Here Today... Gone To Hell!

 :smoking:? Well well well, now it's time to face this shocking TRUTH
... i know every artist has a price to be valued but why gnr has not been considered the way it meant to be????? :rant:? , ...axl, duff, slash n' adler did their best from the start, they kicked the world in the mind WHEN other rock stars didn?t before!? :no: ,?

Axl is the greatest singer EVER but some stupid persons still say that Paul sings better than Axl!? :hihi: , i also must tell other musicians like Matt n' Clark came to the band doin' all they could and they were goin' around the planet with gnr in 1991-1993 ...so if you?re a true gnr fan you gotta recognize that a deaf person can hear gnr has the best musicians the world has never had BEFORE! and that's the reason why it's gonna be me who'll put the Beatles over the place they had to be a LONG LONG TIME AGO, i mean into the trash-can!? ::)? !

... it?s time for us to bash?em cuz their fans say :? ?GNR was a real stupid band, their fans are real stoners who smoke their crack while they hear gnr?s stuff?? ?>:(? ?
...i know that true gnr fans will see that i'm fucking right to say this!  ;D

....so here y'all can read n' give ur own ideas about this scary situation that's been humiliating GNR after all this fucking time!

...n' please remember you're free to say all what you want cuz we shall accept that the Beatles made good songs but they didn't make real masterpieces like GNR did? ;D !,...we all must help gnr to make?em stay where they should be a long time ago I mean they should be recognized like the best Rock Band EVER!

...i don't wanna insult no one but it's up to us to Protect GNR forever n' ever!!!!!!!

-Peace !!!!!!!!!!!!? :peace:

Dude, I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about...

They are the best and alot of fans also think that. ?The problem is the media will never recongnize this because of the fact they only released 3 albums with 1ep album and they were only around for 6yrs. ?If this band woulda stuck thru another 2 albums without a doubt would they get way more recognition. ? But 6yrs 4albums just isnt gonna do it. ?Its sad but true. ? ? ? ? ?

GN'R > The Beatles?

The Beatles > Jesus -> GN'R > Jesus?

Is that what you're trying to say? ?:P




/jarmo



PS I'm joking, I don't really understand what the topic is about. Something about GN'R being bigger than The Beatles I guess.

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. Its not something that can even be even argued or debated. If you don't like their music, especially the music they made during the last half of there existence, then you just don't like music.

"Everyone has there opinion?" Bullshit. You don't like Beatles, you don't deserve the gift of hearing.

I can't wait for the next issue of The National Enquirer.? I hear there's a pic of Jarmo and Yoko Ono in bed singing "Give GNR a Chance"? :hihi:

buddy!, no one will never be like Axl n' Slash is the best guitar player so should we admit the Beatles gotta rule the world forever? ?:( ... GNR is amazing no matter if they did one album only but for so many reasons they're amazing more than the Beatles! ,you all know i'm right!!! ?:smoking: ?

So do you not have Beatles albums in Ven?

Well thats just crap. They are not the greatest band ever they are over rated IMO!!!!!  :rant:

 ::)? ok dude!, you tried to be funny but tell me why couldn't the Beatles made masterpieces like : Locomotive, don't cry or the Blues?

Yes. Do I have to repeat the question?  :P

the Beatles don't deserve to be loved too much cuz GNR did produce amazing songs like Sweet Child O'mine, Welcome to the Jungle, Madagascar, etc but the Beatles just have 2 or 3 good songs...so if they're "the greatest band ever" why they couldn't make a song like Estranged? I guees it's just cuz Paul was smoking crack too much that time to do it!  :hihi:

What is your favorite Beatles album? (or least favorite)

Dude ur just fuking stupid. ? Just ?STFU ? ?I not a beatles fan but where do u get off sayin they only have 2-3 goods. ?U dont know shit. ?Plz go

The Beatles(and Elvis) came along at a time when the world was going through a change. Rock n roll, the vietnam war, hippies, conflict, old vs. young, and all that. It was very different from GnR's time.

The Beatles(and Elvis) were extremely influential. I'm sorry that should have been EXTREMELY influential to other musicians, and just the average Joe. GnR was very, very influential to the same groups.

The Beatles(and Elvis) made many, many albums,  sold out stadiums world-wide, and were cultural icons the world over. GnR made a few albums, sold out stadiums world-wide, and were icons in their own right.

Now, don't get me wrong, GnR was and is still my favorite group ever. Axl, to me is the best frontman ever. Noone connects with me like GnR, but the world will always love the Beatles(and Elvis) more. You don't have to agree with this to make it true, it just is.

Fuck this thread. Beatles indeed..  :P

All I know is, Jarmo's equation made more sense than the original post!

I hate the fucking beatles.  Paul McCartney is he biggest puss.  To me, the Beatles were to the Stones like Nirvana was to Pearl Jam.  They got their album out a couple months before the Stones, but the Stones blow them away musically and lyrically.  As does Pearl Jam to Nirvana.  I hate Nirvana too by the way.  Beatles are Pop.  Stones were not Pop.  Period.  The Stones, The Who, Led Zep, and Guns all beat the Beatles in my opinion.

This is the stupidest thread i have ever fucking seen.  Many people think the beatles are the greatest band ever, so let them.  Personally i like some of their songs and think some are just fucking worthless but thats me. To each their own

the beatles were the first boyband ever , then they changed their sound because rock n roll was 'the thing' to do, they had good melodies but no sense of originality, and they sure as hell don't know how to kick ass ! Black Sabbath and Led Zep are the best bands in the world, sharing top honors. Face it, why do you think the Beatles were so jealous of the rolling stones ? because the RS knew how to kick ass and didn't sound fake like them, 'oh I introduced marijuana to mick jagger' said one beatle at one time.... so fuckin what? do you want an award? you still sound like a sissy singing for 14 year old girls.

GNR is in the same vein as the stones, led zep and sabbath, the beatles come closer to the backstreet boys. :hihi:

Fact. Mick Jagger sat in the studio when the Beatles had some recording sessions. He can be seen along with hundreds others during Hey Jude (its in the anthology). Let it Bleed-Let it Be...think.

If you don't dig the Beatles, then you don't appreciate the 60's music scene at all. The Beatles didn't follow any trends. They Lead it. Influencing the Stones heavily (again listen to what Mick says in the Antholgy), and even Hendrix (same source).

Confucious say: You want to know what the 60's were all about, listen to Beatles music.

They weren't flavor of the month boy band, and saying that is disrespectful. One day you will apreciate what Im saying.

I used to listen to the beatles until my ears bled....but then again I was 15.... and totally grew out of it.

Im not saying they are the worst band ever, but they do fall on the boyband category in my book.
 :P

 
Any hype between the 2 bands was totally press generated. Read any biographies of any members of the 2 bands and they all say the Stones and the Beatles were friends. In addition to the point made by Buddha, the first time John Lennon performed without the Beatles was on the Rolling Stones Rock N' Roll Circus video and if you check out the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, you will see that the doll in the front right of the picture is wearing a sweater that says "Welcome the Rolling Stones"

Probably even Axl likes at least 1 of the Beatles as he not only covered "Live and Let Die" but continues to play it in concerts all the time. (When there are concerts anyway)

This thread is about as pointless as somebody trying to defend the New Kids on the Block against the humiliation the Backstreet Boys have inflicted on them. I think it's pretty much okay to like both the Beatles and Gn'R (If you like NKOTB or BB feel free to get your head checked ::)Actually it's even more pointless considering the 2 bands existed like twenty years apart.

BTW Buddha, love the avatar, did you find a way to get the clock off the movie thats available online?

 :rofl: I'm slowly starting to become a fan of AxlRoseVen.

To me, the beatles were John Lennon, not Paul McCartney.  Paul McCartney is so focking lame these days.  It was Lennon that had the edge and is what made the Beatles good.  I would still take the stones any day over them. 

except that boybands don't make their own music, which is a huge difference in my opinion...

and boybands don't play their own instruments...

and boyband boys don't go on to become rock n' roll legends like lennon, or just musical geniouses like Paul Mc....

