May 12, 200818 yr Author sorry i've been busy. lets continue In 4th Place, the band i think had more influence on coldplay than any other band ever U2- 10350- 27 votes- First Place (coldplayclassu2better) http://youtube.com/watch?v=T1CCMqm1EBg
May 12, 200818 yr Have Kraftwerk been mentioned yet:rolleyes:? Just wondered. Kraft..what-? i mean, that band exist?well i don't know, but i believe that Crupptkids is going to be number 1
May 12, 200818 yr The Killers are better than the beatles:thinking: Thats insanity. So far my top 5 predictions were correct. So 1. Radiohead 2. Muse 3. Coldplay
May 13, 200818 yr Thats insanity. Haha, i'll tell you the truth.. i have never ever heard a beatles' song and i like the killers a lot:P
May 13, 200818 yr Only heard a few Beatles songs, the popular one's, own one album, Magical Mystery Tour. They do not blow me away. I think the reason for their popularity was because they were the first to blow away normality, along with the Stones. People either loved one or the other, and because the Beatles were the nice boys they were more popular. If they came around today would they be as big as Oasis? Who are nowhere near as popular as the Beatles were. More competition for the popular music fan today. They may have their five minutes of fame but would they last as long as say U2? We will never know because they were first.
May 13, 200818 yr Author Haha, i'll tell you the truth.. i have never ever heard a beatles' song and i like the killers a lot:P :stunned:
May 13, 200818 yr Haha, i'll tell you the truth.. i have never ever heard a beatles' song and i like the killers a lot:P You grew up under a rock obviously.
May 13, 200818 yr Only heard a few Beatles songs, the popular one's, own one album, Magical Mystery Tour. They do not blow me away. I think the reason for their popularity was because they were the first to blow away normality, along with the Stones. People either loved one or the other, and because the Beatles were the nice boys they were more popular. If they came around today would they be as big as Oasis? Who are nowhere near as popular as the Beatles were. More competition for the popular music fan today. They may have their five minutes of fame but would they last as long as say U2? We will never know because they were first. The Beatles recorded as many albums as U2 have in their 30 year career in 10 short years and have far more songs than U2 and far more good ones. Oasis have recorded around 6 albums in 15 years, and are nowhere near the quality of the geniuses of the Beatles the borrow lines consistantly as well as riffs. Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Revolver, The Beatles and Stg Pepper were flawless gems of pop innovation. Sure they came first but the Beatles were far more experimental than a band like U2 has ever been their albums are timeless so its easy to compare Stg Pepper to pop and see which band was the best at being experimental. And the Killers, their a shoddy band imo, British image pop without the british image. A combination of Pulp without the soul and U2 without the lyrical intergrity. Their first album getting old quick and the second never being fun at all. Download yourself some Beatles songs from each album see how they are rule and vary a lot.
May 13, 200818 yr ^You have to also realize that The Beatles gave up touring and only made records. How many records would U2 produce if they didn't tour? And can a band be more experimental when you know the stuff isn't going to be ever played live?
May 13, 200818 yr Haha, i'll tell you the truth.. i have never ever heard a beatles' song and i like the killers a lot:P that's shocking :shocked2: You haven't even heard the most famous ones? Yesterday? Hey Jude? Let It Be? i have to agree with many others and say that The Beatles is many times better than The Killers.
May 13, 200818 yr ^^exactly. And they left a lot of tracks on their albums they weren't very proud of, just as filler. It was usually better than just filler because they were the Beatles, but they still thought of it as just filler. Most modern bands wouldn't dare do that, they would wait for a better song. And the Beatles had 3 brilliant songwriters in the band instead of the usual one, so it makes sense that they would come up with 2 or 3 times as many songs. And for all their creativity, they didn't spend very long actually recording any one track. Nowadays because modern technology makes it so much easier to obsess over every millisecond of every piece of a track, many bands will do just that, spending months playing around with layers. In the 60's it was unusual to spend more than about 10 or 12 hours on a difficult song, much less for a simple one. ...So when are we getting the rest of the list? :thinking:
May 13, 200818 yr ^You have to also realize that The Beatles gave up touring and only made records. How many records would U2 produce if they didn't tour? And can a band be more experimental when you know the stuff isn't going to be ever played live? Well the first half of their career they toured and released an album a year, as well as some stand alone singles. The Beatles never did anything that would be as differcult to translate live as u2's Pop. Looking at Kid A anything can be translated live but it shouldn't stop giving 100 percent at the studio. U2 released 1 album within 5 years, they wern't touring all that time. And they left a lot of tracks on their albums they weren't very proud of, just as filler. It was usually better than just filler because they were the Beatles, but they still thought of it as just filler. Most modern bands wouldn't dare do that, they would wait for a better song. Not really, most albums out there have filler somewhere, being that the bands a collaborative issue. Such as the inclusion of 'the small print' on Muse's Absolution against Matt's wishes. Despite the fact it hurt the albums cohesiveness. Lennon for example hated 'Run for your life' but George Harrison loved it. That's why its on the album. That and the contractual obligations the Beatles were under. That some bands wouldn't have been able to keep up with. 1 album of a certain length and 4 singles a year? And the Beatles had 3 brilliant songwriters in the band instead of the usual one, so it makes sense that they would come up with 2 or 3 times as many songs. The band chemistry isn't the issue, all this proves is the Beatles were more talented because more than one could write songs. And for all their creativity, they didn't spend very long actually recording any one track. Nowadays because modern technology makes it so much easier to obsess over every millisecond of every piece of a track, many bands will do just that, spending months playing around with layers. In the 60's it was unusual to spend more than about 10 or 12 hours on a difficult song, much less for a simple one. Definatly the case, The Beatles music was way similar initially than modern music. Their later stuff tho is pretty complex. While my guitar weeps, Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, She's so heavy, Come together ectrs
May 13, 200818 yr You grew up under a rock obviously. I was born in 1990, The Beatles were no more hitting the radio. I listened the music my brother listened and he loved bands like smashing pumpkins, and all those bands from the 90's. I really never had an opportunity of listening to the Beatles, and i don't even feel curious to listen to them.:)
Create an account or sign in to comment