PDA

View Full Version : OK, so Co1 and Splinter have both been absolute commercial failures... now what?



ClamsHaveFeelingsToo
12-05-2004, 06:57 AM
Why, let's get together, record a couple of songs in the studio, get some producer to compile some of our singles and release it as a Greatest Hits album as a quick shot for a buck!

The inevitable playlist:
1. Come Out and Play
2. Self Esteem
3. Gotta Get Away
4. All I Want
5. Gone Away
6. I Choose
7. The Meaning of Life
8. Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)
9. Why Don't You Get a Job?
10. The Kids Aren't Alright
11. She's Got Issues
12. Original Prankster
13. Want You Bad
14. Million Miles Away
15. Defy You
16. Hit That
17. (Can't Get My) Head Around You
18. Spare Me The Details
19. New Track 1
20. New Track 2

This band keeps making me progressively sadder.

Noodles is gay
12-05-2004, 08:03 AM
The offspring already have some kind of 'greatest hits' type album - 'the best and new 2002', and low and behold you were almost right with the track list, well done.

I must say that i do agree with you though, what's happened to the original punk - offspring, ignition and to some extent ixnay ? Methinks the offspring only care about money now, just like all the other commercialist bastards in the music industry. Such a shame.

I love the offspring, so i'm not intentionally 'dissing' them but it is true, hopefully the next album will return to the real roots of punk - The Clash!

BuddyHolly
12-05-2004, 08:16 AM
the greatest hits you are talking about isn't an official one

Floyd the Barber
12-05-2004, 08:22 AM
Why, let's get together, record a couple of songs in the studio, get some producer to compile some of our singles and release it as a Greatest Hits album as a quick shot for a buck!


This band keeps making me progressively sadder.

Do you really think this band is only interested in money? If so, why don't they make another record like Americana, which sold over 4 million copies but a lot of their fans hated? Why would they give away $1 million of their own money to one of their fans if they cared so much about money?

Look, The Offspring have been around for 20 years. ANY band that old would strat thinking about a Greatest Hits compilation - it's not about making a quick buck, it's about putting their best songs in one place so their new fans can see what they're all about. Look at Korn - they've been around half that time and they just released a Greatest Hits album. The Offspring aren't stupid - they know how much Splinter sold (not much), and they know that this probably won't do much better. I doubt they are motivated by money. Buf even if they were, who cares? This is their JOB, they're supposed to try to make money. I would be bothered if they had sold out in the process, but they're still making great music, so again, who cares?

Don't be so quick to judge people you don't know.

Noodles is gay
12-05-2004, 08:33 AM
Floyd the Barber i think you're missing the point here, Korn may have released a greatest hits album, but then again Korn suck.

And another point 'they're still making great music' that's the other problem they've changed, and now make music ONLY for the money. Need I compare Splinter with Offspring?

killboypwrheadjx
12-05-2004, 08:52 AM
Do you really think this band is only interested in money? If so, why don't they make another record like Americana, which sold over 4 million copies but a lot of their fans hated? Why would they give away $1 million of their own money to one of their fans if they cared so much about money?

Look, The Offspring have been around for 20 years. ANY band that old would strat thinking about a Greatest Hits compilation - it's not about making a quick buck, it's about putting their best songs in one place so their new fans can see what they're all about. Look at Korn - they've been around half that time and they just released a Greatest Hits album. The Offspring aren't stupid - they know how much Splinter sold (not much), and they know that this probably won't do much better. I doubt they are motivated by money. Buf even if they were, who cares? This is their JOB, they're supposed to try to make money. I would be bothered if they had sold out in the process, but they're still making great music, so again, who cares?

Don't be so quick to judge people you don't know.

What a total moron

ClamsHaveFeelingsToo
12-05-2004, 09:07 AM
why don't they make another record like Americana, which sold over 4 million copies but a lot of their fans hated?

They did. Twice. They're called Conspiracy of One and Splinter.

Why would they give away $1 million of their own money to one of their fans if they cared so much about money?

It's called 'publicity'. And it wasn't their own money. Do some research, idiot. Sony backed it up.

