Element wrote:I like 311 more, but The Beatles are better.
What does this even mean?
It isn't factual that Band A is better than Band B - it's purely up to personal discresion .. it's not like saying Band A are more talented than Band B, or Band A write more complex music than Band B, because in most cases these are facts which can be backed up .. but saying Band A is "better" than Band B doesn't mean shit! If you say Band A is better than Band B then that means that you like Band A more then Band B .. saying "I like Band A more, but Band B are better" make absolutely no sense.
What do you mean by "better"? Does it mean just mean they write better music than 311? Then shouldn't you like them more if you believe their music is better? Isn't that what it's all about? What you like more?
The Beatles started off as a shitty band forced to play extremely long sets at German clubs at gunpoint. And yes, they were the first boy band, laying the foundation for radio friendly pop music.
But they did it all first. They had no inhibitions. If you're a 311 fan you have to appreciate the Beatle's diversity. Much more so than the rollingstones.
Think about it this way: If 311 were around back then, before computers and dub effects, how succesful would they have been?
What if The Beatles were in their prime today, with all the sounds they could generate?
I'm not comparing The Beatles to 311 I'm just throwing some perspective into the mix. The Beatles came up with the idea of recording in stereo. They wrote scores for movies. The Rolling stones? What did they do again?
A lot of bands start of with an innovative sound and then through the years they either become repetitive or watered down. The beatles are one of the few bands to do the opposite.
and you've clearly never seen paul playing beatles music in concert.
you can't compare the two unless you've been to both .. so take a taste of your own medicine and shut the fuck up.
beatles over rolling stones anyday .. and until 311 has the track record Beatles over 311 .... otherwise 311 and beatles are equally as outstanding in their own way ... they are very diffferent bands but each are exceptional.
beatles over rolling stones anyday .. and until 311 has the track record Beatles over 311 .... otherwise 311 and beatles are equally as outstanding in their own way ... they are very diffferent bands but each are exceptional.
Beatles over Stones, no question. Beatles altered their styles and albums much like 311 does in the fact that they try to alter their sound somewhat with each record (at least from what ive heard from them). Dont really listen to stones but just never felt that attraction to their music as much as the beatles and nothing close to 311.
I get up intake my blue-green algae
let it penetrate
strengthen my grasp
holistic healers dealin' our galactic growth
reversin' fx of shit wrecked Chernobyl
Early beatles isn't really good after when they started getting into drugs and shit they got a lot better like the white album is great, i think later beatles is way better than early beatles. The Stones started off kind of the same way a changed in their own way too, mid period stones from the album some girls up till the 80's i think is best.. This question always generates lots of answers thats why i asked. I really like both bands.
Element wrote:I like 311 more, but The Beatles are better.
What does this even mean?
It isn't factual that Band A is better than Band B - it's purely up to personal discresion .. it's not like saying Band A are more talented than Band B, or Band A write more complex music than Band B, because in most cases these are facts which can be backed up .. but saying Band A is "better" than Band B doesn't mean shit! If you say Band A is better than Band B then that means that you like Band A more then Band B .. saying "I like Band A more, but Band B are better" make absolutely no sense.
What do you mean by "better"? Does it mean just mean they write better music than 311? Then shouldn't you like them more if you believe their music is better? Isn't that what it's all about? What you like more?
If by "better" you mean better skilled, then yes, it makes perfect sense.
But see, the same can't be applied to a band. I doubt when you said "the beatles are better" you meant that they were technically better and higher skilled ... if you did, thats fine, but thats not what "better" means ... "better" means you like it more, i can't think of any other definiton for "better".
Instead of trying to outsmart me with your one-liners why don't you just answer the original question?
Stevie Ray Vaughn is the best guitarist ever in my opinion, however i enjoy miT much more.
I get up intake my blue-green algae
let it penetrate
strengthen my grasp
holistic healers dealin' our galactic growth
reversin' fx of shit wrecked Chernobyl
actually Frank Zappa is the best. He not only played the sickest guitar but he wrote,composed ,and arranged pieces. every single instrument. he would conduct his band to a pace and sound which he thought would be suitable then go fuckin crazy on guit, all improv.
Who brought me here..............?
Forsaken depraved and wrought with fear
yeah i was jusut watching this dvd with stevie ray and he was playing the guitar almost better with it behind his back and shit and hed like throw it back and forth aroudn his body playing chords and shit it was amazing thats just why i believe that.
I get up intake my blue-green algae
let it penetrate
strengthen my grasp
holistic healers dealin' our galactic growth
reversin' fx of shit wrecked Chernobyl
when you ask someone what music they like, what you are really saying is what music do you like OTHER than the beatles, because everyone has to like them. it really is a fact, that the beatles are like...the best band ever. 311 will always be my favorite, but...i just dont think you can hold any other band up to the standard of the beatles.
one more thing...
JOHN LENNON IS THE MAN
the only time that i have come close to crying is thinking that john lennon was shot and the world has been deprived of the greatest music ever.
I've liked the Stones longer though, didn't really get into the Beatles until a year or two ago.