 : ok:

I think maybe some of you think the Beatles were just the mop tops who sang twist and shout and can't buy me love. They don't know from the Beatles that were from the late 60's that were on the front lines of the Hippie/Peace/Love/Drug movement, that spent months meditating in India, and created transcendant music that sounds absolutly timeless. They created psychedelic music that is as moving and zen today as it was then. The music the 4 of them made with Martin, were journeys and were layered meticulously. The production that went into the later albums, the industy is still playing catch up.

You don't appreciate that, then you are a right wing square. When you decide to open your mind, then really listen for once, and you just might appreciate the genius.

na-ah, I have everything. They're still over rated.
and I never said the stones didn't like the beatles-

Ven is a legend. :rofl:

I think I agree :yes:

Buddha Master everyone does have an opinion, yet the Beatles are amazing.

AxlRoseVen: GNR is the favorite band of the board (mine too), but the Beatles have way more than 2-3 good tunes and they are the greatest band ever. The Beatles are not overated. They released so many albums and had I think 27 number one hits, GN'R had 1. they're a great band. The Beatles had plenty of masterpieces too.

Wait till Nov. 29 (kidding) before you say GNR is better than the Beatles

I think they adopted the trends and adapted them to their very own sound, together with all the other things they were into at the time. That's why they evolved themselves. (heard this one before ? :P)

My favorite is the signature: "Should I fuck ya while your ass is dirty?" ... I mean wtflol ;D

:puke:
Geez Your taste is as good as MCT's.
I don't know about his other fav, the molester guy tho. I haven't seen such a member here. :headscratch:

Let It Be, Come Together, Get Back, Revolution 9, Strawberry Fields Forever, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, The Ballad of John and Yoko, Blackbird, Sgt.Peppers, Helter Skelter, Hey Jude.

Are the first few to come to mind, and I could go on naming for much longer if I wanted to. A band who have been loved by millions of critics and every day people alike for over 40 years are not going to be killed by a group of GnR fans. And not even the entire GnR fanbase just a few people who want to shove GnR down the rest of the world's throat. Don't get me wrong GnR are overrated on an international basis, definitely, but I don't see what a bunch of their fans trying to kill the Beatles off is going to do, it would actually probably make the problem even worse.

I sort of missed the guy too, as far as I know he posted something controversial in the Jungle and got banned/left afterwards. Don't know what it was about, but I suspect some form of molestation was involved :nervous:

Strange to say, I haven't ever seen or read any of his post but I think I already have a pretty good idea what he's like.
I wouldn't miss him.

Hey, we still have plenty!  :confused:

If there were no Beatles there wouldn't have been a GNR.  I love GNR but the Beatles have influence everything from country to rock to even rap.  Their scope is spectacular.  The 1 album was the #1 album in the world for awhile.  For a band that's been gone for nearly 40 years that's awesome to think about.  GNR couldn't do that and they've only been gone for 10+.

In response to a previous post about the Beatles being pop and the Stones not.  Uhhhh....the Stones were quite poppy in their early years.  The albums prove it.

yeah I know - that is so random? :hihi:

and the following of it with "I love you till the bitter end" or somesuch  :rofl: :rofl:

This thread amuses me.

The Beatles did many innovative things within the genre of rock music. GnR was for the most part a very good rock band. There wasn't anything GnR did that hadn't been done by the Stones, Queen, the Beatles, etc. years before them.

maybe i really just don't like the beatles because of Paul McCartney.  He is just such a puh c.  Unlike Mick or Keith.  Plus he was the ultimate ego maniac.  Satisfaction is not pop, that is rock.  Its talking about focking.  Mick is not saying, "I wanna hold your hand," he is saying I want to fock you.  Stones had some "pop" sounding songs, but the lyrics were always more sexual and dirty.  To me, the Stones are the greatest rock and roll band ever.  Look at Aerosmith, they wanted to be the Stones.  So did Izzy, Slash loves them.  Dizzy said the greatest album ever is Exile on Main St.  Axl sang their songs a lot.  Overall, rock bands dig the Stones much more then the Beatles.  AC/DC would have never exhisted either with out the Stones.  Garth Brooks has sold more albums then the Beatles, does that mean Garth Brooks is better then the beatles?  I didn't think so.  I like the Beatles, but they are not the greatest band ever for me.  I don't EVER put in their music to listen to.

ven is always on crack...
1) he copied this topic he posted in the nation like 3 months ago feat. the weirdiest poll i've ever seen
2)he states that axl is gay and that madagascar and the blues  is about an axl's gay relationship

he a fuckin funny-weird-WTF guy...

Did I just read this right? Paul is a pussy but Mick isn't? Mick the lips who prances around the stage in the most flamboyant costumes and tank top mid shirts to show off is belly...and dances around like he as a cock up his ass, and flipping his wrists gayer then gayest gay person. Richard Simons I think was quoated as calling Mick a faggot. And about Keith. You know Johnny Depp did a pretty fucking great impression of Keith In Pirates. I think Keith and Mick also know a lot about being Pirates. Mick certaintly. I think Mick was the original Captain Feathersword. But Paul is a pussy. The man who wrote Helter Skeltor, is a pussy. Paul never pranced around like he was some kind of Butterfly like Jagger. I can't even believe you just said that. Paul at least comes off as a regular guy that could kick back and be cool. If you have seen his interview with Stern, you would see that he is a cool dude without ego. Calling him an ego maniac is ignorant. All the selfless things he has done, damn get educated before saying stupid shit about someone you obviously know little about.

Good for you don't listen to them. It must suck to be you.

Exactly, good points man....

I love the Stones and all, but calling McCartney a pussy compared to Jagger is BS. Do these people even know that Jagger actually admitted to having had some gay interactions with certain men? There's an interview in which he admitted it (although he said nothing ever got too serious). Do they know that some of Keith Richard's girlfriends where absolutely confident that Jagger saw more in Keith than just a friend? I have no problem with gay people, but to paint a picture where McCartney is portrayed as some sort of tutu-wearing-queen, and Jagger as the ?bermacho is just plain BS.

-PEACE-

I'm shocked and appalled.

I'm a HUGE GnR fan...HUGE.  But the Beatles are the greatest band in history, and to deny that is to deny empirical evidence.  More #1 albums than any other band, more #1 singles than any other band, more albums in the top 10 than any other band, more albums sold than any band, more weeks in the top 100 than any other band.  They hold more RECORDS in the music industry than any other band.  The WERE the music of the 60's and 70's.  From mop top pop boy band to soulful rock band, they actually did what most bands only dream of: They EVOLVED.  And yet, some people posting here ONLY seem to remember "I wanna hold your hand" and "she loves me"?  WTF.  Have you even LISTENED to most of the Beatles catalog?  "The White Album"?  "Abbey Road"? "Sgt Peppers"?  Or are you railing against their greatness firmly on their reputation and the snippets you've seen on TV?

I can respect people saying they dislike the Beatles music.  That's a matter of personal taste (and realize that, simply by album sales alone, even today, your in the minority with that opinion).  But to say things like "the Beatles suck" or "Paul has no talent" just flies in the face of reality.  Paul is one of the most accomplished and talented musicians of his generation.  So was John.  They were hardly hacks.  And comparing their music to the music of today is comparing apples to oranges.  No, actually, apple seeds to jet airplanes....  They have nothing in common because they were produced during completely different times.  Most people complaining about the Beatles music in this thread, I would dare to venture, complain because the music doesn't sound like what they like to listen to today.  Well...no shit.  It was produced 30 - 40 years ago!

the Beatles are (and you can ask any person working in the industry today) the forerunner of every modern band today.  They innovated not just musically, but they WHOLE industry, itself.  To not recognize that, and their place in music history, is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject.  You may not like them, and their music, from a personal taste standpoint, but you have to respect them and give them their due.

i really cant see how the beatles are the greatest band ever.

Its boring, outdated and just not the type of rock i want.

Which means "you don't like them".? That's an opinion that can be respected.

Let me put it this way:

Lance Armstrong is, without question, the greatest Tour de France cyclist in history.? Why is it without question?? Becauase he's won more times than anyone.? This is fact.

Many french people dislike him immensely.? This is opinion.

the Beatles are the greatest band in music history BECAUSE they've done more, hold more records (the Guiness book kind), sold more records (the vinyl kind), had more #1's,  basically are "the best band" by every non-subjective metric used by the industry to measure success.? That is fact.

You don't like their music because it sounds "boring and outdated" (again, appleseeds to jet airplanes...you're obviously, as I suggested in my first post, comparing the Beatles music to modern music...when, in fact, their music predates modern music by 30-40 years).? That is opinion.

See where we're going?

My woman hates the Yankees. Fucking hates them. But she can't deny that they are the greatest franchise in Baseball, if not in all of professional sports, winning more titles and various other accomplishments. I used to think Mike Tyson was the greatest boxer ever, despite my dad telling me why Ali was and forever will be the greatest. I was way fucking ignorant. I embarrassed by many comments and arguments I made regarding that issue with my dad. Ali was the greatest. Time only makes that clearer. And time only proves the impact the Beatles made.

I don't remember there being Gunner mania. They were the biggest band in the world during those few short years, but they certaintly didnt create mass hysteria like the Beatles did. No band ever did. They have gotten new fans with every passing generation. Shit kids who are experimenting with weed and are looking for some cool shit to listen to, will soon enough discover what millions already have. Beatles have created albums that are second to no band, in being the best albums to trip and kick back to. Whatever the mood their is Beatles music for.

Pilferk  covered the $$$ issue difference between the Beatles and everyone else.

The Beatles also had several movies that have had wide release. Hard Days night and Yellow Submarine alone earned several awards. Damn Yellow Submarine is a trip for any fan of animation. That is some cool shit. Kids, Stoners, and animation fans, dig this to no end.

They had their own teleivision show. Their are several music stations world wide that are dedicated to the Beatles and nothing but the Beatles. Right where I am, I have 97.1 has their Breakfast with the Beatles, and Itunes music has 2 channels with nothing Beatles music.

Shit I will stop their. Let me know when another band has had a fraction of the success and accomplishments as the Beatles. And I can't recommend the Beatles Anthology enough, to any of you who don't get why the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. One day, you will all get it.

The lightbulb in your head will turn on and you will say, "Ok, I get it...damn, I am a dumbass."

basically your saying the beatles happened to be very sucessfull, this is only because at that time alot of people liked them and still do, doesnt mean there music is great.

Their music changed the world dude. McCartney/Lennon are arguably the greatest most prolific songwriters in rock history. Look how many albums they released in that decade, with each one being packed full of number one hits. The Beatles knew nothing of the word "Filler." They later dedicated themselves to their music completely retiring from concerts and tours. They decided to stay in the studio and perfect their craft, which they did. The music they made is undeniable. The music is that great.


Just want to add, that it is really strange that there is even debate about this. It would be like having a debate with someone over the shape of a Basketball. The ball is round. It just is.

Again, you're basing your statements on your subjective opinion.? You don't like their music, from 30 years ago, NOW, so it's not any good.? It's like saying Beethoven sucks because his music doesn't sound like Trans-Siberian Orchestra.... It's a matter of having a perspective of history.? Many young people lack that perspective...I know I did when I was younger.

And think about what you're saying.? "They were the single most successful band in history because their music sucked.? Millions of albums sold across generations of music fans because their music isn't any good.? Their albums sell like hotcakes, even today, because they didn't have more than a couple of good songs".? Does that really make a bit of sense to you.

The Beatles were not flashes in the pan, either.? They were releasing huge amounts of material for more than a decade.

We get that YOU don't like the Beatles music.? Again, personal taste and all that...but you still can't deny, by any objective measure, that they were the greatest band ever.? You just can't....not and make any semblance of sense.

I am so fucking tired of you AxlRoseVen, you make me sick...

You started the same fucking thread on the chinese democracy board and you got your animal-raping ass banned because your a fucking dumbass

Just cause I think Smoking gun is funny. Here's to you dude:



(http://tinypic.com/9s9u2a.jpg)




(And it is too hard to just pick one)

The thread in Chinese Democracy has last for about 2 months!!!! Hi Ven, I tougth that you had enough of this issue, but gess you can`t help your self! good to see you in this forum too! And Yes, you Know, i like GNR better than the Beatles ( Beatles were, for me, just an averege band, in my opinion, of course )!!!


Rock on  :peace:

Before Paul would play Live 8 he had to be the opening and closing act......WHY?? HEY JUDE WAS SO FOCKING LAME.? IT SHOULD HAVE JUST ENDED WITH PINK FLOYD.?

John lennon was the better writer and singer.? Paul McCartney just looks like a puss.? Ya, Mick does some queer sheot I guess, but he is a much better front man then Paul.? But I guess paul was never a front man.? I would take Let it Bleed any day over Let it Be.? Let it Bleed by the Stones is an incredible album.? Paul McCartney at the Superbowl was incredibly lame too.? What the fock is so great about the song "Get Back?"? What is brilliant about that?? Nothing!! I think Helter Skelter was written by Lennon, not McCartney.? Imagine, by John Lennon is his best song ever, but that wasn't the beatles now is it.? If you say the Beatles are the greatest band ever, then I say Elvis is better.? Elvis was even more influential.? To who you ask?.....................THE FOCKING BEATLES!!!!!

Mick kind of looks like Eddie Van Halen in the above pic.  What about Axl in spandex, that looked gay, though we all know he is not....

Now I love the Stones as much as the next guy (seen 'em 3 times in concert), but if you think Mick is the manliest of men, sometime when you're bored visit the friendly people at google and type David Bowie Mick Jagger



*I should probably note that Bowie's ex-wife did later retract her statement, saying that just because she found David and Mick in bed together naked doesn't mean they were having sex.

This thread is getting kinda funny.

Beatles certainly have an important place in the music history, denying it would be just stupid. Im no fan of them, I own no Beatles cd. I think Pink Floyd are much better musicians, I would put the Stones over Beatles anyday. I consider Beatles a pop band for the most part. I prefer Syd Barrett psycodelic music.
Being the first certainly helps and they certainly have more than 2 or 3 good songs like that pet AxlVen suggested.

Just some random thoughts  ;)

Note: Elvis is not a band..thus he can not be the greatest band of all time.

And I agree, I, too, think John was a better song writer and singer than Paul.? But Paul is no hack. And John was taken from us, so it's not like it's fair to compare the Paul of today with the John of yesteryears.? ?And the band contained BOTH people, remember. :)

As for "Get Back"...it's a very good song.  Read the lyrics sometime.  Put them in the historical context of Sgt Peppers and realize they were written 30 years ago, and not yesterday. (Yesterday....all my troubles seemed so far away....another classic).

This thread makes me want to vomit.


The history of Rock N Roll dates back to one song and only one song...Helter Skelter. A Paul McCartney work.

Rolling Stones suck. Period. End of story.
Pink Floyd sucks. Period. End of story.
Guns N' Roses rocks.
Beatles were better.
Guns N' Roses is my favorite band.
Beatles were not all pop.
Anyone who doesnt agree is a complete and total moron, and your opinion is wrong.






Idiots.

