The Beatles: Do You Like Them?

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"][QUOTE="Lto_thaG"] Cheese metal.I like them.Can't help it.chessmaster1989

Who cares if it's cheesy. Doesn't change the fact that bands like Falconer and Blind Guardian are absolutely amazing. :P

I have no problem with a lot of power metal, even though a good deal of it is cheesy. It's one of my favorite subgenres.

Here, if you like DF, check this out. Fantastic song, great guitar work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uvO9EYrbVY

chessmaster1989

the beatles have rocked my world for some time now :D

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Pretty much all power metal is cheesy, but DF take it to new level.:P Darth-Caedus

Who cares if it's cheesy. Doesn't change the fact that bands like Falconer and Blind Guardian are absolutely amazing. :P

Oh, I agree about DF, though I don't mind their debut album (don't listen to it and don't plan to buy it, but it's not bad really). For me, it's more of an awesome instrumentals:cheesy vocals ratio. Sure, a song like Mindtraveller has fairly dumb lyrics, but the instrumentals are just awesome. :P

Wow, really?

So you really don't understand why the British must be extremely pleased with the Beatles, given their immense profitability?

Do you really not understand, or are you being obtuse to not concede the point?

The Beatles were not the first, nor were they the last British artists to be introduced to the United States.

Your point doesn't explain why they succeeded, but why, for example, Cliff Richard failed before them. Why the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Zombies, all who rode in on the wave the Beatles created, are not replicated as such in decades since.

You speak of a political landscape that chewed up and spat out plenty of other British artists in the United States, but you don't explain why this didn't happen to the Beatles.

For them to have succeeded where others failed, they needed to have had something more. I suggest it was popularity.

The Beatles were already immensely popular in the United States before they visited. Their record representation in the United States, Capital Records, did not issue singles for their songs (when they did, I Want To Hold Your Hand sold 1.5 million). The fact is, their popularity was racing ahead of their media exposure, not the other way around.

By the time they came to the US, by the time they visited the Ed Sullivan Show, the audience had existed for years.

I disagree. As I've stated, earlier attempts to push UK artists on the US in rock and roll had failed miserably. It was the Beatles who had succeeded.

The British Invasion did not create the Beatles, it was the other way around.

Danm_999

However, The Beatles WERE a teen phenomenon which the other bands weren't. Who knows why girls take a liking to particular bands. But music history is filled with many teen idols. And many that failed.

I'm getting the impression you think ONLY The Beatles succeeded. That is not true. The British Invasion was about more than one band dude. The Beatles hit the US in 64. That is when the hysteria started. That is the period I am referring to as the start.

You know The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Animals etc were successful in the US. Right?:?

No, not really.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I have no problem with a lot of power metal, even though a good deal of it is cheesy. It's one of my favorite subgenres.

Here, if you like DF, check this out. Fantastic song, great guitar work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uvO9EYrbVY

Lto_thaG

One great thing about Falconer is that their vocalist doesn't have as high-pitched a voice as most power metal vocalists. It gives a much higher tolerance for cheesy vocals. :P

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I have no problem with a lot of power metal, even though a good deal of it is cheesy. It's one of my favorite subgenres.

Here, if you like DF, check this out. Fantastic song, great guitar work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uvO9EYrbVY

chessmaster1989

One great thing about Falconer is that their vocalist doesn't have as high-pitched a voice as most power metal vocalists. It gives a much higher tolerance for cheesy vocals. :P

bet u 80% of those who said no are those who listen to metal or death metal.

BTW to one of the guys above me Beatles were not a GIRL obsesion they were a world obsession.

BEATLES OWN.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]
I like that.I really dig the vocals.

Lto_thaG

One great thing about Falconer is that their vocalist doesn't have as high-pitched a voice as most power metal vocalists. It gives a much higher tolerance for cheesy vocals. :P

I haven't really listened to Rhapsody. Can you recommend me an album?

bet u 80% of those who said no are those who listen to metal or death metal.

BTW to one of the guys above me Beatles were not a GIRL obsesion they were a world obsession.

BEATLES OWN.

nish2280

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

One great thing about Falconer is that their vocalist doesn't have as high-pitched a voice as most power metal vocalists. It gives a much higher tolerance for cheesy vocals. :P

chessmaster1989

I haven't really listened to Rhapsody. Can you recommend me an album?

yes tehy were.

I love The Beatles, but they're not one of my favorite bands.

I love The Beatles, but they're not one of my favorite bands.

Guppy507

They changed the popular music industry, for the better in my opinion.

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]

I love The Beatles, but they're not one of my favorite bands.

LJS9502_basic

Maybe on your list... >__> Certainly not on mine.

I love The Beatles, but they're not one of my favorite bands.

The Beatles rock man. 9/9/09 put a big dent in my wallet :P

I love The Beatles, but they're not one of my favorite bands.

[QUOTE="Oblivionfan10"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That place is reserved for Queen......>__>LJS9502_basic

How 'bout Mika

[QUOTE="Oblivionfan10"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That place is reserved for Queen......>__>LJS9502_basic

That's what I was gonna say.

I don't like them but they are a great band ( no sh*t :roll: )

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Oblivionfan10"] What did Queen ever do to you :Pflordeceres

How 'bout Mika

Yes, but they are still behind Pink Floyd or Metallica. Generic, I know.

No, I love them.

[QUOTE="flordeceres"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Assaulted my ears.....LJS9502_basic

How 'bout Mika

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv6BrQ1dKLI

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="flordeceres"]

How 'bout Mika

Guppy507

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv6BrQ1dKLI

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Oblivionfan10"] What did Queen ever do to you :PGuppy507

That's what I was gonna say.

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Assaulted my ears.....Bourbons3

That's what I was gonna say.

They suck.

they are my favorite band:D

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Assaulted my ears.....Bourbons3

That's what I was gonna say.

It's ok. They have so many fans that we few haters can't really do anything. :P

Definately not. Most overrated band ever.

No, too simple for my taste.cyberdarkkid

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"]No, too simple for my taste.D_Battery

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"]No, too simple for my taste.D_Battery

I do think they are overrated in general but John Lennon in particular was. I'll concede Paul McCartney really does have a knack for writing catchy tunes despite not always being particularly deep or meaningful, but Lennon wrote a lot of really crappy songs that didn't go anywhere. (George Harrison is just plain awesome, not going to bash him)

Before Rubber Soul, no. After Rubber Soul, hel yeah!

My favorite band. Who are those two people that voted who are The Beatles?

I do think they are overrated in general but John Lennon in particular was. I'll concede Paul McCartney really does have a knack for writing catchy tunes despite not always being particularly deep or meaningful, but Lennon wrote a lot of really crappy songs that didn't go anywhere. (George Harrison is just plain awesome, not going to bash him)

D_Battery

[QUOTE="D_Battery"]

I do think they are overrated in general but John Lennon in particular was. I'll concede Paul McCartney really does have a knack for writing catchy tunes despite not always being particularly deep or meaningful, but Lennon wrote a lot of really crappy songs that didn't go anywhere. (George Harrison is just plain awesome, not going to bash him)

Oblivionfan10

Not exactly the same, but Clapton liked to sing about other people's wives. :lol: