I hate the thought of beatles songs in commercials...

[QUOTE=clown_phobia]I hate the thought of beatles songs in commercials...[/QUOTE]

yeah. it just kinda ruins the song a bit

I don't think it ruins them at all. Songs like All You Need Is Love and Got To Get You Into My Life were more or less made for commercials...except for the fact that Paul wrote GTGYIML about weed haha.

I thought Paul wrote GTGYIML about LSD. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard that before.

He wrote Got To Get You Into My Life about marijuana, as he stated in the Anthology book. And I'm on the fence about Beatles songs on commercials. What was worse was when Paul did the halftime show. Two days later, I started seeing commercials of Destiny's Child singing a crap version of Drive My Car.

Haha, that's unfortunate. He put on the best half-time show I've ever seen though. Infinitely better than that N'Sync-Aerosmith piece of shi[I]t[/I] show the year before.

seeing Beatles songs in commercials really bothers me.

it's like somebody taking a classic painting and using it to advertise gum.

The worst part is that All You Need is Love is so anti-commercial. It's being used to advertise credit cards, for christ's sake. The song basically says "hey, you don't need all this crap!" We should surprise Chase with a flood of angry letters. Or explosives. No, letters. Definately letters.

123

The worst offense ever was when some stock company or something like E-Trade or whatever used Volunteer's by Jefferson Airplane in their commercial. That was a travesty.

yeah I hate Beatles songs in commercial. When Nike put Revolution in their ads from the late 80s, that really riled Paul up.

Back on the topic of Ringo....

the reason why I said hes been more influential then everybody else combined is for one reason: 2-9-64. Over 70 million people in the US saw their debut American performance. Everybody saw Ringo....he was towering over the band, and he played Ludwigs. During that next year or two, Ludwig was hard pressed to pump out units fast enough, because everyone wanted one....because Ringo played one! Everybody started playing matched grip, because Ringo was the first one to do it (in the 20th century at least).

Those 2 years in itself are enough to topple everybody else.

Do others influence me? Hell yeah. Moon, Mitchell, and Paice are my three big influences right now. Of course, Paice started playing drums because of Ringo, as with me. Imagine that.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]yeah I hate Beatles songs in commercial. When Nike put Revolution in their ads from the late 80s, that really riled Paul up.

Back on the topic of Ringo....

the reason why I said hes been more influential then everybody else combined is for one reason: 2-9-64. Over 70 million people in the US saw their debut American performance. Everybody saw Ringo....he was towering over the band, and he played Ludwigs. During that next year or two, Ludwig was hard pressed to pump out units fast enough, because everyone wanted one....because Ringo played one! Everybody started playing matched grip, because Ringo was the first one to do it (in the 20th century at least).

Those 2 years in itself are enough to topple everybody else.

Do others influence me? Hell yeah. Moon, Mitchell, and Paice are my three big influences right now. Of course, Paice started playing drums because of Ringo, as with me. Imagine that.[/QUOTE]
i also heard he was the first to use a drum rise.

We'll I guess it's debatable over his technicl skill, but what's not debatable is that he had/has a great influence on drummers like SeaFroggy's said. And he was the template for what a rock drummer was, he didn't count bars, he played the song. And on the opening track of Sgt. Pepper he played drums the way that he believed modern drumming was headed.

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]Ringo Starr's drumming was tasteful, precise, and imaginative. Ringo also changed the traditional way of holding drum sticks. Before Ringo, nearly all drummers held drum sticks with the "traditional" grip, with the left hand stick held like a chopstick.

'Before Ringo, drum stars were measured by their soloing ability and virtuosity,' says drummer Steve Smith. 'Ringo's popularity brought forth a new paradigm in how the public saw drummers. We started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect. One of Ringo's great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for The Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music, and still identify the song.'

Starr is left-handed yet plays a right-handed kit; his tendency to lead with his left hand contributes to his distinctive drumming style.

