Metal Renders The Beatles Dead

[PunkItUp]

Read all about it at Sputnik Reviews!!

Because the expectation for music is way higher today then it was in the 60s,(ie: the complexity of metal these days) that The Beatles have become insignificant in comparison

It's an excerpt from a review at our mother site. That's like P-Funks Mothership but not as cool :cool:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=28227

I hear many from the forums don't use the reviews site. I was just wondering about your POV on this? Especially among you metal fans. Are some of you really this dense? Just wonderin,' don't shoot the messenger :(

Are the once mighty Beatles "insignificant" at the feet of metal's "complexity."

It's quite alarming :0

[hismajestythepope]

seriously, mother **** the beatles

[interviewer02]

Read all about it at Sputnik Reviews!!

Because the expectation for music is way higher today then it was in the 60s,(ie: the complexity of metal these days) that The Beatles have become insignificant in comparison

It's an excerpt from a review at our mother site. That's like P-Funks Mothership but not as cool :cool:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=28227

I hear many from the forums don't use the reviews site. I was just wondering about your POV on this? Especially among you metal fans. Are you really this dense? Just wonderin,' don't shoot the messenger :(

Are the once mighty Beatles "insignificant" at the feet of metal's "complexity."

It's quite alarming :0The Beatles were, are, and always will be amazing, better than probably any metal band could hope to be.

[Whitechapel447]

hahahahahaha

you can't claim one genre of music to be bad on the sole basis that the other is better. i don't love the beatles but i don't hate them. and that guy is ****ing stupid.

[Meatplow]

revolver

[rid]

the beatles (or a couple of them) were amazing poets or whatever you wanna call them, but their music is the most overrated crap ever. oh yes, I just said it.

hail metal.

[Permanent Solution]

The Beatles weren't good in the 60's either.

[Si1v3RfaNg]

The Beatles weren't good in the 60's either.

lol, I got to be honest, I respect The Beatles for revolutionizing music, but they are so terrible it's ridiculous. They basically made the same song over and over again.

[bringonthebreakdown]

seriously, mother **** the beatles

this

[Si1v3RfaNg]

seriously, mother **** the beatles

This repeated a million times ten-fold.

[StooTwo]

seriously, mother **** the beatles

the excerpt the TS is talking about is stupid but I agree with this man.

[Si1v3RfaNg]

I think everyone on sputnik will pretty much agree with him.

[Prince of Darkness]

this thread is scary.
rubbersoulrevolversgtpepperwhitealbumabbeyroad

/listens to revolver

[Det_Nosnip]

I think everyone on sputnik will pretty much agree with him.

Thus proving that everyone on sputnik is ****ing retarded.

[Dimmu Burger]

The Beatles are overrated. Not bad, just overrated.

[Si1v3RfaNg]

No thus proving they actually have a brain and tastes in good, advanced music. Most of them anyways. The Beatles have barely any talent, aside from the vocals and lyrics, but even those are overrated.

[Prince of Darkness]

god there is something wrong here. the R&M forum has gone mad

silverfang. there's nothing more advanced than what the beatles did in the 60's.

[Si1v3RfaNg]

I don't know I just can't handle the same riffs recycled in every album.

[Prince of Darkness]

yet you listen to linkin park

[Dimmu Burger]

Oh snap!

[Shattered_Future]

Thus proving that everyone on sputnik is ****ing retarded.

This. I'm not the biggest fan, but what they did for music in general is immeasureable.

[Si1v3RfaNg]

So, their actually enjoyable, unlike The Beatles. Linkin Park doesn't recycle the same riffs btw.

[Prince of Darkness]

the beatles are beyond enjoyable.

you know what I'm not going to debate this with you silverfang, you clearly have the musical understanding of a 13 year old.

[PunkItUp]

i'm really confuzzled by the POV that the Beatles weren't good musicians. George Harrison is a very good guitarist who could play circles around many. very influential, too. Paul can play his arse off on bass. and John played rhythm, but had good chops of his own. Ringo was perhaps the perfect time keeper

and this notion that the Beatles come down to "riffs." wtf is that? they were songwriters and great ones. find me a song out today as good as many of their songs and it would be slim pickins' indeed

"had no talent"

wtf :confused:

[Shattered_Future]

I think in terms of 32nd note arpeggio sweeps, The Beatles didn't measure up, but who gives a **** anyways? The fact that they all had some of the keenest ears for songwriting ever still astounds me.

[PunkItUp]

when did these "32nd note arpeggio sweeps" become mandatory for making great rock n roll?

thats kinda sad tbh

go play classical music and stop poisoning the well!

