Band Face Off - Round 4

[trackaghost]

She's still the Queen of Pop in your eyes - Madonna slaughtered both Kate Bush and Sheryl Crow in Round 3, with 23 votes to Sheryl's 10 and Kate's 9.

Onto Round 4 and this one is the battle of the giants. Which will you choose?

Remember to defend your choice.


Results so far:

Round 1: Petty defeats Springsteen - 35 to 17

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22558

Round 2: Led Zeppelin defeats The Who - 21 to 18

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22596

Round 3: Madonna defeats Sheryl Crow and Kate Bush 23 to 10/9

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22631

The polls are still open!

[michelle2677]

OMG...why are you doing this to me???!!!
decisions decisions...o.k.....I'll go with the beatles... but I LOVE U2 as well...

[amber]

Remember to defend your choice.

:confused:
uh, okay...I don't like the other two bands very much, and I do like the RS.

[GypsySorcerer]

I went with the Stones. I am not a fan of U2's. My favorite Beatles-related stuff if George Harrison's solo output. So the Stones it is.

[dissention]

The Stones, baby.

The Beatles are good, but overrated. U2 makes me violently ill and Bono can just suck it. That is all.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Rolling Stones.

U2 and the Beatles.....eh.

[Serrart]

Rolling Stones: i find their songs wilder and more real, and as a band they're more creative musicians, IMO.

Romy

[markolas]

Rolling Stones.

I don't really like the Beatles much at all and I totally don't get why people are so crazy about them. :sorry: :shrug:

U2 is okay, but I think they're way overrated. The only album of theirs I own is The Joshua Tree, which is greatness. :)

[WELSH WITCH]

Stones for me too.

[estranged4life]

as if I wouldnt pick the Beatles...Shee-haw right, and FEMA relief might fly out my butt.

Like all 3 bands equally, But picking between the 3 I have to give props to the Beatles (Though I love the Stones for sheer attitude :nod: )

Ps-We need some METAL in our polling diet...*hint* *hint*

[Neal]

Even though they're highly overrated, I went with U2 because I'm not familiar enough with the others. I'm kinda over them though, so I really have nothing to say in their defense... :sorry:

[CreepingDeath]

The Beatles

I would have gone with U2, but everything since Pop has been pretty mediocre, imo. The early stuff is great though. I never got into The Rolling Stones.

[gldstwmn]

That was hard. I picked The Stones because I have been listening to them more as of late. I don't know though. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison (especially) and Starr all get lots of love from me. I'm still not sure I made the right choice. :laugh:
U2 has done nothing but depress me the last few years. :sorry:

[Serrart]

Than The Beatles?? These must be different songs you're listening to. The other two are great bands that I really enjoy listening to but can't comprehend either of them being described as more creative than The Beatles. Ok so Ringo is excluded.

People don't get why The Beatles were considered to be brilliant? What the hell are you doing on a music related webspace? I understand that particular music isn't for everyone but that kind of statement is not related to enjoyment. Was Elvis overrated too?

I said as a band Lux. I find the Stones a more intriguing and creative musical unit than the Beatles, that I perceive mostly as Lennon+McCartney, with Harrison added sometimes and Starr very frequently as a shadow. Just one of my naive thoughts. :D I don't think Beatles are overrated but their apparently pink universe filled with black holes doesn't involve me emotionally as much as Rolling Stones.

Romy

P.S: Have you been in the time machine, Junior Ledgie? :cool:

[ryan8472]

U2...apparently I stand alone here. :p

[Miss Vicky]

Let me preface this post by saying that I think all three groups are highly overrated. I understand that both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones have been greatly influential on countless musicians that have followed, including many of my personal favorites. However, I actually like the Beatles better as 4 individual solo artists (including Ringo Starr) than as a band. The Rolling Stones are good, but I can probably count on one hand the number of RS songs I really love. The same can be said for U2, but I associate them with my childhood (my mother listened to them a lot, nowadays she listens to classical) and for that reason alone they got my vote.

[Dreammms]

The Beatles. Again no contest. U2 and Rolling Stones don't even compare.

[strandinthewind]

Than The Beatles?? These must be different songs you're listening to. The other two are great bands that I really enjoy listening to but can't comprehend either of them being described as more creative than The Beatles. Ok so Ringo is excluded.

People don't get why The Beatles were considered to be brilliant? What the hell are you doing on a music related webspace? I understand that particular music isn't for everyone but that kind of statement is not related to enjoyment. Was Elvis overrated too?

Amen - U2 and The Stones were and are great and in many, many ways without par or exception. So, this is to take nothing from them and their vast artistic achievement

But and from even an objective musical vantage point, the Beatles were the first to do so many things and they had such variety and depth to them. They showed the ability to make the simple brilliant a la Love Me Do and She Loves You. Then, they could be deeply layered and vastly complex in such songs as Strawberry Fields, Yellow Submarine, and Sgt. Peppers' (the whole thing but IMO mainly A Day In The Life) - Such breadth has never been achieved.

