Of course you don't have to like the beatles, I have a few of their CD's and listen to them once in a while. For me their just another band, but you can't deny the greatness of them. Their influence is astounding, but to be honest never one of my favorites. I should say in my opinion that the beatles and Queen blow the rolling stones out of the water.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Oh absolutely. The Rolling Stones are simply not good enough to be compared/mentioned in the same breath as their famous contemporaries.
jpf wrote:
I think Black Sabbath was far more influential than The Beatles. BS created a whole new genre of music. The Beatles didn't.
+++++++++++++++++++
you have got to be kidding? right?. Revolver/Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd WERE a whole new genre of music
I think Black Sabbath was far more influential than The Beatles. BS created a whole new genre of music. The Beatles didn't.
+++++++++++++++++++
you have got to be kidding? right?. Revolver/Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd WERE a whole new genre of music
You saying KISS is more influential than The Beatles, shows you are an incompetent fucktard with no credibility and that you are an asshole trapped in his school years!
FYI, Sabbath didn't start metal, Led Zeppelin did with their first two albums (Ozzy even admitted to this on The History of Rock and Roll: The 70s). Sabbath took the template of Zep's first two albums and amped it up TENFOLD! I know Zep contrasted hard rock with acoustic numbers but Sabbath also played acoustic folk interludes, ballads with pianos, used strings, horns, mellotrons, synthesizers and choirs. Zep didn't use choirs and horns but they did use mellotrons for orchestrations and synthesizers.
The Beatles influenced everyone (including Sabbath, KISS and every other band). Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road and The White Album were FAR more important than Destroyer or Alive!
Metal gets old real quick but I tend to go to prog now.
FYI, Sabbath didn't start metal, Led Zeppelin did with their first two albums (Ozzy even admitted to this on The History of Rock and Roll: The 70s). Sabbath took the template of Zep's first two albums and amped it up TENFOLD! I know Zep contrasted hard rock with acoustic numbers but Sabbath also played acoustic folk interludes, ballads with pianos, used strings, horns, mellotrons, synthesizers and choirs. Zep didn't use choirs and horns but they did use mellotrons for orchestrations and synthesizers.
The Beatles influenced everyone (including Sabbath, KISS and every other band). Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road and The White Album were FAR more important than Destroyer or Alive!
Metal gets old real quick but I tend to go to prog now.
I think the only band that can come close Queen concert wise would be AC/DC they are fun and exciting to watch a lot more than Kiss are anyway
Dobo, prepare to be raided by jpf...you've been warned. :P
I saw AC/DC on TV the other day and I must say they were one of the better live acts. They were a very exciting band to watch.
AC/DC rocks. :)
I saw AC/DC on TV the other day and I must say they were one of the better live acts. They were a very exciting band to watch.
AC/DC rocks. :)
i dont care what he says just because i dont think that kiss are the greatest band/musicians to walk the face of the earth imho they are way down the list behind the likes of:
Queen (Freddie Mercury/Paul Rodgers)
AC/DC (Bon Scott/Brian Johnson)
The Beatles
Free
Bad Co.
Jamie Cullum
Status Quo
The Cross
The Firm
Led Zep
Thin Lizzy
Iron Maiden
Queen (Freddie Mercury/Paul Rodgers)
AC/DC (Bon Scott/Brian Johnson)
The Beatles
Free
Bad Co.
Jamie Cullum
Status Quo
The Cross
The Firm
Led Zep
Thin Lizzy
Iron Maiden
I'll give you some examples of good live shows:
AC/DC Stiff Upper Lip Live (Brian Johnson): http://youtube.com/watch?v=zb-ZNgM0QOM
AC/DC Let There Be Rock (Bon Scott): http://youtube.com/watch?v=dURNpcWlrZc
Queen Somebody to Love (Freddie Mercury): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ba4YFjHbN7I
Queen I Want It All (Paul Rodgers): http://youtube.com/watch?v=YINK6iIjA_Y
Free All Right Now: http://youtube.com/watch?v=attWwz0u0HA
Jamie Cullum I Get A Kick Out Of You:http://youtube.com/watch?v=BoB-vyg6znU
In My Opinion They Are All Better Live Performers Than Kiss and they dont need to use the amount of stage effects as kiss to give a good live performance.
AC/DC Stiff Upper Lip Live (Brian Johnson): http://youtube.com/watch?v=zb-ZNgM0QOM
AC/DC Let There Be Rock (Bon Scott): http://youtube.com/watch?v=dURNpcWlrZc
Queen Somebody to Love (Freddie Mercury): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ba4YFjHbN7I
Queen I Want It All (Paul Rodgers): http://youtube.com/watch?v=YINK6iIjA_Y
Free All Right Now: http://youtube.com/watch?v=attWwz0u0HA
Jamie Cullum I Get A Kick Out Of You:http://youtube.com/watch?v=BoB-vyg6znU
In My Opinion They Are All Better Live Performers Than Kiss and they dont need to use the amount of stage effects as kiss to give a good live performance.