Look at Korn - they've been around half that time and they just released a Greatest Hits album

Yes, and I suspect it was motivated by exactly the same thing. Both of Korn's last albums have sold miserably. So they decide to cash in on the Holiday shopping season and release an inexpensive (because Greatest Hits albums are the cheapest to produce since it's most all previous recordings) shot for a buck, relying on a hardcore, overzealous fan base who'll buy everything they release, and appeal to the casual fan who only likes the singles and is too lazy to look through their discography, and (hoping) to gain some new fans in the process. It's a win-win situation, 'cause even if the Greatest Hits CD sells as little as Splinter, it's profit for the record label and the band.

God, I wish people knew this shit.

ClamsHaveFeelingsToo
12-05-2004, 09:24 AM
The offspring already have some kind of 'greatest hits' type album - 'the best and new 2002', and low and behold you were almost right with the track list, well done.

I must say that i do agree with you though, what's happened to the original punk - offspring, ignition and to some extent ixnay ? Methinks the offspring only care about money now, just like all the other commercialist bastards in the music industry. Such a shame.

I love the offspring, so i'm not intentionally 'dissing' them but it is true, hopefully the next album will return to the real roots of punk - The Clash!

A few things.

1- You, my friend, are a moron to think The Clash are the real roots of punk. I'm gonna give you a list of previous punk and proto-punk bands to research, just so you know your shit right. Okay? Iggy and The Stooges, The MC5, Television, the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the New York Dolls <--- just a taste to get you started.

2- The Clash were great because of what they brought TO punk, and their sense of melody and musical innovation. In fact, their last records strayed faaaar from their punk roots. So I'm not holding it against The Offspring that they've moved forward. I happen to think Americana is an amazing album. What I meant was the fact that Dexter seems to be behaving like a desperate, money-grabbing little bitch since a few years ago. This Greatest Hits thing is just further proof of that. And that Nitro AFI retrospective they just put out without ever consulting the band. Just sad.

3- The Greatest Hits album you're talking about is not an official one.

That is all.

Wej
12-05-2004, 10:38 AM
Ok look you all must get your prorities right, the comercial stuff is all on americana for example pretty fly for a white guy, so back the fuck off the other two albums..... :mad:

Naz
12-05-2004, 11:15 AM
I prefer Americana to CO1 and Splinter

No Brakes Boy
12-05-2004, 11:27 AM
So they decide to cash in on the Holiday shopping season and release an inexpensive (because Greatest Hits albums are the cheapest to produce since it's most all previous recordings) shot for a buck, relying on a hardcore, overzealous fan base who'll buy everything they release,

Yes you have summed me up perfectly, am I a muppet? Probably. However we are missing the point here, does their music make you feel happy? Well in my case yes. I will buy their (offspring) greatest hits becuase of the aforementioned points such as the new songs and that I am a completist. While I put money in their pockets, they will be putting a smile on my face.

yamabeans709
12-05-2004, 11:32 AM
i will buy it, but it doesnt look like it'll come out before christmas so i can't say they're selling out

Jakebert
12-05-2004, 11:55 AM
Well, my opinion on it all depends on what the 2 new songs sound like. If they're dumb radio pop songs like "Hit That" or "Pretty Fly", I'm going to be upset, but if they are actually good songs, who knows?

GBH2
12-05-2004, 12:54 PM
if there are new songs i'll just download them off the internet. Why would you spend money for a bunch of songs you already have?

willferno
12-05-2004, 01:22 PM
damn I don't understand why you hate that much splinter... I think it's a great album and it's in my top 3 offspring album Ignition and Smash in front of it... they will never return to their old punk style even if it was great... but damn if they were doing the same type of album each time... people would get tired of them even the fans... and splinter was one of their greatest albums because it looked like all the others at the same time... and next album maybe they will do something different and I will buy it cuz I like what they do... and that's all it matters... so if ur not happy with splinter then don't be cuz I don't give a fuck

GBH2
12-05-2004, 01:27 PM
Floyd the Barber i think you're missing the point here, Korn may have released a greatest hits album, but then again Korn suck.

And another point 'they're still making great music' that's the other problem they've changed, and now make music ONLY for the money. Need I compare Splinter with Offspring?

actually splinter was more like the self titled than co1 or americana were

Unnatural Disaster
12-05-2004, 01:30 PM
I actually like Pretty Fly and Hit That.........

