[Courtney]

You got three days. Who will you rock with?

[The Jewish Cunthead]

The Beatles or Helloween? Has there ever been a more lopsided matchup?

Sorry Chuckles.

[Jack Quinn]

no shit, SHENANIGANS!

Well Helloween gets one vote anyway

[Sportsguy]

Beatles

[Tommy]

Beastie Boys.

[The Canadian Content]

Beasties are a fucking riot live, but they're 3rd on the list for me here. No way I could pass up seeing a Queen show -- unless it's to see the Beatles.

[DevSop]

I'll say it.

The Beatles fucking suck.

[Sportsguy]

May 2, 2009 18:01:03 GMT -5 DevSop said:

I'll say it.

The Beatles fucking suck.

This has to be sarcasm, right?

[BC]

I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but they are heavily overrated. They were a new wave of music, similar to Nirvana in the 90's in that because they started it, they're revered.

George Harrison, while I like him better than the others, wasn;t an impressive guitar player. Paul McCartney was a good song writer, but also overrated since he was a Beatle. Most of his work since has been mediocre to good at best. Ringo is Ringo.

John Lennon was a great songwriter and personality, no doubt. However his legacy is aided by the fact that he died before his time, much like Kurt Cobain. You never know how he would have turned out. (look at Michael Jackson if you want an example of a music legend going down in flames).

So I agree, the Beatles are heavily overrated.

[DevSop]

No, not even a little bit.

I think if we're talking about overrated bands, it should begin and end with the Beatles.

I like almost nothing about them. And I'd pick Helloween over them.

[BC]

Most overrated band of all time is not the Beatles though. It's the Rolling Stones. But that's a argument for another time.

[Sportsguy]

Wow, I mean I could see you MAYBE making a case to go see Queen or the Beasties instead of them, but to say you like nothing about them......REALLY? Agree to disagree I guess.

[BC]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Beatles' show. They had some great songs. But my vote is for the Beasties. They're more fun.

[Byrntrigan]

I'm purchasing a License to Ill.

[Lou]

May 2, 2009 18:10:11 GMT -5 BC said:

I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but they are heavily overrated. They were a new wave of music, similar to Nirvana in the 90's in that because they started it, they're revered.

They were not a new wave of music and they didn't start rock and roll. And make no mistake, that's what they were, a rock band. There first few albums were late 50s early 60s style rock and roll. They were just really good at it. Whether they were doing their own stuff or covers. They did quite a few covers early on, including some Motown. I love Smokey Robinson. But The Beatles cover of "You Really Got a Hold On Me" is amazing. And I like it better than Smokey's.

George Harrison, while I like him better than the others, wasn;t an impressive guitar player. Paul McCartney was a good song writer, but also overrated since he was a Beatle. Most of his work since has been mediocre to good at best. Ringo is Ringo.

George Harrison wasn't an "impressive" guitar player, if you're looking for a lot of blues solo stuff. But his guitar work was solid and his chord work helped make the style. Paul McCartney is the best pop writer of all time. It's not even close. His solo work or work with Wings may not quite hold up to his Beatles work, but it would be impossible to keep that pace. And he wrote some fantastic songs after The Beatles. "Band on the Run" is great and I think "Maybe I'm Amazed" is a great love song. Ringo is Ringo.

John Lennon was a great songwriter and personality, no doubt. However his legacy is aided by the fact that he died before his time, much like Kurt Cobain. You never know how he would have turned out. (look at Michael Jackson if you want an example of a music legend going down in flames).

John Lennon, sadly, did go before his time. But to compare his career to Cobain's is ridiculous. John had a 20 year career and 20 some odd albums to his credit. Great stuff all the way through it. Even at the end with "Watching The Wheels" and "Nobody Told Me." And to say that he might have turned into a looney toon podophile because another pop star did is crazy.

So I agree, the Beatles are heavily overrated.

Heavily overrated my ass. They are the greatest band in the history of recorded music, and the bang to hype ratio is just right. As a matter of fact with a couple of posts I've seen since this draft started, I might say they are underrated.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll just end it saying my vote is for The Beatles.

[Tommy]

May 2, 2009 21:09:28 GMT -5 Lou said:

May 2, 2009 18:10:11 GMT -5 BC said:

I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but they are heavily overrated. They were a new wave of music, similar to Nirvana in the 90's in that because they started it, they're revered.