Starr is also notable for having advanced various modern drumming techniques (for playing and recording) such as the matched grip, placing the drums on high risers for visibility as part of the band, tuning the drums lower, and using muffling devices on tonal rings, along with his general contributions to The Beatles as a whole.
[/QUOTE]

Well I guess he did have little influence, no one plays with his style of grip anymore do they, and everyone's seem to gone back to viewing drummers as non-important members to the band /sarcasm

And on a final note I don't think Bonham or Moon ever really had to play the drums and sing, or wrote any songs for their band. Although I believe Moon had a [I]succesful[/I] solo cd...

While I concur with everything you've said, Bonham did make songwriting contributions to Led Zeppelin in songs like Kashmir and The Ocean. Other than that you're spot on.

[QUOTE=Bron-Yr-Aur]While I concur with everything you've said, Bonham did make songwriting contributions to Led Zeppelin in songs like Kashmir and The Ocean. Other than that you're spot on.[/QUOTE]

Was that honesty or is their some sarcasm? I can't tell.

Ringo's contributions to the Beatles song writing is laughable. I can't believe anyone is trying to argue Starr over Moon or even Bonham. I'm no drummer but this is like trying to say that John was a superb guitarist. Its just not true.
Influence isn't everything.

Actually, Moon sang on a few Who tracks, most notably Bell Boy. Not that it matters though. If I want someone who can do both I'll go to Levon Helm (of the Band), who destroys Ringo in both categories.

An when looking at Sgt. Pepper's to try and see Ringo's influence, don't forget that Moon and Baker already had recordings released the previous year that showed maybe just a little bit more about where rock drumming was headed than Ringo did on Sgt. Pepper's.

Or better yet that Canadian dude from Death From Above 1979.

As for writing Peart writes far more songs and is far superior technically.

[quote]While I concur with everything you've said, Bonham did make songwriting contributions to Led Zeppelin in songs like Kashmir and The Ocean. Other than that you're spot on.[/quote]

Complete and utter honesty.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]Ringo's contributions to the Beatles song writing is laughable. I can't believe anyone is trying to argue Starr over Moon or even Bonham. I'm no drummer but this is like trying to say that John was a superb guitarist. Its just not true.
Influence isn't everything.[/QUOTE]

Octopus Garden is a classic, and all the song's Ringo sing's Paul and John wrote especially for him to song, I doubt Paul or John would have sang a song like With A Little Help From My Friends, or Yellow Submarine. And one night after work in the studio Ringo mixed two phrases together and ended up saying "It's been a hard days night," guess what song John wrote after that? And Ringo's easy-going personality helped the band through alot of tough times.

Speaking of John why is that most people sooner pick on Ringo for not performing 30 minute drum solo's at the end of every track, rather than John for not playing like Jimi Hendrix.

And I think we can all agree that The Beatles had a big influence at least on the who (listen to the kids are alright, more of a blatant beatles rip-off than anything Oasis ever did), and to a certain extent on Led Zeppelin (Fool In The Rain?).

[QUOTE]And Ringo's easy-going personality helped the band through alot of tough times.[/QUOTE]
Ya really got them through '69.

Dude, nothing could have gotten them through 1969.

The Beatles were a fairly insignificant influence on the Who compared to the Stones, in terms of strictly music.

No is picking on Ringo, we are all just questioning how great he really can be riding mostly on the 'influence' card. No one does that to John because John wrote some of the most famous and lasting rock songs in history and has placed himself in the elite class of rock songwriters in terms of compositions and creativity.

[QUOTE=Lunch]The Beatles were a fairly insignificant influence on the Who compared to the Stones, in terms of strictly music.[/QUOTE]

And the Beatles influenced the Stones...

[QUOTE=John Lennon]They wanted a song and we went to see what kind of stuff they did. Paul had this bit of a song and we played it roughly for them and they said, 'Yeah, OK, that's our style.' But it was only really a lick, so Paul and I went off in the corner of the room and finished the song off while they were all sitting there, talking. We came back and [I]Mick and Keith said, 'Jesus, look at that. They just went over there and wrote it.'[/I]

We gave it to them. It was a throwaway. Ringo sang it for us and the Stones did their version. It shows how much importance we put on them. We weren't going to give them anything great, right? That was the Stones' first record. Anyway, Mick and Keith said, [I]'If they can write a song so easily, we should try it.' They say it inspired them to start writing together."