No Brakes Boy
12-05-2004, 06:11 PM
actually splinter was more like the self titled than co1 or americana were

No you're only saying this because of its length, there's nothing political on Splinter as opposed to the self titled cd. Anyway was there a ska song on self titled? No Is there any songs about killing the president? No

GBH2
12-05-2004, 06:19 PM
No you're only saying this because of its length, there's nothing political on Splinter as opposed to the self titled cd. Anyway was there a ska song on self titled? No Is there any songs about killing the president? No

you retard. i'm saying that splinter was more like s/t than because it wasn't as pop-punkish as co1 or americana

The Disclaimer
12-05-2004, 07:43 PM
Splinter is better thatn CO1 but nithing like Americana... Offspring last great album.. then they star falling...

but it's still good music...

Moose
12-05-2004, 08:07 PM
you people seem not to understand that the first offsping album came out over 20 years ago...people's ideas change and they grasp more thoughts...dexter may not even believe in a song like kill the president anymore...and each cd has had its own sound, specifically the self-titled though americana, and co1 and splinter each had its own sound as well...they have enough money, i dont think they care about that as much, i think right now they are focusing on summing up their careers, most bands release a greatest hits, then they will release a new cd, then probably a b-sides rare songs covers cd and that will be it...the only way i can see them doing more than one more album is if they take their music in a totally different direction like the chili peppers did, and although dexter is smart enough to compose that music, i dont think he really wants to or else he would have already...they just like messing around a bit and keeping their own style...and i dont understand how you say make their fans happy, if i was writing or making music, it isnt directed to make the fans happy, ya if people love it, great, that is a big boost in self esteem im sure, but you cant write a song and say no my hardcore fans will hate this, or no the media fans will hate this, you just have to write the stuff that comes to your mind or else you release even a worse album...hopefully traveling the world will give dexter new ideas and stuff...

besides when did the band really claim they were punk? no one says ya im punk or were punk...i never heard that...i remember in a yahoo chat someone asked about them resurrecting punk and dexter replied: people also say we were the death of punk...or something along those lines, it was funny...but it just shows that you cant worry about that shit...any music fan should own ignition, smash, and ixnay on the hombre, and if they are offspring fans then they should own all of the albums...but not everyone is going to like everything...i still think they kick ass than most bands right now anyway so who gives a fuck.

Italia311
12-05-2004, 08:49 PM
Bands always change there music over time. If offspring released 7 cds of the same fucking sounding music...I would get annoyed...ya gotta mix it up a little. If you look at the beetles music changed so much over the years they were a band..and they were great.

Moose
12-05-2004, 09:57 PM
the beatles were the first band to evolve...they started the beginning of hard rock you could say...that is why they are the greatest and most important band ever.

GreenTerror
12-05-2004, 10:34 PM
Of all the people who have replied to this topic, I'd agree with Moose the most.
Dexter probably would get bored, in addition to the fans, if they did the same songs over and over and just put different titles on them. Yeah I do think the Offspring's earlier albums were better than some of their latest ones, but that dosen't mean I'm going to dedicate a thread explaining why they are "sellouts". Besides, any real fan of any band would respect all of their music, maybe not like it, but respect it, and how they changed their style over the last 20 years.

RADIUM88
12-06-2004, 01:49 AM
damn...i wish dexter would post a little something here...just to put an end to this. i dont know if he continues to write songs because it makes him rich, or because it makes us happy or because it makes him happy. he could be making lots of money being a professor at some university for all i know (well not as much but still a lot more than what some/most of us are making). so i doubt he's in it for the money. but think about it...what could be better than having a job that u love and it also pays good (very good actually).

i dont know....i think that two albums that are "absolute commercial failures" and a greatest hits cd are better than the offspring not writing songs any more.
and one last thing...i think it's awesome that all 7 of their albums sound different. sometimes i feel like listening to smash and sometimes i wanna listen to splinter, depends on my mood. i mean, i'd hate 7 smashes or 7 americanas. also, every album reflects what was going on at the time the songs were written (u know, politics, culture, media, etc....dexter's life too i guess) so that's good
ok i'll shut up now :D

Italia311
12-06-2004, 10:51 AM
the beatles were the first band to evolve...they started the beginning of hard rock you could say...that is why they are the greatest and most important band ever.


I totaly agree

VultureDude
12-06-2004, 01:22 PM
i can't believe what i'm hearing, Splinter has some of the most punk songs on it since Smash. I'll state my case:

The Noose - fast, fast, fast paced offspring punk, an instant classic, one of my alltime favorite offsprign songs

race Against myself - reminds me of Pure Ixnay on the Hombray

Da Hui - well, i don't think the offspring EVER sounded more punk than this track

Never gonna find me - angain, fast-paced punk

Lightening Rod - one of their best

Long way home - see above entries

ok, now i do admit, that is ONLYT 6 of the 12 songs on splinter (well, ten really), and yes, the other 4 tracks sound like CO1 and Americana, but that's what i like about this album, it blends the old-school offspring with the newer style.


