The Beatles or Motley?

afireinside

Which is better The Beatles or Motley Crue? Hippies vs Rockin' out?

Asphyxia

I'll have to say The Beatles

Catari Jaguar

Are you serious?? You couldn't have pitted the Beatles against a decent rock band?!

I much prefer rock and c**k rock personally. The Beatles are a bit blah. Except maybe Eleanor Rigby and Revolver which are kinda upbeat.

Motley Crue

cherub rock wrote: »

Are you serious?? You couldn't have pitted the Beatles against a decent rock band?!

*clears throat*

Brave words for someone who enjoys KISS;)

And I bet Phil Anselmo hasn't made any mistakes in his career either eh?;)

Ah no, I'm completely bias, but I enjoy both bands. Obviously these bands are widely different (of course there was some inspiration from the Beatles because, they were, the Beatles) but the styles and excess of the bands were completely different.

Is it wrong to wish your favourite band broke up, and then stayed that way for at least a prolonged period of time before launching a comeback tour?

And yes, I love KISS and Pantera equally too, funny enough the latter took a lot of inspiration from the former and some people might find that strange I guess.

I'm voting for Crue



Seen them at Sonisphere last year, probably the only time I will ever get to see them in my life, especially if Vince can't keep out of jail

JBnaglfar

I'd have to say the Beatles, although my knowledge of Crue is probably not as good as it should be. Rubber Soul and Revolver are brilliant albums, and John, Paul and George all had some great solo releases if that counts here.

Wooden Jesus

The Beatles!

Catari Jaguar

Motley Crue wrote: »

*clears throat*

Brave words for someone who enjoys KISS;)

And I bet Phil Anselmo hasn't made any mistakes in his career either eh?;)

Hahah! Nah, I love Motley Crue and LA Guns and Skid Row all that sleazy stuff... It's fun and awesome but it's useless extremely talented and challenging in fairness.

But I just think if it's a hippie vs rock thread, OP could have balanced it out by picking say, AC/DC or someone. Considering how the Beatles are seen worldwide as such inspiration (God knows why... )

It'll boil down to personal taste in styles because the genres are so different. It's like saying Crosby, Stills & Nash vs Black Sabbath. Both fantastic but imcomparable.

Yakult

Neither.

Both are great.

Rented Mule

As much as anyone, I do find the comparison ridiculous due the differnet genres and generations. In saying that, let's look at the sums of the equation:

John Lennon
Paul McCartney
George Harrison
Ringo Starr

With all dues respect to everyone in the Crue, they fail miserably in a head to head competition in solo careers.

hellyeah

the crue imo. never got the beatles and all the hype.
Strange comparision from the op.

Riddle101

I choose Motley Crue. I like both bands, but Motley Crue would be on my top 5 bands list while The Beatles would really just be a band that I like.

Anyway it's a strange comparisson, since both bands a very different and have different styles.

Fago!

I will get ripped out of it for saying this, but The Beatles (along with The Rolling Stones) are thee most overrated musical act in history.

Fair play to them, they were hot **** when they came out, and I respect them for it. I just think they aren't all they're cracked up to be.

slavetothegrind

crue, of course.

cherub i have the height of respect for you and thus i feel i must point out what must have been an uncharacteristic error in your reply above.

you appear to have used the word "useless" in the same sentance as skid row:eek:

now there are enough grammar nazi's on here but i feel you should clarify this statement in a positive way.

it is a known fact skid row rocked as i am sure you will agree.

fruvai

cherub rock wrote: »

Except maybe Eleanor Rigby and Revolver which are kinda upbeat.

Eleanor Rigby isn't upbeat

slavetothegrind

some nice tones there fruvai, i like that autowah pedal.

but....where's the DISTORTION?:D

Seth Brundle

fruvai wrote: »

Eleanor Rigby isn't upbeat

It can be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9XNoU3tHqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhRFFe28plo

Malice

slavetothegrind wrote: »

there are enough grammar nazi's on here

Nicely done although you should have used the word "grammer" then you'd have gotten bonus points .

slavetothegrind

i await your edited post with a smile:p!

mike65

Whats next - Sex Pistols or The Cars?

