Poll: who do you like better the who or the beatles?
Poll Options
View poll results: who do you like better the who or the beatles?
The Beatles
11 85%
The Who
2 15%
Voters: 13.
Page 1 of 2
lostboyjp
I used to be a rock god
Join date: Dec 2006
381 IQ
#1
now im a fan of the who and the rolling stones and all them but i have to say that i think the beatles is the best band in music history.

they had so many hits and they were so popular its hard to argue with that
they even had movies.....

though they were completly doing LSD they were very famous and were known everywhere even little kids listened to them and thought of them as their role model

but i have to say that my favorite beatles song is here comes the sun...


SMURF POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A few hours later...




My Gear:

AMP: Line 6 Spider III 30 Watt
Guitars: Gibson SG Classic (with P-90 Pickups), Martin DCX1E Acoustic-Electric, and Rouge Viola Bass
treefiddey
Banned
Join date: Sep 2006
658 IQ
#2
the beatles were a band in the 60s. They made music. People liked them. There were 4 of them. One of their names was Ringo. They had brown hair. What's not to like?
jskinnirvana
UG Member
Join date: Dec 2006
210 IQ
#5
The beatles were the most INFLUENTIAL band, the best band is either zeppelin,cream, or hendrix band of gypsys hell yea
LJS and The OwlsLucky Jimr Stonge
ElephantMan4563
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2006
28 IQ
#6
The Beatles have an incredible sound that traverses many a generation. Any one who can hear can tell the beatles were a great band. Grant it they are not the best instrumentalists who ever lived but they all had the most amazing voices and they all were such talented song writers they could have come up with a #1 it in their sleep (ecspetully by todays standards I'm sorry but you don"t need that much talent to do pop or Rap) Their one of my favorite bands and are definitly one of the greatest ever.
I don't like the term "dork" I prefer "Hip" or "Funky Fresh" I was cool in the 70's
instantkarma93
Registered User
Join date: Nov 2006
21 IQ
#7
The beatles are the greatest and the most influentual band their ever was and ever will be. They were all muscial geniouses and were way more muscially talented than the who. Dont get me wrong the who are a great band but it was the Beatles who explored the sounds of eastern music and composed magnificent songs. Sgt. Peppers is the most influentiual album ever. The album is flawless the whole way through. My favorite track is a day in the life. It was so perfectly made. I also think John lennon is a hero and not just musically.
Sloopy
is classic rock.
Join date: Jul 2006
2,623 IQ
#8
Quote by treefiddey
the beatles were a band in the 60s. They made music. People liked them. There were 4 of them. One of their names was Ringo. They had brown hair. What's not to like?


Sorry I had to sig that.
DALAI LAMA OF ZEPPELINISM

Quote by Kartman

I look up to you now. I'm serious, I have more respect for you than most Ugers!
[the]whorocks
UG's GFR Fanatic
Join date: Jul 2006
234 IQ
#10
Quote by instantkarma93
The beatles are the greatest and the most influentual band their ever was and ever will be. They were all muscial geniouses and were way more muscially talented than the who. Dont get me wrong the who are a great band but it was the Beatles who explored the sounds of eastern music and composed magnificent songs.


well, i'm sorry dude, but kinda have to disagree with you there.

now, don't get me wrong, the beatles were great and they were extremely influential, but i think that rock would have definitely turned into what it was today without them, and i think the who changed music into most of what it was in the 70s. while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs, that, IMO, blew anything the beatles or stones ever wrote right out of the water. i personally believe they had more skill on a whole then the beatles did, whether it be guitar, bass, drums or songwriting.

like i said, i love the beatles and the stones, i just personally believe that the who are better.
John Entwistle is my God. RIP.

listening to you, I get the music, gazing at you, I feel the heat, following you, I climb the mountain, I get excitement at your feet.
<3 tommy.
Mongoose87
Registered User
Join date: Jun 2006
485 IQ
#11
[quote="'[the"]whorocks']well, i'm sorry dude, but kinda have to disagree with you there.

now, don't get me wrong, the beatles were great and they were extremely influential, but i think that rock would have definitely turned into what it was today without them, and i think the who changed music into most of what it was in the 70s. while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs, that, IMO, blew anything the beatles or stones ever wrote right out of the water. i personally believe they had more skill on a whole then the beatles did, whether it be guitar, bass, drums or songwriting.

like i said, i love the beatles and the stones, i just personally believe that the who are better.