I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful of Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by because, you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them.[I] I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every ****in' album. Every ****in' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same - he imitates us.[/I]

[I]You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper; ``We Love You,'' it's the most ****in' bull****, that's ``All You Need Is Love.'' [/I][/QUOTE]

And truthfully listening to The Who sings My Generation I can hear pretty much an equal amount of Stones and Beatles influences, and on their latter work when they started becoming more experimental on their concept albums and more melody based it's more leaning towards the beatles.

Also by saying stricly music wise your making it seem like The Beatles weren't a rock n' roll band listen to Please Please Me, With The Beatles, and their other early records. The vocal performances on Twist N' Shout, Rock N' Roll Music, Money, and Helter Skelter all either top or equal any other rock vocal performances.

That's my last comment of the night, I can hardly keep my eye's open...that's what happens when you discover and old SNES and end up playing Yoshi's Island all day ;).

hahahahahhhahahaha, that quote is why Lennon is so cool.

Or a conceited prick.

[QUOTE]And the Beatles influenced the Stones...[/QUOTE]
Hold up, when did this happen?

I always figured it was fairly obvious. The Stones were definitely influenced by the Beatles.

[quote]Or a conceited prick.[/quote]

As opposed to Mick Jagger?

[QUOTE]I always figured it was fairly obvious. The Stones were definitely influenced by the Beatles. [/QUOTE]
Well I never even thought of that.

[QUOTE]As opposed to Mick Jagger?[/QUOTE]
Thats only because he was copying John obviously.

My god-like intuition alerts me that you were more than likely being sarcastic, and I overlooked it.

[quote]Thats only because he was copying John.[/quote]

I feel they were both as[b]s[/b]holes in their own right.

I never seemed to get into the Stone's music anyhow, it never resonated with me.

The Stones are very hit and miss with me. When they hit, they hit hard, and when they miss, they miss by alot.

Haha wow when Lennon gets on a thought he gets kind of riled up doesn't he?

[QUOTE]Thats only because he was copying John obviously.[/QUOTE]

You remind me so much of Stephen Colbert sometimes.

[QUOTE=El_Goodo]



And truthfully listening to The Who sings My Generation I can hear pretty much an equal amount of Stones and Beatles influences, and on their latter work when they started becoming more experimental on their concept albums and more melody based it's more leaning towards the beatles.
[/QUOTE]

Idd music driven by bass and drums was exactly what the beatles did ;) 8-) I mean listen to happy jack that's really a ''Help!'' rip off 8-) i think The Who almost has no influence of The Beatles, and musicly The Who just owns The Beatles

[QUOTE=Dragon_Prince]Idd music driven by bass and drums was exactly what the beatles did ;) 8-) I mean listen to happy jack that's really a ''Help!'' rip off 8-) i think The Who almost has no influence of The Beatles, and musicly The Who just owns The Beatles[/QUOTE]
i think they're a pretty separate band and had a little tiny bit of influence but not much.

however, you have to admit that "The Kids are Alright" practically is the Beatles.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]well I get confused

In the CR thread, he's talking about how since an album is popular, and original because it used synthesizers (when in fact ELP, the Beatles, Moody Blues, and King Crimson used them before Townshend did) then it has to be better, as in a factual statement.

My feeling is that in this thread, he's takling about how Ringo is not a godlike drummer.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed that Townshend was the first to use synthesizers.

You're obviously confused, to use your own word.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]Ringo's inspired more drummers to pick up sticks then anybody else in the world combined....since you lived in the 60s (apparently) you should know this.

His influence and his style is what makes his greatness, not that the fact that he can do paradiddles at 360 bpm or polyrhthmic patterns with 16th on the bass and triplets on the ride.

