The Beatles 2.0?

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SPTO
    binging
    • Feb 2003
    • 68046

    #16
    Re: The Beatles 2.0?

    Originally posted by WatsonTiger
    Because riding coattails worked out for Ziggy Marley.
    At least Ziggy has carved out a name for himself. Hell, most of the Marley kids have had careers of varying success even if they haven't made it big in the US.
    Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club

    "Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. Parker

    Comment

    • daflyboys
      Banned
      • May 2003
      • 18238

      #17
      Re: The Beatles 2.0?

      Originally posted by sven
      The Beatles are as overrated as a band can be. I have no desire to hear their kids.
      Define overrated.

      ...and 55, if there was a thumbs down button for that idiotic graphic response.... I'd give it to you. Not seeing the connection.

      Comment

      • 55
        Banned
        • Mar 2006
        • 20857

        #18
        Re: The Beatles 2.0?

        Originally posted by daflyboys
        Define overrated.

        ...and 55, if there was a thumbs down button for that idiotic graphic response.... I'd give it to you. Not seeing the connection.

        Comment

        • savoie2006
          R.I.P 2KHockey 2000-2011
          • Sep 2006
          • 4657

          #19
          Re: The Beatles 2.0?

          No one I've ever talked to has said the Beatles were a top notch band. They were quite the simple band honestly, but they knew how to create catchy melodies. That is why they were so huge. Talent was never huge in the group, but it was enough. I'll give the group props though, they changed for the better over the course of their career and got better a musicians as well.
          http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Savoie12/visual/

          Comment

          • daflyboys
            Banned
            • May 2003
            • 18238

            #20
            Re: The Beatles 2.0?

            Originally posted by 55
            ............

            Comment

            • ImTellinTim
              YNWA
              • Sep 2006
              • 33028

              #21
              Re: The Beatles 2.0?

              Originally posted by savoie2006
              No one I've ever talked to has said the Beatles were a top notch band. They were quite the simple band honestly, but they knew how to create catchy melodies. That is why they were so huge. Talent was never huge in the group, but it was enough. I'll give the group props though, they changed for the better over the course of their career and got better a musicians as well.
              Beginning with Rubber Soul, they were quite simply revolutionary and it had little to do with making simple music with catchy melodies.

              Comment

              • 55
                Banned
                • Mar 2006
                • 20857

                #22
                Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                Originally posted by daflyboys
                ............


                I actually own this exact shirt:

                Spoiler

                Comment

                • SPTO
                  binging
                  • Feb 2003
                  • 68046

                  #23
                  Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                  Originally posted by savoie2006
                  No one I've ever talked to has said the Beatles were a top notch band. They were quite the simple band honestly, but they knew how to create catchy melodies. That is why they were so huge. Talent was never huge in the group, but it was enough. I'll give the group props though, they changed for the better over the course of their career and got better a musicians as well.
                  ......

                  As Tim said, beginning with Rubber Soul the Beatles became quite revolutionary. Also I'm flabbergasted at the "talent" assertion. John Lennon was a master at what he did. He and McCartney wrote some great songs that are still fresh today as it was the day they came out.

                  I know it's "cool" in some circles to not give the Beatles their due but sometimes it comes across as bitterness.
                  Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club

                  "Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. Parker

                  Comment

                  • daflyboys
                    Banned
                    • May 2003
                    • 18238

                    #24
                    Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                    Originally posted by 55


                    I actually own this exact shirt:

                    Spoiler
                    I want it....right up there with Pink Floyd tee.

                    Comment

                    • Kashanova
                      Hall Of Fame
                      • Aug 2003
                      • 12695

                      #25
                      Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                      I like the whole idea except for calling it the Beatles the next generation.

                      Comment

                      • bd007h
                        Banned
                        • Sep 2011
                        • 501

                        #26
                        Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                        Originally posted by Kashanova
                        I like the whole idea except for calling it the Beatles the next generation.
                        I feel kind of the same way

                        Comment

                        • Happy29
                          All Star
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 5489

                          #27
                          Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                          Originally posted by dickey1331
                          Has something like this ever happen before?


                          Do you really care where I sent this from?
                          Well the Monkees was a band put together in the 60's to try and be an American version of the Beatles. Most of us know the story it started as a tv show and they weren't allowed to play their own music for a while, but eventually was outselling the Beatles. After a successful retun to syndication in the 80's on MTV CBS tried to recreate that magic with The New Monkees and failed terribly. That's the closest thing I can think of happening like this before.
                          “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
                          Benjamin Franklin

                          Comment

                          • SPTO
                            binging
                            • Feb 2003
                            • 68046

                            #28
                            Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                            Originally posted by Happy29
                            Well the Monkees was a band put together in the 60's to try and be an American version of the Beatles. Most of us know the story it started as a tv show and they weren't allowed to play their own music for a while, but eventually was outselling the Beatles. After a successful retun to syndication in the 80's on MTV CBS tried to recreate that magic with The New Monkees and failed terribly. That's the closest thing I can think of happening like this before.
                            The idea of bands being put together by committee isn't so new as you point out. Other examples of this are:

                            New Kids On the Block
                            Backstreet Boys or N*Sync (can't remember which or if it was both)
                            Spice Girls
                            Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club

                            "Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. Parker

                            Comment

                            • 55
                              Banned
                              • Mar 2006
                              • 20857

                              #29
                              Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                              Originally posted by Happy29
                              Well the Monkees was a band put together in the 60's to try and be an American version of the Beatles. Most of us know the story it started as a tv show and they weren't allowed to play their own music for a while, but eventually was outselling the Beatles.
                              The Monkees 9 studio albums sold a combined 65 million copies.

                              The Beatles 12 studio albums sold a combined 1 billion+ copies.

                              Comment

                              • TheMatrix31
                                RF
                                • Jul 2002
                                • 52908

                                #30
                                Re: The Beatles 2.0?

                                I don't care for the Beatles musically. Their impact is obviously other-worldly, but as far as music goes....bleh, don't care one bit.

                                Give me The Who, Zeppelin, Stones, Floyd, etc all day every day.

                                Comment

                                Working...