And as for a greatest hits album, it's also a fact that the offspring want to release another, completely new cd as early as 2005, if they were selling out, i'd hardly think they'd be that ambitious.

scream
12-06-2004, 01:56 PM
Everyone always gets pissy about how The Offspring evolve their sound. Thats what they do, they always keep it moving, always changing. Smash and Splinter sound entirely different for instance. Hell, I don't believe that they have ever done a song like Spare Me the Details.

Bottom Line:
Don't get pissy at them for trying new things (Pay the Man anyone?).

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 02:01 PM
look.. the thing with CO1 and Splinter is that they have a complete lack of spirit in them... americana still showed dex doing things he was really on to... things he loved..

now it's like some employee doing boring job...

so when i say that i want something like smash back.. i mean the spirit it had.. not the same music stile...

PS: the beat-less sucked hard.. they knew nothing about music.. just had a good producer and the will to make music.. i see them as the blink 182 of these day... but without travis and some lame travis in his place....

bouncingcoles
12-06-2004, 02:18 PM
Do you really think this band is only interested in money? If so, why don't they make another record like Americana, which sold over 4 million copies but a lot of their fans hated? Why would they give away $1 million of their own money to one of their fans if they cared so much about money?

Look, The Offspring have been around for 20 years. ANY band that old would strat thinking about a Greatest Hits compilation - it's not about making a quick buck, it's about putting their best songs in one place so their new fans can see what they're all about. Look at Korn - they've been around half that time and they just released a Greatest Hits album. The Offspring aren't stupid - they know how much Splinter sold (not much), and they know that this probably won't do much better. I doubt they are motivated by money. Buf even if they were, who cares? This is their JOB, they're supposed to try to make money. I would be bothered if they had sold out in the process, but they're still making great music, so again, who cares?

Don't be so quick to judge people you don't know.

yes, i totally agree with you.

bouncingcoles
12-06-2004, 02:35 PM
anyone who thinks offspring sold out deserves to die. the music industry is a very competetive place. if offspring dont put out solid albums that sell well then they get dropped from there label. thats what happend to bad religion. everyone in the offspring have families and they need to support them. so thats why they need to make hits. dexter still loves writing songs and playing music but its also his job and where he makes his money. offsprings sound has changed because dexter wants to try new things. doing the same shit gets old. i think its great how offspring have evolved. i hope the next album is even more different.

Moose
12-06-2004, 05:00 PM
PS: the beat-less sucked hard.. they knew nothing about music.. just had a good producer and the will to make music.. i see them as the blink 182 of these day... but without travis and some lame travis in his place....


its sad, really sad...to compare the beatles to blink182...oh and the whole spirit thing was lame too, but not as lame, i was able to understand where you could have been coming from on that...but really lame how you disrespect the beatles...you dont seem to have the ability to grasp that they started the sound of rock...everything you hear today was because of the beatles...you dont seem to get that...ya the beatles sound seems ordinary now, but that is because everyone is doing it now...like nirvana or the sex pistols...now everyone rips of nirvana, but nirvana are still amazing...a thought is timeless and does not change, when a band is great in the 1960's, that means they are still great today...granted this is all an opinion, but a great song or a great band is timeless...thats why it is great...and the fact that you compare them to a shitty band like blink182 is sad.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 05:58 PM
its sad, really sad...to compare the beatles to blink182...oh and the whole spirit thing was lame too, but not as lame, i was able to understand where you could have been coming from on that...but really lame how you disrespect the beatles...you dont seem to have the ability to grasp that they started the sound of rock...everything you hear today was because of the beatles...you dont seem to get that...ya the beatles sound seems ordinary now, but that is because everyone is doing it now...like nirvana or the sex pistols...now everyone rips of nirvana, but nirvana are still amazing...a thought is timeless and does not change, when a band is great in the 1960's, that means they are still great today...granted this is all an opinion, but a great song or a great band is timeless...thats why it is great...and the fact that you compare them to a shitty band like blink182 is sad.


i compar the fact that they suck at making music.... beatles and blink "write" their songs...
but the real thing is that beatles and blink make some bague shitty thing.. and a producer makes the song sound good...

blink and beatles only sapeak about love and the fucked up relationship they had...

or maybe now and then they say they want a revolution, but sitting on their fucking couch and seeing the world go by (Revolution By Bealtes)...

come on.. the beatles knew nothing about music.. just some basics about pressing the chord with their finger...