[Shattered_Future]

I'm saying that many people equate musical talent with how fast and complex one can play their instrument, as opposed to figuring out how to compose a brilliant song.

[PunkItUp]

oh yeah that wasn't directed at you just a general rant :p

i never did understand that. try writing a real good song like the Beatles and most will hit a wall

this is also why i have a hard time listening to a lot of metal. it seems they don't play for the music, song, or even for and off each other. they're just playing for themselves and it sounds like it

"look at me look at what I can do"

oh who gives a poop

[Prince of Darkness]

like dragonforce

although they're just fun to listen to!


but the beatles have kickass songwriting. and it really started to show on Rubber Soul.
In My Life, Michelle, Think for Yourself

the list goes on.

[EightMilesHigh]

I used to love The Beatles but grew out of them and sort of hate them now.

Though I always thought metal was barbaric.

So I don't know what to think.

[McP3000]

god there is something wrong here. the R&M forum has gone mad

silverfang. there's nothing more advanced than what the beatles did in the 60's.
King Crimson
Frank Zappa
The Velvet Underground


I used to love The Beatles but grew out of them and sort of hate them now.

Though I always thought metal was barbaric.

So I don't know what to think.
some metal is barbaric, but then again its also fun.

[alytee123]

They basically made the same song over and over again.

This is by far the most retarded thing I have ever read in my life, and leads me to believe you have never listened to more than one, if even one, Beatles album at all.

[Prince of Darkness]

King Crimson
Frank Zappa
The Velvet Underground

King Crimson were basically 70's

[bastard]

So, their actually enjoyable, unlike The Beatles. Linkin Park doesn't recycle the same riffs btw.

you're the biggest tool i've ever seen.

[big80smullet]

**** mine *** silverfag you are a ****ing n00b if you think that by only listening to modern music you are more "advanced" or something. if you actually listened to a beatles song past love me do which you uncle played while he raped you in kindergarten you'd realise that the beatles are pretty varied and amazing

[McP3000]

The beatles weren't that varied until at least Rubber Soul, arguably Revolver.

[bringonthebreakdown]

yet you listen to linkin park

oooooooosssshhhhhiiiiiiii

King Crimson
Frank Zappa
totally true. frank zappa alone has done more for music than pretty much anyone. the beatles as far as im concerned were just a poppy rock band of the 60's that had a few decent tunes but are regarded far far far too highly as like the saviors of music.

[PunkItUp]

The beatles weren't that varied until at least Rubber Soul, arguably Revolver.
yeah that's only because they were too busy rescuing rock n roll from its deathbed and pat boone and doris day

you see around the time the Beatles hit in America rock n roll was near death and many were happy to see it go. what with all that sex and loud guitars and what not. Elvis had gone to the Army and was returning to make movies. Jerry Lee Lewis was busted for wedding his underage cousin (very rock n roll of him but a no no outside the south) and while Philly soul was thriving and doo wop bands remained, rock n roll was as passe as anything

BUT, the Beatles loved American rock n roll. they didn't mine the blues and country and gospel for their sound as the original rockers did, they went straight to the original rockers. reinventing the genre by reinterpreting Chuck Berry, Elvis, Fats Domino, Carl Perkins, all those guys

they built a new foundation for the music, played loud, played hard, and played electric. the Beatles were WILD and sexy as hell. suits and all

so thats what they were busy doing when not being "varied" in the early years. no small thing

they literally saved rock music from an early death

[idiot]

frank zappa alone has done more for music than pretty much anyone. not really

[Permanent Solution]

Beatles did a lot for mainstream music but it doesn't change the fact that they have few actually cohesive albums.

Like, a Beatles' singles album is great. But individual albums, not so much. Which in my opinion is how band should be defined. Not greatest hits.

[PunkItUp]

Beatles did a lot for mainstream music but it doesn't change the fact that they have few actually cohesive albums.

Like, a Beatles' singles album is great. But individual albums, not so much. Which in my opinion is how band should be defined. Not greatest hits.
Sgt Pepper? The White Album, Rubber Soul, Abbey Raod, Let It Be, Revolver? where is that not great?

imo they didn't just make good / great albums, they were also responsible for making the first true rock albums. meaning albums that were actually cohesive and bound together by a singular vision. sure rock n roll albums existed before. Chuck Berry had some strong thematic albums. but rock n roll and popular music was still very singles orientated when the Beatles hit and changed that. folk albums were popular, perhaps. but that was "serious" music. not rock n roll. and of course Dylan helped change that when he went "electric" furthering the rock album as a whole piece of work rather then simply a collection of singles hoping for a hit. but it was the Beatles who made the first truly important rock n roll albums that were more then just a collection of singles dumped on a big disc

first "concept" album, too

[big80smullet]

Beatles did a lot for mainstream music but it doesn't change the fact that they have few actually cohesive albums.

