THIS is a pretty good rendition of the song!

Wrong. I Love Queen. I have ALL their records and several videos.

But The Beatles are the greatest band of the past 60 years. Without a doubt.

I won't argue the song choice, but the headline is inaccurate.

markie_farkie: THIS is a pretty good rendition of the song!

Ummm no.
Why did I know someone from the band was from close to the Arctic circle?

/you missed out on the fun after the fark party, I ended up at the Ewing place on the other side of the road.

Well, of course.

Jesus subby, you couldn't wait until after lunch to start trolling?

The Clash?

AdolfOliverPanties: Wrong. I Love Queen. I have ALL their records and several videos.

But The Beatles are the greatest band of the past 60 years. Without a doubt.

I won't argue the song choice, but the headline is inaccurate.

Nope.

No studio band deserves to be in the running. They didn't tour or play live regularly after 1966. Queen, on the other hand, stole the show at Live Aid, years after their popularity had waned. The Stones continue to sell out tours (don't ask me why), and their four albums from 1968 to 1972 are probably the best succession of releases in history. Van Halen from 1978 to 1982 had a string of releases than in my opinion closely rivals the Stones 10 years earlier. Zep from 1969 to 1975 too.

This is coming from someone who had accumulated just about everything the Beatles released by the time I was 13. I love the Beatles and their collection is amazing, but no. The studio is only half the picture.

The Monkees?

Subby lies - BananaRama was robbed again

Chumbawumba?

H31N0US: I love the Beatles and their collection is amazing, but no.

Michael Bolton. I celebrate the man's entire catalog!

Link

That's not even Queen's best song. We are the Champions, anyone?

And yeah, The Beatles is the best band ever. Who cares if a band doesn't tour or not? It's about the quantity of quality songs, not about how many 18 year old chicks and 8 balls they can plow through in each city. Though that's impressive in its own right.

Is it still 1994 in the UK?

H31N0US: AdolfOliverPanties: Wrong. I Love Queen. I have ALL their records and several videos.

But The Beatles are the greatest band of the past 60 years. Without a doubt.

I won't argue the song choice, but the headline is inaccurate.

Nope.

No studio band deserves to be in the running. They didn't tour or play live regularly after 1966. Queen, on the other hand, stole the show at Live Aid, years after their popularity had waned. The Stones continue to sell out tours (don't ask me why), and their four albums from 1968 to 1972 are probably the best succession of releases in history. Van Halen from 1978 to 1982 had a string of releases than in my opinion closely rivals the Stones 10 years earlier. Zep from 1969 to 1975 too.

This is coming from someone who had accumulated just about everything the Beatles released by the time I was 13. I love the Beatles and their collection is amazing, but no. The studio is only half the picture.

Tommy (1969)
Live at Leeds(1970)
Who's Next (1971)
Quadrophenia (1973)

Just sayin'

under a mountain: Tommy (1969)
Live at Leeds(1970)
Who's Next (1971)
Quadrophenia (1973)

Just sayin'

Who are you talking about?

Robbed Again

Upon reading the headline, I naturally assumed my sort-of people had sensibly chosen something (or Something Else) by the Kinks.

Disappointed again.

StrikitRich: Robbed Again

I know a rickroll when I see one.

Subby must have submitted the wrong link, cause I didn't see any mention of Mötorhead in that story.

Cymbal: That's not even Queen's best song. We are the Champions, anyone?

And yeah, The Beatles is the best band ever. Who cares if a band doesn't tour or not? It's about the quantity of quality songs...

Quality as judged by who? And under what criteria? Frankly, I always considered the Beatles a cover band because almost every hit they had was based on obscure 3rd world folk tunse that they merely updated and wrote new lyrics for. Not that such a thing doesn't require musical talent, it does. And many people call them the best because they were the first (at whatever), but temporal claims (first) have no bearing on qualitative ones (best). Plus, so many other bands displayed so much more musical talent that calling the Beatles the greatest is simply contrary to all the evidence.

markie_farkie: THIS is a pretty good rendition of the song!

If you really had any chutzpah, you'd have made that a Rick Roll.

/was the first thing I thought of, anyway
//god I'm so lame. :(

Magnific00000OOOOOOOOOooooooo000000ooo ooooooooo!