Also, consider they did it with one major writer. The Beatles had three.
I <3 bangoodcharlotte

Quote by humperdunk
one time i let my cat has cheezburger. i thought it was pretty funny.
Maet
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2005
906 IQ
#12
The Beatles were lucky. They weren't genius' or gods, just lucky.
[the]whorocks
UG's GFR Fanatic
Join date: Jul 2006
234 IQ
#14
Quote by Maet
The Beatles were lucky. They weren't genius' or gods, just lucky.



Yea, they started at the right time. Had The Who started 1 or 2 years earlier, then we would be worshipping The Who's name (though I already do) instead of the Beatles.

And remember, the Beatles only lasted what, 6, 7 years? The Who are still alive and kicking (maybe not as hard, but still) after 41/2 years (they're first album was either 1964 or 5, cant remember)

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents
John Entwistle is my God. RIP.

listening to you, I get the music, gazing at you, I feel the heat, following you, I climb the mountain, I get excitement at your feet.
<3 tommy.
Jesse Mrau
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2005
148 IQ
#15
[quote="'[the"]whorocks']while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs


So Abbey Road isn't complex?

EDIT: ^one thing about your sig though, as much as I love The Who, Townshend didn't invent the power chord. They are bare fifth chords, and probably existed just as long as any other chord. Also the first "pioneer" of the power chord was Link Wray, who used it before it was widely recognized.
Last edited by Jesse Mrau at Dec 14, 2006,
Carnivean
UG Board King
Join date: Jun 2006
1,747 IQ
#16
The Beatles were one of the best, if not the best. No one has wrote as many hits as they have and wrote music quite as good as them.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
treefiddey
Banned
Join date: Sep 2006
658 IQ
#17
[quote="'[the"]whorocks']

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents


the length doesnt make a song better in any way

...but...

I Want You and Hey Jude ar both over 7 minutes


not to mention the fact they they wrote

Let it Be, Across the Universe, Strawberry Fields Forever, I am the Walrus, Elanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never knows, and While My Guitar Gently Wheeps, which were in no way short little pop songs.

They also completely changed all of music with Revolver, which was incredibly different and revolutionary at the time.
Maet
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2005
906 IQ
#18
[quote="'[the"]whorocks']Yea, they started at the right time. Had The Who started 1 or 2 years earlier, then we would be worshipping The Who's name (though I already do) instead of the Beatles.

And remember, the Beatles only lasted what, 6, 7 years? The Who are still alive and kicking (maybe not as hard, but still) after 41/2 years (they're first album was either 1964 or 5, cant remember)

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents

I was actually thinking more... socially/politically. I'll explain if I'm asked to.
paul889988
Secret User
Join date: Oct 2006
571 IQ
#19
Quote by Maet
I was actually thinking more... socially/politically. I'll explain if I'm asked to.


explain im interested

the beatles were just the greatest band ever, with there expermentation, their feel good songs, their tripy and macca is just the greatest composer of the 20th centurary proof? abbey road
Sloopy
is classic rock.
Join date: Jul 2006
2,623 IQ
#20
Yeah dude the Beatles rock forver. You my friend, lostboyjp, seem over zealous on the matter though. That sort of annoys me. We dont need a thread every week by some new CR fan about how good the Beatles are. Sorry, no way.
DALAI LAMA OF ZEPPELINISM

Quote by Kartman

I look up to you now. I'm serious, I have more respect for you than most Ugers!
rock_and_blues
Banned
Join date: Feb 2006
892 IQ
#21
The Beatles>The Who

The Who were just a loud band...if it wasn't for powerchords and a Marshall, Townshend wouldv'e been ****ed...simple as that. And I'm sorry but when was the last time I saw the Who at the TOP (meaning #1) of the "Greatest Band/Album/Song" list? Can't say that I have (sure they're on there, but they're around 20)...plus how many songs have the Who written that was revolutionary to how music was made? Hmmmm......How many have the Beatles written. Well theres:

Tommorrow Never Knows, Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Within You Without You, A Day In The Life, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, The entire B side of Abbey Road (pop symphony, anyone?)