Motley Crue

mike65 wrote: »

Whats next - Sex Pistols or The Cars?

If you don't like the thread you don't have to comment:D

Sofaspud

mike65 wrote: »

Whats next - Sex Pistols or The Cars?

Elvis Presley or Spiderman?

slavetothegrind

oooh, presley ftw, spiderman movies=bad

chin_grin

Neither, they're both sh!te.

Malice

Motley Crue wrote: »

If you don't like the thread you don't have to comment:D

You do though. I'd hate for daft comparison threads to start to become acceptable. I'd have deleted it on the spot if I'd come across it earlier. It's difficult to compare the two given bands without having some common criteria.

I also really hate when someone starts up a thread looking for opinions and then doesn't give their own.

Fago! wrote:

I will get ripped out of it for saying this, but The Beatles (along with The Rolling Stones) are thee most overrated musical act in history.

Fair play to them, they were hot **** when they came out, and I respect them for it. I just think they aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Out of curiosity what makes you think they're overrated?

Catari Jaguar

fruvai wrote: »

Eleanor Rigby isn't upbeat

I just meant that it's faster, not as la la la dull....

formit0404

haha you're delusional. i can't believe that motley crue were even mentioned in the same sentence as the beatles - now thats f***ed

Motley Crue

formit0404 wrote: »

haha you're delusional. i can't believe that motley crue were even mentioned in the same sentence as the beatles - now thats f***ed

The Beatles inspired a lot of people, so did Motley Crue

They're both well known forerunners for their generation, the fact they're still touring with their founding line up 30 years after formation says it all

OK, things aren't as productive as they used to be, but this band are still representative of a movement, a generation and a style - exactly like the Beatles

slavetothegrind

also not one member of motley crue married yoko ono.

definitly a plus point.

Fago!

Malice wrote: »

Out of curiosity what makes you think they're overrated?

I just think they are. People are always on about how The Beatles are the best band ever, how they were the best musical act in history. They weren't the best at what they did like. There's tonnes of acts around today that are thousands of times better than them, but they aren't nearly as famous or appreciated. I like some of their songs and think they were a good band, but nowhere near as good as people make them out to be. Just like The Rolling Stones, Nirvana (although I am a fan) and U2. (U2 ---> :mad::mad::mad: )

Now Devildriver, there's a band for ye :pac:

slavetothegrind

hey cherub! respect for doing the right thing and i am flattered you say i am a peer.

fago the beatles deserve the respect in every way for their groundbreaking songwriting and amazing musicianship
i say this whilst not owning a single album.
you don't have to like it to appreciate it.

i also disagree you would find many bands today with a comparable level of achievement

but hey we all are entitled to our opinions thankfully:)

kona

Well Whats better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMfkVGCU_BA

Or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtzeCFYgjQg

Motley are Much better than the beatles. The beatles are for people who wear flowers in their hair and dress like their grandparents.

Crue is for people that have hairspray in their hair and dress like a cheap slut and enjoys everything in excess.

Fago!

slavetothegrind wrote: »

fago the beatles deserve the respect in every way for their groundbreaking songwriting and amazing musicianship
i say this whilst not owning a single album.
you don't have to like it to appreciate it.

i also disagree you would find many bands today with a comparable level of achievement

Amazing musician ship? At best they were average musicians. I get that they were kinda groundbreaking in songwriting or whatever, but they weren't groundbreaking musicians. Anyone can write that shit if they were whacked off their heads on LSD. If it wasn't for George martin they'd have got no-where (or at least not be as good or famous as they are now).

I like some of the Beatles songs, I respect that they were good and they were new. But I just don't understand the hype about them and in no way think they were even close to being the best band in history, that's all.
I think some bands of nowadays are well better than the Beatles. Oasis being one of them. Hugely underrated.

slavetothegrind wrote: »

but hey we all are entitled to our opinions thankfully:)

Yep indeedy. This is why we love boards. BTW I'm not sniping at you, just incase ya thought I was.

Catari Jaguar

kona wrote: »

Crue is for people that have hairspray in their hair and dress like a cheap slut and enjoys everything in excess.

