[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
[/QUOTE]amen
a-fucking-men[/QUOTE]
YOU are a A - FUCKING STUPID
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I never have understood why it was fashionable to bash the Beatles of all bands...
Help
I need somebody
Help
not just anybody
Help
I'm gonna need someone
to help me ignore TM
I need somebody
Help
not just anybody
Help
I'm gonna need someone
to help me ignore TM
BTW WHY do you think that the album will be called "The Cosmos Rocks" ? When was it confirmed ?
Hilarious.
I asked Treasure Moment (during the last Beatles related pissing match) to tell me *exactly* why his band is so much better. Even though they haven't fucking done anything yet but boast about their Myspace.
I am still waiting for an answer. If the Beatles are measurably worse than Treasure Moment - that is, if he can tell me in facts and figures how his band is so much better, then I will shut up.
Does your singer have a better range than either Lennon or McCartney? Can your guitarist play better slide than George Harrison? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'", or maybe "Strawberry Fields" ?
Have you written more songs than the Beatles? That would surely make you a better songwriter. Longer songs, maybe?
You didn't explain this to me last time. Now's your chance. If it's not just your opinion... if it is indeed "FACT" that you are better than the Beatles, then you will be able to tell me exactly why. And I can shut up and agree with you.
Phrases you are not allowed to use :
"I listened to 25 of their songs" - irrelevant. I could probably pick 25 of their songs that weren't all that spectacular. You need to quadruple that number to get any real idea of their talent as songwriters. Hell, you picked "Yesterday" as the best one you'd heard..... lame.
"They are overrated" - every band is overrated. As soon as a band is called 'the best', it is overrated. Because no human being in history has heard all the music ever created. It is an emotional statement to call a band 'the best' because you don't have a proper basis for comparison. It is not objective, and thus - completely worthless.
"They are talentless" - they wrote their own music and played their own songs, albeit with the help of some talented souls such as George Martin, Geoff Emerick and so forth. Even so, they appear to have done better than you have.
"My band is just better, FACT" - again, if this is undeniably true, you will be able to prove it to me. Quickly and easily.
Unless of course, it's just an opinion that your band is better than the Beatles. In which case, I respect your opinion, but I disagree quite strongly. You can stop writing "FACT" now.
I apologise for slightly derailing the thread here. But I have to find out why Treasure Moment is the 2nd greatest band in history when they only have 6 songs available to anyone and I can't buy their music yet.
STILL waiting,
- Zebonka!
I asked Treasure Moment (during the last Beatles related pissing match) to tell me *exactly* why his band is so much better. Even though they haven't fucking done anything yet but boast about their Myspace.
I am still waiting for an answer. If the Beatles are measurably worse than Treasure Moment - that is, if he can tell me in facts and figures how his band is so much better, then I will shut up.
Does your singer have a better range than either Lennon or McCartney? Can your guitarist play better slide than George Harrison? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'", or maybe "Strawberry Fields" ?
Have you written more songs than the Beatles? That would surely make you a better songwriter. Longer songs, maybe?
You didn't explain this to me last time. Now's your chance. If it's not just your opinion... if it is indeed "FACT" that you are better than the Beatles, then you will be able to tell me exactly why. And I can shut up and agree with you.
Phrases you are not allowed to use :
"I listened to 25 of their songs" - irrelevant. I could probably pick 25 of their songs that weren't all that spectacular. You need to quadruple that number to get any real idea of their talent as songwriters. Hell, you picked "Yesterday" as the best one you'd heard..... lame.
"They are overrated" - every band is overrated. As soon as a band is called 'the best', it is overrated. Because no human being in history has heard all the music ever created. It is an emotional statement to call a band 'the best' because you don't have a proper basis for comparison. It is not objective, and thus - completely worthless.
"They are talentless" - they wrote their own music and played their own songs, albeit with the help of some talented souls such as George Martin, Geoff Emerick and so forth. Even so, they appear to have done better than you have.
"My band is just better, FACT" - again, if this is undeniably true, you will be able to prove it to me. Quickly and easily.
Unless of course, it's just an opinion that your band is better than the Beatles. In which case, I respect your opinion, but I disagree quite strongly. You can stop writing "FACT" now.