Sybarite: Well, of course.

[www.sonicnation.ca image 600x399]

5 Biebers for the price of 1.

/what are we up to, now? 4.5 months until Bieber is caught with drugs, 10.5 until full Lohan?
//he's already been relegated to a small picture on the CORNER of teen magazines
///2 or 3 more months and he'll be gone, man

H31N0US: The Stones continue to sell out tours (don't ask me why), and their four albums from 1968 to 1972 are probably the best succession of releases in history. Van Halen from 1978 to 1982 had a string of releases than in my opinion closely rivals the Stones 10 years earlier. Zep from 1969 to 1975 too.

I cannot disagree with any of this. I have to admit, I like some of Van Halen's new stuff, too. Same with ZZ Top.

...

Man, I miss guitar rock. Yes, I sound old.

H31N0US: under a mountain: Tommy (1969)
Live at Leeds(1970)
Who's Next (1971)
Quadrophenia (1973)

Just sayin'

Who are you talking about?

The band.
Who.
The band on stage.
Who.
The name of the band on stage!
Who!!
You're starting to sound like an owl again!

Cymbal: That's not even Queen's best song. We are the Champions, anyone?

And yeah, The Beatles is the best band ever. Who cares if a band doesn't tour or not? It's about the quantity of quality songs, not about how many 18 year old chicks and 8 balls they can plow through in each city. Though that's impressive in its own right.

^^^^

H31N0US: No studio band deserves to be in the running. They didn't tour or play live regularly after 1966. Queen, on the other hand, stole the show at Live Aid, years after their popularity had waned. The Stones continue to sell out tours (don't ask me why), and their four albums from 1968 to 1972 are probably the best succession of releases in history. Van Halen from 1978 to 1982 had a string of releases than in my opinion closely rivals the Stones 10 years earlier. Zep from 1969 to 1975 too.

This.

No one has mentioned Brittany Spears after John Lennon. wtf is wrong with British people?!

Cymbal: Stairway to Heaven > every other song ever



No Stairway!^

xanadian: H31N0US: under a mountain: Tommy (1969)
Live at Leeds(1970)
Who's Next (1971)
Quadrophenia (1973)

Just sayin'

Who are you talking about?

The band.
Who.
The band on stage.
Who.
The name of the band on stage!
Who!!
You're starting to sound like an owl again!

Who is on stage now?
No, The Band is on stage now. Who is playing tomorrow.
I don't know who's playing tomorrow. I want to know the guys on stage now.
The Band.
Well, obviously they're a band, but I don't know who.
Oh, then you should stick around for tomorrow's show. You'll like them.
Who?
Exactly.

Balchinian: Cymbal: That's not even Queen's best song. We are the Champions, anyone?

And yeah, The Beatles is the best band ever. Who cares if a band doesn't tour or not? It's about the quantity of quality songs...

Quality as judged by who? And under what criteria? Frankly, I always considered the Beatles a cover band because almost every hit they had was based on obscure 3rd world folk tunse that they merely updated and wrote new lyrics for. Not that such a thing doesn't require musical talent, it does. And many people call them the best because they were the first (at whatever), but temporal claims (first) have no bearing on qualitative ones (best). Plus, so many other bands displayed so much more musical talent that calling the Beatles the greatest is simply contrary to all the evidence.

Horse shiat.

Ask me my favorite TV show, favorite song, favorite movie, favorite book...and I cannot name one.

Ask me my favorite band and it is easy, instant and unchanging. And it is that way for most fans of popular music and rock and roll. At least it was. As the generations pass, things change due to lack of familiarity.

To say the Beatles' hit songs were just rewritten folk tunes is pants-on-head retarded. Their innovation and influence on the world of music and the world in general simply cannot be overstated. Find a band that you think outstrips the Beatles' in importance and greatness, and ask the members of THAT band who the greatest band ever was and I would wager 95% of them would say The Beatles. Be it Lemmy, David Gilmour, Ozzy Osbourne, Bono or virtually any great rock and roll musician from the era of the 60s-through now, they will cite The Beatles as being the top of the heap.

This is one of those things that really cannot be argued. People can dislike their music, certainly. There is no accounting for taste, nor should there be. It would be a boring world if we all liked the same things. But there is simply no group that can replace The Beatles at the top of the food chain, the top tier, the height of the echelon. It's not even really an opinion. It is fact.

