Jump to content

Is RUSH better than the Beatles


losingit2k
 Share

  

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Is RUSH Better than The Beatles

    • Yes
      63
    • No
      39
    • The Same
      6


Recommended Posts

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

 

:facepalm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

 

You're information is very inaccurate. I don't know what muscians you haven't listened to in regards to giving the Beatles credit - the list is endless. Also Jimi Hendrix asked Paul McCartney to join a potential group. Credit through admiration? The Beatles covered many artists from numerous genres. Does "She Loves You" sound like anything other than the Beatles? George Martin enabled the Beatles to do what the Beatles wanted to do, not what George Martin wanted to do. I don't know about you, but songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride" were very heavy sounding for their time. And the Revolver album was extremely heavy - "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Rain" for example. Released, months before Hendrix released his first single. Also, in the 1960s tons of musicians played on each other albums and weren't given credit due to contractual obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

 

You're information is very inaccurate. I don't know what muscians you haven't listened to in regards to giving the Beatles credit - the list is endless. Also Jimi Hendrix asked Paul McCartney to join a potential group. Credit through admiration? The Beatles covered many artists from numerous genres. Does "She Loves You" sound like anything other than the Beatles? George Martin enabled the Beatles to do what the Beatles wanted to do, not what George Martin wanted to do. I don't know about you, but songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride" were very heavy sounding for their time. And the Revolver album was extremely heavy - "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Rain" for example. Released, months before Hendrix released his first single. Also, in the 1960s tons of musicians played on each other albums and weren't given credit due to contractual obligations.

 

You misunderstood me. I said that musicians are the ones that give Hendrix most of the praise. That the media has basically marginalized him and Chuck Berry and have just over showered The Beatles with praise. Don't get me wrong, I Love The Beatles, I grew up listening to them as have my kids. I just feel that they are overly popularized for the media sake. They've become like Hot Dog and Apple Pie! They've become the Coca Cola of the music world. Now we all know that Coke is awesome as indicated per your icon! (Which is great by the way), but this is my point here, the media has gone out of their way to over popularize The Beatles. Just like the have with Elvis and now with Micheal Jackson. The Media loves to have their dependable Icons and The Beatles has become one of them. Even John knew this which lead him to make his infamous Statement "We have become more popular than Jesus Christ"! This is what I felt he meant by this statement. That the media was giving them way more attention that they should. When they really should be focusing more on others like Jesus Christ. He knew very well back then what was happening to them as a group, as human beings which is one of the reason I feel lead to their early and unfortunate breakup.

Edited by losingit2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

 

You're information is very inaccurate. I don't know what muscians you haven't listened to in regards to giving the Beatles credit - the list is endless. Also Jimi Hendrix asked Paul McCartney to join a potential group. Credit through admiration? The Beatles covered many artists from numerous genres. Does "She Loves You" sound like anything other than the Beatles? George Martin enabled the Beatles to do what the Beatles wanted to do, not what George Martin wanted to do. I don't know about you, but songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride" were very heavy sounding for their time. And the Revolver album was extremely heavy - "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Rain" for example. Released, months before Hendrix released his first single. Also, in the 1960s tons of musicians played on each other albums and weren't given credit due to contractual obligations.

 

You misunderstood me. I said that musicians are the ones that give Hendrix most of the praise. That the media has basically marginalized him and Chuck Berry and have just over showered The Beatles with praise. Don't get me wrong, I Love The Beatles, I grew up listening to them as have my kids. I just feel that they are overly popularized for the media sake. They've become like Hot Dog and Apple Pie! They've become the Coca Cola of the music world. Now we all know that Coke is awesome as indicated per your icon! (Which is great by the way), but this is my point here, the media has gone out of their way to over popularize The Beatles. Just like the have with Elvis and now with Micheal Jackson. The Media loves to have their dependable Icons and The Beatles has become one of them. Even John knew this which lead him to make his infamous Statement "We have become more popular than Jesus Christ"! This is what I felt he meant by this statement. That the media was giving them way more attention that they should. When they really should be focusing more on others like Jesus Christ. He knew very well back then what was happening to them as a group, as human beings which is one of the reason I feel lead to their early and unfortunate breakup.

Actually Lennon was quoted out of context. He meant to say they were more popular than the Canadian Holy Trinity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

 

You're information is very inaccurate. I don't know what muscians you haven't listened to in regards to giving the Beatles credit - the list is endless. Also Jimi Hendrix asked Paul McCartney to join a potential group. Credit through admiration? The Beatles covered many artists from numerous genres. Does "She Loves You" sound like anything other than the Beatles? George Martin enabled the Beatles to do what the Beatles wanted to do, not what George Martin wanted to do. I don't know about you, but songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride" were very heavy sounding for their time. And the Revolver album was extremely heavy - "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Rain" for example. Released, months before Hendrix released his first single. Also, in the 1960s tons of musicians played on each other albums and weren't given credit due to contractual obligations.