Best bands I have seen:
1)Pink Floyd (1994 at Foxboro Stadium, unbelievable sound and light show. I was one of few at show who wasn't high as I don't smoke nor do drugs and alcohol and since it was outdoors the second hand pot smoke disintegrated into the air). Honorable mention to Roger Waters as he was excellent live in 2000. More entertaining than KISS was a month earlier.
2)Rush (I have seen them FOUR TIMES (1994, 1997, 2002 and 2004) and not once disappointed)
3)The Who (seen them four times (1989, 1997, 2002 and 2006) and each show was excellent in their own way)
4)Judas Priest (2005, kicked serious ass!)
5)AC/DC (saw them in 2001 and boy what energy Angus has!)
6)Rolling Stones (2002 and 2005. Say what you must but they are great)
Bands I wished I had seen:
1)Queen with Freddie
2)Pink Floyd with Roger Waters
3)Jethro Tull's 1976-79 lineup or the A tour
4)Supertramp's classic lineup
5)Styx's classic lineup
Worst bands I have seen live:
1)KISS (each time seeing them was more boring (1996, 1998, 2000 and 2004), same setlist practically, same stage show (after seeing PF's 1994 tour every stage pales in comparison) and theatrics get old QUICK)
2)Skynyrd (felt like I was at a KKK rally)
3)Def Leppard (my buddy's dad was right when he said they sucked, back in '83 Krokus kicked Lep's asses off the stage)
4)Poison (when they opened for KISS)
1)Pink Floyd (1994 at Foxboro Stadium, unbelievable sound and light show. I was one of few at show who wasn't high as I don't smoke nor do drugs and alcohol and since it was outdoors the second hand pot smoke disintegrated into the air). Honorable mention to Roger Waters as he was excellent live in 2000. More entertaining than KISS was a month earlier.
2)Rush (I have seen them FOUR TIMES (1994, 1997, 2002 and 2004) and not once disappointed)
3)The Who (seen them four times (1989, 1997, 2002 and 2006) and each show was excellent in their own way)
4)Judas Priest (2005, kicked serious ass!)
5)AC/DC (saw them in 2001 and boy what energy Angus has!)
6)Rolling Stones (2002 and 2005. Say what you must but they are great)
Bands I wished I had seen:
1)Queen with Freddie
2)Pink Floyd with Roger Waters
3)Jethro Tull's 1976-79 lineup or the A tour
4)Supertramp's classic lineup
5)Styx's classic lineup
Worst bands I have seen live:
1)KISS (each time seeing them was more boring (1996, 1998, 2000 and 2004), same setlist practically, same stage show (after seeing PF's 1994 tour every stage pales in comparison) and theatrics get old QUICK)
2)Skynyrd (felt like I was at a KKK rally)
3)Def Leppard (my buddy's dad was right when he said they sucked, back in '83 Krokus kicked Lep's asses off the stage)
4)Poison (when they opened for KISS)
I wish Bon Scott was still alive.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]you have got to be kidding? right?. Revolver/Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd WERE a whole new genre of music[/QUOTE]
Nothing earth shattering there, IMO. It's pop music. The Beatles didn't create that genre of music.
Sabbath did create a musical genre, whether you like them or not.
Nothing earth shattering there, IMO. It's pop music. The Beatles didn't create that genre of music.
Sabbath did create a musical genre, whether you like them or not.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You saying KISS is more influential than The Beatles, shows you are an incompetent fucktard with no credibility and that you are an asshole trapped in his school years![/QUOTE]
Yes, I said KISS was more influential. That's my opinion, asshole. You couldn't pay me money to listen to The Beatles.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
FYI, Sabbath didn't start metal, Led Zeppelin did with their first two albums (Ozzy even admitted to this on The History of Rock and Roll: The 70s).[/QUOTE]
Black Sabbath is metal (although some members don't think so).
Led Zeppelin is hard rock.
You don't seem to know your genres.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Sabbath took the template of Zep's first two albums and amped it up TENFOLD![/QUOTE]
You really are uneducated in music.
Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin couldn't be further apart in their musical styles.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The Beatles influenced everyone (including Sabbath, KISS and every other band). Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road and The White Album were FAR more important than Destroyer or Alive![/QUOTE]
I'll take "Destroyer" and "Alive" any day.
Yes, I said KISS was more influential. That's my opinion, asshole. You couldn't pay me money to listen to The Beatles.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
FYI, Sabbath didn't start metal, Led Zeppelin did with their first two albums (Ozzy even admitted to this on The History of Rock and Roll: The 70s).[/QUOTE]
Black Sabbath is metal (although some members don't think so).
Led Zeppelin is hard rock.
