Massive influence perhaps, but not a great or particularly innovative band, just popular, with a handful of decent songs, a lot of middling ones, and some singalong tunes for children.
Give me The Kinks or The Stones any day. The Village Green Preservation Channel would be a good one.
Real musicians are defined by those doing covers of Britney Spears songs? You don't think anyone else in the Beatles could do a cover for Britney Spears song?
Ha ha, you obviously don't get it. These are first rate musicians, McCartney wouldn't even understand what they were doing musically. The song 'hit me' is there own, the others are covers but incredibly sophisticated, something you would not understand judging by your comment. You can not dispute that these are excellent musicians, you can dislike it of course.
Ha ha, you obviously don't get it. These are first rate musicians, McCartney wouldn't even understand what they were doing musically. The song 'hit me' is there own, the others are covers but incredibly sophisticated, something you would not understand judging by your comment. You can not dispute that these are excellent musicians, you can dislike it of course.
Your definition is clearly subjective and extremely narrow which is probably why you have this elitist stance. You fail to see how music you don't like is possibly admired, revered, inspirational or worthwhile to others.
It's quite sad, really, despite it's commonality. I'm certainly you also take the common stance of scoffing at anyone who doesn't know of a new talent you have "discovered" but then get pissy when they become popular which you feel cheapens the experience you had been pimping out to prove to others that you know better music than they do.
You aren't unique in this but that doesn't make it any less an atrocity to the art form.
Your definition is clearly subjective and extremely narrow which is probably why you have this elitist stance. You fail to see how music you don't like is possibly admired, revered, inspirational or worthwhile to others.
It's quite sad, really, despite it's commonality. I'm certainly you also take the common stance of scoffing at anyone who doesn't know of a new talent you have "discovered" but then get pissy when they become popular which you feel cheapens the experience you had been pimping out to prove to others that you know better music than they do.
You aren't unique in this but that doesn't make it any less an atrocity to the art form.
Actually I am talking about musicians and musicianship, I couldn't give a stuff about your comments. What's wrong with being different, and actually liking music created by musicians. Rather than the alternative. No need to be a pompous tw-t.
Wait, The Beatles weren't real musicians and/or didn't create real music?
I'm not a fan, but I don't see what your angle is there.
My point is ... How can I put it ... A famous English author Barbara Cartland, another Shakespeare, both writers, there is a huge chasm between them. I listen to the best. That's it.
Ha ha, you obviously don't get it. These are first rate musicians, McCartneywouldn't even understand what they were doing musically. The song 'hit me' is there own, the others are covers but incredibly sophisticated, something you would not understand judging by your comment. You can not dispute that these are excellent musicians, you can dislike it of course.
You seriously think that link you posted qualifies in the 'Best' music category?
Seriously?
I would classify it as mediocre amateur pop. I've heard more inspiring music played by an unemployed person on a city sidewalk.
Another fool. I'm talking about musicians not wether you like it or not. These are professional and talented musicians. I can't argue with anybody about musical taste, you like what you like. I prefer music to be done by musicians, the Beatles weren't great musicians. I prefer buildings to be designed by architects, I prefer my food cooked by a professional chef. I don't think I can put it any simpler for you idiots. On the last note if a professional chef cooked a superb meal full of interesting flavours and combinations of spices and you didn't like it, you could not argue that he was a shit chef, simply that you did not like what he produces. Now you may prefer the food cooked by the amateurs. Go for it!
Also I find the assumption that if you are unemployed you are somehow automatically deemed talentless. Just shows what an idiot you are.
I like the assumption that the artists you listen to are real and talented, and everyone else is somehow fake and amateur. People might tolerate your opinion if you were a bit less smarmy about it.
I like the assumption that the artists you listen to are real and talented, and everyone else is somehow fake and amateur. People might tolerate your opinion if you were a bit less smarmy about it.
It seems like everyone in here is making an assumption about what I think, I gave an example of talented musicians, that's it. I don't class the Beatles in the same league. I don't give a toss if you agree or disagree or think I am attacking your own personal musical taste as being somehow inferior. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Great things are created by the people who have mastered there art.
You could have just said you don't care for The Beatles prefer other artists, no one would have any issue with that. Once you started talking about musicianship and talent (as if either are absolutely quantifiable) you lost it. The Beatles were talented musicians, even if not in ways that you (or I) care about or appreciate.
You could have just said you don't care for The Beatles prefer other artists, no one would have any issue with that. Once you started talking about musicianship and talent (as if either are absolutely quantifiable) you lost it. The Beatles were talented musicians, even if not in ways that you (or I) care about or appreciate.