...theres more (entire albums of such classiscs) but I'd say you get the point. "What about Tommy?!?!" cries the Who fan, well while Townshend was writing up his opera about a blind/deaf boy, the Beatles had already become the most popular band in the world, wrote Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (both of which opened up the world of psychedelia, and as was stated early completely changed the musical landscape of the 60s), and had evolved...they went from covering Chuck Berry, to writing songs like Strawberry Fields Forever and Blackbird. So in conclusion...the Beatles are better than the Who...simple as that

*prepares for flame war from Who fans*
[the]whorocks
UG's GFR Fanatic
Join date: Jul 2006
234 IQ
#22
ok well guys, i seem to have hit the jackpot of Beatles fans, so im gonna need soem help here....


Ha! my plan to cause strife within the UG community has succeeded completely(evil laugh)...*runs aways and hides in cave*
John Entwistle is my God. RIP.

listening to you, I get the music, gazing at you, I feel the heat, following you, I climb the mountain, I get excitement at your feet.
<3 tommy.
Abe
Come Here and Say That...
Join date: Apr 2003
1,564 IQ
#23
Quote by Jesse Mrau
So Abbey Road isn't complex?

EDIT: ^one thing about your sig though, as much as I love The Who, Townshend didn't invent the power chord. They are bare fifth chords, and probably existed just as long as any other chord. Also the first "pioneer" of the power chord was Link Wray, who used it before it was widely recognized.


I think the more obvious point is that townshend didn't invent the Marshall stack, I think it was someone else, the name escapes me. Uhh, Mr Meershall perhaps

The Beatles are one of those bands where I don't think I can actually pick a favourite album, and thats because I love many of them, not because I hate them all.

Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers and Help! are my fave's at the minute.
ncsurfer
slap out of it
Join date: Mar 2006
561 IQ
#24
[quote="'[the"]whorocks']Yea, they started at the right time. Had The Who started 1 or 2 years earlier, then we would be worshipping The Who's name (though I already do) instead of the Beatles.

And remember, the Beatles only lasted what, 6, 7 years? The Who are still alive and kicking (maybe not as hard, but still) after 41/2 years (they're first album was either 1964 or 5, cant remember)

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents

bullshit. All I have to say about the matter.
Member #1 of the Mars Volta club. Pm happytimeharry to join
Maet
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2005
906 IQ
#25
Quote by paul889988
explain im interested


Consider the small time frame between the assassanation of JFK (Nov.22 1963) and the effective start of Beatlemania when "I wanna hold your hand" was released in America (Dec. 26 1963). Consider that the Beatles were moderately successful in Britain at the time they were starting out, and the fact they were struggling with breaking into the American Market in 1963.

The Beatles didn't just spark out of nowhere and take the world by storm. A lot of unnusual circumstances played in their favour. They began as any (some might agrue) "credible" rock band starting out does. They struggle, maybe get a break, and if their lucky make it big. The Beatles are no exception, as grand as they became. It's not a matter of who came first (or who didn't come first for that matter). It's a matter of luck and marketing. You can hate the big corporations and the men in suits all you want, but when it comes to money, they don't fuck around.

So what does JFK have to do with Beatlemania? Simple. American's just lost a great leader to an assassanation, a devastating blow for them. Quite depressing you might say, no? And little over a month later, a fresh and perky song comes out of Britain and everyone just picks right up again (also consider that this fresh and perky song came from a band who American adolescences use to scorn as lame. Funny how things change over a few months). Americans didn't forget about their loss, but they sure as hell were feeling better, and it's all thanks to the Beatles. And what better way to repay them then gobbling up every conceivable form of Beatles products and music, and making them the biggest band in the world for 8 some odd years.

Like I said, The Beatles started out as average as any band, and managed to make it big based on some unusual circumstances. Pretty lucky, don't you think?

And just so you don't get any ideas, I'm not a Beatles hater/lover. I kept this post as neurtal as I could possibly have. I don't deny that the Beatles managed some truly remarkable feats towards the middle-end of their career. I'm just saying that the Beatles had rather humble beginnings, and achieved what any kid in a band wants to achieve: a break in the industry and a niche in the market. And maybe make some good music too.
Jesse Mrau
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2005
148 IQ
#26
EDIT: ^Hmmm, never thought of it that way. Quite an interesting point.

Quote by Abe
I think the more obvious point is that townshend didn't invent the Marshall stack, I think it was someone else, the name escapes me. Uhh, Mr Meershall perhaps


Wrong you are, Townshend and Entwistle were directly responsible.

Quote by wikipedia
In the early-mid 1960s, Pete Townshend and especially John Entwistle were directly responsible for the creation and widespread use of stacked Marshall cabinets. Townshend later remarked that John started using Marshall Stacks in order to hear himself over Keith Moon's drums, and Pete himself also had to use them just to be heard over John.

In fact, the very first 100 watt Marshall amps (called "Superleads") were created specifically for Entwistle and Townshend when they were looking to replace some equipment which had been stolen from them. Prior to the theft they were each using 50 watt amps, Townshend was using a Marshall JTM45 and Entwistle had a Fender Bassman.

They approached Jim Marshall asking if it would be possible for him to make their new rigs more powerful than those they had lost, to which they were told that the speaker cabinets would have to double in size. They agreed and six rigs of this prototype were manufactured, of which two each were given to Townshend and Entwistle and one each to Ronnie Lane and Steve Marriott of The Small Faces. These new "double" cabinets proved too heavy and awkward to be transported practically, so The Who returned to Marshall asking if they could be cut in half and stacked, and although the double cabinets were left intact, the existing single cabinet models were modified for stacking, which has become the norm for years to follow.
Last edited by Jesse Mrau at Dec 15, 2006,
D_y_p26
UG member
Join date: Sep 2006
1,566 IQ
#27
Quote by Maet
The Beatles were lucky. They weren't genius' or gods, just lucky.

you are completely wrong....The beatles are innovators...
they are one of the first ones at their time who created a whole new style and actually made it good
so many musical styles nowadays was influenced from their music
its like the same as trying to create a new style right now.....and its hard
Last edited by D_y_p26 at Dec 15, 2006,
Maet
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2005
906 IQ
#28
Quote by D_y_p26
you are completely wrong....The beatles are innovators...
they are one of the first ones at their time who created a whole new style and actually made it good
so many musical styles nowadays was influenced from their music
its like the same as trying to create a new style right now.....and its hard


*sigh*

Two words: Scroll up.
chrisb92
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2006
155 IQ
#29
Quote by Jesse Mrau
EDIT: ^Hmmm, never thought of it that way. Quite an interesting point.


Wrong you are, Townshend and Entwistle were directly responsible.


Your gonna need better proof than that, anyone can put any bullshit they want on Wikipedia. I love both bands but the Beatles are definetely better
BrainDamage
Knirps for moisture
Join date: Aug 2004
4,254 IQ
#31
Quote by rock_and_blues
The Beatles>The Who

The Who were just a loud band...if it wasn't for powerchords and a Marshall, Townshend wouldv'e been ****ed...simple as that. And I'm sorry but when was the last time I saw the Who at the TOP (meaning #1) of the "Greatest Band/Album/Song" list? Can't say that I have (sure they're on there, but they're around 20)...plus how many songs have the Who written that was revolutionary to how music was made? Hmmmm......How many have the Beatles written. Well theres:

Tommorrow Never Knows, Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Within You Without You, A Day In The Life, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, The entire B side of Abbey Road (pop symphony, anyone?)

...theres more (entire albums of such classiscs) but I'd say you get the point. "What about Tommy?!?!" cries the Who fan, well while Townshend was writing up his opera about a blind/deaf boy, the Beatles had already become the most popular band in the world, wrote Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (both of which opened up the world of psychedelia, and as was stated early completely changed the musical landscape of the 60s), and had evolved...they went from covering Chuck Berry, to writing songs like Strawberry Fields Forever and Blackbird. So in conclusion...the Beatles are better than the Who...simple as that

*prepares for flame war from Who fans*
easy there. Both were great bands who were hugely successful and popular. Obviously you prefer the Beatles over the Who. Some people (like me) do not.
How to achieve Frank Zappa's guitar tone:
Quote by Thefallofman
Step 1: Buy a Gibson SG
Step 2: Insert Green Ringer, EQ, 3 dead squirrels and a microwave into said SG
Step 3: Plug in and freak the **** out.
rock_and_blues
Banned
Join date: Feb 2006
892 IQ
#33
Quote by BrainDamage
easy there. Both were great bands who were hugely successful and popular. Obviously you prefer the Beatles over the Who. Some people (like me) do not.