You don't seem to know your genres.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Sabbath took the template of Zep's first two albums and amped it up TENFOLD![/QUOTE]
You really are uneducated in music.
Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin couldn't be further apart in their musical styles.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]NOTWMEDDLE wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The Beatles influenced everyone (including Sabbath, KISS and every other band). Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road and The White Album were FAR more important than Destroyer or Alive![/QUOTE]
I'll take "Destroyer" and "Alive" any day.
"Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin couldn't be further apart in their musical styles."
Robert Plant sure thought so - I remember him being peeved that he was lumped in with those guys after his trips to Morroco and long progressive songs..... but anyway.
"Yes, I said KISS was more influential. That's my opinion, asshole."
I'm not sure anyone would share it with you.
Your problem, sir, is that your idea of 'influential' seems to be pretty insular. KISS may well have been more influential than the Beatles in the place you grew up. Shit, maybe the whole state. In terms of the whole world (of which, your country is not the sole member) KISS were not more influential than the Beatles. There is simply no basis for the idea that they were.
KISS did not cross as many genres, their records didn't make any great technical innovation.
You could argue that each member is more able at their respective instruments, but that means little because we're talking about a BAND here, not the parts.
To dismiss tracks like I Want You (She's So Heavy) or Tomorrow Never Knows as 'pop' is the mark of an imbecile.
I would agree with you that NOTWMEDDLE doesn't really comprehend rock history as well as they should. But if you talk to any number of musicians, or dedicated listeners, outside of your town (or state, or whatever), you'll find they will disagree that KISS did more for music than the Beatles.
That doesn't discount their worth to you and your friends. More power to you. But there's little point arguing with most of the world on this. The simple fact that more people are disagreeing with you than agreeing, would seem to say that the other bands in question influenced more people. If they didn't, then no one would be arguing with you!
"I'll take "Destroyer" and "Alive" any day."
This is what I'm getting at. I completely understand the idea of somebody preferring these albums to anything by the Beatles. Your prerogative.
But, ya know, as you keep saying, it is just your opinion. There's a majority that would disagree - this doesn't mean 'our music is better than yours'. It means 'our music is more popular' - read, 'more influential'.
But anyway.
Robert Plant sure thought so - I remember him being peeved that he was lumped in with those guys after his trips to Morroco and long progressive songs..... but anyway.
"Yes, I said KISS was more influential. That's my opinion, asshole."
I'm not sure anyone would share it with you.
Your problem, sir, is that your idea of 'influential' seems to be pretty insular. KISS may well have been more influential than the Beatles in the place you grew up. Shit, maybe the whole state. In terms of the whole world (of which, your country is not the sole member) KISS were not more influential than the Beatles. There is simply no basis for the idea that they were.
KISS did not cross as many genres, their records didn't make any great technical innovation.
You could argue that each member is more able at their respective instruments, but that means little because we're talking about a BAND here, not the parts.
To dismiss tracks like I Want You (She's So Heavy) or Tomorrow Never Knows as 'pop' is the mark of an imbecile.
I would agree with you that NOTWMEDDLE doesn't really comprehend rock history as well as they should. But if you talk to any number of musicians, or dedicated listeners, outside of your town (or state, or whatever), you'll find they will disagree that KISS did more for music than the Beatles.
That doesn't discount their worth to you and your friends. More power to you. But there's little point arguing with most of the world on this. The simple fact that more people are disagreeing with you than agreeing, would seem to say that the other bands in question influenced more people. If they didn't, then no one would be arguing with you!
"I'll take "Destroyer" and "Alive" any day."
This is what I'm getting at. I completely understand the idea of somebody preferring these albums to anything by the Beatles. Your prerogative.
But, ya know, as you keep saying, it is just your opinion. There's a majority that would disagree - this doesn't mean 'our music is better than yours'. It means 'our music is more popular' - read, 'more influential'.
But anyway.
OH MY GOD!!! Why does everyone on here have to be so critical of people's opinions? First of all NOTWMEDDLE, stating that he likes one band better than another does not make jpf a "fucktard". I actually respect the fact that he is different than everyone else. I somewhat agree with him on the Beatles. They were way overrated, and, although they were great, don't deserve half as much praise as they get. So what, am I gonna be banned from the site because my opinion's different? Oh, and guess what else? I actually like some of the songs on Hot Space. Does that make me an outsider too because most Queen fans don't? You guys really need to learn to recognize that other people matter just as much as you do and that, crazy as it may sound, some people think differently than you.
Oh, and sorry jpf if you're a girl, but you didn't say in your profile and it's hard to tell just by the name.
Oh, and sorry jpf if you're a girl, but you didn't say in your profile and it's hard to tell just by the name.
Just for the record, I don't hate anybody on this thread. As far as I'm concerned, this is all good fun. I enjoy discussing rock bands in this manner...you can learn a lot.