The Ledge

Go Back   The Ledge > Main Forums > Rumours
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-08-2010, 09:51 AM
luckydimecaper's Avatar
luckydimecaper luckydimecaper is offline
Senior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meowi View Post
Yes Fleetwood Mac IS my favorite band
But sometimes we have to realise that it isn't the best in the world.
Yeah, exactly.. Sometimes it's hard to differentiate when you love a band so much. But I kinda liked both bands from around the same age, and I've been through my honeymoon period with both.
As much as I love Fleetwood Mac though, I would pick the Beatles over them anyway
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-08-2010, 10:09 AM
ButterCookie's Avatar
ButterCookie ButterCookie is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trackaghost View Post
But none of what you have said acknowledges the fact that certain people may not enjoy their music as much as Fleetwood Mac. It is indeed down to preference. Erin said she appreciates and realises the contribution The Beatles made but FM's music means more to her. So to her they are better.
This idea that it's blasphemy to say anything negative about The Beatles has always baffled me. Just because they are probably, along with Dylan, one of the most important artists in music history doesn't mean you're going to like them. I think The Who are better than The Beatles, that doesn't mean I am saying they are as historically as important, that they made the same impact as The Beatles just that my preference leans towards The Who. Which is what, I believe Erin was saying the first place (only about FM).
I could argue all day that Citizen Kane is one of the most important, brilliant and influential films of all time that paved the way for some of your favourite movies but that doesn't mean you are going to like it more than, say, The Shawshank Redemption or some other beloved, popular movie.
This was my argument during said debate between my friends and I, only you worded it better. I'm not doubting the cultural influences The Beatles have or their impact on the music world. Personally I just think that Fleetwood Mac's music is more enjoyable.
__________________
"I do like my wine."

Oh Yeah Christine McVie | Tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-08-2010, 05:35 PM
goldustsongbird's Avatar
goldustsongbird goldustsongbird is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the impeeeeeeerial hoteyul
Posts: 6,804
Default

The Mac even influenced the Beatles with Albatross and Sun King, so...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-09-2010, 09:13 AM
luckydimecaper's Avatar
luckydimecaper luckydimecaper is offline
Senior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldustsongbird View Post
The Mac even influenced the Beatles with Albatross and Sun King, so...
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!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-10-2010, 01:28 AM
jaycee's Avatar
jaycee jaycee is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 664
Default

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:
Originally Posted by blondyy-x View Post
I like the Beatles, but a good part of their music sounds the same, and is bland. I agree that they did help shape music, but they aren't everything. There was many many artists before them, and many artists after them who also helped to shape and create music.

And back on topic - I love Fleetwood Mac
We're not so different, you and I, blondyy-x!
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...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-10-2010, 03:01 AM
GoldDustBoy GoldDustBoy is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 315
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-10-2010, 05:57 AM
Peestie Peestie is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee View Post
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!
Seriously? Sure, FM have been creative but they still don't come close to the Beatles in terms of "musical creativity". The Beatles are pretty much the paragons of "musical creativity" from the last hundred years. Lindsey wishes he pioneered half as many things as the Beatles did. I know it's kind of a "they got there first" thing, but the fact is that they did it. While Tusk subverted people's expectations of Pop music, The Beatles did both that and created a whole host of new techniques and methods in the process.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-10-2010, 06:59 AM
Fleetwoodmark's Avatar
Fleetwoodmark Fleetwoodmark is offline
Senior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK, Edinburgh
Posts: 222
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:01 AM
ButterCookie's Avatar
ButterCookie ButterCookie is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleetwoodmark View Post
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.
I posted that on a private blog! Those exact words, about two nights ago! Haha
__________________
"I do like my wine."

Oh Yeah Christine McVie | Tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:10 AM
Sanne2's Avatar
Sanne2 Sanne2 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleetwoodmark View Post
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.
This comment is full of win.
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/
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:40 AM
luckydimecaper's Avatar
luckydimecaper luckydimecaper is offline
Senior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleetwoodmark View Post
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.
WOAH woah woah..
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
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-10-2010, 03:50 PM
LukeA LukeA is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckydimecaper View Post
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!
There's a difference between true innovation and simple progression. Writing/playing/performing/producing your own music are basic, natural progressions that were to be expected as the particular artform of pop/rock music progressed into adolescence, and acts became larger & held more clout. If it wasn't the Beatles, it would have been someone else- and within months, not years.

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?)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-10-2010, 05:48 PM
luckydimecaper's Avatar
luckydimecaper luckydimecaper is offline
Senior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeA View Post
If it wasn't the Beatles, it would have been someone else- and within months, not years.
Who? Just out of curiosity I know bands like the Kinks and the Stones weren't too far behind the Beatles, but they might not have had such a huge breakthrough and therefore the same kind of influence on that kind of musicianship.

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!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:10 PM
blondyy-x blondyy-x is offline
Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckydimecaper View Post
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.
I agree that they changed music, but not by themselves. They maybe did it as a band... But i ain't going to clap for them cause they played together. Roger Miller wrote and performed his own music a few years before The Beatles even formed. They don't deserve to take credit for changing all music.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-10-2010, 08:07 PM
trackaghost trackaghost is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,804
Default

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:
Originally Posted by jaycee View Post
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!
Seriously? I'm not a huge Beatles fan but please explain why you think Fleetwood Mac were musically more creative. Even as a big Fleetwood Mac fan I can quite plainly see The Beatles were a clearly more innovative and challenging band than Fleetwood Mac ever were, even compared to the Mac's most experimental moments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleetwoodmark View Post
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.
The amount of legendary bands who formed and were inspired by The Beatles is extraordinary. They not only changed things musically but they changed how the whole music industry was run. And again, how were Fleetwood Mac more creative than The Beatles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckydimecaper View Post
Who? Just out of curiosity I know bands like the Kinks and the Stones weren't too far behind the Beatles, but they might not have had such a huge breakthrough and therefore the same kind of influence on that kind of musicianship.

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!
But even The Stones and The Kinks were influenced by The Beatles. I agree with Luke that music was changing anyway but The Beatles were definitely at the centre of that revolution (and let's not forget Elvis here, definitely as important if not more so than The Beatles).

Quote:
Originally Posted by blondyy-x View Post
I agree that they changed music, but not by themselves. They maybe did it as a band... But i ain't going to clap for them cause they played together. Roger Miller wrote and performed his own music a few years before The Beatles even formed. They don't deserve to take credit for changing all music.
To be fair Roger Miller wasn't the only artist before The Beatles who wrote and performed his own music! There were plenty of other performers out there who wrote their own songs, particularly in the world of blues and country. But much of popular music was controlled by record companies who dictated what their artists would sing. Tin Pan Alley and the like dominated the music industry before they came along. The Beatles, along with Dylan, without a doubt paved the way for the singer/songwriter. I'm sure Stevie and Lindsey would acknowledge this.
__________________
"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..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


PETER GREEN - END OF THE GAME: 50TH ANNIVERSARY NEW CD picture

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] * picture

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 picture

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 picture

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 picture

Peter Green and Original Fleetwo... - Peter Green and Original Fleetw... CD MPVG

$8.67




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved