Biggest Debate in Rock N Roll History ?

**Janszoon** · 07-19-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

It looks like Flying Pig is masquerading as Norg.

I see no comments about hookers though.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-19-2012, 03:04 PM

I'm convinced if Big 3, Norg , Flying Pig & Neapolitan ever got involved in a debate the universe would implode.

Unknown Soldier · 07-19-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I see no comments about hookers though.

...and no comments about Derek yet, aka the idiot that lives downstairs.

It's early days and his cover's not blown yet.

blastingas10 · 07-19-2012, 03:18 PM

Kids today don't know the Beatles? Thats ridiculous. I don't know any kids who dont know the Beatles, whether they like them or not. They still sell as many albums a year as the best selling artists today.

And whoever laughed at the comment about bands being influenced by them in 200 years, it may be a little far-fetched but if there's any band who can stay relevant that long, it's the Beatles. And maybe a few others. They're still goin strong 50 years after they were making music.

According to the latest Nielsen figures, overall music sales in the U.S. have increased for the first time in years, mainly thanks to extremely strong sales of the Beatles digital catalog. Vinyl records are the fastest growing form of music in American and who has had the top selling vinyl the past two years? The beatles.

Duraddict · 07-19-2012, 03:54 PM

Doesn't make them good. Again, Britney and GaGa blow up the charts, but their stuff isn't good. Sales mean nothing.

**Janszoon** · 07-19-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

And whoever laughed at the comment about bands being influenced by them in 200 years, it may be a little far-fetched but if there's any band who can stay relevant that long, it's the Beatles. And maybe a few others. They're still goin strong 50 years after they were making music.

That was me. And I stand by my little laughy-face. If looking backward in time 200 years is any indication, it's not the pop music that survives the centuries, it's the art music. 200 years in the future people are going to be far more likely to be influenced by someone like Charles Mingus or Philip Glass than they are to be influenced by the Beatles.

blastingas10 · 07-19-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duraddict

Doesn't make them good. Again, Britney and GaGa blow up the charts, but their stuff isn't good. Sales mean nothing.

No it doesnt make them good. But they're great anyway. Comparing brittney spears to the Beatles is ridiculous.

And I'm not saying the Beatles will be relevant in 200 years, but if any rock band will be its them. It's not normal for pop music to continue topping charts 50 years after they stopped making music. They were more than just a typical pop band. Justin beiber and lady gaga will not have the lastin impact of the Beatles, you can count on that.

Neapolitan · 07-19-2012, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx

"We're more popular than Jesus." - Lennon

Really The Beatles were pretentious than anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Lennon

"Well, originally I pointed out that fact in reference to England. That we meant more to kids than Jesus did, or religion at that time. I wasn't knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact and it's true more for England than here. I'm not saying that we're better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person ..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger ?

You'd be wrong then because they wrote it for their own album not for the benefit of The Stones.

The decision for the Stones to cover it was made solely by their record label against the Stones wishes. neither band had anything to do with it.

I just said what I said, and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong. From what I remember of the story is that Keith and Mick approached John and Paul at a club they went off to a corner and came back with a song written on a (something like) a pack of matches. What supprised Keith was that it took five minutes and that Paul and John work together on the song, (beacuse written was an inidvidual endeavor for the members of the Stones). Now maybe it wasn't a night club and maybe it wasn't on the back of a pack of matches and maybe the Stones were not being helped by The Beatles. I'm a bit rusty on my Stones folk-lore. But I was alway under the impression the song was meant for the Stones and then The Beatles decided to record it also - that was from the story I heard/read. And the only reason I mentioned it that song was because I don't consider the Stones following in the footsteps of The Beatles, or being Beatle wanna-bees like The Beatles felt all bands that came after them were. That basically the Stones were independant of The Bealtes- but I felt I was compelled bring up that one incident because I was afraid of being called on the carpet for it by a Beatles fan for ignoring that fact that the Stones have a song they recorded penned by Lennon and Mc Cartney.

Quote:

It was a throwaway. The only two versions of the song were Ringo and the Rolling Stones. That shows how much importance we put on it: We weren't going to give them anything great, right?

Now if John is using the word "give" how can it be that "neither band had anything to do with it."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger ?

And it wasn't really a hit either it did marginally better than their first single.

If it broke the Top 40 I can't see how it wouldn't be considered a hit.

Unknown Soldier · 07-28-2012, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chawktalks

will there ever be a band as good as the bands from the 60's and 70's, i say it is a different world. i hate the discussion. Led Zeplin did not exist in the time of ipods and internet.

There have been bands just as good from the 1980s to present day, its just a case of adapting and changing your music tastes slightly to appreciate these bands

mr dave · 07-28-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chawktalks

will there ever be a band as good as the bands from the 60's and 70's, i say it is a different world. i hate the discussion. Led Zeplin did not exist in the time of ipods and internet.

Only when people stop looking to the past with nostalgia filters in full effect.

07-19-2012, 03:04 PM	#132 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I'm convinced if Big 3, Norg , Flying Pig & Neapolitan ever got involved in a debate the universe would implode. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-19-2012, 03:18 PM	#134 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Kids today don't know the Beatles? Thats ridiculous. I don't know any kids who dont know the Beatles, whether they like them or not. They still sell as many albums a year as the best selling artists today. And whoever laughed at the comment about bands being influenced by them in 200 years, it may be a little far-fetched but if there's any band who can stay relevant that long, it's the Beatles. And maybe a few others. They're still goin strong 50 years after they were making music. According to the latest Nielsen figures, overall music sales in the U.S. have increased for the first time in years, mainly thanks to extremely strong sales of the Beatles digital catalog. Vinyl records are the fastest growing form of music in American and who has had the top selling vinyl the past two years? The beatles. Last edited by blastingas10; 07-19-2012 at 03:27 PM.