I'm not gonna sit here and take shit from someone who thinks Ringo Starr is the freatest ting since sliced bread. Probably 80% of the Beatles fan base is based upon stupid teenagers thinking the song "Yellow Submarine" is some work of genius. NEWSFLASH: It isn't. The Beatles were nothing more then a group of drug addicted teenagers singing about there mystical journeys of LSD. And Jimi Hendrix not having a bigger impact on rock n roll? Is your IQ 20? Woodstock is argueably the most memorable musical event of the 60's if not of all time. His rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" is greater then anything the Beatles have put out. And I'm sorry, well not really, but Elvis Presley had a MUCH bigger impact on music then the Beatles. If it hadn't been for Elvis's controvertial style of presenting music, The Beatles would never have been popular in North America. Elvis is a household name, Ringo Starr isn't. And one last thing, i would like to see documented proof of the alleged billion records sold. Sounds a little far fecthed to me.
Rock Band: The Beatles
- Thread starter Jane
- Start date
I'm not gonna sit here and take shit from someone who thinks Ringo Starr is the freatest ting since sliced bread. Probably 80% of the Beatles fan base is based upon stupid teenagers thinking the song "Yellow Submarine" is some work of genius. NEWSFLASH: It isn't. The Beatles were nothing more then a group of drug addicted teenagers singing about there mystical journeys of LSD. And Jimi Hendrix not having a bigger impact on rock n roll? Is your IQ 20? Woodstock is argueably the most memorable musical event of the 60's if not of all time. His rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" is greater then anything the Beatles have put out. And I'm sorry, well not really, but Elvis Presley had a MUCH bigger impact on music then the Beatles. If it hadn't been for Elvis's controvertial style of presenting music, The Beatles would never have been popular in North America. Elvis is a household name, Ringo Starr isn't. And one last thing, i would like to see documented proof of the alleged billion records sold. Sounds a little far fecthed to me.
I have not mentioned Ringo Starr's name once in this entire thread. Make things up much?
Again, you're so very misinformed it's become downright laughable. The majority of the Beatles fanbase are middle aged people who were growing up when the Beatles were on top of the world. The other portion of their fans are usually the children of those middle aged people discovering classic rock. 99/100 Beatles fans will laugh in your face for bringing up Yellow Submarine, as it's one of their weakest songs.
Wow. I mean, just when I think you can't possibly say something even more stupid then the last, here you go.
A) Every member of the Beatles were in their 20's by the time their first album came out in 1963, not teenagers.
B) No one in the Beatles were "drug addicts". Clearly you aren't familiar with what makes someone a drug addict, as simple experimentation with a drug like LSD hardly makes someone a drug addict.
C) 99.9% of their songs are NOT about drugs in any way, shape, or form.
D) How are you possibly going to criticize the Beatles for using drugs, and then praise Jimi Hendrix, an ACTUAL drug-addicted JUNKIE. The guy died choking on his own heroin-induced vomit.
Woodstock also took place in 1969, WELL after the invention of psychedelic rock and the evolution of what we call "classic rock", both of which were facilitated by the Beatles. Fail again.
Laughable. Utterly laughable.
No, he didn't. Elvis spent the last decade of his life struggling to get an audience of 50 people to watch him in a Las Vegas lounge. The Beatles on the other hand never stopped being the most popular band on the planet for their entire career, and launched four seperate very successful solo careers at the same time.
All Elvis did was sing other people's music. He had a great voice and the right look and was in the right place at the right time. That's it. Had almost no musical talent outside of his voice, and his music has had no lasting influence on rock music since rockabilly and doo-wop stopped being popular.
The Beatles on the other hand, were at the forefront of virtually every single rock movement of the 60s. Merseybeat, folk-rock, and psychedelic rock were all virtually invented by the group.
Again, you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about. The Beatles were the EXACT OPPOSITE of Elvis when they became popular. Elvis was edgy and sexual, the Beatles on the other hand were as squeaky-clean as possible. You no nothing of the group it's obvious.
