Having heard thenewno2, I know that Dhani's got some chops. My question is regarding the talents of the other members. I mean, I guess George's kid must have something in the tank if he wants to form a band, although he's clearly not the creative genius his father was. I've never heard Sean, though, and Ringo was never really that great.
The Beatles 2.0?
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Re: The Beatles 2.0?
Having heard thenewno2, I know that Dhani's got some chops. My question is regarding the talents of the other members. I mean, I guess George's kid must have something in the tank if he wants to form a band, although he's clearly not the creative genius his father was. I've never heard Sean, though, and Ringo was never really that great.Texans - Cougars - Astros - Rockets - Dynamo - Chelsea - Lightning -
Re: The Beatles 2.0?
Having heard thenewno2, I know that Dhani's got some chops. My question is regarding the talents of the other members. I mean, I guess George's kid must have something in the tank if he wants to form a band, although he's clearly not the creative genius his father was. I've never heard Sean, though, and Ringo was never really that great.Comment
-
Re: The Beatles 2.0?
Bands being put together happens more than people realize, though they usually aren't this obvious about it. The only reason people will care will be because of the inclusion of "The Beatles" in the band name which is actually the sole reason I don't like this news. Give it another name so I can ignore it in peace.
Comment
-
Re: The Beatles 2.0?
I see nothing wrong with them putting a band together but naming it after the biggest band in the history of music is a very bad idea. Talk about setting up for failure.
Also anyone who does not think the Beatles were talented musicians does not really know anything about music or playing an instrument. That band was full of talent at the highest level and each of them helped pave the way for other rock bands/musicians that came after.Comment
Comment