I apologise for slightly derailing the thread here. But I have to find out why Treasure Moment is the 2nd greatest band in history when they only have 6 songs available to anyone and I can't buy their music yet.
STILL waiting,
- Zebonka!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hilarious.
(...)
STILL waiting,[/QUOTE]... looks like you've got a long wait ahead of you ...
(...)
STILL waiting,[/QUOTE]... looks like you've got a long wait ahead of you ...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect.[/QUOTE]
...how did I miss this gem?
Listen, I'm a die-hard Queen fan, but I'm also a realist. Queen, like virtually all acts, drew from those who tasted success before them. Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and, yes, even the Beatles' influence can be heard in their music.
If the Beatles were truly "just hype," then how do you account for the fact that Paul McCartney's had a successful solo career for the past 40 years? How do you account for John Lennon's penning and performance of "Imagine"--arguably the greatest song ever written? If the Beatles were "just hype," why is it that their songs are still played on radio stations worldwide and were recently featured in a major motion picture? Queen's back catalog hasn't found its way out of commercials lately, and it seems like the only Queen songs you hear on the radio anymore are WWRY, WATC, BoRhap, and occasionally Crazy Little Thing. Hell, even BoRhap seems to have become a scarcity in classic rock stations' catalogs lately.
Know what band you'll find literally the entire collection of in virtually any classic rock radio station's catalog? The Beatles. I'm not out to discount Queen--it wouldn't make much sense for me to be here if I didn't think quite highly of them. In fact, I believe that they're quite possibly the most underrated band of all time--if not worldwide, then in North America at the very least. Suggesting that the Beatles are all hype, though, is ridiculous. 500 years from now, some archaeologist-type is going to find an old recording of Hey Jude lying around, pop it in, and get hooked all over again. I doubt if even WWRY will last that long.
...how did I miss this gem?
Listen, I'm a die-hard Queen fan, but I'm also a realist. Queen, like virtually all acts, drew from those who tasted success before them. Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and, yes, even the Beatles' influence can be heard in their music.
If the Beatles were truly "just hype," then how do you account for the fact that Paul McCartney's had a successful solo career for the past 40 years? How do you account for John Lennon's penning and performance of "Imagine"--arguably the greatest song ever written? If the Beatles were "just hype," why is it that their songs are still played on radio stations worldwide and were recently featured in a major motion picture? Queen's back catalog hasn't found its way out of commercials lately, and it seems like the only Queen songs you hear on the radio anymore are WWRY, WATC, BoRhap, and occasionally Crazy Little Thing. Hell, even BoRhap seems to have become a scarcity in classic rock stations' catalogs lately.
Know what band you'll find literally the entire collection of in virtually any classic rock radio station's catalog? The Beatles. I'm not out to discount Queen--it wouldn't make much sense for me to be here if I didn't think quite highly of them. In fact, I believe that they're quite possibly the most underrated band of all time--if not worldwide, then in North America at the very least. Suggesting that the Beatles are all hype, though, is ridiculous. 500 years from now, some archaeologist-type is going to find an old recording of Hey Jude lying around, pop it in, and get hooked all over again. I doubt if even WWRY will last that long.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Thunderbolt<br><h6>Courtesy of God wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect.[/QUOTE]
...how did I miss this gem?
Listen, I'm a die-hard Queen fan, but I'm also a realist. Queen, like virtually all acts, drew from those who tasted success before them. Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and, yes, even the Beatles' influence can be heard in their music.
If the Beatles were truly "just hype," then how do you account for the fact that Paul McCartney's had a successful solo career for the past 40 years? How do you account for John Lennon's penning and performance of "Imagine"--arguably the greatest song ever written? If the Beatles were "just hype," why is it that their songs are still played on radio stations worldwide and were recently featured in a major motion picture? Queen's back catalog hasn't found its way out of commercials lately, and it seems like the only Queen songs you hear on the radio anymore are WWRY, WATC, BoRhap, and occasionally Crazy Little Thing. Hell, even BoRhap seems to have become a scarcity in classic rock stations' catalogs lately.
Know what band you'll find literally the entire collection of in virtually any classic rock radio station's catalog? The Beatles. I'm not out to discount Queen--it wouldn't make much sense for me to be here if I didn't think quite highly of them. In fact, I believe that they're quite possibly the most underrated band of all time--if not worldwide, then in North America at the very least. Suggesting that the Beatles are all hype, though, is ridiculous. 500 years from now, some archaeologist-type is going to find an old recording of Hey Jude lying around, pop it in, and get hooked all over again. I doubt if even WWRY will last that long.[/QUOTE]
They just are an incredibly overrated band. I mean just listen to their songwriting and singing. It sounds like amateurs picking up a guitar while the compositions of Queen are on top level. Often very complex stuff as well as amazing singing on the songs. You just cant compare the 2 bands.
Queen made songs in almost all genres while the beatles songs all basically sound the same. Boring amateur stuff. I dont care who they influenced, this or that, all i care about how GOOD they are and they arent good. Just 1 of our compositions prove that they cant compare when it comes to actual musical talent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
...how did I miss this gem?
Listen, I'm a die-hard Queen fan, but I'm also a realist. Queen, like virtually all acts, drew from those who tasted success before them. Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and, yes, even the Beatles' influence can be heard in their music.
If the Beatles were truly "just hype," then how do you account for the fact that Paul McCartney's had a successful solo career for the past 40 years? How do you account for John Lennon's penning and performance of "Imagine"--arguably the greatest song ever written? If the Beatles were "just hype," why is it that their songs are still played on radio stations worldwide and were recently featured in a major motion picture? Queen's back catalog hasn't found its way out of commercials lately, and it seems like the only Queen songs you hear on the radio anymore are WWRY, WATC, BoRhap, and occasionally Crazy Little Thing. Hell, even BoRhap seems to have become a scarcity in classic rock stations' catalogs lately.
Know what band you'll find literally the entire collection of in virtually any classic rock radio station's catalog? The Beatles. I'm not out to discount Queen--it wouldn't make much sense for me to be here if I didn't think quite highly of them. In fact, I believe that they're quite possibly the most underrated band of all time--if not worldwide, then in North America at the very least. Suggesting that the Beatles are all hype, though, is ridiculous. 500 years from now, some archaeologist-type is going to find an old recording of Hey Jude lying around, pop it in, and get hooked all over again. I doubt if even WWRY will last that long.[/QUOTE]
They just are an incredibly overrated band. I mean just listen to their songwriting and singing. It sounds like amateurs picking up a guitar while the compositions of Queen are on top level. Often very complex stuff as well as amazing singing on the songs. You just cant compare the 2 bands.
Queen made songs in almost all genres while the beatles songs all basically sound the same. Boring amateur stuff. I dont care who they influenced, this or that, all i care about how GOOD they are and they arent good. Just 1 of our compositions prove that they cant compare when it comes to actual musical talent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hilarious.
I asked Treasure Moment (during the last Beatles related pissing match) to tell me *exactly* why his band is so much better. Even though they haven't fucking done anything yet but boast about their Myspace.
I am still waiting for an answer. If the Beatles are measurably worse than Treasure Moment - that is, if he can tell me in facts and figures how his band is so much better, then I will shut up.
Does your singer have a better range than either Lennon or McCartney? Can your guitarist play better slide than George Harrison? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'", or maybe "Strawberry Fields" ?
Have you written more songs than the Beatles? That would surely make you a better songwriter. Longer songs, maybe?
You didn't explain this to me last time. Now's your chance. If it's not just your opinion... if it is indeed "FACT" that you are better than the Beatles, then you will be able to tell me exactly why. And I can shut up and agree with you.
Phrases you are not allowed to use :
"I listened to 25 of their songs" - irrelevant. I could probably pick 25 of their songs that weren't all that spectacular. You need to quadruple that number to get any real idea of their talent as songwriters. Hell, you picked "Yesterday" as the best one you'd heard..... lame.
"They are overrated" - every band is overrated. As soon as a band is called 'the best', it is overrated. Because no human being in history has heard all the music ever created. It is an emotional statement to call a band 'the best' because you don't have a proper basis for comparison. It is not objective, and thus - completely worthless.
"They are talentless" - they wrote their own music and played their own songs, albeit with the help of some talented souls such as George Martin, Geoff Emerick and so forth. Even so, they appear to have done better than you have.