You sound real smart here, "anyone who doesnt agree is a complete and total moron." I dont agree. Im not a moron. I actually agree with most of it but its still just your opinion not a fact like you seem to say it is. The only thing id change would be

the rolling stones were ok, not sucky
pink floyd rocks, not sucks

 ;D? yeah i can honestly say that The Beatles got fame when this stupid world had nothing to see on TV in 1962!? ::) , that's it!...but you gotta recognize something :? led zep and sabbath didn't have a singer like Axl, they didn't have a guitar player like Slash so that point makes a great difference between them!!!! as well GNR wrote songs about street violence, they wrote songs about sexual traumas, wrote songs about addictions n' they did speak shit about governors incluiding American governors too

they all played like LORDS when they were in the studio even when they got on stage too so i don't find another rock band that speciall like'em to date!...if you think up no one will sing like Axl cuz the guy is one in a million really!!!! he was born blessed by GOD so this world won't have another singer like him ONCE AGAIN!!!? :smoking:,? can y'all figure out Paul singin'? "Locomotive"?? :rofl:

Ven, you're fucking nuts, Jimmy Page wipes the floor with Slash.  Robert Plant and Ozzy are no slouches either.  How can you say the bands that influenced GNR and Axl suck, that would by default make GNR suck.  You make no sense.

I will say that Slash in his prime vs. Page in his prime would be great.  Slash is a much more technical player then Page.  Page is very sloppy, even on his albums.  But, Page had great vision and production abilities.  He is a great riff writer.  But so is Slash.  They are two of my favorites, along with Angus, Jimmi, and Zakk.

Page is a fucking legend - Slash is the natural successor to Page, so to discredit Page is to do the same to Slash

AxlRoseVen, your posts are hilarious? :beer:

Page and Iommi both own Slash... there's just no comparison.

And Plant and Ozzy are great as well, although I do think Axl is the greatest frontman ever :P

I think Coma can hang right up there with any Led Zepplin.  Page is too old now to play like he used to.  He is about 30% of his former self.  Slash is top 5 all time!!!! 

Hendrix
Slash
Page
Beck
Clapton
Eddie Van Halen
Stevie Ray Vaughn

That's my top 7, with Slash being my favorite.

His work on contraband is not top 5. He is not the same man. Not the same guitarist, like Page he has lost his edge....

Unlike Iommi... just check out FUSED, his work on fused just buries slash on contraband, and Iommi is like 20 years older than Slash.

LOL, yeah right, thanks for the laugh. I like music just fine and have exceptional hearing and I have never, nor will ever , like The beatles. To me their music is just reminiscent of nonsensical quirky brit pop dressed up in some pathetic attempt to be rebellious or dangerous/profound (LSD, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds etc..). Just look at their solo efforts, Paul Mc Cartney and the cringe inducing "Wings" with the oh so terrible "mull of Kintyre" (spelling?). I would propose that the only reason they broke America was that they offered a  remedy to the depression that hung over the States after the assassination of JFK. They're sugar coated meaningless lyrics (before they got "dark" and profound") offered a reprieve from what I can only imagine was a very traumatic experience for every American.
Greatest Ever, no way, not by a long shot. GNR, greatest ever, no, a flawed band also but one I listen to almost religiously and the only band I have ever heard that I never tire of, so if that is the metric for the "Greatest Ever" than it is GNR for me.

You're talking just guitar players, right?  No Steve Vai?  No Joe Satriani?  No Carlos Santana? 

 ::)

Once again...you don't like them.  That doesn't mean they aren't the greatest ever.  Your opinion of their music (which is all you cite, above) has no bearing on things, whatsoever.

People seem to be confusing "My favorite band" with "greatest band ever".  One is completely subjective and based on your opinion.  One can be measured objectively.  And neither has anything to do with the other.

the Beatles are the greatest band ever. Period. Ask anyone with any serious knowledge of music history.  It's not even like any of the "experts" on the subjects even disagree.... You might not like them, you might hate to listen to them, their music might make you want to jump from a 25th story window.  Doesn't matter.  They're still the greatest.  See earlier "Lance Armstrong" anecdote to understand why.  Someday, maybe, a band will come along that will eclipse their records (NOT the vinyl kind).  But, until that happens...it's a no brainer.

The Beatles got famous cos there was nothin to watch in '62? Well, how come Beatles albums still sell in droves today? How come there are people, including myself, who weren't even born in '62 (not even close) still love and admire the Beatles now? How come even a Beatle's name can sell something, hell last time Paul McCartney played near me tickets were 100 euro, and it sold out in a day? You are talking complete bullshit.

The Beatles are overhyped, but they're still one of the top 5 bands of the 60's. GnR is maybe in the top 10 of the 80's, but really, the competition is much stronger in the 80's. A huge factor for the Beatles was the lack of competition. They also got better near the end of their careers, which is rare for rock stars, so that won them over with many critics. Of course, popularity means nothing. Historically, they were influential, but bands like King Crimson were more creative.

It's a silly argument anyway. Rock and metal didn't really pick up until the early 70's anyway. The Beatles get credit for a little innovation, but they were technically lacking.

80's? Competition? For Guns N' Roses???

Maynard James Keenan
Axl Rose
Dimebag (Yes, he was the main man in Pantera)
Robert Plant!

Love them all!

And when I say that GN'R has fans who are like Britney Spears fans, people think I'm crazy and starts to say shit about me...

Dude, fuck off, go home and start to listen to bands like beatles, the who, jimi hendrix, aerosmith, pink floyd, judas priest, cream, janis joplin, elvis presley, queen, AC/DC, led zeppelin, free, bad company.......then you'll know the difference between GN'R and those bands...you'll see the difference between AXL and other vocalists like Freddie Mercury, Steven Tyler, Rob Halford and Paul Rogders!! And I just named a few!!!

I just hate this kind of people!!

How can you even compare these to Guns N' Roses? As far as I'm concerned the 80's were a lost decade for music. Nirvana (like them or not) were real competition for Guns.

And to say The Beatles had no competition, please... the best bands in history (after them) were almost all in the 60's, and inspired by them.

That's right Pilfrek,

First of all, in the early version of Santan, Carlos wasn't even the best in his band.  That my friend would be Neal Scholn.  As for Steve Vai....who was tought by Joe Satriani, is incredible, but not a trendsetter.  He just took what Eddie did and ran with it.  What legendary songs has Vai played on?  Wasn't whitesnake and DLR band his pinnacle?  Shredders for me are cool and neat, but don't equate to a hill of beans if they can't write a good tune or really rock.

That's why I asked if you were just talking guitar PLAYERS...meaning not song writers.  Vai, Santana, and Satriani are among the most technically gifted players on the planet..right along with Clapton, Hendrix,  (who, admittedly, is no longer on the planet), and Van Halen.  And while Neal WAS the man, early on in Santana, Carlos, today, has eclipsed him..and most other players.  And for Vai and Satriani's "playing on legendary songs"...well, they're not exactly main stream artists.  They're virtuoso's...it's a completely different type of music.  Certainly not the stuff you're going to hear on the radio.

I got to see Vai, Satriani and Malmsteen once.  It was an awsome display of technical ability, and some good music to boot.

I agree with what you are saying pilferk.  I guess I like slash because he is all I would ever want to be as a guitar player.  There are so many guys that are shedder knock offs, its sick.  I consider a Virtuoso a person that can play pretty much everything.  Zakk Wylde.....Virtuoso.  Buckethead, Virtuoso..  Some may disagree, but I think Slash is a Virtuoso in denial.  Can he tap?????  Well yes, but in interviews said he won't in public.  Duff said sometimes during practice/rehersals, that Slash can play really, really fast.  I just like the fact that Slash plays for the song usually.  Honestly, I don't even really like Clapton that much.  I find him boring.  I just don't think Slash gets enough credit.  He is the pefect blend of many of the classic guitarists (Beck, Page, Mick Taylor).  He also arguably had the best tone of any of them.  Which is important.  Just listen to the Sweet Child Solo carefully, that right there puts him up there with any virtuoso in my book.

