 »

Don't worry about it. The bad new people are the ones who go "Fuck you man, no way I'm doing what you ask!" Listening and learning is good.
Logged

billiumbean

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
  • "Clamsss... Waa!"
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #130 on: 11 Jul 2008, 01:12 »

I'm converting from being a /b/tard, and I guess I need all the help I can get.  I really am sorry about the comment, I didn't even notice I'd used it.  Like when you swear in front of your parents for the first time.

I like this place.  I don't want to get off to a bad start.
Logged
Quote from: Alex C
I do agree that this could potentially have some dire ramifications in regards to purple drank.

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #131 on: 11 Jul 2008, 02:40 »

Don't fret over it, man. We all say stuff we regret sometimes. At least on the internet you can edit it after the fact!

Except that there's always someone who's inconveniently quoted the post pre-editing, preserving the original for perpetuity. Hmm . . .

Anyway, back to Elvis vs. the Beatles. My answer remains Buddy Holly.
Logged

Border Reiver

  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,189
  • Yes, I painted this.
    • The Pet Patch
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #132 on: 11 Jul 2008, 11:04 »

My answer would be Bo Diddley,

maybe Steppenwolf.
Logged
"It's a futile gesture that my sense of right and wrong tells me I should make." Is It Cold Here, 19 Mar 2013, 02:12

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #133 on: 11 Jul 2008, 11:27 »

I'll have to go with P. Diddy lulz!
Logged

Jepser

  • Larger than most fish
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #134 on: 11 Jul 2008, 16:41 »

I'll have to go with P. Diddy lulz!

If it was a pun, I would call it bad. xD
Logged
I wasn't going to d/l any of that, but once I read "oldest lesbian", I kind of had to.

Patrick

  • where did it cost?
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,263
  • Used to be a cool kid
    • Troubador! bandcamp page
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #135 on: 12 Jul 2008, 01:33 »

My answer would be Bo Diddley

You have no idea how much that man means to me.
Logged
My long-dead band Troubador! licks your gentlemen's legumes on the cheap

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #136 on: 12 Jul 2008, 16:42 »

Pun not intended my friend. Didn't notice till you pointed it out. Lmao. I found it funny, but then again i am a sick twisted fuck who uses tears for lube when i have sex. I mean.... Bye.
Logged

RedLion

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,691
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #137 on: 13 Jul 2008, 14:23 »

Fuck what people were saying before, Ringo is great. He's my favorite Beatle. Maybe. I think John actually is, but that's so cliche. But then again, choosing George Harrison or Ringo as your favorite Beatle because you don't want to choose Paul or John is also cliche. So where does that leave me?

"Act Naturally" is a great song because it's a terrible Beatles song.
Logged
"Death is nothing, but to live defeated is to die daily."
 - Napoleon

MarkTBSc

  • Curry sauce
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
  • The pheasant has no agenda
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #138 on: 13 Jul 2008, 15:10 »

Do we have to like Ringo because he was good at something?

Can't we just like him because he narrated the "Thomas the Tank Engine" TV series when we were growing up?

Or because he was a geek who managed to score a Bond Girl?
Logged
Unique Quarks - For when Antimatter just isn't destructive enough.

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,630
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #139 on: 13 Jul 2008, 16:27 »

I actually think Ringo's solo career has been the best one out of the 4.
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #140 on: 13 Jul 2008, 16:35 »

I actually think Ringo's solo career has been the best one out of the 4.

Personally i think he had the worse, although Paul's new album Memory Almost Full is complete and utter SHIT.
Logged

J-cob9000

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 804
  • i forgot why i made that picture
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #141 on: 13 Jul 2008, 17:06 »

It was obviously Ringo because he did Thomas The Tank Engine.
Duh.
Logged

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #142 on: 13 Jul 2008, 17:50 »

"Act Naturally" is a great song because it's a terrible Beatles song.

Actually it's a cover of a terrible song.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

RedLion

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,691
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #143 on: 13 Jul 2008, 17:56 »

But it's made into a great song. So my original point still stands.
Logged
"Death is nothing, but to live defeated is to die daily."
 - Napoleon

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #144 on: 13 Jul 2008, 18:02 »

I don't know, I've just loved that song whilst always thinking it was shite.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,630
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #145 on: 13 Jul 2008, 18:25 »

I think all of Ringo's solo albums are utterly average.
I think Lennon had two really good albums and a lot of really shit ones.
I think Harrison had one real good album that had one entire side of vinyl too many, and a ton of really shit albums.
I think Macca has had nothing but incredibly dire output and i wish he would die.


When all is balanced, Ringo's work contains the least crap
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #146 on: 13 Jul 2008, 18:54 »

Cmon you honestly can't say Ringo did the best, I'll admit, he did not do the worst, Paul did, but he was second worse.
Logged

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,630
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #147 on: 13 Jul 2008, 19:10 »

Nope, a cursory listen to George's later output will prove that they were terrible.
A cursory listen to John's albums that were not Plastic Ono Band will prove they were terrible*
There is no reason at all to ever listen to Paul.
Ringo's albums are utterly forgettable. I cannot say bad things about them.


* Live Peace In Toronto was pretty good too, but i am not counting it since it was a live album.
« Last Edit: 13 Jul 2008, 19:12 by E. Spaceman »
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

Mr. Mojo

  • Guest
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #148 on: 13 Jul 2008, 19:24 »

Personally i like ALL of John's albums. It's all about preference i suppose. Plus whenever i think of Ringo i think of that one scene in family guy where he is like "I WROTE A SONG!" and Paul said "Ok Ringo we'll put it on the fridge so everyone can see". I don't usually like Family Guy but that scene makes me laugh hysterically.
Logged

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,630
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Elvis vs The Beatles
« Reply #149 on: 13 Jul 2008, 19:40 »

even Imagine?
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up