Why the fuck do you keep bringing up Ringo Starr? He was the least important member of the group. The Beatles are a household name, as is John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
In America alone the Beatles have sold over 250 million records. If you want detailed accounts of every single record sold ever in every country, you can look that up yourself. But right there I've just shown you that the Beatles haves sold more albums in America then those two albums you mentioned did worldwide. So you've been proven wrong.
As for the over a billion records figure, I'm not going to sit here and add up every single country, you can do that yourself. But the figure is legit.
It seems most of your beef with the Beatles has to do with Ringo Starr, who contributed all of two songs to the entire Beatles discography.
Well, Ringo is pretty freat. Wait, what?
Actually, 80% of teens hate Yellow Submarine. It's people like you who have only heard that song and instantly think they suck. It's the people who listen to songs other than the mass produced "popular" ones that like them the most.
What... and Hendrix didn't do drugs? Of course, of course...
Fact:The Beatles were asked to headline Woodstock but Lennon said only if The Plastic Ono band could play too, and they turned it down.
It's an amazing guitar piece, but it's nothing but that. Guitar. It's not like he wrote the freaking song.
Elvis was influential but he just played Rock n Roll, and the genre was already popular at the time. The Beatles CREATED psychedelic rock and revolutionized music. Elvis just improved what was already there.
Maybe true, but The Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney are.
Still more than any other artist ever. Nice try.
Deexter Jorgan
Has a Dark Passenger on board...
We are not talking Ringo star, we are not talking Paul McCartney, the fact is you seem to think that everyone else is supposed to be bigger then the beetles, but due to the fact that they are one of the worlds biggest franchises (like elvis) and have sold more to this day in regards to merchandise and album sales alone (which they still get royalties from) and if you want to talk about members why not Paul McCartney the guy has been a member of the beetles and the front man of wings and still tours till this day making a staggering 100 Mil profit every year, apart from John Lennon and George Harrison is one of the most recognisable faces of the beetles, and has spawned decades of hits, im not denying elvis's credibility but Paul McCartney to this day is still making music and still writes and produces for alot of up and coming artists.
Ya, I don't get why he keeps bringing up Starr. He was NEVER the frontman for the group... do you considering him that? That would be like saying Ronnie Watts is not a household name, so The Rolling Stones aren't well known. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are the frontmen of the Stones, so they're who you think of. For the drummer of a band that's been broken up for 35+ years I think Ringo is a pretty popular guy even if he's not bigger than Elvis.
Deexter Jorgan
Has a Dark Passenger on board...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beetles
heres the link, they are one of the most successful acts in pop history selling over one billion, they have had a shed load of top forty hits, which means your arguement has gone stale, you wanted support you got it, I have officially wikipedia'd your behind your done!
What's funny here is that Ringo has actually had a pretty successful solo career as well, with two different top ten albums and more then one number one hit songs.
This Sabotage guy is so wrong here that it's becoming hilarious. I can't wait to see what comedy gold he comes up with next.
This Sabotage guy is so wrong here that it's becoming hilarious. I can't wait to see what comedy gold he comes up with next.
Well, xfear, Harrison NEVER had a ten minute guitar solo OR lit his guitar on fire. I mean he actually used an acoustic guitar on some songs. And they call themselves rock...
Deexter Jorgan
Has a Dark Passenger on board...
the guy needs to check his facts and choose his words carefully, the beetles have left a tidy sum to the estates of john lennon and George Harrison, McCartney and Starr both earn a tidy sum from the beetles back catalogue its a wonder why they even work at all, but the fact is they do and have cemented their individual legacies as well as the beetles to super stardom IMO
I doubt he'll even post again in this thread. There's really nothing left for him to do except admit he's been proven wrong by about 6 people here. Doesn't seem like the type to admit he's wrong though, he's already negative repped me and sent me a PM asking me if I "ever stop bitching and whining".
Deexter Jorgan
Has a Dark Passenger on board...
his reps arent worth anything anyhoo, hes just attempting for you to retaliate so he could get a reaction, poor boy getting his butt handed to him by six people for shame
Father:_Polley
Fun's my Chinese neighbour's name
X, musically, I feel you're man enough to admit that the Beatles were pretty damn poor. They were average musicians and got by on the fact that they were charismatic and appealed to the masses.
