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]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Remember to defend your choice.

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

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by Lux

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. 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?

[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]

Originally Posted by Lux

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"

There is also this,



which I find fabulous enough to make The Beatles win!

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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? I mean...I've heard these songs...and I really could just take 'em or leave 'em. Am I missing something?

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

[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.

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