How i can compare them?
well....
Tool makes great music.
Pantera made great music.
Led Zeppelin made great music.
Guns N Roses made great music, and hopfully makes it too.

tool is the most boring band ever.

ehhh! You dont know what your talking about...

what the fuck????????  :o :rant:  :no: ...I can't believe what you said!!!! the point is they could influenced GNR but that should mean Jimmy Page wipes the floor with Slash? should that mean Plant sings better than Axl? buddy the only one who makes no sense about this is YOU!!!!  :hihi: c'mon it's time to admit it for once :

1)No one will never sing like Axl cuz no one will have a' amazing voice like his!!!!
2) there won't be a rock band that will write n' produce songs like GNR( Example : Locomotive, Madagascar, the Blues, Don't cry, Chinese Democracy, Estranged, and so on!!!!!!!!!!! )
3) there won't be a singer to performance on stage like Axl 
4) can ya really tell me who plays "solos" like Slash? you know you won't cuz he's the best guitar player EVER!  :hihi:

so... please watch your mouth before sayin' Ozzy or somebody else is amazing like Axl  ::)

Honestly this board proves js how ignorant fanatical fans can be. GnR fans and Beatles fans. Proclaiming someone who came to the table first as "The Greatest" is foolish, The Beatles are amazing, and easily in the top ten. But we give them too much credit, they were probably the most influential band ever, But thats because they got the first crack at it. Honestly with the massive influence given off by Elvis someone was going to eventually. Its all a matter of taste, some ppl like them and some despise them,for anyone to say if u dont like this then u dont like music is absurd. Noone should be forced into liking anything because everyone else likes it. Britney Spears sold over 40 million albums, but I personally think her "music" is absolute shit. And some people feel that way about the Beatles.


Im not quite sure what the point of this thread was, but I felt I should comment on the absurdity of peoples arguments, cause I always thought GnR fans were the most ignorant. But I was wrong.

By the way, Im a huge GnR fan, and I love and respect much of the work that the Beatles have done as well, and I also have massive respect for what they've given to music.  :peace:

who do ya think u're?...GOD? if you waste your fucking money buyin' ?Beatles album so that's ur own problem n' not mine! ?::) ?i don't believe you when you said "to see Paul close to you tickets were 100 euro" cuz no one will be so fucking stupid to waste money this way! so please try to say another kind of lie the next time!!!! ?:hihi:

n' please answer this if you think the Beatles were so fucking amazing like you said! : if they'll be LORDS forever so why they couldn't sell out shows around the world like GNR? why didn't they make a tour like GNR if they could sell out all their tickets in a day simply? where were all their fans those times then? ?::) did they just have fans in England n' New York city?  :rofl:

...GNR played in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, around Europe while the Beatles just used to play in England, New York City, Washington, L.A, Toronto,...well i guess you hit the floor right now dude, how does it feel to open up ur eyes after all this time then? ?;D

The Beatles are tops.

I'd bet my last buck that any of the guys (past or present) in GnR would give it up for the Beatles as the top dog. Simple as that.

Slash said that he felt the UYI albums were "like the Beatles White album, but not nearly as good."

Slash was simply stating that the Illusions albums were very diverse and came from all over the place, like the white album.  Also, during the interview, didn't their old manager talk about how the realease of UY1 and II was the biggest thing to hit music since the beatles?  Slash thinks the Stones and Aerosmith are the greatest.

He said "Not as good as the white album".

1) Take that literally

and

2) Read between the lines to see that he made sure to give the Beatles their due respect.

Personally I feel (This whole thread is stupid anyway really, since taste is all relative[) the Beatles created much more than GnR did. Just on quantity alone, they were eclectic and all over the place. Compare My Life to The Walrus..I mean, c'mon man.

Your post makes me want to vomit... how dare you say Pink Floyd sucks u pet!

wuagh!

stop trying to use quotes for your own benefit, you forget people on this board know gnr stuff as good as you or even better.

he said "MAYBE not as good as the white album." which means its open to interpretation to say whether UYI's are better, equal or worst than the white album.

(Sigh)

Once again, subjective opinion is irrelevant on labeling any band "The Greatest", because "Greatest" does not equal "Favorite".  What's absurd is that people are still walking that path...

From every possible objective measure, they are "The Greatest".  I don't understand why people rail so hard against the notion.  Every expert on music history labels them "The Greatest"...it's not like anyone with any sort of knowledge on the subject even disagrees.... so, what's ignorant is those that come here and say it isn't so, when, demonstrably, it is.  The sky is blue.  Water is wet.  The sun comes up every morning.  And the Beatles are the Greatest Band, so far, in history.

I'm not the biggest Beatles fan.  I enjoy their music, yes.  I own their albums, yes.  But, in the grand scheme of things, I listen to lots of other bands LOTS more.  So poo pooing my arguments simply because you want to set them up as coming from a biased fan is a fallacy and a straw man to boot.  Facts are facts.  Sales numbers are sales numbers.  Attendance numbers are attendance numbers.  #1's are #1's.  Top 40 albums are top 40 albums.  Objective measures are objective measures.

I simply state what the facts support: the Beatles are the greatest band in history, by every objective mark. Period.  To say otherwise is to argue against established facts.  Say you don't like their music, fine.  Say they're not your favorite band, fine.  Say you think they were a bunch of mop topped boy banders, fine.  All valid opinions.  All having nothing to do with being "The Greatest"...

You're absolutely right. As a matter of fact, I provided Ven with these two links the other day at newgnr.com (that's where this sad excuse for a thread first appeared):

Slash:
"But I'm not gonna walk around with my nose in the air thinking I'm hot shit, because if you think about it rock bands on the whole - with the exception of the Beatles and Elvis - are pretty insignificant.
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=1

Duff:
"There were a lot of records around in my house -the James Gang, The Beatles-so I didn't have to go out and buy them.
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=124

Ven however said that the articles were just made up by the people on this forum and? qualified them as being "false words". Damn you Jarmo for playing this dirty game with us!!! ::)

-PEACE-

PS. just wanted to see how mr. literary Impotence feels  now about these services provided by this board and it's people. Especially now it seems the board is good enough, for him to spread his BS on.

Thank you for displaying an appaling lack of knowledge of the Beatles, history (not just music, but all history), and of Paul's recent concerts.

1)? He's not lying.? 100euros for decent seats would be spot on accurate, since that equates to about 130 to 140 US dollars.? And that was at the Box office.? Scalpers wanted, last time Paul was here (my Mother went),  between 2 and 5 times that.

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

3) Once the Beatles had "made it", every show was a sellout.? Most sold out within the first couple of days, if not the first day.? Remember, no ticketmaster back then...

I think that'll do for starters.

the countries you just named are just  the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

The Beatles weren't touring when GN'R was.  ::)

Hell, GN'R has even played countries that doesn't exist anymore!


Several big acts have played places in Sweden nobody would even imagine was possible today, but in the 60s it was not only possible it happened.

It was a different world back when The Beatles were around, in many ways.


/jarmo

They aren't "the greatest ever" and I don't need to see any anecdotes to aid my comprehension of that statement. Later you cite "empirical evidence" that demonstrates their "greatness", I assume you mean record sales and such. Well a certain Irish boyband has either broken or matched their records for #1's in the UK, empirically speaking that would at least put them on a par with the beatles subjectively speaking thats nonsense. There is no, in my opinion, metric or definition of the "greatest ever" it simply cannot be defined. Garth Brooks is 4th highest seller at 105 million(US), The Beatles at 168 million, is Garth Brooks the "4th greatest ever"? Music, art, movies are in my opinions mediums that cannot be objectively analysed by "experts" they are by their very nature subjective.
Are Vivaldi, Beethoven,Tchaikovsky, Mozart better than the beatles, they are all composers? are they the greatest ever, will we still be listening to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" in 200 years?? as we are with many of the aforementioned composers' work?
I'm in my early 20's and a person that knows alot of people, several of whom and one in particular, I would cite as music aficionados. One I know has hundreds of CD's and The Beatles are a non entity to him as they are to my other friends. Many believe Julius Caesar was "the greatest ever" military mind,others would say Rommel, still others would say Alexander the Great, who is to say any is the greatest, I don't believe it can be defined and I think thats the biggest "no brainer" of all.
You are free to hold your own beliefs based either on "facts" (as you see them) or you own inclination, I will chose not to.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?  Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

The "greatest ever" is not a subjective assertion. It's just not, by it's very nature.? Subjective is "my favorite".? It HAS to be based on empirical, objective numbers.? Otherwise, it's just an opinion, and...opinions are like assholes.? It really isn't any more complicated than that, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Not one thing you say in your statement has a whit to do with "the greatest ever".? You're using anecodotal evidence.? It means exactly nothing, in the context of the discussion (so what if your friend doesn't like the Beatles? and what credentials does he have that could possibly make his opinion worthwhile or educated enough to matter?).? You're stating your opinion on what YOU want "the greatest ever" to mean, trying to redefine the term to be subjective.? Can't do it.? The greatest is the greatest because the achievments that MADE them the greatest are measurably better than others which they could be compared to.? What you're defining is "favorite" band.? That's a completely different animal.? I could understand the debate if there were actually a BAND (fyi, on the Garth Brooks front....last time I checked, like Elvis, he was not a band, not that your statements on him had any relevance anyway) that had put together a resume', from top to bottom, that remotely touched the Beatles overall accomplishments....but there just ain't.

Greatest ever. Period.

Any objective analysis of greatest band ever should include four categories-sales, influence, musicianship/songwriting skills, and critical acclaim. There is no band in history that can match the Beatles overall in those 4 categories because they would rate very very high in each one. Take for example Zepellin-not as many sales, not as much critical acclaim, not as much or maybe close in influence and musicianship. Seriously, you can't find any great band or artist that can match them in all four categories. Even Dylan or Hendrix or Miles Davis who would match in everything but sales. Hannibal, being in your early twenties hardly gives you the wisdom and knowledge to comment on anything. That is actually the time in your life where you THINK you know everything BUT REALLY KNOW NOTHING. Of course, 20 years later you find out what an idiot you were back then. You do have some points but for the most part you are just saying everything is subjective-which is rubbish. : ok:

This is the only post I find very interesting in this thread, the rest is just arguing who's better who's worst, who was first, that's not clever statements for people that really enjoy music, if you enjoy music you like both bands that's it, end of discussion!

I understand you man, but I could never compare, the beatles with GUns n Roses, they are reallyt different to me, anyway the beatles did a great job too, even when I like more the Gnr Songs, Nevertheless, its just a matter of opinion.

             @;----,----.------,-------------

I hope you don't aspire to be a writer...

Did you mention that Jerry Hall found mick in bed with David Bowie one morning? They never denied it either.

I have never laughed at a post like this before... along with the next one....

And then along with this. You guys are cracking me up. I was gasping for breath reading these.

You guys hit the nail on the fucking head. To deny the Beatles as the greatest band ever, is to deny the fact they were so successful WITHOUT TOURING AFTER 1965.

You are a clinical idiot. Page wiped the floor with Slash. And Slash is another of my fav guitarists next to Jimmy. Page was sloppy on Zeppelin's albums. You don't compose music or play do you. Page was a sessionist before the Yardbirds. Wonder why you dipshit?

Look at Slash's hand gentures when he says that. You don't need a degree in psychology to read his hands movements as he pushed aside the "white album" into its own "area".

Physical Graffiti is the only double album to come close to the White Album, in greatness.

"England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines" : buddy that's what you call a world-wide tour made by the stupid Beatles then?? ?:rofl:
... for you information GNR did play around the fucking globe n' they did sell out all their shows completely so USA , Canada n' UK just were countries where GNR started to be famous in the begining in 1987 but? ?:hihi: later they kicked the beatles in their fucking ass when they sold out 3 shows in :
-Mexico City, Guadalajara City n' Monterrey City in 1992
-They've played many times in Brazil even in 2001
- They sold out all their tickets in Caracas City-Venezuela on November 25-1992
-They played 2 times in Argentina 1992-1993
-They made a' amazing show in Santiago de Chile City-Chile in 1992
-Although they sold out many shows in Australia, Europe n' Japan around 1991-1993 so tell me did the Beatle make the same? n' this is for you Jarmo you're right somehow! but you also know that the Beatles never played in South America even they couldn't sell out stadiums where GNR did,...anyway Paul just played in Brazil for the first time in 1991 n' he's not over there since then? ::) ... so it's time to admit that the Beatles was a stupid band that the show businesses MADE UP in 1961 when most people had nothing to see n' hear on tv, even Elvis Presley is better than them cuz the guy did have something to say n' show in USA when most people were so fucking sick of this life!!!!

oh really?? ::) why Paul hasn't played in South America to date then? he played in Brazil in 1992 n' the guy's been so far away from there since then! but when GNR said they were able to play at rock in rio in 2001 so everyone couldn't wait to buy the tickets, we all couldn't wait to see GNR there again! so i guess this world's not so fucking different these times Jarmo!
-Peace? :peace:

AxlRoseven:
Paul won't play in south america because idiots like you make Paris Hilton look like Stephen Hawking. And he'd rather play to people who know what planet we live on.

You obviously don't know a thing about the Beatles. They are the top selling act of all time. Surpassing Zeppelin (2) and the Stones (3).

What you don't get is that, these statistics factored in tour intake also. Zeppelin was the biggest touring band ever so far. Beating the stones still. 
The Beatles stopped touring after 1 1/2-2 years into thier career. They went for five years until they broke up, on Album and merchendise (other) sales alone to accomplish this.

You are a fucking moron. Stop posting. You make us real Gn'R fans seem like a bunch of dipshits when you say you love Gn'R so much.

Wow... I've seen a lot of stupidity here before but to compare touring the world in the 90's and in the 60's brings it to a whole new level.

In a hundred years, the Beatles will be loved and appreciate beyond measure along with Hendrix and Zepplin. Their music is timeless. I obviously have a deep love for GN'R but, the fact remains that even Appetite, sounds dated by todays standards. Maybe a lot of it is the work from Martin. Their music that they created from Rubber Soul on was so layered and intricate that it never sounds dated. You can discover new things musically with these albums for years on end. Its cool if you don't like it for whatever misconceptions of them you have. But for painting them with  any form of negative slant makes you sound like a fucking moron. A douche, a fucking child, a pussy, a dickhead, a tool, a hopeless town retard, rainman, a mommas boy, a 40 year old virgin, Oz Schillinger's loverboy, an Adler, a dumbshit, twat, and a cuntie cock sucker. Really dudes, do not procreate. If you aren't going to recognize and appreciate the Beatles, then you are of a strain that needs to die off as you will only get in the way of human survival. This race doesn't need you.

I'm not talking about fuckin somalia, they could've played Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico without a problem.

Do a little historical research.  Just a bit. 

There was little to no way they could play, in any sort of effective way, between '63 and 66, Argentina, Costa Rica, or Mexico.    Argentina was unstable, politically, during that time frame, with the government changing hands between the military and the civillians on a seemingly weekly basis (Peron was exiled in '55 and stability didn't really return until he returned in the early 70's). 

Costa Rica, at that time, was not exactly the safest country to be in.  Panama (it's neighbor) was going through untoward political upheavel (culminating in a military coup in '68).  Nicaragua, it's other neighbor, was also a hotbed of violence

And perhaps you've heard of "The Bay of Pigs" in '61 and "The Cuban Missle Crisis" in '62?   Both contributed to make Mexico (and much of Central America), given world events, less attractive and possibly less safe for any sort of event.  In addition, with the PRI in power, while Mexico had great economic growth, overall, the economy was VERY unstable. 

