ThirdStrike said:

It's funny. I generally use the question about The Beatles being overrated as an intelligence test. If you say they are, then I know you're stupid...

i know a guy who says the beatles are overrated, i wouldn't be mean enough to call him a dummie but I just don't get how anyone can listen to their music and say that.

PeteSilas said:

ThirdStrike said:

It's funny. I generally use the question about The Beatles being overrated as an intelligence test. If you say they are, then I know you're stupid...

i know a guy who says the beatles are overrated, i wouldn't be mean enough to call him a dummie but I just don't get how anyone can listen to their music and say that.

All you have to do is listen to an album by (name any atrtist).. then put on a Beatles album & not only will you hear/feel the difference in craftmanship but you also detect how derivative alot of them sound. The only group imo that's been in the same ballpork as far as evolving their sound in both melody & quality as they went along was XTC & even they have Beatkes in their DNA. Inside the vast pop/rock arena its hard to find anyone who doesn't. Anybody who says otherwise has either been born in the last 15 yrs or are grossly under exposed to them.

Maybe not insane but certainly mentally impaired in their ability to think and reason things out. Although some of the shit posted in some of the FB groups makes me really question so-called fans.

ThirdStrike said:

It's funny. I generally use the question about The Beatles being overrated as an intelligence test. If you say they are, then I know you're stupid...

Farfunknugin said:

PeteSilas said:

i know a guy who says the beatles are overrated, i wouldn't be mean enough to call him a dummie but I just don't get how anyone can listen to their music and say that.

All you have to do is listen to an album by (name any atrtist).. then put on a Beatles album & not only will you hear/feel the difference in craftmanship but you also detect how derivative alot of them sound. The only group imo that's been in the same ballpork as far as evolving their sound in both melody & quality as they went along was XTC & even they have Beatkes in their DNA. Inside the vast pop/rock arena its hard to find anyone who doesn't. Anybody who says otherwise has either been born in the last 15 yrs or are grossly under exposed to them.

...or dumb...

As a composer no one touches Mccartney, his post Beatles output just underscores this. listen to "I Don't Know" from Egypt Station. The man is in his seventies & still able to write a song like this, insane.

Farfunknugin said:

As a composer no one touches Mccartney, his post Beatles output just underscores this. listen to "I Don't Know" from Egypt Station. The man is in his seventies & still able to write a song like this, insane.

i'll check it, his post-beatles work has been excorciated, unfairly as far as i'm concerned. I just bought his classical music album from the 90's but haven't listened to it yet. As far as songwriting,there are a million great songs and a billion bad ones and in my experience, they come from any and all sources, prince was a great source for me but he was only one.

Farfunknugin said:

PeteSilas said:

i know a guy who says the beatles are overrated, i wouldn't be mean enough to call him a dummie but I just don't get how anyone can listen to their music and say that.

All you have to do is listen to an album by (name any atrtist).. then put on a Beatles album & not only will you hear/feel the difference in craftmanship but you also detect how derivative alot of them sound. The only group imo that's been in the same ballpork as far as evolving their sound in both melody & quality as they went along was XTC & even they have Beatkes in their DNA. Inside the vast pop/rock arena its hard to find anyone who doesn't. Anybody who says otherwise has either been born in the last 15 yrs or are grossly under exposed to them.

you know a band is great when you've been listening to their stuff for decades and you still find nuggets that no one really knows, you know my name is mccartney's personal favorite beatle song and I never heard it until i got the anthology album, apparently it was a b side and inspired by trying to make a song just using the phrase you know the name look up the number, it's amazing and kinda beyond category, latin/reggae, popish to my ears.

Mumio said:

Maybe not insane but certainly mentally impaired in their ability to think and reason things out. Although some of the shit posted in some of the FB groups makes me really question so-called fans.

ya man, but you could say that for any real fan of anyone, fan is short for fanatic.

the guy i know isn't dumb so far as i can tell, he's a lonely fuck though and annoying, the kind of guy you want to avoid because they'll eat into your day. he could be dumb, he could come across as dumb and jokes about being dumb but I don't think he is. some people just don't like the beatles he's not the only one.

ThirdStrike said:

Farfunknugin said:

All you have to do is listen to an album by (name any atrtist).. then put on a Beatles album & not only will you hear/feel the difference in craftmanship but you also detect how derivative alot of them sound. The only group imo that's been in the same ballpork as far as evolving their sound in both melody & quality as they went along was XTC & even they have Beatkes in their DNA. Inside the vast pop/rock arena its hard to find anyone who doesn't. Anybody who says otherwise has either been born in the last 15 yrs or are grossly under exposed to them.

...or dumb...

McCartney hasn't released a disappointing album in more than 20 years. His melodic gift is otherworldly.

TrevorAyer said:

Prince was heavily influenced by beatles and hendrix .. it’s hard to call prince more influential when his work is highly derivative of them ... saying prince is better on guitar than hendrix is like saying prince is more funky than james brown ... it’s laughable ... and prince music as we know it simply would not exist without all the above mentioned artists

We all know that Prince was without a doubt influenced by all of them. I just don't get the need when people have to compare artists without putting others down. It is perfectly fine to talk about influences/similar sounds. To me Prince was multi genre so you can't really compare him to anyone anyways. He took all of his influences and made them his own IMO. Some may not have grown up listening to James, Jimi or the Beatles though so I can understand to them why they feel Prince is better/more influential because the other artists didn't have that impact on them the way Prince does. We all have our faves and there is nothing wrong with that. I just enjoy all the music.