Like, a Beatles' singles album is great. But individual albums, not so much. Which in my opinion is how band should be defined. Not greatest hits.

umm by this reasoning europe would not be considered a good band and we all know that is false

[McP3000]

Well they have the Final Countdown but after that ummm

[PunkItUp]

the Beatles were also the first ever true rock band. oh sure there were groups and big bands and all that. nothing new. jazz. if you played popular music you had a band or played in one. but the Beatles defined the rock band completely. they were four equal parts, even if not equal behind the scenes. they did a good job of trying to be. they weren't a backing band or backing players. they came from the bars and the clubs. and they were the first rock star band. singing groups and bands and what not were always there. but the Beatles were the musicians, singers, and songwriters. and were very involved with all aspects of the creative process. they set the standard for what a rock band is even today. they had a huge impact regarding that. it wasn't Paul McCartney and The Mop Tops. it was The Beatles.

thats why they're so :cool:

people wanted to start bands after The Beatles. rock bands. and a lot of people did. some good, a lot bad. but that was the start of the "rock band"

[ThePalaceOfWisdom]

the Beatles were also the first ever true rock band. oh sure there were groups and big bands and all that. nothing new.

Whilst I like the Beatles, they were not the first Rock band, nor were they pioneers. Buddy Holly deserves that credit far more especially seeing as after he was dead he still released albums that topped the Beatles.

the Beatles defined the rock band completely.

Again not really, The Who and other bands of the time were just as definitive of rock as a genre as the Beatles were.

[big80smullet]

The who came after the beatles

[Anglachel]

someone pull the retard alarm we need to put this thread under quarantine

[PunkItUp]

Whilst I like the Beatles, they were not the first Rock band, nor were they pioneers. Buddy Holly deserves that credit far more especially seeing as after he was dead he still released albums that topped the Beatles.



Again not really, The Who and other bands of the time were just as definitive of rock as a genre as the Beatles were.
Buddy Holly wasn't a rock band. he was Buddy Holly and the Crickets. their is a big difference. the same difference as Bruce Springsteen and the E Street band and The Rolling Stones or The Who. the Beatles were the first true rock band that mattered. i'm aware they weren't the only one in Liverpool. but England gave America its first true rock band. which was not Buddy Holly and the Crickets or even Bill Haley and the Comets

whether the Who or the Stones would have succeeded without the Beatles leading the way, who knows? they most likely would not have existed as they were without the Beatles paving the way. rock n roll in America sure wouldn't have. and it was the Beatles giving us our music back. as a band. not a frontman and a few interchangeable guys

[stevensonmat2]

just throwing a lul at the guy defending his enjoyment of linkin park.

I hope you are 13, otherwise your just a tool.

[RiceMonster]

Ugh, the Beatles have nothing on metal bands like Slayer you idiots. Their music is so much more advanced. Get with the times guys.

[interviewer02]

lol, I got to be honest, I respect The Beatles for revolutionizing music, but they are so terrible it's ridiculous. They basically made the same song over and over again.

Yeah, Day Tripper and While My Guitar Gently Weeps are pretty much the same thing.

Thus proving you've never really listened to the Beatles.

[interviewer02]

I think in terms of 32nd note arpeggio sweeps, The Beatles didn't measure up, but who gives a **** anyways? The fact that they all had some of the keenest ears for songwriting ever still astounds me.

Yeah, they're incredible.

[Permanent Solution]

Sgt Pepper? The White Album, Rubber Soul, Abbey Raod, Let It Be, Revolver? where is that not great?

imo they didn't just make good / great albums, they were also responsible for making the first true rock albums. meaning albums that were actually cohesive and bound together by a singular vision. sure rock n roll albums existed before. Chuck Berry had some strong thematic albums. but rock n roll and popular music was still very singles orientated when the Beatles hit and changed that. folk albums were popular, perhaps. but that was "serious" music. not rock n roll. and of course Dylan helped change that when he went "electric" furthering the rock album as a whole piece of work rather then simply a collection of singles hoping for a hit. but it was the Beatles who made the first truly important rock n roll albums that were more then just a collection of singles dumped on a big disc

first "concept" album, too
I like some of those albums ok but all of them have filler songs I absolutely skip on every listen, and I am generally not a track skipper but they all have bad songs.

Like I said, important to mainstream music.

