Is this the worst comment ever......?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Mofo said:



Saying the Beatles "have a few good songs" is just plain ignorant sorry if I come on strong because I don't want to insult you, but you better go and hear sgt peppers, magical mystery tour, rubber soul, revolver, and abbey road and come back and see if you can say the same thing, by the way how old are you?

:huh: last I knew you could have an opnion.........

if the Beatles aren't your thing than thats fine. Tons of people love Green Day..personally I think they blow...that doesn't make me wrong.
 
Dismantled said:


:huh: last I knew you could have an opnion.........

if the Beatles aren't your thing than thats fine. Tons of people love Green Day..personally I think they blow...that doesn't make me wrong.

I don't think the problem is some people not liking the Beatles personally. It is more that some people are trying to objectively claim that the Beatles are all hype or that they had no competition in the 60's. There is some level of musical ignorance there.
 
Dismantled said:


:huh: last I knew you could have an opnion.........

if the Beatles aren't your thing than thats fine. Tons of people love Green Day..personally I think they blow...that doesn't make me wrong.


yes everyone's entitled to their opinion I just find ridiculous "they have a few good songs" theirs tons of groups I hate but I can still admit they have good or even great songs, I know many people who don't like the Beatles or who think they are overrated but all of them at least accept the fact that they have more than "a few good songs."
 
rjhbonovox said:
No one on this forum is EVER gonna convince me that The Beatles wouldn't have been as massive with or without George Harrison who was like Ringo Starr and just made up the numbers in that band.
That's a completely different point. Lennon-McCartney could've made it without George (their later albums would just be a little worse for not having his songs). That doesn't mean he wasn't a remarkable musician in his own right.
mo786 said:
Think about it - they were big like in the 60's - if they were around today they would not be anywhere near as popular (not even as much as U2 IMO) - back in those days there was hardly any competition and they were massive - but it would not be anything like that today IMO.
If you think there was "hardly any competition" in the sixties, you're severely misinformed and not worth arguing with.
 
Last edited:
mo786 said:
Think about it - they were big like in the 60's - if they were around today they would not be anywhere near as popular (not even as much as U2 IMO) - back in those days there was hardly any competition and they were massive - but it would not be anything like that today IMO.

Yes, you're right. I mean, look at some of this crap that some of the other big artists of the day were putting out during the Beatles' career...

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin III
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
The Doors - The Doors
The Doors - Strage Days
The Doors - Waiting For The Sun
The Doors - Soft Parade
The Doors - Morrison Hotel
Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin'
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisted
Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde
Simon&Garfunkel - Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme
Simon&Garfunkel - Bookends
Simon&Garfunkel - Bridge Over Troubled Waters
The Who - Tommy

No competition indeed.

Know what you're talking about before you talk about it.
 
Last edited:
The 60s were insane in terms of competition..I mean, the Stones, Who, Kinks, Hendrix etc..not to mention all the smaller bands who had lost masterpiece albums, and it seemed even the one-hit wonders had incredible songs.
 
namkcuR said:


Yes, you're right. I mean, look at some of this crap that some of the other big artists of the day were putting out during the Beatles' career...

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin III
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
The Doors - The Doors
The Doors - Strage Days
The Doors - Waiting For The Sun
The Doors - Soft Parade
The Doors - Morrison Hotel
Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin'
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisted
Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde
Simon&Garfunkel - Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme
Simon&Garfunkel - Bookends
Simon&Garfunkel - Bridge Over Troubled Waters
The Who - Tommy

No competition indeed.

Know what you're talking about before you talk about it.

5 albums by The Doors in order to prove how strong the 60's were. :giggle:
 
U2Man said:
Is this the worst thread ever?
Quite possibly.
roy said:
5 albums by The Doors in order to prove how strong the 60's were. :giggle:
Yeah, one of which was released at the beginning of the seventies (Morrison Hotel), and another which is probably their worst album with Jim (The Soft Parade). The other three are awesome, though.

You'd still have to be pretty daft to think that the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, the Who, the Kinks, the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, etc., all in their primes, didn't constitute "competition."
 
namkcuR said:


Yes, you're right. I mean, look at some of this crap that some of the other big artists of the day were putting out during the Beatles' career...

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin III
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
The Doors - The Doors
The Doors - Strage Days
The Doors - Waiting For The Sun
The Doors - Soft Parade
The Doors - Morrison Hotel
Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin'
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisted
Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde
Simon&Garfunkel - Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme
Simon&Garfunkel - Bookends
Simon&Garfunkel - Bridge Over Troubled Waters
The Who - Tommy

No competition indeed.

Know what you're talking about before you talk about it.

Most of them albums are crap!:wink:

and to make it worse you ain't got ANY Hendrix in, THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTIST OF ALL TIME!:wink:
 
yimou said:
If anyone should be interested.

She Loves You - Stockholm 1963 mpg

http://s53.you sendit.com/d.aspx?id=2LX4G66RA7RS52DFGORA3JGJPG



Wow!

Thank you very much again yimou!

Nothing like gems from the past.....:drool:

So, this is the only song Beatles ever wrote? :wink:

Er det mig, eller bruger Svensk TV2 stadig samme den grafik til det 2-tal oppe i højre hjørne? :lmao:
 
namkcuR said:


Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin III
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
The Doors - The Doors
The Doors - Strage Days
The Doors - Waiting For The Sun
The Doors - Soft Parade
The Doors - Morrison Hotel
Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin'
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisted
Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde
Simon&Garfunkel - Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme
Simon&Garfunkel - Bookends
Simon&Garfunkel - Bridge Over Troubled Waters
The Who - Tommy

No competition indeed.

Know what you're talking about before you talk about it.



Hold on - theres only about 5 artists there - thats NOT COMPETITION!!