I like both bands as well, but as you said, its obvious i like the Beatles more. It just irritates me when someone comes into a thread about the Beatles (or any CR band for that matter), saying a band like the Who (or Zeppelin, or the Stones etc) are better than them. They know what there about to start. Its a complete disruption in any form of civilized conversation about the band and it turns into a "Band A vs Band B" thread. So, I try to get people to shut up about it, and only talk about the band that is specific to the thread.
BrainDamage
Knirps for moisture
Join date: Aug 2004
4,254 IQ
#34
^^Yeah, you are right but...ah screw it lets just get back to the Beatles. Keep the Who (or any other band for that matter) out of this
How to achieve Frank Zappa's guitar tone:
Quote by Thefallofman
Step 1: Buy a Gibson SG
Step 2: Insert Green Ringer, EQ, 3 dead squirrels and a microwave into said SG
Step 3: Plug in and freak the **** out.
rock_and_blues
Banned
Join date: Feb 2006
892 IQ
#35
Quote by BrainDamage
^^Yeah, you are right but...ah screw it lets just get back to the Beatles. Keep the Who (or any other band for that matter) out of this



Thats all I wanted man...

So on topic...anybody have the new album (not reall new...but you know what I mean) Love? It is amazing, I'd recommend it to any of you guys. One thing though, make sure your familiar with the original versions of the songs, because it wont be as fun to listen to (ex: picking apart all the background sounds and realizing what song they're from). It's not neccesary, but it takes abit away from the experience
pumpkins_rule
UG's Rap crusader
Join date: Aug 2004
1,404 IQ
#36
Consider the small time frame between the assassanation of JFK (Nov.22 1963) and the effective start of Beatlemania when "I wanna hold your hand" was released in America (Dec. 26 1963). Consider that the Beatles were moderately successful in Britain at the time they were starting out, and the fact they were struggling with breaking into the American Market in 1963.


Moderately sucessful? They had several straight number one's, and had millions of people queing outside their airplanes and limos. Leanr your history buddy.

The Beatles didn't just spark out of nowhere and take the world by storm. A lot of unnusual circumstances played in their favour. They began as any (some might agrue) "credible" rock band starting out does. They struggle, maybe get a break, and if their lucky make it big. The Beatles are no exception, as grand as they became. It's not a matter of who came first (or who didn't come first for that matter). It's a matter of luck and marketing. You can hate the big corporations and the men in suits all you want, but when it comes to money, they don't fuck around.


Well for one, they had George Martin producing who was pretty far ahead of his ime. They're also credited with keeping the entire concept of a pop band alive, as it was predicted bands would be obsolete in favour of pop singers. Need more proof? Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper etc. No one had ever done pop albums like this before. The mix of commercial songs laced with dynamic and innovative intrumentation and melody construction had never been done before.

So what does JFK have to do with Beatlemania? Simple. American's just lost a great leader to an assassanation, a devastating blow for them. Quite depressing you might say, no? And little over a month later, a fresh and perky song comes out of Britain and everyone just picks right up again (also consider that this fresh and perky song came from a band who American adolescences use to scorn as lame. Funny how things change over a few months). Americans didn't forget about their loss, but they sure as hell were feeling better, and it's all thanks to the Beatles. And what better way to repay them then gobbling up every conceivable form of Beatles products and music, and making them the biggest band in the world for 8 some odd years.


Because, you know, JFK dying is wholly responsible for all the innovation and songs that are still remembered 50 years afterwards. That's extremely logical.


Like I said, The Beatles started out as average as any band, and managed to make it big based on some unusual circumstances. Pretty lucky, don't you think?


*sigh*, some people are just so ignorant.

And just so you don't get any ideas, I'm not a Beatles hater/lover. I kept this post as neurtal as I could possibly have. I don't deny that the Beatles managed some truly remarkable feats towards the middle-end of their career. I'm just saying that the Beatles had rather humble beginnings, and achieved what any kid in a band wants to achieve: a break in the industry and a niche in the market. And maybe make some good music too.