[alytee123]

imo they didn't just make good / great albums, they were also responsible for making the first true rock albums. meaning albums that were actually cohesive and bound together by a singular vision. sure rock n roll albums existed before. Chuck Berry had some strong thematic albums. but rock n roll and popular music was still [b]very singles orientated[b] when the Beatles hit and changed that. folk albums were popular, perhaps. but that was "serious" music. not rock n roll.


I get the feeling most people here are disregarding that bolded quote, because it's pretty much fact. Every band before that time was more focused on singles than albums.

[Whitechapel447]

So, their actually enjoyable, unlike The Beatles. Linkin Park doesn't recycle the same riffs btw.


yes they do

and wtf i can't believe your're even comparing lp to the beatles

[Chewie]

WTF!? My review has gotten way ****ing out of hand, I barely even compared the Beatles to metal. All I ****ing said was that they were over-rated because there is a way higher expectancy for music these days compared to super low expectations in the 60s, that The Beatles were once thought as these amazing marvels to music, simply because rock/metal/indie music wasn't very evolved. And compared to the amazing music being made today, they lack in comparison. I didn't say "The Beatles suck because metal is complex." I used it as an example to prove the high expectations for music today. This whole thing has been blow way out of proportion, I got a 3 of 8 well written rating, which is ****ing ridiculous. I don't understand why this thread was made, but its frustrating how much my original review has been twisted.

[Si1v3RfaNg]

Sgt Pepper? The White Album, Rubber Soul, Abbey Raod, Let It Be, Revolver? where is that not great?

imo they didn't just make good / great albums, they were also responsible for making the first true rock albums. meaning albums that were actually cohesive and bound together by a singular vision. sure rock n roll albums existed before. Chuck Berry had some strong thematic albums. but rock n roll and popular music was still very singles orientated when the Beatles hit and changed that. folk albums were popular, perhaps. but that was "serious" music. not rock n roll. and of course Dylan helped change that when he went "electric" furthering the rock album as a whole piece of work rather then simply a collection of singles hoping for a hit. but it was the Beatles who made the first truly important rock n roll albums that were more then just a collection of singles dumped on a big disc

first "concept" album, too

I think your confused buddy, Elvis is, and forever will be the true creator of rock music, while I hate his music, it's definately the first rock ever created.

[RiceMonster]

I think your confused buddy, Elvis is, and forever will be the true creator of rock music, while I hate his music, it's definately the first rock ever created.

Elvis stole a lot of his songs from blues artists. That would make people like Robert Johnson the "true creators of rock music" (which they very arguably are).

[PunkItUp]

I think your confused buddy, Elvis is, and forever will be the true creator of rock music, while I hate his music, it's definately the first rock ever created.
i never said Elvis didn't create rock music or was not the first rock artist to define the genre :( :confused:

that kind of came out of left field

i said the Beatles were the first rock n roll artist to make what could be considered rock n roll albums that had a strong thematic thread in them and were not just a collection of singles looking for a hit. others picked up on this and followed. thats a fact, and it was an important part of taking the music to the "next level" and helped saved it from being just a novelty and passing fad
WTF!? My review has gotten way ****ing out of hand, I barely even compared the Beatles to metal. All I ****ing said was that they were over-rated because there is a way higher expectancy for music these days compared to super low expectations in the 60s, that The Beatles were once thought as these amazing marvels to music, simply because rock/metal/indie music wasn't very evolved. And compared to the amazing music being made today, they lack in comparison. I didn't say "The Beatles suck because metal is complex." I used it as an example to prove the high expectations for music today. This whole thing has been blow way out of proportion, I got a 3 of 8 well written rating, which is ****ing ridiculous. I don't understand why this thread was made, but its frustrating how much my original review has been twisted.
hush this is bigger beans then your little review now :p

[Interviewer/surveyer]

I think your confused buddy, Elvis is, and forever will be the true creator of rock music, while I hate his music, it's definately the first rock ever created.

You mean the guy who didn't even write most of the music he performed.

[EINSIEG]

who gives a ****?

[PunkItUp]

yoko ono

[ThePalaceOfWisdom]

i said the Beatles were the first rock n roll artist to make what could be considered rock n roll albums that had a strong thematic thread in them and were not just a collection of singles looking for a hit. others picked up on this and followed. thats a fact,

Wrong, many artists made entirley cohesive and flowing rock albums prior to the beatles, they are not the pioneers of rock, they are still a very important band but, you have pretty much made every annoying point that leads to people calling them overrated.

There were still a ton of cohesive "proper albums" prior to the Beatles existance and The Beatles may have a huge influence on music, but around the time that they were getting big other bands like Pink Floyd, The Who, etc. Had already been influenced by other music and the Beatles have absolutley no connection to their sounds.