Hahah, I love you. This is so true.

Riddle101

slavetothegrind wrote: »

also not one member of motley crue married yoko ono.

definitly a plus point.

no, but Nikki Sixx nailed Bruce Dickinson's wife .

Fago!

Riddle101 wrote: »

no, but Nikki Sixx nailed Bruce Dickinson's wife .

Did he?

(heh I said diddy)

Catari Jaguar

Riddle101 wrote: »

no, but Nikki Sixx nailed Bruce Dickinson's wife .

And Kat Von D

- a million points.

greendom

Where would music be if Nikki Sixx and co had been hanging around German night clubs in the early 60s? In a very different place, I imagine.

The Beatles of course.

greendom

Fago! wrote: »

I think some bands of nowadays are well better than the Beatles. Oasis being one of them. Hugely underrated.

This is a joke, surely ? Oasis were no more than a Beatles tribute band

Fago!

greendom wrote: »

This is a joke, surely ? Oasis were no more than a Beatles tribute band

They're actually quite different bands.

greendom

Fago! wrote: »

They're actually quite different bands.

Yes the Beatles were original and had a creative spark whereas Oasis were completely derivative.

kona

Oasis are a bunch of Buskers. Plus noel is a bigger wanker than a nympho on a life sentance.

Lilah? Go **** off , Crue would have put manners on them, even while wearing womens underwear and more make up than their mothers, just like Tommy Did with Kid Rock, Vince Did with Axl Rose and Nikki Did with Bret Michaels.

Oasis think they are rockstars? Ha.

kona

Fago! wrote: »

Did he?

(heh I said diddy)

She climbed in his hotel rooms window, rode him, left and didnt say a word. Nikki didnt know till he met her backstage before they supported maiden.

nyarlothothep

wow, the beatles original actually sounds more metal than crue, the guy singing just doesn't seem to have his heart in it, he sounds like a chipmunk compared to Pauls godlike wailings.

kona

nyarlothothep wrote: »

wow, the beatles original actually sounds more metal than crue, the guy singing just doesn't seem to have his heart in it, he sounds like a chipmunk compared to Pauls godlike wailings.

Thats great, but neither are metal.

sentient_6

This joke of a thread is giving me a pain in the head.

dasdog

Both should be ashamed
Beatles : White up some soul with an orchestra
Motley Crue: Just terrible

slavetothegrind

by jebus this thread grew some unlikely legs!!

just saw an interview with sixx about that incident with dickensons wife:eek:

poor fecker.

dickinson that is.

Pauleta

Motley Crue

TheoBoone

It's an interesting comparison. Normally you'll get the obligatory Beatles vs Rolling Stones comparison, or Beatles vs Elvis.....but this is the first time I've ever had occasion to ask myself, which band is better? The Beatles or Motley Crue?

Motley Crue are by far the more entertaining band to read about. The Dirt is one of the funniest books I've ever read, and The Heroin Diaries is pretty entertaining in parts. The only problem with reading about the members of Motley Crue is that you come to hate them(except for Nikki Sixx).

The Beatles on the other hand are kinda the founding fathers of modern rock music. They were part of a genereation of musicians who shaped the way popular music has developed. Without them, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, Elvis and The Rolling Stones, music would be a very different place.

I'm going to have to give it to the Beatles. For me personally, it just comes down to how f**king awesome George Harrisson was!!

Seth Brundle

TheoBoone wrote: »

The Beatles on the other hand are kinda the founding fathers of modern rock music. They were part of a genereation of musicians who shaped the way popular music has developed. Without them, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, Elvis and The Rolling Stones, music would be a very different place.

I'd agree. The beatles inspired more musicians IMO and have helped lead to where we are today.
I'm not quite sure how much of the music that I listen to has been influenced in any way by MC.

Malice

TheoBoone wrote: »

The Beatles on the other hand are kinda the founding fathers of modern rock music.

I'm glad someone finally posted this. Personally I'd swap out the word rock for the word pop but it's the same principle. A lot of harmonic ideas and chord progressions have been influenced directly or indirectly by stuff The Beatles did.