Beatles or Stones

Paul McCartney is a cunt.

no great musicians have ever been assholes chassis. It's impossible!!!

I don't think I have to add anything more about the Beatles. They've influenced even their haters because their uber detailed production and sound are probably amongst the most endlessly sought after and ripped off in the history of recorded music.

But I can't let this slide.. the rant about Beethoven, that's possibly the most thing I've ever read. Ever notice the drastic stylistic difference between Symphony #5 and practically the entire history of classical music up until that point?

  On 8/4/2010 at 4:19 PM, Greg Reason said:

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.

 

Absolutely laughable concepts. As if this shit is in any way connected to reality. Ray Davies is great and all BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT WE SAY BEFORE WE OPEN OUR MOUTHS. Same goes with the Stones. Not even comparable. And The Who. Honestly. The most overrated band in rock music history. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the records and tell me they're better composers than The Beatles. Complete fabrication. And The Stones are better musicians?? They were a shambles! Listen to the records!! Appalling timing, missed cues, it's all a big mess. Unless we're talking about the session musos The Stones decked their shit out with, which this writer seems to be ignoring.

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content

 

Yeah 'Revolution no. 9' is real easy listening.... First Music Concrete composition on a rock album. 'I Want You (She's So Heavy)' yeah, walk in the park.... First monolithically heavy Doom riff in recorded history, multitracked to fuck and layered with storm noises. 'Within You Without You', 'The Inner Light', sure, because the charts were just brimming with Indian ragas, they were selling like hotcakes.................

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

it had no technical innovations

 

Yeah of course, no innovations like Artificial Double Tracking (invented by Abbey Road engineer Ken Townsend for John Lennon's vocals), routing audio through a Leslie Speaker (Geoff Emerick broke into the cabinet to patch in signals from the mixing desk for 'Tomorrow Never Knows', the first time in history this had been done), utilizing tape loops in rock music ('Rain' in 1965, 'Tomorrow Never Knows' in 1966 and so on), like the preparing and mic'ing of a drum kit with spot mics and tea towels to invent the sound still used in most Pop productions, tape flanging (which Hendrix producer Eddie Kramer learnt off them while they recorded 'Baby You're a Rich Man' at Olympic Studios and swiftly used on the Axis: Bold as Love album) ETC ETC ETC

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

They came to replace the accusatory words of militant musicians with overindulgent nursery rhymes.

 

This is the most hilarious tripe I've ever bothered persisting to read. "Accusatory words of militant musicians"?!!?!?

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

The Beatles belonged, like the Beach Boys (whom they emulated for most of their career), to the era of the vocal band.

 

Has the writer ever even listened to The Beach Boys? Or The Beatles, for that matter? This statement is ridiculous.

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton and Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but no less original).

 

This is complete and utter bullshit. Shows how little taste the writer has and how little knowledge of the era. Harrison is almost the archetypal example of immaculate composition and flawless execution. Brian May and Eddie Van Halen are further examples of his ilk. The other names mentioned are amateurs in comparison, with the sole exception of Jeff Beck.

 

Harrison played for the song, not to show off how good he was. He played the perfect part for every track. Clapton ripped off all he knew for Chicago electric Blues artists (as he readily admits), as did the Stones (as they too readily admit) and Keith Richards is an appalling lead guitarist HENCE HE PLAYED RHYTHM GUITAR FOR THE ROLLING STONES so how he could be so dramatically better than Harrison is an impossibility in the first place. This entire post is fiction.

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.

 

Sounds like a disgruntled prog rock fan trying to convince me Dream Theatre are the greatest because technically they are more sophisticated than everyone else

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avant garde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three minute songs built around a chorus.

 

This guy honestly needs to clean his ears out and take a listen to the music again. VU were revolutionary yes but certainly not because of any compositional prowess. Listen to their debut (released four years after The Beatles') and the songwriting is infantile.

 

Zappa; of course he's a genius, that is obvious. Better than The Beatles? He is too different to even try that game. That's like comparing an orange to a an aircraft carrier. Completely fucking different things. He was a solo composer writing pieces for ensembles of varying sizes and thus should be compared to Varese and Webern and the rest of that crew, not a fucking rock band.

 

The Doors. Are you honestly trying to tell me The Doors and their imbecilic singer compared at any stage to The Beatles?!?!?

 

Pink Floyd. I love Floyd (especially Syd Barrett, who was helming the group at this stage in their career) but calling their rambling art-school jams (which I love, by the way) "long and daring suites worthy of avant garde music" is one of the most laughable concepts one could possibly imagine. Just use that google of yours and have a read of what any of them have to say about their "long and daring suites" of the 60s.

 

  On 8/4/2010 at 2:33 PM, LUDD said:

while the world was full of guitarists, bassist, singers and drummers who played solos and experimented with counterpoint, the Beatles limited themselves to keeping the tempo and following the melody.

 

Again, this person has clearly not listened to The Beatles and undoubtedly should if he sees fit to speak of them in such overly large, ill-informed rants as this.

 

There's no point in me going any further with this, the sheer lack of research, comprehension and taste underpinning the whole hater frenzy didn't even warrant the response to begin with but for some reason or other I feel like complete bullshit like this needs to get called out so other similarly misinformed individuals don't accidentally stumble across this dribble and think it has anything to do with reality.

This is the best reply to a tldr post I've ever seen. It both summarized the initial wankery (so I didn't have to read through it) and dispelled it using cogent and agreeable arguments (so I didn't have to).

*leans back and puts feet on desk*

The Dude abides. . .

I think LUDD just ctrl+c ctrl+v-ed some shit just to piss you guys off. I doubt he believes in it, as I understand it he believes in nothing.

EDIT: 'Cept for making tunes that you can dance with yer girl to.

  On 8/4/2010 at 5:49 PM, xxx said:

  On 8/4/2010 at 5:35 PM, chassis said:

Paul McCartney is a cunt.

I fucking hate The Beatles and his crusty cunt ass is gonna be at the Sprint Center here at the end of the month!

Fuck you, Paul, in advance for fucking up downtown traffic with your shitty "show"

I heard his show is pretty good. My favorite Beatle easily. Don't let your blood pressure kill you.

Ween

Eddie Money

how id like to turn you on...

i always thought CSNY were more comparable to the beatles than the stones...that said ive listend to their satanic majesties request more than any beatles album ever...although some of their songs are quite catchy

Beatles > Pink Floyd > Kinks > The Doors > The Who > The Stones > The Beach Boys > The Monkees > Bob Dylan

i know the history of psychiatry.... if that helps

Meat Loaf > *

The Who, obviously. Every aspect of their music and life is much more interesting. Quadrophenia good enough to allow the writer a child porn get out of jail free card.

i don't like the beatles. they bore the fuck out of me.

the shaggs

The Beatles.

  On 8/4/2010 at 8:13 PM, mrx said:

the shaggs

yes

beatles times infinity, no comebacks

the tape beatles

pepsi & shirley > mel & kim

  On 8/4/2010 at 10:28 PM, BCM said:

pepsi & shirley > mel & kim

Syntax error

Oh God not again

Love

I prefer James. I was actually in them for a while.

No, seriously

Love

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yVBMUXr4xo&feature=related

1967