"My band is just better, FACT" - again, if this is undeniably true, you will be able to prove it to me. Quickly and easily.
Unless of course, it's just an opinion that your band is better than the Beatles. In which case, I respect your opinion, but I disagree quite strongly. You can stop writing "FACT" now.
I apologise for slightly derailing the thread here. But I have to find out why Treasure Moment is the 2nd greatest band in history when they only have 6 songs available to anyone and I can't buy their music yet.
STILL waiting,
- Zebonka![/QUOTE]
About the singer, no he isnt good but then again its just a temporary one until we find someone else.
What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
its just on a different level and that is a fact.
I asked Treasure Moment (during the last Beatles related pissing match) to tell me *exactly* why his band is so much better. Even though they haven't fucking done anything yet but boast about their Myspace.
I am still waiting for an answer. If the Beatles are measurably worse than Treasure Moment - that is, if he can tell me in facts and figures how his band is so much better, then I will shut up.
Does your singer have a better range than either Lennon or McCartney? Can your guitarist play better slide than George Harrison? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'", or maybe "Strawberry Fields" ?
Have you written more songs than the Beatles? That would surely make you a better songwriter. Longer songs, maybe?
You didn't explain this to me last time. Now's your chance. If it's not just your opinion... if it is indeed "FACT" that you are better than the Beatles, then you will be able to tell me exactly why. And I can shut up and agree with you.
Phrases you are not allowed to use :
"I listened to 25 of their songs" - irrelevant. I could probably pick 25 of their songs that weren't all that spectacular. You need to quadruple that number to get any real idea of their talent as songwriters. Hell, you picked "Yesterday" as the best one you'd heard..... lame.
"They are overrated" - every band is overrated. As soon as a band is called 'the best', it is overrated. Because no human being in history has heard all the music ever created. It is an emotional statement to call a band 'the best' because you don't have a proper basis for comparison. It is not objective, and thus - completely worthless.
"They are talentless" - they wrote their own music and played their own songs, albeit with the help of some talented souls such as George Martin, Geoff Emerick and so forth. Even so, they appear to have done better than you have.
"My band is just better, FACT" - again, if this is undeniably true, you will be able to prove it to me. Quickly and easily.
Unless of course, it's just an opinion that your band is better than the Beatles. In which case, I respect your opinion, but I disagree quite strongly. You can stop writing "FACT" now.
I apologise for slightly derailing the thread here. But I have to find out why Treasure Moment is the 2nd greatest band in history when they only have 6 songs available to anyone and I can't buy their music yet.
STILL waiting,
- Zebonka![/QUOTE]
About the singer, no he isnt good but then again its just a temporary one until we find someone else.
What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
its just on a different level and that is a fact.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
its just on a different level and that is a fact.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, it is on a different level.
You'd be wrong if you said 'better', though. I'm not shitting on your song, it's not terrible at all. The synth sound is definitely not to my tastes but that isn't important....
Your example about Queen being 'in all genres' whereas the Beatles were all the same boring music.... is just.... INSANE.
You don't have to like The Beatles to accept their quality. Fuck, on the White Album alone they cover just as many genres as Queen ever did. Not the same ones, of course, but the variety is there.
No one is asking you to like the Beatles, and yes - I do feel they are overrated by "squeeing" little teenagers sometimes, just as they were in the 60's.
But FUCK.... there is quality there. Seriously.
What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
its just on a different level and that is a fact.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, it is on a different level.
You'd be wrong if you said 'better', though. I'm not shitting on your song, it's not terrible at all. The synth sound is definitely not to my tastes but that isn't important....
Your example about Queen being 'in all genres' whereas the Beatles were all the same boring music.... is just.... INSANE.
You don't have to like The Beatles to accept their quality. Fuck, on the White Album alone they cover just as many genres as Queen ever did. Not the same ones, of course, but the variety is there.
No one is asking you to like the Beatles, and yes - I do feel they are overrated by "squeeing" little teenagers sometimes, just as they were in the 60's.
But FUCK.... there is quality there. Seriously.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
its just on a different level and that is a fact.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, it is on a different level.
You'd be wrong if you said 'better', though. I'm not shitting on your song, it's not terrible at all. The synth sound is definitely not to my tastes but that isn't important....
