#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As much as I love Fleetwood Mac though, I would pick the Beatles over them anyway |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
The Mac even influenced the Beatles with Albatross and Sun King, so...
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
I didn't know that! But I guess it would make sense, for the Beatles later stuff when Pete Green's FM were around by then. That's pretty cool!
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Just back on topic briefly, I cannot help but smile whenever I hear FM on the radio, mostly because I know that many other people tuning in will surely also be enjoying their music. And yes, they are just so good! Personally, I think the phrase "Fleetwood Mac" should be made to mean "just so good", so as to make this thread title a tautology. I know I'm not wrong because I know I'm not wrong!
Now, off topic... ... ... I'm just trying to prepare myself for the flurry of replies that'll tell me I'm wrong... ... ... Okay, The Beatles obviously had a bigger impact on the music industry - FM only produced one #1 US single, and The Beatles had... far too many! However, I think a better criteria for choosing the best band is musical creativity, and not popularity (even if it is popularity that usually garners influence, which I guess is what we're talking about). I think FM wins this category hands down. With an honourable mention to Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music! Quote:
The last controversial comment - John Lennon solo (oh, and Yoko!) produced much better work than during his time with The Beatles. Okay, so political songwriting shouldn't instantly make you a brilliant songwriter... but I'm afraid it does! Especially the way Lennon pulls it off! All that said, I do actually like The Beatles very much! (Phew! Now I should settle down to the sound of Rumours, or something...)
__________________
The two essentials for a healthy mind: 1. Philosophy & Science 2. Fleetwood Mac NB. Not necessarily in that order... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Of course there are better, and more talented musicians who had a bigger impact on music out there. It's just that I don't like them nearly as much as I like FM.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Having said all that, I have yet to really try hard to get into the Beatles yet. I think I could love them if I went out and bought their albums but at the minute I'm on a bit of an Indie kick. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Beatles contribution to music is much overrated. The idea that they changed everything about pop music is sanctimonious bollocks. Most pop music originated from Blues of the 40's & 50's. The Beatles were merely a link in that chain. From a creative point of view FM piss all over them. The dynamic between Lindsey, Stevie, Christine, Mick and John was unrivalled in any band before or since, especially live. Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney is a first class twat.
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sure the Beatles had a lot of influence, but at the same time they are totally overrated. But I'm more of a Rolling Stones girl anyway. Rolling Stones >>> Beatles FM >>>>>>>>>>>>Rolling Stones>>>Beatles
__________________
“Remember, in the grand scheme of things, what we do for a living is not very important. After all, we’re not curing cancer here.” - John McVie http://goldduststevie.tumblr.com/ |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I am aware that this is an "agree to disagree" kind of thing, as it's all down to personal opinion and tastes. I know that. BUT! They DID change everything about pop music! They were the first band who all wrote, played, performed and then later produced their own music, as a band. Blues and rock n roll from the previous decades had been made up of a lot of covers and many of them had song writers to write their material for them. The Beatles did it ALL themselves. They were the first to have the singer/songwriter setup. And in the short 8 or 9 years they were properly together, they evolved SO much creatively. Just look at them in '62 and then again in '70! As for FM, there's not THAT much of a change creatively from the white album to Tango, except that music itself had changed a whole lot in those 10 or 12 years. Of course, with the exception of Tusk (which they seemed to abandon as a one off and went back to making more middle of the road rock and pop again). If you were to include the Peter Green and Bob Welch line ups in this then I would be more inclined to agree, but as it stands with the Rumours line up, I don't think you could say that they "piss all over" the Beatles as you so eloquently put it |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not to say Beatles weren't innovative- I'd point to the introduction of instruments heretofore unheard of in pop music (at least in terms of a band at the top of the charts), such as the sitar. I have to believe that they were years ahead of everyone else in that regard (if you took the Beatles out of the equation and let the rest of the pop/rock world evolve circa '62 onward, how long would it have taken?) |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I really wish I had a time machine. It would be so interesting to see what music would be like now if the Beatles hadn't existed! |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Okay, before I argued that people shouldn't be demonised for saying they thought Fleetwood Mac are better than The Beatles or that they don't like The Beatles but these arguments trying to minimise their role in music history are silly.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I want to come back as a Yorkshire Terrier, owned by me." - Stevie Nicks Last edited by trackaghost; 01-12-2010 at 12:14 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
PETER GREEN - END OF THE GAME: 50TH ANNIVERSARY NEW CD
$20.12
CELEBRATE THE MUSIC OF PETER GREEN AND THE EARLY YEARS OF FLEETWOOD MAC [4/30] *
$19.98
Peter Green - Man Of The World NEW 2 x CD Brand New Sealed
$10.07
Peter Green - In The Sky - Limited Gatefold 180-Gram Translucent Blue Colored Vi
$28.48
Peter Green and Original Fleetwo... - Peter Green and Original Fleetw... CD MPVG
$8.67