You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

johndivney wrote:
metallex78 wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:
metallex78 wrote:

This is what I have to say about the Beatles... yeah, they're good, but they started as a pop vocal group, kinda like a boy band (Nsync, Backdoor Boys... LOL). It's only as they went on, they got some cred about them musically.

Started as a boy band?  OMG, you need some music history lessons.

I know the Beatles history, I'm just making comparisons. And that's exactly what they started as - a boy band (for their time) pop group for the girls to go crazy over.


what?!


the beatles started out as a badass rock n roll band.
then they wrote the greatest pop songs ever.
then they wrote the greatest rock catalogue ever.

Which band is better?

Guns N' Roses 48%
The Beatles 52%
Total votes: 23
Gibbo
 Rep: 191 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Gibbo wrote:

Id love too see them play coma 14 14 14

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

johndivney wrote:

yea & i'd love to see Axl do Money as good as John..

Bono
 Rep: 386 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Bono wrote:

I'd love to see either one of them do Where the Streets Have No Name.

I find the who can play what debate pretty pointless. When it comes to music the technical skill of the muscians means fuck all to me. To be honest more often than not I think less is more. Guns N' Roses is so not a refelction of my typical taste in music in that sense.

Gibbo
 Rep: 191 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Gibbo wrote:

In the day walk in the park

metallex78
 Rep: 194 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

metallex78 wrote:
johndivney wrote:

the beatles started out as a badass rock n roll band.

I think you're confusing them with the Rolling Stones, they were a badass rock n roll band.


johndivney wrote:

then they wrote the greatest pop songs ever.

I could care less about that side of them, I fucking hate pop music.


johndivney wrote:

then they wrote the greatest rock catalogue ever.

I agree that they eventually went on to write some good stuff, but it's hardly the greatest rock catalogue ever. I'd give that to the Stones, Led Zep, or GN'R before the Beatles.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

polluxlm wrote:
RussTCB wrote:

Although I voted for Zep, I could see how people might like GN'R better. With this one though, I just don't understand how one could argue that GN'R is better.

One could certainly prefer GN'R, but it's hard to make an argument against the Beatles for best band.

monkeychow
 Rep: 661 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

monkeychow wrote:

buzzsaw
 Rep: 423 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

buzzsaw wrote:
metallex78 wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:
metallex78 wrote:

This is what I have to say about the Beatles... yeah, they're good, but they started as a pop vocal group, kinda like a boy band (Nsync, Backdoor Boys... LOL). It's only as they went on, they got some cred about them musically.

Yeah, they're founders because of what they did for their time, but comparing them to GN'R makes no sense. GN'R beats them as far as "rock" goes, so you know where my vote goes.

I'm not too fond of pop music either, I like something with a bit more edge.

Started as a boy band?  OMG, you need some music history lessons.

I know the Beatles history, I'm just making comparisons. And that's exactly what they started as - a boy band (for their time) pop group for the girls to go crazy over.

I give props to them later in their career, for all their drug-induced trippy creativity, but you can't deny what they began as.

If you think they began as a boy band, you don't know anything about Beatles history.  Read up on it.  Watch the Anthology videos. 

They were every bit as rock n roll as there was at that time.  Their live shows were all high energy rock songs.  The only thing that changed that was when they were given the chance to make an album.  They were given even fluffier stuff than they recorded, so they wrote their own love songs and insisted if they were going to have to go that route, at least it would be with their stuff.  It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the cliff notes version. 

Seriously - if you think they started out as a boy band, you don't know as much about them as you think you do.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 423 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

buzzsaw wrote:
johndivney wrote:
metallex78 wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

Started as a boy band?  OMG, you need some music history lessons.

I know the Beatles history, I'm just making comparisons. And that's exactly what they started as - a boy band (for their time) pop group for the girls to go crazy over.


what?!


the beatles started out as a badass rock n roll band.
then they wrote the greatest pop songs ever.
then they wrote the greatest rock catalogue ever.

This.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB