no...you equated high record sales with McDonald's high sales. It's not any more expensive or less convenient for me to listen to "quality" music over something I think is crap. In the case of McDonald's, their high sales figures are a result of 1) inexpensive food, 2) widely available, 3) consistency, 4) convenience, etc.Now we're equating speed with quality? Speed is about convenience, so is the drive through. And if there's restaurants like this in one of the biggest markets in the world, lets not act like there aren't others across this nation. And actually, I wasn't even considering the Burger and fries which is 12 dollars. And the fries are homemade---Keep stretching this out, I don't really care.
You get the fundamental difference between food and digital products don't you?
Actually that depends. Some groups put out overrated double discs, or something that has some ridiculous bull additive and charge more for it. And some groups that think their doesn't stink will charge more despite having the same amount of time on the record because they know it'll sell. So, to imply there isn't a difference in music price is definitely not true. In fact, try getting a Beatles vinyl compared to another artist or group on vinyl. There can be a massive disparity at times.
...you got me. I suspected after your previous post. Bas .
You're arguing with a brick wall. Everyone knows the Beatles were incredible musicians.
...you got me. I suspected after your previous post. Bas .
Believe whatever you want to believe, but to me your argument is the most preposterous dumbest things I have heard in a long long time, rivaling even some of kobyz posts, and probably worse.
Go ahead and live in your fantasy world.
And don't forget to tell it to a REAL musician sometime.
I only wish I could be there when you do that is if you have the guts to do it.
'nuff said.
Child.
Don't make me come in there!
I've heard a ton of stuff over the years and am deep deep into what came before I did. I can start back way before rock and roll and work my way to what we are hearing right now. When it comes to talent The Beatles are right there at the very top, right there with Sinatra, Ray Charles, Elvis.
You put on the headphones and really listen and I can't think of a better .....band. They really were totally amazing.
I do prefer the Rolling Stones because of their blues feel but they were not as talented.
Sargeant Peppers about as good as it gets.
I much prefer the early Stones albums over the latter Stones, but most of those songs were written by blues artists.
Not that those songs were written by blues cats, that Stones sound was strongly influensed by those old blues cats. As time went on they began to get away from that into a more ...rock groove.
Exile On Main Street.....as good as they ever got, in my opinion.
Okay. That's one song. I mentioned others. You still going to act like an average pianist composed Martha My Dear? Or that an average guitarist/pianist composed You Never Give Me Your Money?
The beatles suck balls
I don't get the sentiment that the Beatles "suck balls".
I realize it all comes down to personal taste. I think Metallica and Led Zeppelin suck relative to what a lot of people think about them so I get it though. I think the latter is one of the most overrated bands ever.
Pretty much. At the time perhaps what they did was "revolutionary" but looking back they were merely, imo, a poppy boy band that started doing drugs at some point and tried to make meaningful music which was just noise really, tbh
Just like you said though. I love Led Zeppelin and I can understand why someone would think they're overrated but it's all good. imo people arguing over music is re ed considering they're arguing over what someone else made as if it is personal to them and defines them
elanor rigby is a good song though
Last edited by Leetonidas; 07-23-2014 at 03:03 PM.
Mostly I listen to I can play on acoustic. That's what resonates with me. Some of Zeppelins stuff is great. Ramble On and Over the Hills and Far Way are great, fun song to play on acoustic guitar for example. The Beatles have a bunch of awesome acoustic like Dear Prudence, I Will, Mother Nature's Son etc.
Once ya start shaving you'll change your mind.
No competent accomplished musician would ever in a million years diss the Beatles, only a very ignorant child would, and very few of those.
Truth is there are much better musicians out there (eg Henricks, Paige, Clapton, Elton John etc etc), but I agree that calling them average musicians, their music "noise" or merely a boy band is outlandish.
No competent accomplished musician would ever in a million years diss the Beatles, only a very ignorant child would, and very few of those.
They dabbled in everything. In the White Album, there's the Carribean inspired Oobla dee obla Da, the heavy rock/metal Helter Skelter, plain rock songs like Back in the USSR, pyschadelic stuff like Dear Prudence & Happiness is a Warm Gun, anthems like Revolution, Old Western song like Rocky Raccoon, Blues song Yer Blues, ballads like I Will, Mother Nature's Son and Julia, psychedelic rock with While My guitar gently weeps, and even 20s ball room music with Honey Pie.
they were given full artistic freedom on that album.
I can call bands I don't particularly like out without calling there music trash or anything. Like Zeppelin, I don't particularly like them, but they're great musicians.
Maybe it's relative tho. I know a few goth metal guys or whatever who call Zeppelin's music pop or equivalent to boy band. I think it's hyperbole.
Excellent take.
If we took The Beatles and The Rolling Stones hits, what other two bands could compare?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
