FINAL SCORE The Beatles-58 (2) Metallica-25

[Derwood]

Metallica is my most favorite band of all time. Personally I think they are better than the Beatles and nothing will be able to convince me otherwise.

.

 

you like them better personally or you think Metallica are actually better songwriters-musicmakers?

 

Perhaps when some people want to crank up the radio, they aren't interested in "Love Me Do," "Yesterday" or "Penny Lane."

 

I love when people argue that the Beatles aren't "rock" enough and then pick songs like Yesterday to attack.

 

"Kerry Wood wasn't a fireballer. His curve barely hit 70 mph."

 

Yes, but even if you take the Beatles' hardest song (say, Helter Skelter) it sounds like James Taylor compared to Battery

 

No doubt Metallica is the heavier rock band. If his argument had been, "some people like to crank up the radio, and Metallica is better for that b/c they rock harder than the Beatles" - no problem. It's just that this has come up a few times now "the Beatles aren't rock" or whatever. But people always bring up Yesterday as support.

 

Well, I noticed you didn't use Nothing Else Matters as your token Metallica song to prove that they rock. You picked what I assume is one of their harder rock songs to prove your point. That's valid - it makes sense. I'm just tired of reading that the Beatles aren't rock music b/c they wrote some great ballads.

 

I know. Same thing happened with CSNY. People cried "Our House" isn't rock. Yeah, well how about "Woodstock" or "Almost Cut My Hair?"

[Soul]

Metallica was *THE* great band of my generation.

 

How old are you?

 

Why should that matter?

 

I like Metallica more than the Beatles. It's my opinion.

 

How old are you?

[Productive Outs]

Metallica is my most favorite band of all time. Personally I think they are better than the Beatles and nothing will be able to convince me otherwise.

.

 

you like them better personally or you think Metallica are actually better songwriters-musicmakers?

 

i'm not sure there is a difference.

[noisesquared]

If Metallica wins this, I may cancel my subscription to NSBB.

 

Well, I noticed you didn't use Nothing Else Matters as your token Metallica song to prove that they rock. You picked what I assume is one of their harder rock songs to prove your point. That's valid - it makes sense. I'm just tired of reading that the Beatles aren't rock music b/c they wrote some great ballads.

 

You haven't heard Battery, but are just assuming the Beatles are hands-down the better band without having heard Metallica's best work?

 

Just because the Beatles were great musicians, songwriters, and trendsetters, does not mean that another band could actually come along and be better musicians, songwriters, and equally original.

[Tracer Bullet]

Metallica was *THE* great band of my generation.

 

How old are you?

 

Why should that matter?

 

I like Metallica more than the Beatles. It's my opinion.

 

How old are you?

 

No offense intended. I'm not questioning which band you like more. I just wondered which generation you were referring to.

 

I figure if there is any generation that would call Metallica "the great band" of its time, it would be mine (I'm 28). But I figure most people in my generation would consider U2 *THE* great band of my generation, even though they've sucked pretty bad for a while, imo.

[cubweiser03]

I love Battery. Such a great song to open such a kick ass album. The accoustic guitar opening followed by the steamrolling pure metal madness. And it works brilliantly. Awesome.

 

Orion flat out kicks it. I cant think of too many songs that last 8 minutes without lyrics i would rather listen too. Cliff Burton on the bass totally rocks that song out.

[Soul]

Metallica was *THE* great band of my generation.

 

How old are you?

 

Why should that matter?

 

I like Metallica more than the Beatles. It's my opinion.

 

How old are you?

 

No offense intended. I'm not questioning which band you like more. I just wondered which generation you were referring to.

 

I figure if there is any generation that would call Metallica "the great band" of its time, it would be mine (I'm 28). But I figure most people in my generation would consider U2 *THE* great band of my generation, even though they've sucked pretty bad for a while, imo.

 

Understood. I'm in my 30's.....that's as much as you'll get from me :)

 

U2 was a big band, but I don't recall their concerts being the mass events that Metallica's were. I also don't recall any radio stations doing 2 hours of "Mandatory U2." Hundreds of them across the country did shows where the only thing they played was Metallica. Come to think of it, I don't recall any stations doing that even for the Beatles.

