For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
MKjan
there is a lot of truth to this article, and without bashing the beatles, it is fair to say they are overrated, good but overrated.
Quote
MKjan
It's pretty hard to scrape away all the hype that all bands have, but if you can do that, and not everyone can, your left with just the music and a better chance at a truer opinion. For me, the Stones wrote and performed pure rock'n'roll at a level that is tops, and the Beatles were also very good at what they did...
Quote
Nanker Phlegm
I think you'll find that the first entered EMI studios in late 62.
Quote
Havo
just heard on german TV--very yery good sales of the beatles "remastered" on first day of release. Much more that they exspected,----so I probobly listen to them,even I am a die-hard Stones-Fan
Quote
LOGIEQuote
MKjan
It's pretty hard to scrape away all the hype that all bands have, but if you can do that, and not everyone can, your left with just the music and a better chance at a truer opinion. For me, the Stones wrote and performed pure rock'n'roll at a level that is tops, and the Beatles were also very good at what they did...
If, as yourself and those utterly ridiculous articles claim, the Beatles "success" is merely down to hype, then how come they literally are bigger than God in Russia despite having had their music banned and having been the victim of anti-Beatles propaganda from the governement?
Explain that one for me, Einstein.
Quote
kovachQuote
Nanker Phlegm
I think you'll find that the first entered EMI studios in late 62.
Probably so. If anything, they also recorded some Decca masters during that time.
Quote
MKjanQuote
LOGIEQuote
MKjan
It's pretty hard to scrape away all the hype that all bands have, but if you can do that, and not everyone can, your left with just the music and a better chance at a truer opinion. For me, the Stones wrote and performed pure rock'n'roll at a level that is tops, and the Beatles were also very good at what they did...
If, as yourself and those utterly ridiculous articles claim, the Beatles "success" is merely down to hype, then how come they literally are bigger than God in Russia despite having had their music banned and having been the victim of anti-Beatles propaganda from the governement?
Explain that one for me, Einstein.
I don't think the Beatles success is owed entirely to hype at all. This is why I wrote I am not bashing them, and acknowledge I like them. I also think they are overrated.
Quote
MKjanQuote
LOGIEQuote
MKjan
It's pretty hard to scrape away all the hype that all bands have, but if you can do that, and not everyone can, your left with just the music and a better chance at a truer opinion. For me, the Stones wrote and performed pure rock'n'roll at a level that is tops, and the Beatles were also very good at what they did...
If, as yourself and those utterly ridiculous articles claim, the Beatles "success" is merely down to hype, then how come they literally are bigger than God in Russia despite having had their music banned and having been the victim of anti-Beatles propaganda from the governement?
Explain that one for me, Einstein.
I don't think the Beatles success is owed entirely to hype at all. This is why I wrote I am not bashing them, and acknowledge I like them. I also think they are overrated.
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
The Beatles ARE overrated. How can they not be? They're claimed to be the best ever for Christ sakes. That doesn't mean that it's very, very, very good music though. The Beatles are music for the mind with glimpses of music strictly from the heart. The Rolling Stones are the opposite. That's music strictly from the heart with glimpses of music for the mind. Cut down to the bare bones that's really the only two bands you'll ever need, and all the David Bowies, Robert Johnsons, Bruce Springsteens, Grateful Deads, Frank Zappas, ABBAs, Nirvanas and U2s aren't gonna change that 'cause nobody really has enough talent to follow them. We've heard some amazing music through the years, but nobody has ever really come close to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. And deep in your heart, you know I'm right, even if I'll be bashed for this post.
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
The Beatles ARE overrated. How can they not be? They're claimed to be the best ever for Christ sakes. That doesn't mean that it's very, very, very good music though. The Beatles are music for the mind with glimpses of music strictly from the heart. The Rolling Stones are the opposite. That's music strictly from the heart with glimpses of music for the mind. Cut down to the bare bones that's really the only two bands you'll ever need, and all the David Bowies, Robert Johnsons, Bruce Springsteens, Grateful Deads, Frank Zappas, ABBAs, Nirvanas and U2s aren't gonna change that 'cause nobody really has enough talent to follow them. We've heard some amazing music through the years, but nobody has ever really come close to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. And deep in your heart, you know I'm right, even if I'll be bashed for this post.
