Iommic Pope wrote:Ok, duly noted.
But what if you feel complete antipathy towards most of the Beatles catalog, at best?
LOL despite my getting heated about The Beatles I don't really care if you like them at all
I only get annoyed when people who just discovered
Raw Power or something claim that The Beatles weren't important, never did anything original, etc.
Guess what? Chaucer and Shakespeare never did anything original. The whole Bible is just rewritten Sumerian and Babylonian myths.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal." Pablo Picasso
Plus it's bullshit to begin with... The Beatles invented, or at least popularized, a lot of stuff.
I hate making sweeping "Without
x, there'd be no
y and
z" statements, but even just George Martin's production wizardry alone, it would be all but literally impossible to calculate the influence on subsequent popular music.
ANYWAY
Honestly Pope I prefer The Who!
In fact one might claim 1965-1975 as The Decade of The Who
Or as Pete Townshend called it, "The Decayed of The Who" LOL
@Blackened Soul I think three great songs is a stretch but (I can hear a lot of Stones fans cracking their knuckles in the distance) they were way more of a singles band. If you have the two
Hot Rocks double albums, you've got the essential Stones. I don't think the same could be said for any Who compilation, say,
Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy, and definitely not for The Beatles'
1 (though those are great introductions).
LOL what were the three songs
@D.o.S. As always you are just wrong about Donovan. Donovan is up there with T. Rex as a tragically underrated classic rock artist. All members of The Beatles independently admitted that without Donovan's influence The White Album would have been substantially different. He was an A-list songwriter and arranger. He was just stuck in other musician's shadows for the peak of his career. I don't get your hate-on for this dude