Guns N Roses better than The Beetles?

Different genres, different styles, different times?

Anyway in relvance to music story and contribution, The Beetles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gun's N Roses.

Guns N Roses is truly better than The Beatles and could have shown this had they not blown up. Axl Rose is the best singer of all time but unfortunately he is truly insane. His struggle with being Bipolar and the crazy things he made the band go through on tour were to much for anyone. Constantly showing up late, multiple feuds with the press and his psychiatrist "Yoda" made him impossible to deal with.

There isn't a song in The Beatles book that matches the epics of November Rain or Estranged and nowhere to do I see the rage in songs like Get in the Ring or Double Talkin Jive. The Beatles are an excellent band but unbelievably overrated. Even in their time I feel The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones and Cream were superior.

TheColbert

Hey Jude >>> November Rain

and I'd take The Beatles "Rain" over Guns and Roses "November Rain"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPjDMZiuhbQ&feature=related

This song is a perfect example of why The Beatles are so great during their middle period:

Ringo (underrated drummer) and Paul (outstanding Bass player) with a great rhythm section

George and his twangy 12-string guitar

John's singing, writing, and construction of the song are superb. Leave it to John to write about something so basic, yet make it surreal and compelling

And of course the harmonies are perfect.

Both groups are overrated.

The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRcurono

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRDerek240

They don't have metal

[QUOTE="M8ingSeezun"]

They're both overrated. And they're both from DIFFERENT eras. And I'll take GnR's music any day against anything out now, even their sad attempt at Chinese Democracy.

As for the Beatles, they're a great band but certainly NOT exactly the hype they were made out to be. People praise them simply because, really...because of CONFORMITY without taking first hand, actually listening to their songs or albums. They're influential to alot of rock (and hip-hop artists believe it or not) artists due to their prolific song writing, some of which are, frankly not that great.

Rolling Stones >>> The Beatles and the former are STILL ALIVE making music ;)

My 2 cents.

AFBrat77

The problem with the Rolling Stones is they haven't made anything good since 1972's Exile on Main Street outside of a few tracks.

They made 4 consecutive excellent albums (Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street) from '68 to '72, but otherwise their albums have been spotty or outright poor. However, their singles during the 60's were usually great. Also, I will say i think Their Satanic Majestry's Request was underrated. I think competition with The Beatles put Jagger/Richards at a creative peak, but once The Beatles dissolved, The Stones got lazy with their material.

That being said, The Rolling Stones were always a faar superior LIVE band to The Beatles, and I was lucky enough to see them in the 80's and 90's. The first time I saw them, I was humbly expecting them to play their late 70's/early 80's crap, but I was glad to see them pull out all the stops with their 60's tunes. Still remains one of the best concerts I've ever seen.

But The Beatles created more good material in 7 years than The Stones have in 46 years IMO. That being said I love the Rolling Stones, but I still feel that if they stopped making albums after Exile on Main Street (or made one every 10 years)and just became purely a live band, there legend would have grown to epic proportions.

[QUOTE="Derek240"]

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRDreamnDayUnite

They don't have metal

Not saying it's a bad song, but I'm not sure if you can take something ANY band member says (regarding things like this) seriously. Most musicologists consider bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath as the first metal bands.

[QUOTE="DreamnDayUnite"][QUOTE="Derek240"]

They don't have metal

Derek240

Not saying it's a bad song, but I'm not sure if you can take something ANY band member says (regarding things like this) seriously. Most musicologists consider bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath as the first metal bands.

The first Heavy Metal album was this one:

Rod Stewart on vocals, Ron Wood on Bass, and Jeff beck on guitar!

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="M8ingSeezun"]

They're both overrated. And they're both from DIFFERENT eras. And I'll take GnR's music any day against anything out now, even their sad attempt at Chinese Democracy.

As for the Beatles, they're a great band but certainly NOT exactly the hype they were made out to be. People praise them simply because, really...because of CONFORMITY without taking first hand, actually listening to their songs or albums. They're influential to alot of rock (and hip-hop artists believe it or not) artists due to their prolific song writing, some of which are, frankly not that great.

Rolling Stones >>> The Beatles and the former are STILL ALIVE making music ;)

My 2 cents.

King_Creole_35

The problem with the Rolling Stones is they haven't made anything good since 1972's Exile on Main Street outside of a few tracks.

They made 4 consecutive excellent albums (Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street) from '68 to '72, but otherwise their albums have been spotty or outright poor. However, their singles during the 60's were usually great. Also, I will say i think Their Satanic Majestry's Request was underrated. I think competition with The Beatles put Jagger/Richards at a creative peak, but once The Beatles dissolved, The Stones got lazy with their material.

That being said, The Rolling Stones were always a faar superior LIVE band to The Beatles, and I was lucky enough to see them in the 80's and 90's. The first time I saw them, I was humbly expecting them to play their late 70's/early 80's crap, but I was glad to see them pull out all the stops with their 60's tunes. Still remains one of the best concerts I've ever seen.

But The Beatles created more good material in 7 years than The Stones have in 46 years IMO. That being said I love the Rolling Stones, but I still feel that if they stopped making albums after Exile on Main Street (or made one every 10 years)and just became purely a live band, there legend would have grown to epic proportions.

They could have made 1 excellent double-album with all the material since Exile and that would have pretty much covered all you need.

[QUOTE="DreamnDayUnite"][QUOTE="Derek240"]

They don't have metal

Derek240

Not saying it's a bad song, but I'm not sure if you can take something ANY band member says (regarding things like this) seriously. Most musicologists consider bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath as the first metal bands.