Quote
StonesTod
already been listening to them - stereo and mono - all weekend - well worth the wait!
Quote
rlngstnsQuote
StonesTod
already been listening to them - stereo and mono - all weekend - well worth the wait!
Witch do you prefer, if you could only buy one set?
Read it again. It clearly states that it is impossible to not be overrated when people claim it to be the best.Quote
T&AQuote
JumpingKentFlash
The Beatles ARE overrated. How can they not be? They're claimed to be the best ever for Christ sakes. That doesn't mean that it's very, very, very good music though. The Beatles are music for the mind with glimpses of music strictly from the heart. The Rolling Stones are the opposite. That's music strictly from the heart with glimpses of music for the mind. Cut down to the bare bones that's really the only two bands you'll ever need, and all the David Bowies, Robert Johnsons, Bruce Springsteens, Grateful Deads, Frank Zappas, ABBAs, Nirvanas and U2s aren't gonna change that 'cause nobody really has enough talent to follow them. We've heard some amazing music through the years, but nobody has ever really come close to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. And deep in your heart, you know I'm right, even if I'll be bashed for this post.
i'll take the first bash at it....what's your position on the beatles again? they're overrated and yet nobody has ever come close? i'm trying to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable comments....
Quote
T&AQuote
rlngstnsQuote
StonesTod
already been listening to them - stereo and mono - all weekend - well worth the wait!
Witch do you prefer, if you could only buy one set?
well, one set (stereo) is complete, the other isn't...so on balance, i'd go with the stereo.
honestly...it's six of one, half-dozen the other when it comes to the audio merits...
t&a
thanks for that.....reading the past posts, just to narrow it down....
(aka stonestod)
Quote
JumpingKentFlashRead it again. It clearly states that it is impossible to not be overrated when people claim it to be the best.Quote
T&AQuote
JumpingKentFlash
The Beatles ARE overrated. How can they not be? They're claimed to be the best ever for Christ sakes. That doesn't mean that it's very, very, very good music though. The Beatles are music for the mind with glimpses of music strictly from the heart. The Rolling Stones are the opposite. That's music strictly from the heart with glimpses of music for the mind. Cut down to the bare bones that's really the only two bands you'll ever need, and all the David Bowies, Robert Johnsons, Bruce Springsteens, Grateful Deads, Frank Zappas, ABBAs, Nirvanas and U2s aren't gonna change that 'cause nobody really has enough talent to follow them. We've heard some amazing music through the years, but nobody has ever really come close to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. And deep in your heart, you know I'm right, even if I'll be bashed for this post.
i'll take the first bash at it....what's your position on the beatles again? they're overrated and yet nobody has ever come close? i'm trying to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable comments....
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
The Beatles ARE overrated. How can they not be? They're claimed to be the best ever for Christ sakes. That doesn't mean that it's very, very, very good music though. The Beatles are music for the mind with glimpses of music strictly from the heart. The Rolling Stones are the opposite. That's music strictly from the heart with glimpses of music for the mind. Cut down to the bare bones that's really the only two bands you'll ever need, and all the David Bowies, Robert Johnsons, Bruce Springsteens, Grateful Deads, Frank Zappas, ABBAs, Nirvanas and U2s aren't gonna change that 'cause nobody really has enough talent to follow them. We've heard some amazing music through the years, but nobody has ever really come close to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. And deep in your heart, you know I'm right, even if I'll be bashed for this post.
Quote
MKjan
It seems the Beatle fanatics can't accept that other people have other opinions. To say they are overrated is not a bashing,it is an honest appraisal. It's bashing if I don't like them as much as you??
Quote
Baxter ThwaitesQuote
MKjan
It seems the Beatle fanatics can't accept that other people have other opinions. To say they are overrated is not a bashing,it is an honest appraisal. It's bashing if I don't like them as much as you??
I think some Stones fans are just stuck in their 1960s playground heyday. I've never met a Beatles fans obsessed with putting the Stones down.
The Beatles will always be just ahead of the Stones for me ... but it's a close run thing.