You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
tejastech08 wrote: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
You do realize Keith Richards said he wouldn't have a career without stealing Chuck Berry's guitar riffs, right? Berry is arguably THE most influential guitarist who ever lived. And Buddy Holly was massively influential. For a guy who was only on the national stage for 18 months before he died, he had a profound effect on artists like The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, and on and on.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Let's trace The Beatles through their album releases. It seems some of you think their recording career spanned 20 years.
1963
Please Please Me
With The Beatles
1964
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles for Sale
1965
Help!
Rubber Soul
1966
Revolver
1967
Sgt Peppers
Magical Mystery Tour
1968
The Beatles (White Album)
1969
Yellow Submarine
Abbey Road
1970
Let it Be
That's 8 years where they went from "boy band" to the greatest rock band in history. 1963 was certainly pop music (though they had been playing rock in their live shows since the late 50s). By 1965, they released Rubber Soul, which was not a pop record. Almost everything they did after that was pure rock n roll. In 2 years they went from "boy band" to the first real rock n roll band. They didn't stop there; they developed into the most creative music force ever seen and no band has evolved over their entire career as much as The Beatles did in such a short period of time. The music landscape at that time was so different; they had to break in as a pop act to do what they wanted to. They couldn't have made Sgt Peppers had they not broken in as a pop act, and none of the rock acts (including the Stones) that followed would have made it had they not paved the way. The Stones may have never made it at all had Lennon/McCartney not written their first hit. Lennon/McCartney throw away songs were gold to other artists. I think McCartney has the record for most #1 hits written or co-written (Lennon would be right there if not ahead had he not been killed). VH1 did a countdown of the greatest artists ever and I think The Beatles were #1 and both Lennon and McCartney were top 10 as solo acts. The McCartney/Nirvana collaboration shows that he could have done amazing things in his prime with that style of music (quite different than his forte) and he still does a pretty food job of it at 70+.
That's not meant to take away from the Stones or Dylan (both were amazing talents in their own right). A lot of great acts followed and took what The Beatles did to the next step, but none have ever evolved anywhere near the same amount. That's not a slag on them either.
And as much as I think George Harrison is a great song-writer as well, can you imagine if The Beatles had Clapton on guitar instead of Harrison and somehow stayed together until Lennon died? I don't even like Clapton, but that would have been killer.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
You do realize Keith Richards said he wouldn't have a career without stealing Chuck Berry's guitar riffs, right? Berry is arguably THE most influential guitarist who ever lived. And Buddy Holly was massively influential. For a guy who was only on the national stage for 18 months before he died, he had a profound effect on artists like The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and on and on.
I didn't say he wasn't. I said he isn't as influential as the beatles.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
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.
Sorry I was tired last night...probably should have made a point to go with the videos!
I'm not mocking them, I'm just trying to illustrate they're not really things that can be compared.
To me listening to them side by side really illustrates that, they're both products of their time, yes the music is timeless and still wonderful in both cases, but you can't really choose what is better, as to me the first batch is the best possible music in 1968 or whatever and the second is the best with what you can do in 1991 - when equipment is different, guitar technique has evolved, popular culture itself has loved and adored the Beatles then been forced to make something new.
So to me these acts can't properly be compared. You can't put a Beatles era solo in a GNR song, and you can't put a GNR era solo in a Beatles song, the time difference is too great - and if somehow you could they'd probably sound like each other. Like I think if Slash was alive and in the Beatles he'd have played great guitar - but the style would probably be similar still to how it came out anyway, just with some slash influence but it would be a 60s record, and likewise if you could teleport John Lennon into GNR - he'd still be great - but it's still going to sound like a GNR record not a beatles record..and it's going to sound like a 1991 production.
To me we are arguing about if Coke is nicer than French Fries. Very different things that go in very different contexts.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Or it's like saying who is the Better Guitarist - Robert Johnston or Dave Mustaine....100 years latter and there's no way Johnston could play even half of one of Dave's solos...and Dave plays in a style of music he co-created that Johnston never even heard....but meanwhile Johnston invented some of the key things that are pivotal to the evolutionary process that created Mustaine and his very style....he was a genius with what he had in that era.
And that's the way I see this GNR vs Beatles thing too - the beatles were amazing and directed the tone of things for generations after them, meanwhile GNR is a far more modern band that was truly exceptional as well.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
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.
the argument is easy. Who do you like better. Simple. Now if people wana debate thisto the end of the earth maybe there shoudl've been a detailed criteria on what we were voting on. But "Who's better" to me is simply who do I think is better. guns N' Roses are the reason I'm a music fan not the Beatles. Guns N' Roses were and still are a big part of my life. the Beatles never have been. I like the Stones better than the Beatles too and think they are a better band, with better songs. It's not hard to make an argument when you like one band more than the other.
the poll should've said "which band has had a greater impact on music and which band as a collective are better song writer and which band paved the way fr other bands more?"
That's how it shoudl've been worded if people are offended that some of us are voting for Guns N' Roses.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Yeah, but that's just boring.
To me it's a matter of artistry combined with world wide popularity. Elvis and MJ have sold about as much, but they didn't write their own music by and large and I consider them mainly entertainers.
Innovation etc. counts for something, but it's usually a case of being first and shouldn't weigh too much if we are to try and "objectively" rank the quality of music. Either way Beatles wins.
GN'R could legitimately contend for the title of best hard rock band though, I think they and Zep are a notch above in that category.