As I said in my initial post...it's not just BEATLES history people are forgetting, it's HISTORY, in general, and the events of the time that would be limiting factors.

Ven,
? ?You make absolutely no sense in the above post.? You said the Beatles only played in the US, Canada, and the UK.? I showed that to be incorrect.? They played around the globe, in as many areas of the world as would be prudent or possible given the era they were playing in and world events.? GnR played in a different time, with many more options for venues.

And, if you look at my list, you'll see that, yes, the Beatles did play in Australia, Europe and Japan..and all their shows were sell outs.

Oh, and Paul is not the Beatles.? Paul is Paul.? And today is not the 1960's.?

 ::)

To quote from a favorite movie of mine:

"What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having heard it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. "

Sorry, couldn't resist.? ;D

pilferk, great posts. I have resisted posting in this thread, because it was pretty dumb to start with and some of the things being said were insane. You did a great job pointing out the way things really are, and I couldn't have done it better myself.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a band or artist that matches the Beatles in sales, critical acclaim, musicianship/songwriting skills, and influence.....still waiting....... ;) outside of Gnr of course because we all know the sun and moon and stars all align upon the first note of AFD... ::)

Actually, in 1987, to my 10 year old ears the sun, moon and stars did align upon the first note of AFD. It ignited my love affair with music. But to know a great band is it know and love it's influences. I eventually went back to find out about the Beatles, the Stones, Queen, the Sex Pistols, etc.

The Beatles made it ok in rock music to do something else outside of the blues bases I-IV-V song structure that most rock music had lifted from the blues, R&B and doo-wop music before it. If you can't hear how 'A Day In The Life' influenced songs like 'Estranged' (long, piano-based number with many parts, non-standard song structure) then you have to be deaf. Hell, the big ringing piano chord at the end of 'Estranged' is a total nod to the ending of 'A Day In The Life'.

But you know what? At the end of the day there is only two kinds of music: Good music and bad music. GnR and the Beatles are good music.  :peace:

Get off your high horse, I know my history.
I was born in Costa RIca, believe me, it's been safe since 1948. AS for Argentina and Mexico, they may have had their shit, but that doesnt mean the beatles couldn't go there. Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

BEATLES = BUNCH OF PANZIES, oh I'm so scared, there's a civil war there , I won't play, boofuckin hoo. Ill just play to screaming teenies who cry when I sing because they think about their 15 min long relationships with their pimplefaced shithead boyfriends.

This thread has really turned ridiculous. You refuse to understand that the world looked different back when The Beatles were still around. Maybe you'd like to see how many acts at the time played in Latin America at the time before going on and on about it?

Still to this day, many bands skip Latin America on their tours. Pearl Jam played their first ever show in Mexico in 2003 and they've been touring since 1990! They've never played south of Mexico.

Maybe The Beatles didn't tour there because the market wasn't big? Could that be the case?

GN'R never played in my hometown. Fucking pansies, what are they afraid of? They should play every shithole there is even if there's no market for a concert there. Right?

I don't even know why I'm replying since you seem to take the fact that bands didn't tour in Latin America in the 60s/70s personally.....  ::)


/jarmo

 ::)

Right, GnR was willing to play in practical war zones, with their safety unable to be gaurenteed, and risk their lives to bring the music to "the people". ?They were on the front lines of the Gulf War, singing "Welcome to the Jungle" outside Baghdad, right (Of course, confronted with a malfunctioning ear monitor...Axl screamed like a baby and headed for the hills)?. ?You keep right on believing that. ?It ain't true, but..whatever get's you through the night, big guy. ?The Beatles did what they could do in the era they were in. ?It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. ?GnR had MANY more opportunities, 20+ year later. ?If you can't grasp that concept, simple as it is, I think that speaks VOLUMES about whatever you might add to this discussion. ?Really....to compare touring in the two eras really is comparing appleseeds to jet airplanes.

And the Beatles weren't touring in the 70's. ?Early to Mid 60's. ?Again, with the history.

And if you REALLY knew your history, I wouldn't have to keep explaining to you WHY, during that time frame, the Beatles weren't touring Central America or other politically charged areas of the world. ?You'd have known already. ?You said there was no reason why they couldn't have toured those areas. ?You were incorrect. ?There WERE reasons. ?You might not like the reasons..but they exist all the same. ?Oh, and if you were born in Costa Rica, you know they have no army....and you SHOULD know that, in the 60's, the US AND the UK were advising all it's citizens to stay out of Central America. ?All of it. ?You SHOULD know this because it had a pretty profound effect on the Costa Rican economy, in particular.

Pssshhhhaaawwww. ?Get off MY high horse? How about you crack a book so I don't have to keep doing research FOR you, eh? ?

Err, what are you trying to prove by putting words in my mouth :-) Of course I know Costa Rica has no army, I never said the contrary :-) I don't care what the US and the UK were advising, they practically created all the mess, mostly the US though. It was still possible to tour there if you had a set of balls, regular balls, not even big ones. (and the beatles didn't have)

60's, 70's, shmellys, they were all fucked up, even the 80's. That don't change the fact that the beatles were pussies, how about all those bands who went to play for the US troops in vietnam ?  ;D

I don't take it personally, bands did play there, just not pussy bands like the beatles  ;D

Why would any band want to tour there?  There are only about 12 people in the entire region that can buy tickets. 

My vote goes to Woody for the biggest dumbass on the board!

As jarmo suggested in his post...like, fer instance, who?? During the early and mid 60's? Big acts from the US and/or UK?

You, sir, have proven you have not a whit of knowledge about what you speak.? And as such...I'm quite done with you.? Your original assertion was there was no reason the Beatles couldn't play places like Argentina, Costa Rica, and Mexico.? That has been proven summarily false.? Instead of accepting it, and moving on...you continue to rail away incoherently about who's a pussy and who's not.? Personally, I say...you are what you eat, so....

Please continue to rant maniacally about which bands are "pussies" (wtf does that have to do with anything, anyway?) and which are not.? Rant about who has bigger balls than who.? I will promptly ignore your inanity, henceforth.? You've proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are incapable of intelligent discourse, of adding anything meaningful to the discussion, in your failure to grasp the simplest of concepts: Then is not now.? Then is not the 90's.? Then was then.

it sure took you a while to try and sound intelligent, nice choice of words, " discourse, grasp (you used that one twice ) promptly, inanity, henceforth, etc." looks like you're trying to impress yourself. it's pathetic but quite amusing.
I stand by what I said, bands did tour Latinamerica during the 60's and 70's, and Costa Rica was definitely not a dangerous country to go to. Why didn't the Beatles tour there? money ? fear? who cares, in the end they didn't when they could have, and that's a fact.

Costa Rica? GN'R didn't even play there!

Here's some big bands from the 60s/70s, let us know which ones played in South America (I'm too lazy to look it up myself and since I'm bored, I might as well have some "fun" here):

The Rolling Stones
The Who
Jimi Hendrix
Led Zeppelin
Elvis Presley
The Beach Boys
The Monkees
The Doors
Bob Dylan

 ;D

So please enlighten us, which of those toured in South America? Thank you.



/jarmo

The Doors played in Mexico. (Yes, the original Doors with Jim Morrison)

Not that this would add anything to the "discussion", but I just felt like sharing that information.

True.  They played Mexico City in late '69.  From what I've heard about that show, they were actually invited to play by The Office of the President, supposedly at the urging of the President's son....not sure how true that is, of course, but it's the story that's followed that particular show around.

Turned ridiculous?  This thread has been ridiculous since post #1...

Holy shit! I just went through this topic and...well, I hope not too many people read it. It's embarassing for GN'R fans.

