General Music Chat

Craig, you got it right, but wrong still at the same time-

Well, I both agree with you and don't agree with you, that I got it right and got it wrong at the same time!

Your points are valid, but the Beatles "DO" have alot of similar sounding songs and hooks, but what they were amazing at, was developing with the times. 50's Beatles... is not 60's Beatles... is not 70's Beatles. Someone could think all three were different bands if they didn't know better. Also their sheer VOLUME of songs are staggering! Bound to be similarities.

But I would never put Nickelback anywhere near the Beatles.

The beatles weren't mediocre on any level

Well, they weren't great musicians. None of them. Don't throw rotten tomatos... It's just an opinion!

So with Nickelback, Creed, etc.. I hear one or two great hooks, but the rest? Meh.. medium to good hooks.... just like everyone else

I agree with you that both band's successes (Creed - Nickelback) surpassed their talents.

But why is that?

A shortage of competition? Fate? Magic spells of Santaria?

the beatles werent recording together in the 70s and to my knowledge there are very few recordings if any of them from the 50s lol so...also i may be generally young but im quite confident in saying that i've heard every single recording the beatles have done and the only real similarities i can see are that some songs have acoustic guitars...and some songs have electric guitars....and then some use strings...and then some use a sitar...and thats horrible lol, music wouldnt be music today if wasnt for their willingness to experiment on every track...we might not be able to have nickelbag to poke fun at

the beatles werent recording together in the 70s and to my knowledge there are very few recordings if any of them from the 50s lol so...

Yeah, minor error on my part.

They were together from 1960 to 1970.

Knowing they competed with Elvis and others of that time period, I figured they must have started in late 50's, similar time as Elvis, but you are correct... it was actually 1960 and not late 50's.

But I assume you did understand my point?

That... The Beatles went through several VERY distinct changes in musical styles over their career, sounding almost like different bands between early Beatles and Late 60's, 70 Beatles?

getting back to your point, did they develop with the times, or did they just put on the "mask" to get famous, then go in the direction they wanted afterwords?

If you look closely, they started out more clean and pop, and then went into what they wanted, took the gloves off, so to speak. only about 9 billion other bands did the same thing.

But going back a step further... I was only pointing out that I agreed the beatles were amazing, and nickelback / creed wasn't even a remote comparison.. that's all.

My favorite Beatle was George...Martin.

and nickelback / creed wasn't even a remote comparison.. that's all.

Comparing Creed to Nickleback is insulting to Creed!



Seriously, does it matter?

I feel the Beatles were "amazing" due to the space in time they occupied. Pioneers of sorts. Not that others had not tread the same path but the Beatles had an opportunity to popularize what was the new pub trend of English music.
I don't see them being all that special purely due to writing or performance ability.
Contrary - many of the recordings of their early performances were frankly sonically horrid IMO.

They did what they could with the equipment they had, live, sans. Imagine playing loudly without monitors cuz the high impedence mics would feed back so badly. How would you sound?

They were FAR more than just lucky to be in thier time, though. They made some of the most timeless pieces of music ever in the popular market. Masters of melody & lyric. Interesting chord prgressions. Pretty darned good musicianship, really for thier time, as well, esp in the arena of pop music. Excellent voices. They were what every original band should try to be, imho.

Yes, well written songs ETC. But would they have been the "FAB FOUR" if say their appearance on the scene had been 5 years earlier or latter ?
Historically speaking ... timing is essential to success.