Thanks. I know, got carried away, a bit of a pointless exercise on my part. You live and learn. At least there are a few rational people on here to provide the balance. :-)
You live and learn. At least there are a few rational people on here to provide the balance. :-)
There are plenty of rational people here but you aren't one of them. In fact, you spent the day attacking them for pointing out that you were not being rational. Do I need to point out all your comments where you state how you prefer music created by actual musicians, not the music created by talentless non-musiciians (whatever that means)? I certainly hope you have learned but from my experience people that choose to be elitist and closed minded tend to remain that way.
Do I need to point out all your comments where you state how you prefer music created by actual musicians, not the music created by talentless non-musiciians (whatever that means)?
I stand by the first part but I never actually said the second part. GFY.
I stand by the first part but I never actually said the second part. GFY.
When you write that you prefer music by actual musicians your implication is clear. You don't think The Beatles (or anything else by musicians you don't like) are real musicians who don't produce real music.
As I stated, people like you typically don't learn and with every new comment you reinforce your initial elitist stance on art.
Elitist and pompous comments by Zaba:
...Beatles collection of nursery rhymes…
…When I have finished s_dding myself and w_nking I'll listen to some real musicians.…
…real musicians like these…
…[personal attack omitted]...
…These are first rate musicians, McCartney wouldn't even understand what they were doing musically…
…[personal attack omitted]...
…What's wrong with […] actually liking music created by musicians…
…[personal attack omitted]…
…I listen to the best. That's it…
…[personal attack omitted]…
…I prefer music to be done by musicians, the Beatles weren't great musicians. I prefer buildings to be designed by architects, I prefer my food cooked by a professional chef. I don't think I can put it any simpler for you idiots…
...I am attacking your own personal musical taste as being somehow inferior… This one I took out of context for fun.
When you write that you prefer music by actual musicians your implication is clear. You don't think The Beatles (or anything else by musicians you don't like) are real musicians who don't produce real music.
As I stated, people like you typically don't learn and with every new comment you reinforce your initial elitist stance on art.
Comments
Give me The Kinks or The Stones any day. The Village Green Preservation Channel would be a good one.
You're right. "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream" are words to live by. I haven't listened to that album, sorry to say, but must.
Your definition is clearly subjective and extremely narrow which is probably why you have this elitist stance. You fail to see how music you don't like is possibly admired, revered, inspirational or worthwhile to others.
It's quite sad, really, despite it's commonality. I'm certainly you also take the common stance of scoffing at anyone who doesn't know of a new talent you have "discovered" but then get pissy when they become popular which you feel cheapens the experience you had been pimping out to prove to others that you know better music than they do.
You aren't unique in this but that doesn't make it any less an atrocity to the art form.
I'm not a fan, but I don't see what your angle is there.
You seriously think that link you posted qualifies in the 'Best' music category?
Seriously?
I would classify it as mediocre amateur pop. I've heard more inspiring music played by an unemployed person on a city sidewalk.
Ha ha, you obviously don't get it. These are first rate musicians, McCartney wouldn't even understand what they were doing musically. The song 'hit me' is there own, the others are covers but incredibly sophisticated, something you would not understand judging by your comment. You can not dispute that these are excellent musicians, you can dislike it of course.
Hahahahahaha
Oh boy... another musical genius.
I listen to the best. That's it.
If you're not talking about Pink Floyd, then you don't listen to the best! And even they were huge fans of The Beatles!
I've heard some Beatles but not all. I'm looking forward to streaming this gig tonight!
I've heard more inspiring music played by an unemployed person on a city sidewalk.
Some of the people busking in the London Underground are really very talented.
Another fool. I'm talking about musicians not wether you like it or not. These are professional and talented musicians. I can't argue with anybody about musical taste, you like what you like. I prefer music to be done by musicians, the Beatles weren't great musicians. I prefer buildings to be designed by architects, I prefer my food cooked by a professional chef. I don't think I can put it any simpler for you idiots. On the last note if a professional chef cooked a superb meal full of interesting flavours and combinations of spices and you didn't like it, you could not argue that he was a shit chef, simply that you did not like what he produces. Now you may prefer the food cooked by the amateurs. Go for it!
Also I find the assumption that if you are unemployed you are somehow automatically deemed talentless. Just shows what an idiot you are.
There are plenty of rational people here but you aren't one of them. In fact, you spent the day attacking them for pointing out that you were not being rational. Do I need to point out all your comments where you state how you prefer music created by actual musicians, not the music created by talentless non-musiciians (whatever that means)? I certainly hope you have learned but from my experience people that choose to be elitist and closed minded tend to remain that way.
When you write that you prefer music by actual musicians your implication is clear. You don't think The Beatles (or anything else by musicians you don't like) are real musicians who don't produce real music.
As I stated, people like you typically don't learn and with every new comment you reinforce your initial elitist stance on art.
Elitist and pompous comments by Zaba: