Red Mosquito

evenslow wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:90% of it is the vocals for me.

From two of the best rock vocalists of all time?

What about a nice harmony song like "If I Fell"?

they are nice and I get why people would be into it, but to me they sound overly pretty and polished and lacking in emotion. they sound like great professional singers. not really what pulls me in. give me Mic snarling or Roger screaming instead.

I really don't care one way or the other about the Beatles at this point. Revolver is pretty cool for the most part, as are bits of the white album. I personally enjoy John's top tier of solo work (Working Class Hero, Instant Karma, Mind Games, How Do You Sleep?, etc.) more than I enjoy anything the Beatles did. And probably 95% of the Beatles stuff I do enjoy is John stuff.

For the most part though, I just don't care. I can't remember the last time I put a Beatles album on by choice. And I legitimately listen to a lot of music from that era very frequently.


They're better than Led Zeppelin though.

BurtReynolds wrote:

evenslow wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:90% of it is the vocals for me.

From two of the best rock vocalists of all time?

What about a nice harmony song like "If I Fell"?

they are nice and I get why people would be into it, but to me they sound overly pretty and polished and lacking in emotion. they sound like great professional singers. not really what pulls me in. give me Mic snarling or Roger screaming instead.

Even a song like Helter Skelter? Seems like that would be right in your wheelhouse.

BurtReynolds wrote:

evenslow wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:90% of it is the vocals for me.

From two of the best rock vocalists of all time?

What about a nice harmony song like "If I Fell"?

they are nice and I get why people would be into it, but to me they sound overly pretty and polished and lacking in emotion. they sound like great professional singers. not really what pulls me in. give me Mic snarling or Roger screaming instead.

Maybe try "Oh Darling" for one example of Paul singing his balls off.

durdencommatyler wrote:Just for a frame of reference, could list a handful of your all time favorite bands?

Whilst I appreciate that this is sometimes unavoidable, it promotes lazy debate. I have learned to avoid the requirement of a yardstick. Try to consider everyone your equal, and debate accordingly.

Or just call them a cunt.

BurtReynolds wrote:

evenslow wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:90% of it is the vocals for me.

From two of the best rock vocalists of all time?

What about a nice harmony song like "If I Fell"?

they are nice and I get why people would be into it, but to me they sound overly pretty and polished and lacking in emotion. they sound like great professional singers. not really what pulls me in. give me Mic snarling or Roger screaming instead.

Twist And Shout and Don't Let Me Down are fucking raw vocals. Two of the best rock vocals ever recorded.

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:90% of it is the vocals for me. it's that simple really. cant get past them. I'm sure they are really amazing and they did all this amazing stuff that no one ever did and blablabla... little of it really connects to me.

Their body of work is so vast and varied. How much of it have you listened to? Seems to me there's something for everyone in what they did. But not being able to get past the vocals would make the rest difficult, I admit.

there is something for everyone, I agree. I do like some of their songs. I'm not a total hater, but not much of it is for me.

helter skelter is an exception.

We really need to make a Beatles Browbeating Mix for these guys.

Soma. wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Just for a frame of reference, could list a handful of your all time favorite bands?

Whilst I appreciate that this is sometimes unavoidable, it promotes lazy debate. I have learned to avoid the requirement of a yardstick. Try to consider everyone your equal, and debate accordingly.

Or just call them a cunt.

I'm just curious what the guy enjoys so I more accurately understand what he means by "poppy" or "maybe it's the lyrics" or "can't take it seriously." How is he defining poppy? What sorts of lyrics does he appreciate? What does he take seriously? I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from. It has no real impact on the debate. I won't use any of it against him.

Oh in his case he's a raving moron. To the pub!

ah shit im late for a meeting. the Zep rules, Beatles drool!

Isn't it supposed to be Stones vs. Beatles? Kind of reminds me of Buzzcocks vs. Undertones and Blur vs. Oasis. Can't you like both?

(Oasis is a fucking horrible band)

Soma. wrote:Isn't it supposed to be Stones vs. Beatles? Kind of reminds me of Buzzcocks vs. Undertones and Blur vs. Oasis. Can't you like both?

(Oasis is a fucking horrible band)

Yes; and yes.

LZ vs The Who, right?

Who was Pink Floyd against?

King Crimson.

Oh, then, the Floyd.

this thread is pissing me off

There's a little something here for everyone to hate.

I'm a dork.

I love Sgt. Peppers but I don't really know anything else. I'm not a huge fan of anything that either Paul or John did solo, so I don't know tbh.

durdencommatyler wrote:

harmless wrote:Two great albums doesn't make a great band now, and so I don't think it's fair to say it did then either.

But they also recorded Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road and Let It Be. So your point doesn't apply.

Yeah it does.