 

You misunderstood me. I said that musicians are the ones that give Hendrix most of the praise. That the media has basically marginalized him and Chuck Berry and have just over showered The Beatles with praise. Don't get me wrong, I Love The Beatles, I grew up listening to them as have my kids. I just feel that they are overly popularized for the media sake. They've become like Hot Dog and Apple Pie! They've become the Coca Cola of the music world. Now we all know that Coke is awesome as indicated per your icon! (Which is great by the way), but this is my point here, the media has gone out of their way to over popularize The Beatles. Just like the have with Elvis and now with Micheal Jackson. The Media loves to have their dependable Icons and The Beatles has become one of them. Even John knew this which lead him to make his infamous Statement "We have become more popular than Jesus Christ"! This is what I felt he meant by this statement. That the media was giving them way more attention that they should. When they really should be focusing more on others like Jesus Christ. He knew very well back then what was happening to them as a group, as human beings which is one of the reason I feel lead to their early and unfortunate breakup.

 

I don't think the media has given The Beatles way more popularity than they should have. They actually DESERVE it. They made music that was immensely popular and accessible to countless millions of people, and they're still so popular today because their music has held up. They released their 1 compilation in 2000, 30 years after the band broke up, and it has sold over 31 million copies worldwide. I don't see Hendrix compilations doing that (and I love Hendrix, don't get me wrong), or Michael Jackson or Chuck Berry or Elvis or anyone else that you want to bring up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

The point is sometimes the talent and repertoire back up and justify the popularity and sale figures. I, for one, am glad the Beatles remain popular - it's a sign that talent and quality do matter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

The point is sometimes the talent and repertoire back up and justify the popularity and sale figures. I, for one, am glad the Beatles remain popular - it's a sign that talent and quality do matter.

 

I agree with you 100% in the case of the Beatles, certainly, but I posted that because it always amuses me in discussions when someone trots out the notion that sales figures have significant probative value of greatness.

 

 

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

 

Indeed it is, indeed it is! But popularity doesn't have significant probative value of greatness either :no: :LOL:

Edited by GeddysMullet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

 

LedRush likes to present this argument with me that RTB is more popular than Counterparts because it sold more albums. Besides the facts that most Rush fans would disagree that RTB is a better album, in a situation like that there were extenuating circumstances. The song Roll the Bones and Dreamline were huge rock radio hits and the album sold more copies then they'd sold in awhile, even though the album as a whole was seriously lacking. By Counterparts, grunge suddenly ruled the land, and even though CP was essentially Rush's reaction to grunge, it wasn't exactly marketed to the grunge crowd, and even if they had been they weren't exactly some exciting new band coming out of Seattle. Very often timing can have a huge effect on albums sales.

 

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

The Beatles changed music. What they did in 8 years was phenomenal. They epitomized all the dramatic changes going on in music in the 60's that changed music forever, and they were not only enormously influential and changed the industry, but their ongoing album sales showed they were no mere flash in the pan or just a product of their times. Yes, they were somewhat a product of their times, but their influence has endured, and they continue to have relevance and sell albums. And it's because they were f*cking talented.

 

I totally agree that in general albums sales don't mean a lot, but you also don't sell 600 million albums (which supposedly the Beatles have sold) by sucking either.

Edited by rushgoober
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

When have Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix not been given credit for their contributions to rock music? You may not appreciate the Beatles, and that's fine, just try not to use lazy arguments.

Don't misunderstand me. I love and appreciate the Beatle more than you think. I just think the Media gives them way to much praise.

Musicians are the group that give Berry and Hendrix most credit but not the media! Berry and Hendrix were more influential in their particular time then Elvis or the Beatles. The Beatles even tried to sound like Berry at first until George Martin took control and guided them elsewhere. Its only after Hendrix came on to the scene that the Beatles started to gain a heavier sound and even then, they had to use other musicians like Clapton to enhance their songs and not even give him credit until later. Now that's lame! RUSH would never do that. Hell they don't need to!

 

You're information is very inaccurate. I don't know what muscians you haven't listened to in regards to giving the Beatles credit - the list is endless. Also Jimi Hendrix asked Paul McCartney to join a potential group. Credit through admiration? The Beatles covered many artists from numerous genres. Does "She Loves You" sound like anything other than the Beatles? George Martin enabled the Beatles to do what the Beatles wanted to do, not what George Martin wanted to do. I don't know about you, but songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride" were very heavy sounding for their time. And the Revolver album was extremely heavy - "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Rain" for example. Released, months before Hendrix released his first single. Also, in the 1960s tons of musicians played on each other albums and weren't given credit due to contractual obligations.

 

You misunderstood me. I said that musicians are the ones that give Hendrix most of the praise. That the media has basically marginalized him and Chuck Berry and have just over showered The Beatles with praise. Don't get me wrong, I Love The Beatles, I grew up listening to them as have my kids. I just feel that they are overly popularized for the media sake. They've become like Hot Dog and Apple Pie! They've become the Coca Cola of the music world. Now we all know that Coke is awesome as indicated per your icon! (Which is great by the way), but this is my point here, the media has gone out of their way to over popularize The Beatles. Just like the have with Elvis and now with Micheal Jackson. The Media loves to have their dependable Icons and The Beatles has become one of them. Even John knew this which lead him to make his infamous Statement "We have become more popular than Jesus Christ"! This is what I felt he meant by this statement. That the media was giving them way more attention that they should. When they really should be focusing more on others like Jesus Christ. He knew very well back then what was happening to them as a group, as human beings which is one of the reason I feel lead to their early and unfortunate breakup.

Actually Lennon was quoted out of context. He meant to say they were more popular than the Canadian Holy Trinity.

 

Well thats just Blasphamy! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

 

LedRush likes to present this argument with me that RTB is more popular than Counterparts because it sold more albums. Besides the facts that most Rush fans would disagree that RTB is a better album, in a situation like that there were extenuating circumstances. The song Roll the Bones and Dreamline were huge rock radio hits and the album sold more copies then they'd sold in awhile, even though the album as a whole was seriously lacking. By Counterparts, grunge suddenly ruled the land, and even though CP was essentially Rush's reaction to grunge, it wasn't exactly marketed to the grunge crowd, and even if they had been they weren't exactly some exciting new band coming out of Seattle. Very often timing can have a huge effect on albums sales.

 

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

The Beatles changed music. What they did in 8 years was phenomenal. They epitomized all the dramatic changes going on in music in the 60's that changed music forever, and they were not only enormously influential and changed the industry, but their ongoing album sales showed they were no mere flash in the pan or just a product of their times. Yes, they were somewhat a product of their times, but their influence has endured, and they continue to have relevance and sell albums. And it's because they were f*cking talented.

 

I totally agree that in general albums sales don't mean a lot, but you also don't sell 600 million albums (which supposedly the Beatles have sold) by sucking either.

 

That was the biggest excercise in contridiction ever!

 

No, the Beatles did not attract countless of Little Teanie boppers that ran after them like children after an ice cream truck! Nah!

 

No, the Beatles did not come into popularity in the early 60's when Rock Music was on a declining slope.

 

No, the Beatles are not so popular that they can pee in a bottle and place a turd in it and someone will still buy it!

 

Next you'll say that the Remix of VT has done nothing to improve the overall album. Go ahead Say it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sales figures for the Beatles' albums in the 60s could easily be explained by pointing to how they were the "it" band of the times. Sales figures for the Beatles' albums in 2009 when they released the stereo remasters have something to do with the quality of the recordings.

 

How many albums are New Kids on the Block or the Backstreet Boys selling nowadays?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dare say that bands who were influenced by the Beatles, like Yes and King Crimson, produced more overall interesting music.. But that would be blasphemous to say, so I'll keep my mouth shut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

 

LedRush likes to present this argument with me that RTB is more popular than Counterparts because it sold more albums. Besides the facts that most Rush fans would disagree that RTB is a better album, in a situation like that there were extenuating circumstances. The song Roll the Bones and Dreamline were huge rock radio hits and the album sold more copies then they'd sold in awhile, even though the album as a whole was seriously lacking. By Counterparts, grunge suddenly ruled the land, and even though CP was essentially Rush's reaction to grunge, it wasn't exactly marketed to the grunge crowd, and even if they had been they weren't exactly some exciting new band coming out of Seattle. Very often timing can have a huge effect on albums sales.

 

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

The Beatles changed music. What they did in 8 years was phenomenal. They epitomized all the dramatic changes going on in music in the 60's that changed music forever, and they were not only enormously influential and changed the industry, but their ongoing album sales showed they were no mere flash in the pan or just a product of their times. Yes, they were somewhat a product of their times, but their influence has endured, and they continue to have relevance and sell albums. And it's because they were f*cking talented.

