Search results

I knew it was a mistake to join in this thread. It's getting ugly...:thumbsdown:

I'd argue John and Paul were better than Freddie. Ringo is often cited as the best rock drummer EVER - he's not showy, but he does the job rock-solid. And George is the lead. He's also not showy but more than competent. But a band isn't about individual musicianship - it's how the factors...

Obviously you're objective about this. :rolleyes All four Beatles had distinctive personalities well-known by the general public. All four Beatles had successful solo careers. And all four Beatles have quite a sense of humor. Ever see their movies? Lotsa comedy there. Who were Queen...

Actually, I think it was more the fishbowl that did it. No one went through what the Beatles experienced. To be so intensely scrutinized in public for so long while they were still young and growing UP meant they eventually grew APART. All the other bands of the era had it easy compared to the...

Early Queen, mid Queen, late Queen - there's an awful lot of silly stuff on display in ANY of their eras. I just think it's odd that someone finds early Beatles/Stones to be silly but not material from the band who did music for Highlander and Flash Gordon as well as songs like "Fat Bottomed...

Early Beatles and Stones sound "silly" but Queen doesn't? That's an odd statement...

Some of it, sure. But much of the later-years Beatles sounds dated as well. I don't knock later-years Beatles, though I remain convinced Sgt. Pepper's is arguably the most overrated album ever (and I LIKE it). I just don't like the general dismissals of early-years Beatles, as I think much of...

So those of us who prefer early Beatles to late are just buying into "hype"? :confused: If anything, we go AGAINST the grain - most people reflexively accept that 1967-1969 was the golden era. I'll still take A Hard Day's Night over any subsequent albums. And not a cover tune on it! :D