H31N0US:
No studio band deserves to be in the running. They didn't tour or play live regularly after 1966. Queen, on the other hand, stole the show at Live Aid, years after their popularity had waned. The Stones continue to sell out tours (don't ask me why), and their four albums from 1968 to 1972 are probably the best succession of releases in history. Van Halen from 1978 to 1982 had a string of releases than in my opinion closely rivals the Stones 10 years earlier. Zep from 1969 to 1975 too.

This is coming from someone who had accumulated just about everything the Beatles released by the time I was 13. I love the Beatles and their collection is amazing, but no. The studio is only half the picture.

I can see and I put the Beatles on top my list. And yeah the Who's run from Live at Leeds on also falls into that category. I'd say Clapton from Cream through Derek and the Dominos is another example of a fantastic creative run.

BUT, I think we can all agree, there's no planet where anything Oasis has done belongs in any "best of" category where they finish ahead of the Beatles.

//I'm still mad at Mocha Jono for breaking up the group.

Balchinian: Cymbal: That's not even Queen's best song. We are the Champions, anyone?

And yeah, The Beatles is the best band ever. Who cares if a band doesn't tour or not? It's about the quantity of quality songs...

Quality as judged by who? And under what criteria? Frankly, I always considered the Beatles a cover band because almost every hit they had was based on obscure 3rd world folk tunse that they merely updated and wrote new lyrics for. Not that such a thing doesn't require musical talent, it does. And many people call them the best because they were the first (at whatever), but temporal claims (first) have no bearing on qualitative ones (best). Plus, so many other bands displayed so much more musical talent that calling the Beatles the greatest is simply contrary to all the evidence.

Quality as judged by everyone who cares, obviously. There have been countless polls conducted on which band is the GOAT, and The Beatles have been voted #1 more times than any other band. So what more do you want?

The Spice Girls?

I can never listen to Boheimian Rhapsody ever again. Effing Waynes World ruined it. It was nice to tie it into the movie but FFS listening to it every day all day that whole summer just annoyed me.

AdolfOliverPanties: Horse shiat.

Ask me my favorite TV show, favorite song, favorite movie, favorite book...and I cannot name one.

Ask me my favorite band and it is easy, instant and unchanging. And it is that way for most fans of popular music and rock and roll. At least it was. As the generations pass, things change due to lack of familiarity.

To say the Beatles' hit songs were just rewritten folk tunes is pants-on-head retarded. Their innovation and influence on the world of music and the world in general simply cannot be overstated. Find a band that you think outstrips the Beatles' in importance and greatness, and ask the members of THAT band who the greatest band ever was and I would wager 95% of them would say The Beatles. Be it Lemmy, David Gilmour, Ozzy Osbourne, Bono or virtually any great rock and roll musician from the era of the 60s-through now, they will cite The Beatles as being the top of the heap.

This is one of those things that really cannot be argued. People can dislike their music, certainly. There is no accounting for taste, nor should there be. It would be a boring world if we all liked the same things. But there is simply no group that can replace The Beatles at the top of the food chain, the top tier, the height of the echelon. It's not even really an opinion. It is fact.


The Beatles were really more of a meta-cover band. They took types of music that were popular or becoming popular and cleaned them up for the white suburban kids. They took the rock and roll badassness of Chuck Berry and Little Richard and cleaned it up into dismal songs like "I wanna Hold Your Hand". When the San Fran sound started to take off they took their cue from the likes of Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead and turned out a sanitized version With "Lucy in the Skies" which may well be one of the worst things ever recorded. All that being said they are the most important band of the last 60 years because most people like middle-of -the-road, lowest common denominator music. This also explains Micheal Jackson.

I've always felt that Queen is the superior british band of all times -- and that the beatles are overrated to begin with.

CMYK and PMS: AdolfOliverPanties: Horse shiat.

Ask me my favorite TV show, favorite song, favorite movie, favorite book...and I cannot name one.

Ask me my favorite band and it is easy, instant and unchanging. And it is that way for most fans of popular music and rock and roll. At least it was. As the generations pass, things change due to lack of familiarity.