ThirdStrike said:

Farfunknugin said:

Moonbeam said:

Good Lord. This thread is another prime example of why The Beatles have the most obnoxious fanbase of all artists. Not all fans, to be sure, but the self-congratulation for being a fan of the most popular musical artist of the 21st century that manifests as a superiority complex is something else.

they were special, but personally, i like a lot of artists, a lot of them are special in one way or other and for different reasons. Prince is only one like I say and I still say there is a lot more bad/useless music than there is great music, just a law of some sort, not everything can be the cream of the crop and most artists probably have a lot more tracks that aren't memorable, culturally at least, than they do music that has made a mark. One of the things about the beatles is the sheer number of great tunes at least for me.

SoulAlive said:

Farfunknugin said:

As a composer no one touches Mccartney, his post Beatles output just underscores this. listen to "I Don't Know" from Egypt Station. The man is in his seventies & still able to write a song like this, insane.

I love the work he did in the 70s with Wings

i never heard nothing outside the hits, which were pretty good, with wings. I did like the critically hated, Pipes of Peace but sometimes I think that maybe that was just because I was very young and was just discovering music, i liked a lot of stuff that, quality wise, maybe I wouldn't like today if it came out. Age and experience makes it harder to get a rise out of things.

Moonbeam said:

Good Lord. This thread is another prime example of why The Beatles have the most obnoxious fanbase of all artists. Not all fans, to be sure, but the self-congratulation for being a fan of the most popular musical artist of the 21st century that manifests as a superiority complex is something else.

But their impact and influence on rock music, man!

I mean ignoring rock music has been pretty much irrelevant to the bigger musical picture for almost 20 years now, but, you know....

i just bought memory almost full, any opinions?

Moonbeam said:

Good Lord. This thread is another prime example of why The Beatles have the most obnoxious fanbase of all artists. Not all fans, to be sure, but the self-congratulation for being a fan of the most popular musical artist of the 21st century that manifests as a superiority complex is something else.

Farfunknugin said:

PeteSilas said:

i know a guy who says the beatles are overrated, i wouldn't be mean enough to call him a dummie but I just don't get how anyone can listen to their music and say that.

All you have to do is listen to an album by (name any atrtist).. then put on a Beatles album & not only will you hear/feel the difference in craftmanship but you also detect how derivative alot of them sound. The only group imo that's been in the same ballpork as far as evolving their sound in both melody & quality as they went along was XTC & even they have Beatkes in their DNA. Inside the vast pop/rock arena its hard to find anyone who doesn't. Anybody who says otherwise has either been born in the last 15 yrs or are grossly under exposed to them.

The Bee Gees?

The gofundme page for the documentary A Royal Loss shows comments such as this:


"I don't believe Prince is even dead. I think he staged his death. He also had at least 3 to 7 clones. I met them in 2005 in california and they found me in Colorado in 2011."

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

The gofundme page for the documentary A Royal Loss shows comments such as this:


"I don't believe Prince is even dead. I think he staged his death. He also had at least 3 to 7 clones. I met them in 2005 in california and they found me in Colorado in 2011."

like i keep trying to tell you dummies, ever popular figure has some nuts out there, james dean, elvis, tupac all have fans claiming they are alive as did bruce lee and several others. there is always some bullshit like that, big deal.

Well I think Prince had more talent in his pinky finger than Michael Jackson had in his entire body. Does that make me insane?

rogifan said:

Well I think Prince had more talent in his pinky finger than Michael Jackson had in his entire body. Does that make me insane?

Prince was a musician, Michael Jackson was a performer. MJ was good at what he did, but he shouldn't be compared to Prince.

rogifan said:

PeteSilas said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

Please refer to Jesse J's recent IG post that neatly sums up the mentatlity of the P community vs the reality of being part of the creative process = fucking hysterical put down of hard-core geeks who obsess on stupid details !!

hey, was jesse j allowed on this years PP panel, there was talk of getting rid of him after the statements he made were made public.

could have sworn he was on it? anyone care to clarify?

PeteSilas said:

Moonbeam said:

Good Lord. This thread is another prime example of why The Beatles have the most obnoxious fanbase of all artists. Not all fans, to be sure, but the self-congratulation for being a fan of the most popular musical artist of the 21st century that manifests as a superiority complex is something else.

they were special, but personally, i like a lot of artists, a lot of them are special in one way or other and for different reasons. Prince is only one like I say and I still say there is a lot more bad/useless music than there is great music, just a law of some sort, not everything can be the cream of the crop and most artists probably have a lot more tracks that aren't memorable, culturally at least, than they do music that has made a mark. One of the things about the beatles is the sheer number of great tunes at least for me.

That's totally understandable - I've got no beef with Beatles fans loving their music. Lots of people do, and I have no qualms admitting they are legends and super influential.

It's when the obnoxious subset of Beatles fans acts as if they are intellectually (and sometimes morally) superior to those who don't like their music that gets my gears. I know this isn't exclusive to Beatles fans only, but their wide acclaim and popularity gives the Beatles version of this annoying fanbase subset added preposterousness to their claims. To these fans, the mere act of saying you don't like their music makes them treat to you like you are inherently defective and have broken some fundamental rule of the universe.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said: