You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
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.
Guess who wrote the Stones first hit?
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Monkey, I'm not really sure what your point is. I would think a Slash fan would appreciate Beatles solos, not mock them. Slash has his share of simplistic solos that fit the songs perfectly. Maybe that's the point you were trying to make with the NR video...I don't know. Guitar has changed a lot since the Beatles. It's not like there were many people shredding in those days.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
tejastech08 wrote:RussTCB wrote:Leaving what? The internet?
haha, good question Russ. It's not like GNR Evo is behind rigging the vote. That dubious honor goes to MYGNR (and perhaps HTGTH).
I would never in a million years consider rigging something like that. Bono makes a good argument for his opinion and I'm certain that there are other people out there who agree and feel the same way. But I just don't see anyway GN'R could win this one without some help (ala mygnr/htgth as you're suggesting).
The internet I'm leaving the internet forever if GNR win. Not only that but I'm selling all my worldly goods and moving to India. This isn't right.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
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.
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.
I think you're taking my "boy band" tag a bit too literally. By boy band, I mean musically the type of fluff you're referring to.
Their early music sounds like boy band pop fluff that comes out these days, and I fuckin hate that shit.
Again, I give them credit for going on to make some good music down the track, but GN'R were straight outta the gates, making music that THEY wanted to, with a big fuck you to the world.
Anyway, this whole GN'R vs "some other old band" thing is getting silly.
I admit it shouldn't be like htgth blind faith here. But honestly, GN'R are a fucking great band for a reason, and they shouldn't be dismissed simply because another band started 50 years earlier than they did... 
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
buzzsaw wrote:metallex78 wrote: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.
I think you're taking my "boy band" tag a bit too literally. By boy band, I mean musically the type of fluff you're referring to.
Their early music sounds like boy band pop fluff that comes out these days, and I fuckin hate that shit.Again, I give them credit for going on to make some good music down the track, but GN'R were straight outta the gates, making music that THEY wanted to, with a big fuck you to the world.
Anyway, this whole GN'R vs "some other old band" thing is getting silly.
I admit it shouldn't be like htgth blind faith here. But honestly, GN'R are a fucking great band for a reason, and they shouldn't be dismissed simply because another band started 50 yrs earlier than they did...
Gnr were straight out of the gates, that;s for sure. However Lenon and McCartney built those gates when gnr were still in diapers.
The issue isn't that the Beatles started earlier, it's that the beatles made it possible for every rock band since TO start. They wrote the rule-book. They wrote it so well that even the thousands of bands that have since come have not been able to do it better.
We can't talk about a band like the beatles and NOT consider their historical context. At the time of the beatles breaking onto the scene.
In 1960 when the beatles formed these songs were at number 1 in the UK and US charts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3CPoIE-04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlIGh4R1vSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBdumT3Pieg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hluXyHy7dx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz6IpmmYSXA
There would be no rock without the beatles.
There would be no boy bands.
No pop without the beatles.
No Metal without the beatles (because there would have been no sabbath/purple etc)
Not even dubstep without the beatles. (who were the first experimenters with computer technology in pop)
When you look at it in context, the beatles single handed dragged humanity from a musical dark age. I shit you not we would not be here on this forum today without the beatles. There is not a single musician alive today from buckcherry to beieber who does not owe their career to the simple fact that the beatles did it first.
And to whoever it was that posted the november rain video take a listen to yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXPgZjm6Uk
Don't cry? Yesterdays did it first.
Yesterdays? Let it be did it better
Nighttrain? Helter Skelter did it first and better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWuXmfgXVxY
Estranged? A day in the life did it better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Q9D4dcYng
Jesus chriiist
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
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.
no. i'm not. i know my stones' history too. they mirrored the beatles path by starting w/blues covers, but w/o having to cut their teeth in the likes of hamburg.
the stones had a much easier ride having only to endure hipsters of london whereas the beatles toughed their way out of true rock n roll dives like liverpool & hamburg.
the early beatles, even pre-PPM Beatles were raunchy, sleazy & hard as fuck in a way the stones could only ever dream of being.
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.
no. i'm not. i know my stones' history too. they mirrored the beatles path by starting w/blues covers, but w/o having to cut their teeth in the likes of hamburg.
the stones had a much easier ride having only to endure hipsters of london whereas the beatles toughed their way out of true rock n roll dives like liverpool & hamburg.
the early beatles, even pre-PPM Beatles were raunchy, sleazy & hard as fuck in a way the stones could only ever dream of being.
Here here. Malcolm Gladwell calculated that the beatles played 10,000 hours of shows in hamburg strip clubs. I've been to hamburg strip clubs. If you get out of some of those shitholes without getting stabbed to death within the first half hour, you're smart enough not to go back. 10,000 hours? ...... pfffffffft. Don't underestimate the beatles. John Lennon would have fucked you up. 
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
metallex78 wrote:buzzsaw wrote: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.
I think you're taking my "boy band" tag a bit too literally. By boy band, I mean musically the type of fluff you're referring to.
Their early music sounds like boy band pop fluff that comes out these days, and I fuckin hate that shit.Again, I give them credit for going on to make some good music down the track, but GN'R were straight outta the gates, making music that THEY wanted to, with a big fuck you to the world.
Anyway, this whole GN'R vs "some other old band" thing is getting silly.
I admit it shouldn't be like htgth blind faith here. But honestly, GN'R are a fucking great band for a reason, and they shouldn't be dismissed simply because another band started 50 yrs earlier than they did...
Gnr were straight out of the gates, that;s for sure. However Lenon and McCartney built those gates when gnr were still in diapers.
The issue isn't that the Beatles started earlier, it's that the beatles made it possible for every rock band since TO start. They wrote the rule-book. They wrote it so well that even the thousands of bands that have since come have not been able to do it better.
We can't talk about a band like the beatles and NOT consider their historical context. At the time of the beatles breaking onto the scene.In 1960 when the beatles formed these songs were at number 1 in the UK and US charts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3CPoIE-04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlIGh4R1vSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBdumT3Pieg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hluXyHy7dx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz6IpmmYSXA
There would be no rock without the beatles.
There would be no boy bands.
No pop without the beatles.
No Metal without the beatles (because there would have been no sabbath/purple etc)
Not even dubstep without the beatles. (who were the first experimenters with computer technology in pop)When you look at it in context, the beatles single handed dragged humanity from a musical dark age. I shit you not we would not be here on this forum today without the beatles. There is not a single musician alive today from buckcherry to beieber who does not owe their career to the simple fact that the beatles did it first.
And to whoever it was that posted the november rain video take a listen to yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXPgZjm6UkDon't cry? Yesterdays did it first.
Yesterdays? Let it be did it better
Nighttrain? Helter Skelter did it first and better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWuXmfgXVxY
Estranged? A day in the life did it better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Q9D4dcYng
Jesus chriiist
This is a bit on the melodramatic side. Bob Dylan was doing some amazing stuff while the Beatles were fucking around with silly pop songs. Buddy Holly was a huge innovator and influenced the Beatles (they named themselves after a bug in honor of Holly's band the Crickets). Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and many others had a big influence on the Beatles.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
This is a bit on the melodramatic side. Bob Dylan was doing some amazing stuff while the Beatles were fucking around with silly pop songs. Buddy Holly was a huge innovator and influenced the Beatles (they named themselves after a bug in honor of Holly's band the Crickets). Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and many others had a big influence on the Beatles.
So what? Outside of Elvis not one of them has had as big an influence AS the Beatles. Just because they influenced them it doesn't mean they have influenced as many people as the beatles.
Is Chuck berry more influential THAN the beatles? No.
Little Richard? No.
Buddy Holly? God no.
Elvis? Now there's a good argument. Elvis or the beatles. I'll go with the beatles for originality (in song writing), ingenuity in experimentation and "beatlemania". I'll go with elvis for the X-factor in terms of showmanship. Who has influenced more? The beatles.
"before elvis there was nothing"
John Lennon
"but after the Beatles there was everything"
Riad Sanderson