Ringo, on my list of drummers, is #3. He inspired me to play set, his style is absolutly wonderful, and he drums in my favorite band. Plus his drums sound better then anything I've heard before in my life. Listen to Abbey Road and try and tell me those drums sound 'adequate'. Oh wait, cause if you use adequate, its not an insult so I can't call you on it.[/QUOTE]

In his several decades on television and in movies, singing cowboy Roy Rogers inspired God only knows how many kids to pick up a guitar. It damn sure doesn't make him a "great" guitarist.

Any average joe drummer could've been sitting on that stage on Feb. 9, 1964---and would've become an overnight sensation. And it wouldn't have made a single one of them "great".

Ringo was at the right place at the right time. He rode the McCartney-Lennon train to fame. If the dynamic duo hadn't chosen him to be their drummer, he'd be a virtual unknown today.

[QUOTE=Bron-Yr-Aur]My god-like intuition alerts me that you were more than likely being sarcastic, and I overlooked it.



I feel they were both as[b]s[/b]holes in their own right.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you didn't mean... in their own [I]write?[/I] /laughs at stupid Lennon pun.

[QUOTE]Hold up, when did this happen?[/QUOTE]

Did you not read my quote telling you how the Stones were influenced the Beatles. Do you even know who what the Stones first number one hit was? It was a little diddy the Beatles wrote called I Wanna Be Your Man, which Ringo sang, it was basically a throwaway for the Beatles standards, but The Stones rode it to the top.

Not to mention Decca (I think thats the label) came to George Harrison after the Beatles became huge, because they felt like idiots for missing such an opportunity and asked George if he knew of any other bands, and George got them to sign The Rolling Stones.

And as for Lennon being a prick, I'll get you the first part of that quote

[QUOTE]No, I never do see him. We saw a bit of each other when Allen [Klein, Beatles' late-period manager] was first coming in - I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful of Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by because, you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them.[/QUOTE]

John was only responding in response to comments Mick had been making about The Beatles at the time.

[QUOTE]But they are not in the same class, musicwise or powerwise, never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I like their funky music, and I like their style. I like rock & roll and the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us. He's obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him, he never got over it. Now he's in his old age, and he is beginning to knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his second ****in' record, we wrote it for him. Mick said, ``Peace made money.'' We didn't make any money from peace.[/QUOTE]

And even if John is a little high on himself it's a little hard to keep grounded when you were one of the members of the most succesful band on earth. Although I don't find him to be much a prick.

Now with all this Stones/Beatles talk, who's the better drummer Ringo or Charlie Watts?

Charlie Watts. His stage presence alone makes him more worthy.

And again my sarcasm went way over your head. Good grief.
The Rolling Stones would have made it big but the help from the Beatles just gave it a little jump start.

I prefer Keith Moon over both of them, but maybe that's just because I'm more into The Who then I'm into The Beatles or the Stones.

I've got a question for you guys. If you would recommend anyone a Beatles album, which album would it be?

[QUOTE=El_Goodo]And truthfully listening to The Who sings My Generation I can hear pretty much an equal amount of Stones and Beatles influences, and on their latter work when they started becoming more experimental on their concept albums and more melody based it's more leaning towards the beatles.

Also by saying stricly music wise your making it seem like The Beatles weren't a rock n' roll band listen to Please Please Me, With The Beatles, and their other early records. The vocal performances on Twist N' Shout, Rock N' Roll Music, Money, and Helter Skelter all either top or equal any other rock vocal performances.[/QUOTE]

Really, I think much of the Beatles and Stones influence disappears after the Who's debut album. A Quick One is almost entirely unique, and the Who Sell Out will undoubtedly be credited Sgt. Pepper's like every other "concept" album after 1967, even though I wouldn't agree. I don't think it's fair to say Tommy and Quadrophenia are both Beatles influenced either, since the Who (and especially Townshend) were their own creative force by then and functioning without much help from the rock scene.

[QUOTE=Arlan89]I prefer Keith Moon over both of them, but maybe that's just because I'm more into The Who then I'm into The Beatles or the Stones.[/QUOTE]

It might also be because Moon is undoubtedly one of the top 5-10 drummers in rock history, where as Watts and Ringo just scream "influence!" whenever anyone questions them.