#31
Igor Belanov wrote:
I hope that I could name 100 bands that were better than The Beatles without involving The Bangles! Even Keane would be above the Bangles!
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 10:31
#32
buffalo-boy wrote:
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 12:27
#33
LunacyBooth wrote:
Igor Belanov wrote:
Even Keane would be above the Bangles!
Ehhh…No chance!
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 12:30
#34
mrs h wrote:
Igor Belanov wrote:
I hope that I could name 100 bands that were better than The Beatles without involving The Bangles! Even Keane would be above the Bangles!
You say that as though you think I meant I would make a list and they would be in it. Which is both confusing and very probably irresponsible.
Did you get my euros btw? If you didn’t you can forget it and give me back the cash as I have more than I thought. Or give the cash to Linda, because I owe her £27 anyway. [/real life thingy]
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 12:33
#35
Igor Belanov wrote:
Sarah said she would put The Bangles number 78 in such a list had it existed. I had a feeling she wasn’t planning to draw a full list up, let alone post it on this thread…
I did get that money changed, it came to the grand total of 21 euros. Obviously I won’t be taking that much with me!
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 12:41
#36
fatboy wrote:
McCartney does nothing for me. He put out that Frog song -Lennon would’ve turned in his grave if he heard that.
Lennon was the better writer of the two.
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 12:43
#37
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
Igor Belanov wrote:
Sarah said she would put The Bangles number 78 in such a list had it existed. I had a feeling she wasn’t planning to draw a full list up, let alone post it on this thread…
Well I wasn’t, but I will now I have been challenged. After work mind, can’t spend all day skiving like you lot :p
Can you name 100 bands that are better that The Beatles andThe Bangles then?
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 12:58
#38
Igor Belanov wrote:
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 13:01
#39
Dennis wrote:
Kill_Hill wrote:
I’m not a fan of the beatles but it is possible that they were the best band ever. could you seriously say T? were better than the Beatles? I’d feel a bit daft sayin that.
Erm…yeah, but that doesn’t prove that the Beatles are the best band ever, does it?
I love Therapy? but they are not my favourite band ever, they are just one of numerous bands I like.
My argument is that the accepted view is that the Beatles are the best band ever, just like Bohemian Rhapsody is the best song ever and OK Computer is the best album ever, yawn, yawn ,yawn, yadda yadda yadda.. For me, personally, there are bands that write/ wrote better songs, are technically better musicians and had more to say.
I won’t name those bands, cos inevitably a large number of people will say I am wrong, again all subjective opinions.
For every side two of Abbey Road, there is an Octopus’ Garden or Yellow Subma-bastid-rine or (insert any Ringo-sung tune here). And don’t get me started on those bloody pseudo-Eastern drone-alongs like Within You Within Whatever It’s Called Cos I Always Skip It.
:D
Sorry, rant over!
(PS The Stones were better anyway, so ner ner ner ner ner!)
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 13:25
#40
Igor Belanov wrote:
Well said, sir.
But The Smiths are better than than Morrissey solo, without any doubt:p
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 13:37
#41
Dennis wrote:
:D
Comparing bands is always awkward anyway - it’s like comparing an ice cream to a curry and trying to work out which one is best, you know; Is this ice cream a better ice cream than this curry is at being a curry? kinda thing.
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 13:52
#42
Charlie wrote:
:D Why cant we just accept that everyone likes different music…And some people think Babyshambles are good ? :D
Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 16:15
#43
fatboy wrote:
Igor Belanov wrote:
Well said, sir.
But The Smiths are better than than Morrissey solo, without any doubt:p
Well said that man.
Posted on Sat, 16 June 2007 at 15:41
#44
not_that_kind_of_guy (a story on the radio) wrote:
Igor Belanov wrote:
But The Smiths are better than than Morrissey solo, without any doubt:p
no no no no no. no.
Posted on Sat, 16 June 2007 at 15:49
#45
Superunknown wrote:
Obviously when I said that the Beatles are the best band ever I hardly meant that absolutely everybody feels that way. And since taste is completely subjective there is no such thing as THE definitve best band ever.
However, even if you don’t like the Beatles you have to give them credit for being pioneers and visionaries in many ways. (Although I can already see you nay-sayers protesting now)
The Beatles did things musically and conceptionally (hope that’s a word) that no one had ever done before. They did it first and they did it best.
I dare anyone who critizises McCartney to come up with chord progressions only remotely as interesting as the ones in “Michelle”. THEN go and write something as completely different as “Helter Skelter”. Then “Golden Slumbers”. And when you’re done writing all those masterpieces, sing them as majestically as McCartney did back then.
And then you can come back and state how much he always sucked.
Posted on Sun, 17 June 2007 at 12:16
#46
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
Conceptually :)
You’re right that nobody is ever gonna agree on who is the best, it’s pretty pointless trying.
And I’m sure that at the time, The Beatles were doing something very new, exciting and innovative and due credit to them for that. I just don’t like their music.
Posted on Sun, 17 June 2007 at 14:21
#47
Taunty Dan wrote:
He was great for the 10ish years of the beatles. He’s been shite since. Which is amost 40 years. So you see, the haters have a point.
Posted on Sun, 17 June 2007 at 18:04
#48
mrs h wrote:
oooh points!! :D
*looks for prizes*
Posted on Sun, 17 June 2007 at 18:33
#49
col wrote:
Quote (author unknown):
I dare anyone who critizises McCartney to come up with chord progressions only remotely as interesting as the ones in “Michelle”. THEN go and write something as completely different as “Helter Skelter”. Then “Golden Slumbers”. And when you’re done writing all those masterpieces, sing them as majestically as McCartney did back then.
And then you can come back and state how much he always sucked.
Right, I’ve done that and I still think he’s a twat.
We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow sub…
Posted on Sun, 17 June 2007 at 21:11
#50
Superunknown wrote:
You must be John Lennon then.
Posted on Tue, 19 June 2007 at 19:29
#51
col wrote:
Quote (author unknown):
You must be John Lennon then.
Speaking of twats
Posted on Tue, 19 June 2007 at 20:37
#52
Superunknown wrote:
Posted on Wed, 20 June 2007 at 17:15