To say the Beatles' hit songs were just rewritten folk tunes is pants-on-head retarded. Their innovation and influence on the world of music and the world in general simply cannot be overstated. Find a band that you think outstrips the Beatles' in importance and greatness, and ask the members of THAT band who the greatest band ever was and I would wager 95% of them would say The Beatles. Be it Lemmy, David Gilmour, Ozzy Osbourne, Bono or virtually any great rock and roll musician from the era of the 60s-through now, they will cite The Beatles as being the top of the heap.

This is one of those things that really cannot be argued. People can dislike their music, certainly. There is no accounting for taste, nor should there be. It would be a boring world if we all liked the same things. But there is simply no group that can replace The Beatles at the top of the food chain, the top tier, the height of the echelon. It's not even really an opinion. It is fact.


The Beatles were really more of a meta-cover band. They took types of music that were popular or becoming popular and cleaned them up for the white suburban kids. They took the rock and roll badassness of Chuck Berry and Little Richard and cleaned it up into dismal songs like "I wanna Hold Your Hand". When the San Fran sound started to take off they took their cue from the likes of Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead and turned out a sanitized version With "Lucy in the Skies" which may well be one of the worst things ever recorded. All that being said they are the most important band of the last 60 years because most people like middle-of -the-road, lowest common ...

I truly hope you will let us know when The Beatles are hip again. I'll even buy you a case of PBR.

the beatles stopped being relevant when their influence was no longer heard.

they were great and all but IT'S BEEN 40 YEARS, MAN.

the world moved on.

/the white album sucks.
//hell, most of the Beatles output sucks. Just like most every other band. All you really need is that "1" cd and you have all the Beatles you need.

///modern kids that claim to love the Beatles can not be trusted. The music is on the whole very very dated. The early stuff is unlistenable boy band garbage and the later stuff gets so damn weird. Yes I know, groundbreaking, yadda yadda. And it was, 40 years ago. New ground has been broken.

////having said that, yes, the BEST Beatles songs are amazing. all 20, oh maybe 25 of them.

Cymbal: I truly hope you will let us know when The Beatles are hip again. I'll even buy you a case of PBR

They were never "hip" that was the point. I'm too old to be a hipster sonny, I was around to see Jimi Hendrix and Pig Pen live. So buy me a case of Yuengling and a couple shots of Jim Beam Devil's Cut instead.

frepnog:


/the white album is awesome fixed for accuracy

No, the SF bands took cues from the Beatles, who also influenced everyone from the Beach Boys to Dylan, so their impact on the music scene can never be accurately gauged. Their popularity caused kids to start garage bands. great production and management helped. plus they were the first band to write, sing and record their own songs. They combined skiffle with harmonies, creating a new genre of music. No contest

Unless every spot on the list is held by Ween, the list fails.

dereksmalls: No, the SF bands took cues from the Beatles, who also influenced everyone from the Beach Boys to Dylan, so their impact on the music scene can never be accurately gauged. Their popularity caused kids to start garage bands. great production and management helped. plus they were the first band to write, sing and record their own songs. They combined skiffle with harmonies, creating a new genre of music. No contest

Except the SF sound pre-dates Magical Mystery Tour by 3 years. MMT was their first foray into anything resembling th SF sound.

CMYK and PMS: Cymbal: I truly hope you will let us know when The Beatles are hip again. I'll even buy you a case of PBR

They were never "hip" that was the point. I'm too old to be a hipster sonny, I was around to see Jimi Hendrix and Pig Pen live. So buy me a case of Yuengling and a couple shots of Jim Beam Devil's Cut instead.

The Beatles were never hip? Seriously? This changes everything!!!

Cymbal: The Beatles were never hip? Seriously? This changes everything!!!

They were hip only to people who live in little houses on the hillside, little houses all the same.

The Archies? Didn't see that one coming.

Ooba Tooba: frepnog:


/the white album is awesome fixed for accuracy

that is what people want you to believe.

people are wrong. there are moments of brilliance mixed in with mountains of garbage. the white album is an incoherent mess created by people that could barely even stand to be around each other.

it is certainly not a "beatles" record, it is a record made by the people that happened to be in the beatles. they weren't really the beatles any more. they were "those 4 guys that farking hate each other".

it shows.