Not to add to this embarassement, but to clear up some things, here are some FACTS for the confused kids among you:

The Beatles developed / discovered some sort of "formula" in songwriting and appereance like no one did before them. It has worked ever since, they just happened to be the first. Also, they went through a progression, going from nice and easy pop music (wich was a lot better than the by then washed up Elvis or mindless "let's go to the drive-in" surf music) to more complex, artificial and elaborate stuff incl. lots of recording studio experiments. And they were among the first "pop" artists to that, opening the doors for many other artists by not relying on their "formula" but rather experiment and move on, takng the fans on a journey. So for many people (especially those who grew up with them) they are icons - just like GN'R (for the very same reasons: no Beatles = no Hendrix, no AFD = no Nevermind - because the ears needed to be opened first) are icons for us.

However, in that era, there have been many artists that were more skilled songwriters, instrumentalists and producers and even more daring and progressive than The Beatles. Some recommended listening: Bob Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" (bringing poetry and folk music to rock and vice versa), Hendrix' "Electric Ladyland" (in case you wonder: the greatest album ever was made in 1968) and "Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys (brillant concept album and production masterpiece) - all from the same time, and these albums blow any Beatles album out of the fucken water. So much for the 60's.

(I for one don't like The Beatles. I think John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" and "Imagine" outshine anything Paul McCartney or The Beatles ever did by a mile. But that's just me...)

Now what does all that have to do with GN'R? Absolutely nothing. Guns N' Roses had their roots in the 70's - Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones (Banquet to Exile era), AC/DC, Elton John, even Pink Floyd. (Does the name Bob Ezrin (sp.) ring any bell?) - And GN'R brought back some of that era's values, spirit and attitude along with an edge, vulnerability and sincerity into the 80's - a time when music and culture was dying for these things.

In the post war 1950's, people wanted to forget and move on and got music that made them forget and move on. In the 60's people wanted to progress - The Beatles, Hendrix, Dylan...? In the 70's the hangover from the 60's went up people's heads and their kids rebelled against it -> Floyd / Punk. The 80's and 90's most of you should have experienced yourself.

What I'm saying is do the math and do your homework before you post so much bullshit about bands and especially about interactions in music that you obviously have no clue about.

I'm sure the majority of the posters won't agree or even understand on what I just said, but for this post is for the few that do, so I don't care.

Yes it has!

I'm interested in hearing Woody's thoughts about the big concert market that South America was in the 60s/70s.....

Yes, I'm that bored and I can't believe some of the posts I've read in this thread....




/jarmo

you're so right, you do know how to kick in the ass cuz everyone doesn't wanna tell the truth about it but i will :

the most important countries of Latin America are :

-Venezuela
-Mexico
-Panama
-Colombia
-Puerto Rico(USA Area)
-Chile
-Argentina
-Brazil

...if you think about other countries in Latin America they've not been so rich like
us to buy tickets to see a' amazing band like GNR BUT they're great persons like us all !!!!? : ok:
...so these rich countries were fine in 1962 although most people know that Argentina, Panama n' Chile had Serious political problems some times, example : Argentina-1977, Chile-1973 n' Panama-1989 but should it mean the Beatles couldn't play over there BEFORE? :rant: ;D ? well the correct answer is : they didn't play over Latin America cuz those times they knew they just had fans in New york city, New York city, New York City, New York City n' U.K so that's what i call a real famous band? ::)? ...so that means the Beatles sucks more than ever cuz they have tried to be famous like GOD when a simple baby might notice their music ain't cost a thing from the start! if you buy their albums something so fucking wrong is happenin' into your mind dudes!

oh this is for someone who said Paul isn't the Beatles : dude step down for once, don't try to protect those fucking suckers cuz Paul is a' ex-Beatles member n' the guy is supposedly famous like GOD so why he couldn't play in South America yet? cuz over here no one is so fucking nuts to spend money buyin' his tickets? ::) ...got it?? :rofl:

I think I understood some of that, it is a htgth.com first!

Yeah! ???

The doors played Mexico as a result of the backlash due to the Miami trial. After Jim Allegedly flashed the audience. It was the only place to play until the heat died down. It was a last resort.
But you didn't know that did you?

sorry Jarmo, I can't resist.

AxlRoseVen, you have got to be the dumbest son of a bitch I have ever had the displeasure of encountering on this board. Your posts make about as much sense as a pornstar with morals. For the last time, shut the fuck up and find another place to post. I'd say, the Britney Spears message board. You will be pleased to know that there are other people with a second grade reading/writing level there also.

maybe they didnt want to tour there because everybody in south america smells like tacos.

hey electricmage what's wrong with you?...Folk!, you just hate me cuz you always sing "let it be" when you hide alone in your room but that's your problem n' not mine!? ::) if you can't stop bein' a Beatles fan so call your Dr soon but don't insult me this way again! cuz i'm not offending nobody in here
 ... now i'll open your eyes up once again to make you see why the Beatles shouldn't be the rock band number 1! :? ?:smoking:
-The Beatles are an overrated boyband from the 60's for 12 year old girls, who had a very cunning PR crew behind them with a lot of shit into their poor minds so those bunch of white boys from the suburbs who got chosen by the industry to make billions,that's it!
-? ?:peace:? I DON'T HATE GAYS CUZ WE'RE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, we're all sons of GOD, we're all must be respected but the beatle manager was a bussines gay who did know how to get millionaire contracts in UK n' USA , the Beatles were famous suddenly cuz their ex-manager was in love with Paul so the guy did his best to take these british boys out of England that time, that's the reason why they didn't have many problems to be rich n' famous those times when England was really living bad momemts,If you don't believe me yet let me tell ya : there's a Beatles movie that shows what i'm talkin' about!, i mean it shows the way their ex-manager was in love with Lennon n' Paul when he saw them for the first time while they were playin' in 1961 in Liverpool so this shit is just dumb and noone who knows about shit votes for the fucking beatles!, who the fuck even bought beatle song anyways!!!!!? ?::)? . noone because the beatles were shit and that's all axl rose is better than any of the bealtes cause he actaully knows about the music and what the fuck to sing. can the beatles sing?. no!, because they're crap just like crap. can Axl sing the Beatles songs? yes cuz he has a' amazing voice but could the Beatles sing n' play songs like Locomotovie, Coma n' don't cry? No!, because they ain't amazing like GNR
-Did gnr have to sleep with their manager to be famous like the Beatles? NO THEY DIDN'T! so that makes a great difference between these rock bands!
-so something ain't right with that, first off, someone can say : the beatkles were OK. not too bad, not particularly good. but better than GNR??? wtf are u thinkin??? john lennon was an overrated peace lovin' treehuggin turd. he couldn't write shit. ...'imagine'?? wtf is that all about john?? c'mon get a grip!!!? :hihi:? . r u ppl seriously belivin' that john lennon was a better song writter than axl??? omfg. that is weird.? ?:o? ?:yes:
-axl pulls off masterpieces like sweet child o'mine, november rain, estranged and these are just the slower ones with superb lyrical content!!!!!? ?;D 8) . when u take into account the faster, heavier songs like 'jungle and coma, 'city and mr. brownstone etc etc... it puts thing into perspective. after all.............
 :beer:? -so Peace, don't kill each other cuz this world is for us all n' please remember :? 'WHAT THE WORLD REALLY NEEDS IS GNR!!!!'? : ok:
 

How could nobody had locked this topic yet?

Acually dumbass, My mom was involved in the whole Beatlemania trip. She even kept a diary of Beatles clippings and such. She said there were as many guys into the Beatles as there were girls. the guys weren't that insane about it though. Get a fucking clue you asshole. Don't talk about perspective because you know nothing of the sort. Do you realize more people here are proving you wrong.

nobody can understand what the hell you are takling about. you don't write with any regard for correct grammar or sentence structure. Stop typing. You obviously are not up to par with correct writing.

Also, stop saying "n'", its really pissing me off. Just say and like every other intelligent/civilized person here.

I've made more sense after drinking a bottle of Makers Mark.

Good question. This thread has been an embarrasment since the beginning, and we're going in circles.