I often wonder what would have happened if Yoko had not handed John L. that note? Would we have had Imagine and the like only from the perspective of the Fab Four?

Finally and somewhat related to this topic, my favorite Christmas card I ever sent after Fleas Navidog - was Gary Larson esq. one that had this picture of a kid at the dining room table staring at a plate of peas and his mother is looking down at him exclaiming in her talk bubble "All I am asking is that you give peas a chance" :cool:

There is also this,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/24480551_F_store.jpg

which I find fabulous enough to make The Beatles win!

[markolas]

But and from even an objective musical vantage point, the Beatles were the first to do so many things and they had such variety and depth to them. They showed the ability to make the simple brilliant a la Love Me Do and She Loves You. Then, they could be deeply layered and vastly complex in such songs as Strawberry Fields, Yellow Submarine, and Sgt. Peppers' (the whole thing but IMO mainly A Day In The Life) - Such breadth has never been achieved.

I guess I just don't see what's so special about them. Maybe it's a generational thing? :D I mean...I've heard these songs...and I really could just take 'em or leave 'em. Am I missing something? :shrug:

I think I'll go listen to Billie Holiday now.

[strandinthewind]

I guess I just don't see what's so special about them. Maybe it's a generational thing? :D I mean...I've heard these songs...and I really could just take 'em or leave 'em. Am I missing something? :shrug:

I think I'll go listen to Billie Holiday now.

Well, to each their own. I mean Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors for a reason :laugh: I just think the depth and the variety The Beatles managed to produce in the relative infancy of R&R was stunning and from an academic perspective that is supported by their remaining relevance. But, if you don't like them you don't like them :laugh:

As for BH - brilliant and unbelieveably so. Interestingly, I have a friend who was always like "she is off key - I don't get the attraction." My response was and remains, it is because she is off key that makes her compelling in her voice. But, to each their own :cool:

[wondergirl9847]

U2...apparently I stand alone here. :p

Ya don't, Ryan.

[Glittermoondust]

Can't stand the Beatles--never have...... and am just sick to death of U2.....

[Mari]

Wow, this is a difficult one. Been a U2 fan for years, but I've enough of them now. Even more so when I found out how much they 'borrowed' from other bands. Stones, love a lot of their songs.. went with the Beatles though. They knew when to stop, while the other two bands should've stopped years ago :p

[bretonbanquet]

I went with the Beatles, but it was close between them and the Stones. Some days I'd have voted differently, although I wouldn't have voted for U2 in 10,000 years :p

[eclipse]

The Beatles are , after all the Beatles! and all that!!!

But when it comes down to it I am really a die-hard
Stones fan
Totally different sound but 40 years of Rockin' says a lot to me.
My vote goes to the Stones!

[WildInTheWind]

The Beatles. I'm not big into U2....there ok but...meh. I do love the Stones, but you really can't beat the Beatles. Partially because of how influencial they were. They are a very very important part of rock history IMO.

[skcin]

The Beatles. I'm no expert on their music by any means, but their songs make me feel more than Stones tunes do. I don't know how else to describe it. U2? I hated them up until about 5 years ago, I like their music now, but they don't measure up to the Beatles, IMO. Not yet, anyway.

[markolas]

As for BH - brilliant and unbelieveably so. Interestingly, I have a friend who was always like "she is off key - I don't get the attraction." My response was and remains, it is because she is off key that makes her compelling in her voice. But, to each their own :cool:

Oh, geez...sounds like he doesn't get into the emotional content at all. That would annoy me greatly. :distress:

[shackin'up]

Okay, I chose U2.

Not because they are a better band then f.i. the beatles. no way. It's simple for me: U2 is the band that I got into straight after FM taught me what alternative popmusic was after Tusk.

[DavidMn]

It has to be the Beatles. No question.

[Moony]

U2. Although I really, really love quite a few Beatles songs.

[Nico]

Oh my goodness.

Thank gawd no one dared place the Velvet Underground amongst the rank. I would have had to refrain.

The Beatles...hands down.

Ok, I am a big U2 fan...well, not big, big but certainly big that I own all their albums and enjoy them immensely. I can't say everything they do is wonderful, or that I like every thing they have done- but they are fairly fantastic and I would certainly rank them high. But not here.

The Stones I love very dearly. They kick ass, first off. And I was raised on much of their 60s-70s output. But even that can not help them here.

The Beatles are magical. They are magnificent and they tower over any competition I can think of (with very limited exceptions). I can't really explain it better than I think they are the best, the greatest band that ever existed and will ever exist. Plus, they had John Lennon...and George. But together they were just unstoppable. The "White" album is still one of the most amazing and thrilling musical experiences for me.

Call them overrated all you want, but they still beat the competition every time. And I feel they have earned that right- regardless of polls, lists, and all that crap. They are still the best. :nod: