|
|
Post by giggergrl on Jun 14, 2006 21:47:58 GMT -5
 i say not in my lifetime
|
|
|
|
Post by Poshbird05 on Jun 14, 2006 22:13:08 GMT -5
no no way will never happen
|
|
|
|
Post by drunken guitar pop on Jun 14, 2006 22:36:14 GMT -5
As a rock/pop band? No. The Beatles did everything in that corner.
As a group of brightly opportunistic artists merging their talents at the right time in history and making magic happen in some area of popular music? Yes, within this century. But most of us on this board will likely either be deceased or too old at heart to notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jun 15, 2006 0:24:15 GMT -5
Not in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Idol on Jun 15, 2006 0:29:17 GMT -5
In popularity?
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Didi on Jun 15, 2006 3:51:12 GMT -5
compared to the beatles, the rest is only shite
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 15, 2006 4:53:59 GMT -5
dont think anyone will ever match them for popularity and influence. they were a one-off, for their time. oasis were the same, but on a much much much smaller scale. bands like oasis only come along every 10-20 years. the beatles only came along once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Didi on Jun 15, 2006 4:57:31 GMT -5
the beatles only came along once.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Jun 15, 2006 5:33:57 GMT -5
cant be cuz bnads will always be compared to the beatles and will always think its impossible
|
|
|
|
Post by LDD- Angelic Child on Jun 15, 2006 6:58:32 GMT -5
Oasis were the closest any body has come from 1995-1998.. i don't see it in my lifetime though
|
|
|
|
Post by seanboy24 on Jun 21, 2006 11:29:22 GMT -5
Bands today will never expand themselves like The Beatles did. We'll never see another band go from a "Can't Buy Me Love" to "Strawberry Fields Forever" in just three years. If a band only puts a record out once in every three years, they can't do shit cuz they're always touring. That's what makes the Definitely Maybe-WTSMG period so awesome too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jazzvi on Jun 21, 2006 17:03:09 GMT -5
no. they were the first and the best.
now it's all invented.
|
|
|
|
Post by MG on Jun 21, 2006 20:39:38 GMT -5
no modern music is too commercial, ya never get the chance to express yourself.
If the public doesn't like ya your fucked, and pitty coz the public know fuck all!
|
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Jul 3, 2006 20:22:19 GMT -5
hmmmm
interesting thoughts. however, I'd say that, as most people have proposed, nobody can do that right now.
You have to look at the the music industry. And then look at society. The music was great because it moved the way the world worked. It reached out everywhere. As they went along they were better because they always pushed.
Bands don't do it anymore cos, as stated, nobody has time to record an album every 9 months.... That and the music scene is way larger and now it's too broad for one band to interest so many people without being viewed by the majority as something uncool
|
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Jul 5, 2006 8:18:56 GMT -5
hmmmm interesting thoughts. however, I'd say that, as most people have proposed, nobody can do that right now. You have to look at the the music industry. And then look at society. The music was great because it moved the way the world worked. It reached out everywhere. As they went along they were better because they always pushed. Bands don't do it anymore cos, as stated, nobody has time to record an album every 9 months.... That and the music scene is way larger and now it's too broad for one band to interest so many people without being viewed by the majority as something uncool i think it's true revolver... you are so right honey ! |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 5, 2006 8:50:10 GMT -5
I think The Rolling Stones were a better Rock & Roll band then The Beatles
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Jul 5, 2006 9:39:27 GMT -5
thats true. stones are more rocknroll. they realy got the rhythm&blues and turned it into rock(nroll)
beatles were the once that invented catchy tunes i guess.
endless discussion
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 5, 2006 9:43:47 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I like The Beatles music better
But as a whole Rolling Stones are Rock & Roll
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Rebel Motorcycle Pixie. on Jul 5, 2006 10:04:56 GMT -5
The beatles had more charisma though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Jul 5, 2006 10:37:52 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I like The Beatles music better But as a whole Rolling Stones are Rock & Roll thats what i meant mate |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Jul 10, 2006 20:56:55 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I like The Beatles music better But as a whole Rolling Stones are Rock & Roll The Beatles weren't so rock and roll. And that's why they were so much better. They experimented with texture, form, and rhythm. I never liked the Stones. I find them to be a bore and I don't dig their lyrics. |
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Jul 11, 2006 13:04:17 GMT -5
yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Mogly on Jul 11, 2006 23:06:53 GMT -5
I don't think so. the beatles trascended music, they were artists. they invented pop music, they were the voice of a generation. today there's not even a generation as it was known in the 60's.... the sixties were the right time for revolutions, for protests, for music speaking in the name of people. this is not happening today and I don't see it happening ever again cos people today are not willing to defend their rights, most of the people don't have ideals and so something like the beatles will never happen again... that and what has already been mentioned about the musicbiz.... maybe in terms of music someone could be better than the beatles, it's all in the taste but the beatles were not only about the music
|
|
|
|
Post by flashbax812 on Jul 12, 2006 17:46:50 GMT -5
i totally agree with you on everything but the Stones part. Songs like Wild Horses, Sympathy For The Devil, etc....showcase some amazing artistic expression.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10 - Nick McCabe on Jul 24, 2006 18:49:42 GMT -5
No way, it`s IMPOSSIBLE.
|
|
"]http://tenbobrevolution.blogspot.com
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5