the_dp

Moody Blues were great, even when they were The Magnificent Moodies. I think Hayward and Lodge's later work was amazing also, especially on the Bluejays album. If any of these bands came out today, the Moody Blues would probably get the most fame because of the transcendent quality of their music, spanning all sorts of genre sounds.

That being said, I like every band listed but the Yardbirds. Their music doesn't carry much over these days because they were a little bit boring and probably at the time Fleetwood Mac was more experimental. I can't complain about Fleetwood Mac not being added though as they generally are not considered British Invasion.

The Kinks are amazing, as are The Who. The Stones WERE amazing but are not just skeletons with electrical instruments.

The Animals were better once Eric Burdon decided to move on from the original lineup. Song's like San Franciscan Nights and Sky Pilot were much better than that whole House of the Rising Sun bull$h1t.

The Beatles still rule, but the more you listen to their stuff the more you realize that George Harrison created their best products. Lennon and McCartney were kind of douches.

Dr_Rez

I would hardly just call Lennon and McCartney douches. Maybe this is just me () but they both made some of the best music of the era.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

the_dp

i said kinda, not just. I liked both of their music, but I think George Harrison's contributions, while fewer, were more quality.

Rainard Jalen

......he wrote about 5 good songs. The standard of everything he did before 1968 was by his own admission amateurish and mediocre, at least when compared to the dexterity and experience of John and Paul. Production only allowed those songs onto the albums either to placate him or as filler (like tossing a song to Ringo).

the_dp

so you are not familiar with his post beatles work then? and if you say he wrote five good songs then you probably don't know much about the beatles.

Rainard Jalen

He wrote about 5 songs that were of Lennon/McCartney quality. His own view of his pre-1968 material was that it was mediocre by comparison to John and Paul's, and it is widely known that he only really comes into his own as a seriously strong and competetive songwriter by The White Album. At any rate, you were not talking about his post-Beatles work. You claimed that he created the Beatles' best products, which is straight-up nonsense. For one, he wrote no more than about 10% of the band's whole discography, of which about a third (at the most) were particularly good. Hell, he hardly ever even felt truly confident enough to write his own material until very late on. He felt he had to get help from John and Paul on songs like Taxman for example, which John reluctantly acquiesced and helped him out with.

You ought to stop saying to people "you probably don't know much about such and such" - it's becoming a broken record, and it has been proven repeatedly that others here not only seem to know better than you do, but express it a lot better too. Seriously dude, just stick to the points and stop feeling you have to call people "ignorant" or whatever. If they are, then prove it with your evidence and your argument.