How much competition is there in the charts TODAY?


Think about how many different types of music there are these days and how many different genres different people are into.

To the person who replied straight after me - no I have not heard all the Beatles' best songs (I have heard most of the very famous ones) - and I don't like them generally and for example I certainly do not think they have a better catalogue than U2 - that being said there are billions who will have heard many U2 songs and still tell you they suck!

U2 for MOST people will be a band with a few good songs (i.e really famous onesl ike Beautiful Day) and thats how the Beatles' will be for me.

(Finally, I haven't heard all the Beatles' albums because I have heard most of the 'best' songs and I didn;t think it was worth seeking all the albums out to hear the 'lesser' songs!)

AND FINALLY!! The Beatles/U2 can very much be likened to TV in the UK - back in the day (70's and 80's) when people had choice of 4 channels ratings tended to be 12m+ for some shows everyweek.... these days with most people having WAY more choice a show iwll be lucky if it hits 12m because everyone is watching different channels..

Now tell me I am wrong! :)
 
U2Man said:

Er det mig, eller bruger Svensk TV2 stadig samme den grafik til det 2-tal oppe i højre hjørne? :lmao:

You are welcome :wink:



















Og jeg tror sgu du har ret med det 2-tal :laugh:
 
mo786 said:




Hold on - theres only about 5 artists there - thats NOT COMPETITION!!

How much competition is there in the charts TODAY?


Think about how many different types of music there are these days and how many different genres different people are into.

To the person who replied straight after me - no I have not heard all the Beatles' best songs (I have heard most of the very famous ones) - and I don't like them generally and for example I certainly do not think they have a better catalogue than U2 - that being said there are billions who will have heard many U2 songs and still tell you they suck!

U2 for MOST people will be a band with a few good songs (i.e really famous onesl ike Beautiful Day) and thats how the Beatles' will be for me.

(Finally, I haven't heard all the Beatles' albums because I have heard most of the 'best' songs and I didn;t think it was worth seeking all the albums out to hear the 'lesser' songs!)

AND FINALLY!! The Beatles/U2 can very much be likened to TV in the UK - back in the day (70's and 80's) when people had choice of 4 channels ratings tended to be 12m+ for some shows everyweek.... these days with most people having WAY more choice a show iwll be lucky if it hits 12m because everyone is watching different channels..

Now tell me I am wrong! :)

You are wrong. :)

That was a very short competitive list posted. That did not include anything from Jimi Hendrix, Creedance Clearwater Revival, Cream, CSN(&Y), The Byrds, Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane. This is just off the top of my head and this is music from 10 years before I was born. These are classic bands that survived and are forever part of rock. If you included all the one hit wonders, the list would be staggering.

And overall, I would say that the Beatles best stuff is not the stuff found on the #1 collection. The albums are essential.
 
mo786 said:
Now tell me I am wrong! :)
You're wrong.

There were a lot of different types of music and a lot of different artists in the sixties too. We've just listed the major ones. Why don't you go look at some old charts? You'll notice that they don't have those same five bands over and over again. Really, it's only about forty years difference. It's not like the music industry didn't exist until U2 came along.

What's really changed in rock music since then? What's punk doing now that MC5 and the Stooges weren't doing in the sixties? What's indie rock doing now that the Velvet Underground and Nick Drake weren't doing in the sixties? It's gotten a bit more compartmentalized, but it's fundamentally the same shit.

The only major chart force U2 is competing against that the Beatles weren't is rap and hip hop (which I hardly see as direct competition anyway; how do you reason that U2 is directly competing against every form of recorded music in the world right now?). There wasn't as big a divide between country/folk and rock back in the sixties, so it probably evens out anyway. Who's U2's major competition in rock music today anyway? Radiohead and who else? Coldplay? Green Day?

I also don't see why contemporaneous "competition" matters at all, supposing black is white, up is down, and you're right about this. The Beatles are competing against modern music for modern ears as much as ever; people are still discovering their music and discovering that they like it. So even if, as you say, the Beatles were one out of only six bands in the sixties, if they're still regarded by many as one of the best acts of the last half-century, what does it matter? It doesn't change anything. What's your point?

The best critics like yourself can come up with to explain this is that everyone is so starstruck by the band's legacy that they overinflate the worth of their catalogue, but nobody ever offers a compelling argument to support that claim. You can try if you like. It'd help if you'd have actually heard the catalogue, of course.

Also, you won't earn much credibility as a rock historian if you base all your impressions on compilations. Don't tell us how the sixties were if you've never even listened to an entire Beatles album from start to finish. Nobody will take you seriously.

Please stop saying stupid things.

(Edit: Here are some lists of some major sixties albums if you truly can't be bothered to do your own googling: 1, 2, 3.)
 
Last edited:
typhoon said:

The Beatles are competing against modern music for modern ears as much as ever; people are still discovering their music and discovering that they like it. So even if, as you say, the Beatles were one out of only six bands in the sixties, if they're still regarded by many as one of the best acts of the last half-century, what does it matter? It doesn't change anything. What's your point?

:drool:
 
Aardvark747 said:
When during the Popmart tour, George Harrison took a look at the current music industry and said "In 30 years time, will anyone remember U2 or The Spice Girls?"

:|


I would destroy him with my words... if he weren't a [dead] Beatle. :sad:







[I've always like Paul McCartney best... Eleanor Rigby, baby!]:huh:
 
Ehh, I had a long reply written out but my net disconencted when I pressed send...


I ain't writing it all out again, but I have to get this little bit in..

As it happens I have Sgt Peppers on my PC right now and frankly some of the songs would be totally disregarded today if they were released as new single (i.e from a new band)
 
Back
Top Bottom