In wrestling terms... they're Hulk Hogan. No-one's going to argue their influence, but they're not the technical sound entity that their reputation suggests
In wrestling terms... they're Hulk Hogan. No-one's going to argue their influence, but they're not the technical sound entity that their reputation suggests
Well, yes, they're not the most amazing and technical everything. There are better technical musicians and all that. But I'm not looking for a band that has long epic solos and amazing drum fills. The Beatles music just entertains me and I enjoy it more than any other band. They're songs are sometimes fun, sometimes relaxing and sometimes just so full of love you have to like it. Even songs like I Am the Walrus that make no sense have cool lyrics and are worth a listen. People just don't give them a chance most of the time.
Father:_Polley
Fun's my Chinese neighbour's name
I don't mind the Beatles. They're entertaining, but they're a result of outstanding marketing as opposed to talent.
I just don't think they merit the title of Greatest band ever, and I thought the challenge of Rock Band was that the songs were technically challenging, that's my opinion as to why a Beatles version wouldn't be great
I just don't think they merit the title of Greatest band ever, and I thought the challenge of Rock Band was that the songs were technically challenging, that's my opinion as to why a Beatles version wouldn't be great
Obviously Lennon wasn't as good of a guitarist as someone like Page or Hendrix, but I don't see how that makes his music poor. You don't have to be a great guitarist to come up with great melodies, and NOBODY has EVER come up with better melodies or written better songs then the Beatles did. Nobody.
You sound like not only a wrestling smark, but a music smark here. Technical prowess on the guitar has NOTHING to do with how good your music is, if it did then Yngwie Malmsteen would be heralded as the greatest guitarist of all time and would be an international superstar on the level of the Beatles.
This is why I hate so much metal and prog-rock. It's guitar *********ion--- "Look how many notes I can play!". I don't give a shit if you can play the guitar upside down, blindfolded with oven mitts on your hands, if your music doesn't have heart and soul then it's worthless to me.
Father:_Polley
Fun's my Chinese neighbour's name
I agree, Lennon and McCartney were amazing writers. Not great musically, but they did their job and earned their money.
Which is why I have little to no metal on my iTunes. I don't care about the notes per minute, I like the simple. But I happen to be off the opinion that Queen combined the musical talent with the ability to put them over the Beatles.
As I've said, I enjoy the Beatles for the most part. I think some of their stuff is poor, but that's opinions for you
Father:_Polley
Fun's my Chinese neighbour's name
Well, if you're looking for a piece of technical sound music I'll point you in the direction of Revolution 9. Best song ever, my man.
How crazy would it be if that was in Rock Band. I don't even know how that would work.
I'm not really, I just feel the Beatles are very simplistic for a video game. Is there a Queen version?
I love the full version of Yer Blues. I absolutely agree to Yellow Submarine but I think Octopus Garden will be a good one considering it has some solid riffs. It's what most people look for in the games, so it's kind of a clincher.
And a Queen Guitar Hero would be pretty cool except I doubt it would be a good enough seller. I love Queen but people at my school always talk about how much they hate them, no doubt because Mercury was gay. If people think The Beatles Rock Band isn't a marketable idea just imagine how bad the Queen version's sales would be. I think the way to go for future installments would either by Led Zeppelin or Guns n Roses if they had the rights. Marketable bands, good guitar and kids would love it. Queen has the right music but not the right appeal.
Shadowmancer
I am The Last Baron
There is a reason for having the funny songs like Yellow Submarine and Octopus's garden there needs to be a build of the difficulty of songs even on the easiest difficulty
Not to mention the fact that so many people have only heard "Yellow Submarine". I wanted to punch this "friend" of mine the other day. We were talking about music and I said how I love The Beatles and he said "The Beatles suck!". I said "what songs have you heard by them?" His answer... "Yellow Submarine" and "Twist and Shout". I tried to tell him that those songs were NOTHING compared to other Beatles stuff but he said he didn't care and they sucked. The general consensus with most of my friends is that The Beatle's sang "Yellow Submarine" and 200 other songs that don't matter. That song ain't great but everyone knows it.