Well if you were so unbiased maybe you would have actually read up on a little music history and realised that The Beatles did so many things unprecendented in music it's laughable to claim otherwise. But you know, since you know so much more then music historians...
Ain't Nuthin' But a UG Thang: Generic member of the UG Hip Hop/Guitar Music Equality Illuminati

Quote by mydarkesthour

It seems like UG is full of those Caveman Metalheads

Quote by mydarkesthour
I meant caveman as in long haired....


pumpkins_rule
UG's Rap crusader
Join date: Aug 2004
1,404 IQ
#37
[quote="'[the"]whorocks']well, i'm sorry dude, but kinda have to disagree with you there.

now, don't get me wrong, the beatles were great and they were extremely influential, but i think that rock would have definitely turned into what it was today without them, and i think the who changed music into most of what it was in the 70s. while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs, that, IMO, blew anything the beatles or stones ever wrote right out of the water. i personally believe they had more skill on a whole then the beatles did, whether it be guitar, bass, drums or songwriting.

like i said, i love the beatles and the stones, i just personally believe that the who are better.

Now I love The Who, but by the time they came out with Tommy, the Beatles had already released Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and The White Album, all of which were sonically more innovative then Tommy. Hell even The Who's opus, Who's Next, is full of pop songs. They were much better and much more innovative then standard pop songs, but they were still pop songs. Again, learn your history before you make claims that aren't true in the least.
Ain't Nuthin' But a UG Thang: Generic member of the UG Hip Hop/Guitar Music Equality Illuminati

Quote by mydarkesthour

It seems like UG is full of those Caveman Metalheads

Quote by mydarkesthour
I meant caveman as in long haired....


Maet
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2005
906 IQ
#38
Your really don't know who you're messing with.

Quote by pumpkins_rule
Moderately sucessful? They had several straight number one's, and had millions of people queing outside their airplanes and limos. Leanr your history buddy..


Maybe if you paid attention to a word I typed, you'd know I was talking about PRE-Beatlemania and PRE-1964. Before the Beatles made it big. "Moderately Successful" BEFORE Beatlemania. Don't even try to argue that The Beatles simply flew into America with a few songs and were instantly loved and adored, that's simply not the case.

Quote by pumpkins_rule
Well for one, they had George Martin producing who was pretty far ahead of his ime. They're also credited with keeping the entire concept of a pop band alive, as it was predicted bands would be obsolete in favour of pop singers. Need more proof? Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper etc. No one had ever done pop albums like this before. The mix of commercial songs laced with dynamic and innovative intrumentation and melody construction had never been done before.


Wow. How original. I still don't care. I'm not arguing the magnitude of their accomplishments, I'm arguing the cause of Beatlemania and their fame.


Quote by pumpkins_rule
Because, you know, JFK dying is wholly responsible for all the innovation and songs that are still remembered 50 years afterwards. That's extremely logical.


Twisting my words, I see...

I never said that JFK's death is responsible for making the Beatles famous 40 years after both facts. I said that JFK's death is partially responsible for the INITIAL success of the Beatles in late '63 and early '64.


Quote by pumpkins_rule
*sigh*, some people are just so ignorant.


No kidding. You try and destroy my points by infusing your arguement with all this cliched "Beatles are awesome innovators, they did so much for music, they are the best and always will be, no one stands a chance against them" crap. You might win some points with their fans, but not any points with me or people who are familiar with debate. Their accomplishments are irrelevant to my point, which is arguing that the Beatles initial success was not some walk in the park along a preexisting path layed down by some nonexistent gods of rock. It was a hard road, as it is for any band, past present and future.

As people, they are no different then anyone else. Proven by the fact that Harrison is dead of cancer and Lennon was riddled with bullets. I'm pretty sure that death, or being able to succumb to death = not Gods.


Quote by pumpkins_rule
Well if you were so unbiased maybe you would have actually read up on a little music history and realised that The Beatles did so many things unprecendented in music it's laughable to claim otherwise. But you know, since you know so much more then music historians...


Again, who claimed otherwise. Certainly not me. I guess because I didn't rattle off a list of amazing things they did means I'm ignorant. Oh well, c'est la vie....

And as a closing thought, I'm not saying I know more than music historians. I'm just saying I know more than you.