 

I totally agree that in general albums sales don't mean a lot, but you also don't sell 600 million albums (which supposedly the Beatles have sold) by sucking either.

 

That was the biggest excercise in contridiction ever!

 

No, the Beatles did not attract countless of Little Teanie boppers that ran after them like children after an ice cream truck! Nah!

 

No, the Beatles did not come into popularity in the early 60's when Rock Music was on a declining slope.

 

No, the Beatles are not so popular that they can pee in a bottle and place a turd in it and someone will still buy it!

 

Next you'll say that the Remix of VT has done nothing to improve the overall album. Go ahead Say it!

 

:eyeroll:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, of course, sales figures are always reliable indicators of greatness :LOL: :yes:

 

But a reliable indicator of popularity.

 

Just Like GLEE. and the Beatle will be on the season opener. A two episode show no doubt! Wow now thats popularity for ya!

 

Have fun riding that wave of popularity on Thurdays Beatles fans! :D-13:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that the Spice Girls were irrelevant three years later. Their songs still pop up in movies quite often and most people recognize any one of them immediately. The Spice Girls broke up when they were still very popular. Nelson Mandela said of all the people he ever met as president that he was the most impressed with the Spice Girls. They could have easily released and sold millions of more albums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that the Spice Girls were irrelevant three years later. Their songs still pop up in movies quite often and most people recognize any one of them immediately. The Spice Girls broke up when they were still very popular. Nelson Mandela said of all the people he ever met as president that he was the most impressed with the Spice Girls. They could have easily released and sold millions of more albums.

 

Oy.

 

My main point is that The Beatles are the best selling music group in the history of the world, and you have to have some significant measure of talent to achieve that in an 8 year career and then 43 years beyond that. They didn't get there by accident or luck or because they were the flavor of the month or just in the right place in the right time. Yes, albums sales and popularity do not necessarily equal quality, but we're talking about the f*cking Beatles here. They sold 600 million albums worldwide. And they made incredible music that influenced everything that came after it irrevocably forever. Nelson Mandela might be their #1 fan, but mostly The Spice Girls are a punch line, at least in terms of their music, and they were even when they were popular.

Edited by rushgoober
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that the Spice Girls were irrelevant three years later. Their songs still pop up in movies quite often and most people recognize any one of them immediately. The Spice Girls broke up when they were still very popular. Nelson Mandela said of all the people he ever met as president that he was the most impressed with the Spice Girls. They could have easily released and sold millions of more albums.

 

That settles it then... Spice Girls >>> Beatles ... End of thread

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that the Spice Girls were irrelevant three years later. Their songs still pop up in movies quite often and most people recognize any one of them immediately. The Spice Girls broke up when they were still very popular. Nelson Mandela said of all the people he ever met as president that he was the most impressed with the Spice Girls. They could have easily released and sold millions of more albums.

 

Oy.

 

My main point is that The Beatles are the best selling music group in the history of the world, and you have to have some significant measure of talent to achieve that in an 8 year career and then 43 years beyond that. They didn't get there by accident or luck or because they were the flavor of the month or just in the right place in the right time. Yes, albums sales and popularity do not necessarily equal quality, but we're talking about the f*cking Beatles here. They sold 600 million albums worldwide. And they made incredible music that influenced everything that came after it irrevocably forever. Nelson Mandela might be their #1 fan, but mostly The Spice Girls are a punch line, at least in terms of their music, and they were even when they were popular.

 

They didn't always make incredible music.. Fixing a Hole makes me want to punch babies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles are in a dramatically different arena - it wasn't just a crazy buying public whim like say The Spice Girls suddenly appealing to millions of little girls and selling a shitload of albums. Three years later they were completely irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that the Spice Girls were irrelevant three years later. Their songs still pop up in movies quite often and most people recognize any one of them immediately. The Spice Girls broke up when they were still very popular. Nelson Mandela said of all the people he ever met as president that he was the most impressed with the Spice Girls. They could have easily released and sold millions of more albums.

 

Oy.

 

My main point is that The Beatles are the best selling music group in the history of the world, and you have to have some significant measure of talent to achieve that in an 8 year career and then 43 years beyond that. They didn't get there by accident or luck or because they were the flavor of the month or just in the right place in the right time. Yes, albums sales and popularity do not necessarily equal quality, but we're talking about the f*cking Beatles here. They sold 600 million albums worldwide. And they made incredible music that influenced everything that came after it irrevocably forever. Nelson Mandela might be their #1 fan, but mostly The Spice Girls are a punch line, at least in terms of their music, and they were even when they were popular.

\\

 

I'd do any one of the Spice Girls, even today. That's relevant!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...