Your example about Queen being 'in all genres' whereas the Beatles were all the same boring music.... is just.... INSANE.
You don't have to like The Beatles to accept their quality. Fuck, on the White Album alone they cover just as many genres as Queen ever did. Not the same ones, of course, but the variety is there.
No one is asking you to like the Beatles, and yes - I do feel they are overrated by "squeeing" little teenagers sometimes, just as they were in the 60's.
But FUCK.... there is quality there. Seriously.[/QUOTE]
well, i heard the 25 songs mentioned earlier and they pretty much sounded the same. I also checked their most popular songs on youtube and it was the same.
What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1d6ERo_-Ew
its just on a different level and that is a fact.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, it is on a different level.
You'd be wrong if you said 'better', though. I'm not shitting on your song, it's not terrible at all. The synth sound is definitely not to my tastes but that isn't important....
Your example about Queen being 'in all genres' whereas the Beatles were all the same boring music.... is just.... INSANE.
You don't have to like The Beatles to accept their quality. Fuck, on the White Album alone they cover just as many genres as Queen ever did. Not the same ones, of course, but the variety is there.
No one is asking you to like the Beatles, and yes - I do feel they are overrated by "squeeing" little teenagers sometimes, just as they were in the 60's.
But FUCK.... there is quality there. Seriously.[/QUOTE]
well, i heard the 25 songs mentioned earlier and they pretty much sounded the same. I also checked their most popular songs on youtube and it was the same.
I think you need to brush up on what critical listening is, then.
You expect us to lend a critical ear to your new songs, right? Even though we're basically trained to think they're all crap because you over-hype them so much and treat your listeners like they're stupid....
Still, a critical listener will put that aside if they've got any integrity.
Something tells me you don't want to find any quality to Beatles music. So of course, it all sounds the same to you because even if you did hear something okay in there, you're far too proud (or whatever) to admit it.
Whatever works for you, of course! I'm just saying; you could learn a bit about music if you weren't so close minded.
You expect us to lend a critical ear to your new songs, right? Even though we're basically trained to think they're all crap because you over-hype them so much and treat your listeners like they're stupid....
Still, a critical listener will put that aside if they've got any integrity.
Something tells me you don't want to find any quality to Beatles music. So of course, it all sounds the same to you because even if you did hear something okay in there, you're far too proud (or whatever) to admit it.
Whatever works for you, of course! I'm just saying; you could learn a bit about music if you weren't so close minded.
And look, I really won't argue when you say 'overrated' because it's true of many bands, not just The Beatles.
I cringe whenever I hear someone sing the praises of Sgt. Pepper. Mediocre album, compared to the ones that came before and after.
I cringe whenever I hear someone sing the praises of Sgt. Pepper. Mediocre album, compared to the ones that came before and after.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think you need to brush up on what critical listening is, then.
You expect us to lend a critical ear to your new songs, right? Even though we're basically trained to think they're all crap because you over-hype them so much and treat your listeners like they're stupid....
Still, a critical listener will put that aside if they've got any integrity.
Something tells me you don't want to find any quality to Beatles music. So of course, it all sounds the same to you because even if you did hear something okay in there, you're far too proud (or whatever) to admit it.
Whatever works for you, of course! I'm just saying; you could learn a bit about music if you weren't so close minded.[/QUOTE]
No, i would admit that it was good if it was, for example as soon as i heard the song yesterday i thought it was a good song. that "imagine" song isnt so bad either, nothing spectacular but good.
You expect us to lend a critical ear to your new songs, right? Even though we're basically trained to think they're all crap because you over-hype them so much and treat your listeners like they're stupid....
Still, a critical listener will put that aside if they've got any integrity.
Something tells me you don't want to find any quality to Beatles music. So of course, it all sounds the same to you because even if you did hear something okay in there, you're far too proud (or whatever) to admit it.
Whatever works for you, of course! I'm just saying; you could learn a bit about music if you weren't so close minded.[/QUOTE]
No, i would admit that it was good if it was, for example as soon as i heard the song yesterday i thought it was a good song. that "imagine" song isnt so bad either, nothing spectacular but good.
[QUOTE]In 2008 [QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie is main reason they are the biggest band in the world.[/QUOTE]
Bigger than Outkast?
Bigger than Outkast?