They were not a new wave of music and they didn't start rock and roll. And make no mistake, that's what they were, a rock band. There first few albums were late 50s early 60s style rock and roll. They were just really good at it. Whether they were doing their own stuff or covers. They did quite a few covers early on, including some Motown. I love Smokey Robinson. But The Beatles cover of "You Really Got a Hold On Me" is amazing. And I like it better than Smokey's.




George Harrison wasn't an "impressive" guitar player, if you're looking for a lot of blues solo stuff. But his guitar work was solid and his chord work helped make the style. Paul McCartney is the best pop writer of all time. It's not even close. His solo work or work with Wings may not quite hold up to his Beatles work, but it would be impossible to keep that pace. And he wrote some fantastic songs after The Beatles. "Band on the Run" is great and I think "Maybe I'm Amazed" is a great love song. Ringo is Ringo.



John Lennon, sadly, did go before his time. But to compare his career to Cobain's is ridiculous. John had a 20 year career and 20 some odd albums to his credit. Great stuff all the way through it. Even at the end with "Watching The Wheels" and "Nobody Told Me." And to say that he might have turned into a looney toon podophile because another pop star did is crazy.

So I agree, the Beatles are heavily overrated.

Heavily overrated my ass. They are the greatest band in the history of recorded music, and the bang to hype ratio is just right. As a matter of fact with a couple of posts I've seen since this draft started, I might say they are underrated.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll just end it saying my vote is for The Beatles.

Big words from the guy who voted for Boston.

[DevSop]

May 2, 2009 21:09:28 GMT -5 Lou said:

May 2, 2009 18:10:11 GMT -5 BC said:

I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but they are heavily overrated. They were a new wave of music, similar to Nirvana in the 90's in that because they started it, they're revered.

They were not a new wave of music and they didn't start rock and roll. And make no mistake, that's what they were, a rock band. There first few albums were late 50s early 60s style rock and roll. They were just really good at it. Whether they were doing their own stuff or covers. They did quite a few covers early on, including some Motown. I love Smokey Robinson. But The Beatles cover of "You Really Got a Hold On Me" is amazing. And I like it better than Smokey's.





George Harrison wasn't an "impressive" guitar player, if you're looking for a lot of blues solo stuff. But his guitar work was solid and his chord work helped make the style. Paul McCartney is the best pop writer of all time. It's not even close. His solo work or work with Wings may not quite hold up to his Beatles work, but it would be impossible to keep that pace. And he wrote some fantastic songs after The Beatles. "Band on the Run" is great and I think "Maybe I'm Amazed" is a great love song. Ringo is Ringo.



John Lennon, sadly, did go before his time. But to compare his career to Cobain's is ridiculous. John had a 20 year career and 20 some odd albums to his credit. Great stuff all the way through it. Even at the end with "Watching The Wheels" and "Nobody Told Me." And to say that he might have turned into a looney toon podophile because another pop star did is crazy.

So I agree, the Beatles are heavily overrated.

Heavily overrated my ass. They are the greatest band in the history of recorded music, and the bang to hype ratio is just right. As a matter of fact with a couple of posts I've seen since this draft started, I might say they are underrated.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll just end it saying my vote is for The Beatles.

Lou, I appreciate the time and effort you took to post this. It doesn't change the simple fact that The Beatles suck and The Monkees were better.

[Lou]

Shut up, you. I like Boston.

[Jack Quinn]

May 2, 2009 21:15:08 GMT -5 DevSop said:

Lou, I appreciate the time and effort you took to post this. It doesn't change the simple fact that The Beatles suck and The Monkees were better.

wow.

That's all I can say to this

Just......wow

[DevSop]

Okay, the Monkees was clearly a joke. But The Beatles do suck compared to the rep.

[Lou]

May 2, 2009 21:15:08 GMT -5 DevSop said:

Lou, I appreciate the time and effort you took to post this. It doesn't change the simple fact that The Beatles suck and The Monkees were better.

Nothing. I got nothing.

[Mikey]

Everything BC said.

[Batman]

Tough one, but... Beasties.

[DevSop]

Queen 1, Helloween 1


Because clearly Queen is equal to the worst band in the history of music.

[Jack Quinn]

you confused Helloween with The Cranberries