Conquer Club

The Beatles <<<<<<<<< Metallica

Yardbirds/Zepplin and or Sabbath are also far superior to the Beatles.

rockfist wrote:The Beatles <<<<<<<<< Metallica

Yardbirds/Zepplin and or Sabbath are also far superior to the Beatles.

These are all great bands but in no way, shape or form is Metallica superior to the Beatles. They haven't contributed a tenth to music compared to what the Beatles have.

Wait, really? If you mean pop, then fine, but if you're talking about actual music and composition, I'm going to have to challenge that.

Listen to this song. If you know anything about classical music and rules of composition, and recognize how those rules are broken effectively and beautifully in this song, you'll understand that what Metallica did for music isn't within the realm of pop in the 20th century. It's within the realm of 300 years of established music theory.

Apparently, dubstep originated in London too.

Aradhus wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Wait... does London = England or does London = London? I'm going to start fact-checking some of these.

Yes, please do. If they're allowed to claim London = England, we get to claim the entire punk scene from Washington DC in the 80s. And of course Seattle in the 90s.

If Ped is allowed to claim london = England, he'd have the beatles. In which case you could have the rest of the world(excluding classical) and you'd still be behind.

The Beatles were an excellent pop music group, the 1960s version of the Spice Girls.

pimpdave wrote:Wait, really? If you mean pop, then fine, but if you're talking about actual music and composition, I'm going to have to challenge that.

Listen to this song. If you know anything about classical music and rules of composition, and recognize how those rules are broken effectively and beautifully in this song, you'll understand that what Metallica did for music isn't within the realm of pop in the 20th century. It's within the realm of 300 years of established music theory.

That was so good I had to stop it after a minute just to savour it and appreciate the experience... Clearly genius like that should be experienced in short bursts, all at once would devalue its greatness...

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Wait... does London = England or does London = London? I'm going to start fact-checking some of these.

Yes, please do. If they're allowed to claim London = England, we get to claim the entire punk scene from Washington DC in the 80s. And of course Seattle in the 90s.

If Ped is allowed to claim london = England, he'd have the beatles. In which case you could have the rest of the world(excluding classical) and you'd still be behind.

The Beatles were an excellent pop music group, the 1960s version of the Spice Girls.

Oh, you gonna play it like that is it. Well... well.. greeks are fiscally irresponsible! so there!

I don't really need to criticize your comparison because it is obviously bull, you know it's bull, or you certainly should.

Some 60s pop:


One of the great strengths of a band like the Beatles is that they, with their music, were always evolving. They have folk songs, punk songs, rock n roll songs, psychedelic songs, pop songs. They weren't some lame band who sticks to their one specific model of making music, never evolving, just different variations of the same shit over and over again...

[serious]I understand the Beatles place in music history. That being said, I think their music and relevant impact on music history is vastly overrated by most people. Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, in my humble opinion, were more important for rock than the Beatles, but get much less respect.[/serious]

Iron Maiden

thegreekdog wrote:[serious]I understand the Beatles place in music history. That being said, I think their music and relevant impact on music history is vastly overrated by most people. Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, in my humble opinion, were more important for rock than the Beatles, but get much less respect.[/serious]

I see. What criteria do you use to judge a bands impact on rock and roll or music in general?

Aradhus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:[serious]I understand the Beatles place in music history. That being said, I think their music and relevant impact on music history is vastly overrated by most people. Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, in my humble opinion, were more important for rock than the Beatles, but get much less respect.[/serious]

I see. What criteria do you use to judge a bands impact on rock and roll or music in general?

Whether they actually play rock and roll music.

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:[serious]I understand the Beatles place in music history. That being said, I think their music and relevant impact on music history is vastly overrated by most people. Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, in my humble opinion, were more important for rock than the Beatles, but get much less respect.[/serious]

I see. What criteria do you use to judge a bands impact on rock and roll or music in general?

I JUDGE BASED ON PERSONAL PREFERENCE, SO THERE

I c, i c, i c u bed available for tgd? he's about to get a beatin'

The Clash
Siouxsie and the Banshees
Elvis Costello

Aradhus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:[serious]I understand the Beatles place in music history. That being said, I think their music and relevant impact on music history is vastly overrated by most people. Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, in my humble opinion, were more important for rock than the Beatles, but get much less respect.[/serious]

I see. What criteria do you use to judge a bands impact on rock and roll or music in general?

I JUDGE BASED ON PERSONAL PREFERENCE, SO THERE

I c, i c, i c u bed available for tgd? he's about to get a beatin'

Are you not judging on personal preference? Mrs. thegreekdog LOVES the Beatles, so it's an ongoing discussion point with me. "How about we listen to some Zeppelin or Cream or Stones?" "NO... ONLY BEATLES!"