The Beatles liked to joke alot so thats probably all it was. All 4 were quite witty, particularly John.

By the way didn't Guns and Roses cover McCartney's "Live and Let Die"?

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRDerek240

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

There isn't a song in The Beatles book that matches the epics of November Rain or Estranged and nowhere to do I see the rage in songs like Get in the Ring or Double Talkin Jive.

TheColbert

LOL.. Are you SERIOUS

Hey Jude

Let it Be

Across the Universe.... I could go on..

And you honestly expect a band in the 60s to show "rage" in songs.. Which by rage you mean just throwing in swears to sound cool..The beatles didn't pretend to be tough guys like Axel and the rest of the Guns did.. Thats not who they were.. They were about peace and love... not about being lame narcissists..

Plus.. They would have been hung by the english government for using language like that... They almost were just for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds which got their album banned...

Absolutely not, Gun N Roses has a small handful of songs that are even good.

[QUOTE="TheColbert"]

There isn't a song in The Beatles book that matches the epics of November Rain or Estranged and nowhere to do I see the rage in songs like Get in the Ring or Double Talkin Jive.

VendettaRed07

LOL.. Are you SERIOUS

Hey Jude

Let it Be

Across the Universe.... I could go on..

And you honestly expect a band in the 60s to show "rage" in songs.. Which by rage you mean just throwing in swears to sound cool..The beatles didn't pretend to be tough guys like Axel and the rest of the Guns did.. Thats not who they were.. They were about peace and love... not about being lame narcissists..

Plus.. They would have been hung by the english government for using language like that... They almost were just for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds which got their album banned...

[QUOTE="TheColbert"]

There isn't a song in The Beatles book that matches the epics of November Rain or Estranged and nowhere to do I see the rage in songs like Get in the Ring or Double Talkin Jive.

VendettaRed07

LOL.. Are you SERIOUS

Hey Jude

Let it Be

Across the Universe.... I could go on..

And you honestly expect a band in the 60s to show "rage" in songs.. Which by rage you mean just throwing in swears to sound cool..The beatles didn't pretend to be tough guys like Axel and the rest of the Guns did.. Thats not who they were.. They were about peace and love... not about being lame narcissists..

Plus.. They would have been hung by the english government for using language like that... They almost were just for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds which got their album banned...

*Looks at avatar* yeah nothing will ever convince you, "Hey Jude" and "Let it Be" are probably their most overrated songs. I mean they sing that "na na nananana Hey jude" part for 5 minutes and you think that's better than "Estranged"? let alone most of GNR's songs that you've probably haven't heard of...

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRDerek240

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

Listen to Helter Skelter and tell me they never got close to Metal.

[QUOTE="Derek240"]

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRCHOASXIII

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

Listen to Helter Skelter and tell me they never got close to Metal.

Definitley flirts with it, but Blue Cheer had a more metal sound and they came out in Januray of 1968.

[QUOTE="CHOASXIII"]

[QUOTE="Derek240"]

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

deathtarget04

Listen to Helter Skelter and tell me they never got close to Metal.

Definitley flirts with it, but Blue Cheer had a more metal sound and they came out in Januray of 1968.

My neck is sore from shaking my head so much at people in this thread.

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRDerek240

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRDerek240

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

The Rolling Stones didn't lead to Heavy Metal, The Yardbirds, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix did..

Once again the first Heavy Metal album was Truth by the Jeff Beck Group. Jeff Beck came over from The Yardbirds.

I think a lot of also what's going on is that GnR's legacy still hasn't had time to sink in. The Beatles have had their work out for decades longer, and people have been singing their praises ever since. But if you look at what Guns accomplished in their heyday, as to what the Beatles accomplished in their's, you could say that the two, if not equal, are definitely in the same ballpark.auron_16

The legacy of GnR will be that of a massive band playing within a defined genre - no pushing boundries, more safe ground on the well-worn path of rock. That's not disputing their achievements, but really in terms of imprint upon the industry if The Beatles are the ball park, then GnR are barely a ball (sorry - that came out a little Alan Partridge).

[QUOTE="Derek240"]

[QUOTE="curono"]The beatles are way better. They pretty much have a song in every major genre, from experimental music (WTF IS NUMBER 9???) to country and metal. Seriously, the beatles are too much for a lousy band like GNRAFBrat77

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

The Rolling Stones didn't lead to Heavy Metal, The Yardbirds, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix did..

Once again the first Heavy Metal album was Truth by the Jeff Beck Group. Jeff Beck came over from The Yardbirds.

Arguably the first heavy metal album was Vincebus Eruptum by Blue Cheer, which came out in January before "Truth".

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="Derek240"]

They don't have metal. It didn't even exist yet. The closest you could say a band came to metal was the Stones since they are what led to metal (not the Beatles).

deathtarget04

The Rolling Stones didn't lead to Heavy Metal, The Yardbirds, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix did..

Once again the first Heavy Metal album was Truth by the Jeff Beck Group. Jeff Beck came over from The Yardbirds.

Arguably the first heavy metal album was Vincebus Eruptum by Blue Cheer, which came out in January before "Truth".

I'm sure you can make a case for either one.

On topic: Good to see The Beatles win this, if Guns and Roses would have won, I would have been shocked, even with so many teens in here.

As overrated as the Beatles are, Guns N Roses are way more overrated-Halftime-