Moose
12-06-2004, 06:16 PM
wow...come on are you kidding? ya the beatles sang a lot of love songs, but as they got older and evolved the songs whether they were about love or not about love were more intelligent...the point is that they were really the frist band to evolve...they created the beginning of rock...to say they knew nothing about music is sad...john was more creative than paul and even made a song mocking how they wrote a lot of love songs...you cannot compare a shitty band like blink182 who use the same sounds over and over i mean how many times do they use that break in the song where they slow it up with that weak little 1 string solo like it damnit and all that crap...come on blink182 are simple minded...john certainly did not have a simple mind...by this measure you could say that the sex pistols knew nothing about music as well...hell half the time sid was to wasted to record with them and they were put together in a studio anyway...so i mean what are you really trying to say here? the beatles used all different kinds of sounds in their music and they experimented with many different things...they are the ones who started this...you have to give them respect, and other bands like the sex pistols and nirvana deserve your respect as well...you dont have to like them, but respect them and understand their significance to music.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 06:34 PM
i don't respect any of the beatles... but i respect the producer who really made what they were...

i do respect sex pistols with the big exeption of sid vicious he was a pathetic mother fucker who sold himself for money not caring shit about music...

i respect nirvana .. becauze even if he was not that good.. he made the stuff you heard and not a fucking producer...

Italia311
12-06-2004, 06:34 PM
blink and beatles only sapeak about love and the fucked up relationship they had...

You definently don't listen to there music. Besides that, I've heard blink 182 so many times they make me sick. No matter what...or who I'm with...when a beatles song comes on...its like "yaaaa the beatles". They have catchy tunes that millions of people still love today...I bet half the bands you listen too no one has even heard off or won't even remember 2 yrs from now because they have no significance in music at all. Also...Anyone in Blink 182 or half those "punk bands" dont even have half the talent John Lennon did. He was a GOD to millions of people and was part of a huge movement in music. Bed in for Peace! What did Travis do, ask to be on MTV Cribs? Plz man...you got to atleast have respect for what they did. If not, then you're either STUPID or too afraid to admit you're wrong:)

Where u getting this producer shit from? wheres your source? the beatles had a producer to make there music sound good? Don't think so. They didnt have the technology they do now...and all tracks were layed down on an 8 track recorder live from the floor...how they sounded on record was how they sounded live, because they did it all live in the studio...

Moose
12-06-2004, 06:36 PM
What is with you and claiming that the producer did everything for the beatles? that is ridiculous...if the producer was making all the music, why didnt the producer just make his own band? That makes no sense.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 06:57 PM
just like in many bands now a days.. the guys are just an image.. they write some bague songs, nothing really good... theis guy takes it and makes loads of cahnges... and then the bands plays the song..

the producer usually gets more money than waht the band does.. so he is winning more money...

edited

none of them really knew music.. the thing is.. they knew hot to play... but most the song writing was done by producers...

bands these days will be rememberd for diferent things.. just like other bands... beatles is not the only 60' band remembered.. in fact most the bands wich had a numerous audience are still remembered...

travis knows music.. he kwnos how to play his instrument in a great way.. the beatles didn't know much more than basics

Italia311
12-06-2004, 07:12 PM
Travis plays the same fucking beat in every song!!!!!! You want some good drummers listen to Rush or Tool. Travis looks like a bitch compared to Neil Pert and Danny Carey. lol, plz.

