1. Win a Broadcaster or one of 3 Teles! The annual Supporting Member Giveaway is on. To enter Click Here. To see all the prizes and full details Click Here. To view the thread about the giveaway Click Here.

10 bands better than the Beatles????

Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Justinvs, Feb 7, 2014.

  1. Justinvs

    Justinvs Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    6,861
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Location:
    Wise River, Montana
    I don't know if anyone else saw this list, but I had to shake my head in bemusement.

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/02/07/11-bands-better-than-beatles/?intcmp=features

    I can maybe agree with Led Zeppellin, but it would be comparing apples to oranges. As for the rest, while I'm a huge fan of most of these guys, especially Tom Petty, the Stones and the Clash, I'm not sure you can really make the claim that they are better than the Beatles. The Stones, possibly, as they were contemporaries and both bands were helping define the sound for the next wave of rock bands, but to my mind they don't quite get there.

    At any rate the article reinforces one thing: lists are dumb! :lol:
     
  2. Brad Pittiful

    Brad Pittiful Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,830
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly Burbs
    who is better than the beatles...no one
    or
    who is better than the beatles...everyone
     
  3. Vanzant

    Vanzant Tele-Afflicted Silver Supporter

    Posts:
    1,510
    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Location:
    United States
    IMHO...as far as musicianship goes, Rush is definitely better than the Beatles...Of course "that is like just my opinion man"
     
  4. Mjark

    Mjark Doctor of Teleocity Silver Supporter

    Posts:
    13,783
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    They need content, crap like this is much easier than actually thinking, not that most of the readership wants to do that either.
     
  5. waparker4

    waparker4 Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,996
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Yes, my takeaway too. But there are some nice (annoying?) plays on words in there.
     
  6. Mid Life Crisis

    Mid Life Crisis Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    5,141
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Location:
    Cambridge, England
    I realised this was not a serious article as soon as I saw U2, but I guess their appearance in the list was there to soften the blow when Rush came up later on.
     
  7. HotRodSteve

    HotRodSteve Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    5,678
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Location:
    The Shmudson Valley
    Personally I would have chosen The Monkees or The Partridge Family over U2, but I'm not a hipster writing articles on Fox News so what do I know?
     
  8. 1955

    1955 Doctor of Teleocity

    Posts:
    10,702
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Location:
    .
    Looking through some of the bands on the list, oh man! Context is obviously not a prerequisite here, it seems that the writer fell and hit his head on a big "Rock." Love to see the writer really "digging" the tasty-rich "cuts" sprinkled delicately on his shuffle-pod.

    The entire premise of the title and implications of aesthetic qualification are more suited to Cosmo.

    The stylistically diverse and complex circumstantial criteria that would play into a critical hierarchy of the bands mentioned is not even considered in any depth.

    Even still, in the end, it's a matter of taste and opinion - or should I venture to say...ears. Lots of bands I like on the list, but there are a couple that are quite a stretch compared to the Beatles. Still just my opinion, and there aren't any girls screaming and tearing out their hair over me, so what do I know?!
     
  9. Post Toastie

    Post Toastie Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,578
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Location:
    California
    Velvet Underground :eek: :oops:
    I think that writer was on Heroin.
     
  10. Jack S

    Jack S Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    4,948
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Location:
    Berwyn, IL
    If by musicianship you mean technical proficiency, then I might agree with you, but otherwise, they are not even close in my mind. Musicianship is much more than technical ability.
     
  11. hekawi

    hekawi Poster Extraordinaire

    Age:
    63
    Posts:
    9,804
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    greenville, sc
    that was published by The Onion, right?
     
  12. ScatMan

    ScatMan Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,217
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    They left out the Shaggs.. Fail!
     
  13. loopy reed

    loopy reed Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    2,010
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    You just can't compare any band to the Beatles.

    I don't think they are the Alpha and Omega of music. It's important to understand and appreciate the Beatles, but I don't think it's required to like them or think they're the best thing that ever happened.

    A lot of my friends like to out-hipster each other and cite other Brit bands that didn't get as much recognition as the Beatles. I like to believe they ended up right where they belonged. Personally I'm glad I don't run into so much Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Tich merchandise everywhere I go. I'm glad the Zombies didn't make any movies.

    Comparing the Beatles to Zeppelin and Rush and all that? Comparing apples and snare drums. Makes no sense. Can't believe people (I assume) get paid to write lists.
     
  14. Mike Eskimo

    Mike Eskimo Telefied Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    22,416
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Location:
    Detroit
    It's based on the accepted reality of "we can all have favorite bands or bands that we think are the best, but we all know The Beatles are the greatest ever. It's just up to us to figure out second place."

    In actual reality it's whatever you like/whoever you think is the best.

    But - no objectivity about the Mops.
     
  15. bun malaey

    bun malaey Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,718
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Location:
    Shertz, TX
    Better than the Beatles?
    That's easy..


    NKOTB

    One Direction

    Nysnyc

    Menudo

    Nickelback

    Creed

    Taylor Swift

    Blake Sheldon

    Garth Brooks

    The Wiggles
     
  16. loopy reed

    loopy reed Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    2,010
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    My, lots of worms in that can!

    This is about to get interesting.

    :D
     
  17. donrichfan

    donrichfan Tele-Holic Gold Supporter

    Posts:
    597
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Location:
    Colorado
    Dude, you stole my thunder
     
  18. Shiro

    Shiro Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    394
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Sonoma, CA.
    I forgot that different means better in the guitar world. They're all the best.
     
  19. Edgar Allan Presley

    Edgar Allan Presley Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,071
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Location:
    Colorado
    I agree that Velvet Underground was better than the Beatles. But I'm pretty sure this article is designed to make people furious and argue about it on Facebook, generating page clicks. We're feeding the troll.

    For what it's worth, I think the Beatles were great, but there are lots of bands I'd rather listen to most days.
     
  20. bendercaster

    bendercaster Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,342
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento
    There is no accounting for taste. I can think of a few (very few) bands that I like better than the Beatles, but it is pretty absurd to argue in matters of personal fancy or taste. Of course, where would the internet be if we didn't try.
     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.