Moose
12-06-2004, 07:19 PM
just like in many bands now a days.. the guys are just an image.. they write some bague songs, nothing really good... theis guy takes it and makes loads of cahnges... and then the bands plays the song..

the producer usually gets more money than waht the band does.. so he is winning more money...

edited

none of them really knew music.. the thing is.. they knew hot to play... but most the song writing was done by producers...

bands these days will be rememberd for diferent things.. just like other bands... beatles is not the only 60' band remembered.. in fact most the bands wich had a numerous audience are still remembered...

travis knows music.. he kwnos how to play his instrument in a great way.. the beatles didn't know much more than basics


What are you fucking serious? Do you have any proof that the producer did everything for the beatles? No you are just making outrageous claims, probably to sound different. Obviously the beatles werent the most talented band musically, but they started it all...they started the different sounds and all the different things in music, thats the point...Of course new bands are going to come along and evolve on what the beatles have done and sound great...of course eric clapton is a better guitarist, that isnt the point, the beatles had a vision of music and they did it...no one before them evolved, the beatles started rock music, they started the hard rock music era...you have to be kidding...travis? fucking travis? hes not a bad drummer, but i think he would even feel awkward comparing him to the beatles...come on.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 07:27 PM
travis isn't the best drummer on earth.. he's just a great drummer... obviously there's better...

but let's agreee ring sucked besides him

then... beatles lack of capability to write music.. not in the creative way (with they did have) but in the lack of music training they had.. made them allways have to go to a producer... and he did wrote most of the song.. he "fixed it" but to the extent of making it a new song....

let's set something clear.. they did made a change.. what i'm saying is they weren't good enough like to make it on their own...

and that as i see it... they are over rated.. they are not as good as people think.... they in fact were bad musicians with creative minds and a good producer.. same shit happens with blink (theres my comparison, but blink won't make any subtancial change, we know that)

Moose
12-06-2004, 07:35 PM
but where are you getting this information from? You are making this claim with nothing behind it to make such a claim...I mean you havent even named any of the producers...im sure you will look up the names now that I have mentioned this...I mean you seem to just be making this up...And it is already showing that you are giving more and more into my argument by saying they were creative and they did make changes, but now you are simply saying they couldnt do it on their own...well umm okay, before you said it was all the producer, and before you said they werent important at all...

So ignoring all that now...can you please show me where the producer did everything for the beatles and why he is the whole reason they evolved...I mean a song like "Let it Be," "Come Together," or even lennon's "Imagine" all done by a producer...seems a little odd...so show me where this statement which you say has truth...

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 07:47 PM
i don't need to know producers name... and no i don't know them ... but tell me.. in "the end of the line"... when the echo thing starts.. i'd bet my life that that was the producers idea not dex's... same thing with beatles but for all the songs and most of the songs....

what you're asking me to do is like for me to prove that "Down" from blink isn't 90% producer made... come on listen to it.. and you allready know the musicians capability.. my ear tell's me that they were not able to do that on their own..

and i never said they made no change.. i said they (the men who called themself the beatles) could have been any other band and made the same...


PD: moose we can argue for ages, but never get to a solution.. so ... buter agrre on this:

they made a change... you say they did it on their own... I say tehy were not the ones who really made it...

i say the knew no music .. you say they did...

now.. since well never agree... or not atleast in the time i'm willing to spend infront of my PC... can't we call it an end??

we desagree... end of the story...

Moose
12-06-2004, 07:53 PM
Ya well I think it is pretty well known that what you are saying is ridiculous...you have no proof and just assuming that if it sounds good, it was the producer who had the idea, or actually made the sound...just because it was a special sound...dexter wanted a chopper sound in the end of never gonna find me leading to lightning rod...so that already hurts your argument...what hurts it even more is you make no sense...you dont knwo the producers name, yet claim they did it all...you dont know which songs, or where or when...but all you say is that the beatles didnt do anything and it could have been any band...that is a joke...but it really isnt funny...please the conversation is over because you are just repeating things you cannot prove or provide any sort of interesting evidence to at least make it a theory...you are simply talking out of your ass...so i will stamp this now:

THE BEATLES ARE NOT OVERRATED
THEY ARE THE GREATEST BAND EVER
THEY CHANGED MUSIC
THEY WERE THE BEGINNING OF ROCK

there thats it now it is done with until you can actually come up with something true to say...of course i want you to prove such a statement, you are basically saying the beatles were a boy band that didnt write any music...please that is just sad...now we are done.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 08:21 PM
you just stated what i had found no words for.. they were like a boy band (still boy bands well agree suck evenb harder)

THE BEATLES ARE NOT OVERRATED --> they do, did you knew lennon didn't know how to read music....
THEY ARE THE GREATEST BAND EVER ---> personal opinion.. i think their music sucked
THEY CHANGED MUSIC ---> they were the pupets... but yes they did
THEY WERE THE BEGINNING OF ROCK ----> don't agree.... no one really starts rock.. just as no one really starts punk.. they just made it popular...


bottom line.. beatles suck.. they made a change.. but they still suck ...

Moose
12-06-2004, 08:30 PM
you just stated what i had found no words for.. they were like a boy band (still boy bands well agree suck evenb harder)

THE BEATLES ARE NOT OVERRATED --> they do, did you knew lennon didn't know how to read music....
THEY ARE THE GREATEST BAND EVER ---> personal opinion.. i think their music sucked
THEY CHANGED MUSIC ---> they were the pupets... but yes they did
THEY WERE THE BEGINNING OF ROCK ----> don't agree.... no one really starts rock.. just as no one really starts punk.. they just made it popular...


bottom line.. beatles suck.. they made a change.. but they still suck ...


this is just getting annoying....

The Edge from U2 cannot read music, and Noodles just said he is beginning to learn...Many talented musicians cannot read music and rely simply on their pure gift and talents...

And yes those are opinions, dont read too much into it...

And you are contradicting yourself...You are saying they are puppets, but they changed music...You might as well say they didnt do shit.

Well, this last argument can go either way...They are the first band ever heard or listened to, that changed their music in this significant way...Sure there were garage bands, but I dont know how much of an underground scene there was during this time as there was with punk...So as far as I am concerned they created a revolution, a musical revolution...

Your arguments are just stupid now and I think you just want to post to sound different from everyone else. From the beginning to now, you have slowly bit by bit in little ways have changed your argument. Now at least you admit they made a change, although you try to avoid any significant term like musical revolution...now an opinion is an opinion, but you tried to make the beatles look like fools and idiots...I could only wonder what you think about The Doors and The Clash and bands such as that...IT WAS THE PRODUCER!!!!!!!! God Bless the Producer...Suddenly it is you who makes all the difference...Give me a fucking break.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 08:42 PM
Clash rules...

i don't like the doors.. but they're good...

my point... is.

beatles did a change.. but not becauze of their great ability to write music, it's just beacuse they had the necesary resources and back up (from labels producers and others) to make some underground music really popular... so they were pupets used to do your so called "music revolution" ...

the fact about changing things in my argument is.. that i admit you're right in some things... like making a change... still... you refuce to accept that they were not as good as people claim....

i'm off to bed now.. it's almost 1 am in argentina.. and i have to be up at 6 to go to fucking scholl... so ... we'll go on any other day...

Moose
12-06-2004, 08:49 PM
ok another day, but your claims were so high up and have obviously been lowered and watered down...basically you say things without any backup and just yell it out in ignorance...ive defended my points and whoever reads this will understand what I have been saying...they are a great band and were amazing writers who got better with age...they created a music revolution, and i will not put that in quotation marks to make it seem as some sort of bullshit...there were many punk bands that were underground that we heard when the sex pistols and the ramones got famous...i dont recall any underground bands that were brought out from the shadows after the beatles began this evolution...

im still trying to grasp where you come from with this information of companies and producers...you seem to think it is the same time as now...people didnt write for them the way they do now for avril lavigne and ashlee simpson...and producers im sure had much less resources and things they can do with the music than they do now...so i dont understand quite where you are coming up with this argument you are trying to deliver...it just seems to be made up garbage...once again you do not necessarily have to like the beatles or have them be your favorite band, they arent mine, but i realize they are the greatest band ever who made a music revolution and understand what they did and what came out of it. i wonder if there are others on this board who either think this way about the beatles or make claims that it was the producer and such who made the music.

The Disclaimer
12-06-2004, 10:22 PM
we'll never get to an agreement..

you:
betles are best band ever
made a revolution becauze of their creative and music abilities
made succes on their own
evolved though time
created a stile

me:
beatles suck
made a change but 'cauze they had lots of support in their back
someone made succes for them
evolved thought time, but never got to good
made a stile popular, but never created one

we'll be going round this points for ever.. so it ends here for me..

Moose
12-06-2004, 10:39 PM
ok fine...to me the beatles created a musical revolution and to you they were just a band that was overrated, that didnt do much...gotcha fine...anyone else like to speak on this?

RADIUM88
12-06-2004, 11:11 PM
i agree with you moose. the beatles isn't my favorite band but they sure were good...i mean, millions of people can't be wrong you know.
i've met people who think like disclaimer but that's due to the fact that they simply don't know anything about the 60's (or history in general) and it also has to do with age..i think.

by the way, i think a perfect circle's cover of Imagine kinda sucks....