 

I'm a U2 fan, but I just never saw them as inspiring the kind of rabid following that Metallica did for a long, long time. Maybe I just never walked in those circles.

[Tracer Bullet]

If Metallica wins this, I may cancel my subscription to NSBB.

 

Well, I noticed you didn't use Nothing Else Matters as your token Metallica song to prove that they rock. You picked what I assume is one of their harder rock songs to prove your point. That's valid - it makes sense. I'm just tired of reading that the Beatles aren't rock music b/c they wrote some great ballads.

 

You haven't heard Battery, but are just assuming the Beatles are hands-down the better band without having heard Metallica's best work?

 

Just because the Beatles were great musicians, songwriters, and trendsetters, does not mean that another band could actually come along and be better musicians, songwriters, and equally original.

 

I've heard a lot of Metallica, I may have even heard Battery (had a roommate that played a fair amount of their stuff, but I don't know all the albums/songs he was playing). I liked And Justice For All for a while in HS. I liked some of their self-titled album for a little while, too. But it's not my style.

 

But where did I say that no band could ever be better than the Beatles. I'm just saying a band I have listened to a fair amount isn't. I don't see why that's a problem. In my opinion the Beatles are better.

 

And frankly, just b/c you think Battery is their best work doesn't mean it is. I think I can make a reasonable comparison of two bands w/o having heard every song that either ever played.

[TruffleShuffle]

No doubt Metallica is the heavier rock band. If his argument had been, "some people like to crank up the radio, and Metallica is better for that b/c they rock harder than the Beatles" - no problem. It's just that this has come up a few times now "the Beatles aren't rock" or whatever. But people always bring up Yesterday as support.

 

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one.

[Soul]

True. They did do some great rock though. I always loved Helter Skelter and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds. The whole Sgt. Pepper album was on my turnstyle as a kid quite a bit (yeah------we played music on little plastic platters called "records" back then).

 

 

Metallica is clearly dead. Oh well. Took the Beatles to kill 'em 8)

[circlechange]

U2 was a big band, but I don't recall their concerts being the mass events that Metallica's were. I also don't recall any radio stations doing 2 hours of "Mandatory U2." Hundreds of them across the country did shows where the only thing they played was Metallica. Come to think of it, I don't recall any stations doing that even for the Beatles.

"Breakfast with the Beatles" was (is?) a 3 or 4 hour weekly radio program that was dedicated to their songs, their outtakes and alternate takes, other musicians covering their songs, etc. I wouldn't doubt if there were other shows like that throughout the country. Not to mention events such as Beatlefest which celebrate the Beatles.

 

Metallica was my favorite band for several years, I had every album until St. Anger, Master of Puppets and Fade To Black are two of my favorite songs, and I still enjoy listening to them. That said, in my opinion The Beatles are hands-down the better band. Obviously, though, the two bands are quite different and likely attract quite a different fanbase.

[soccer10k]

Metallica is my most favorite band of all time. Personally I think they are better than the Beatles and nothing will be able to convince me otherwise.

.

 

you like them better personally or you think Metallica are actually better songwriters-musicmakers?

 

Both. The guitar/bass work in their first four albums is just unbelievable. Some of the guitar solos in the songs are just ridiculous. "The Call of Klutu" and "Orion", as somebody said, are great songs that I will listen to in their entirety even though they have no lyrics. They wrote quality lyrics for each of those albums as well - which was one of my huge criticisms (among many) of "St. Anger".

 

I'm not going to say the Beatles aren't rock because I think they are. But I think Metallica is the better band.

[Tracer Bullet]

No doubt Metallica is the heavier rock band. If his argument had been, "some people like to crank up the radio, and Metallica is better for that b/c they rock harder than the Beatles" - no problem. It's just that this has come up a few times now "the Beatles aren't rock" or whatever. But people always bring up Yesterday as support.

 

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one.

 

Sure, but there are a handful (or more) that do and you were careful to steer clear of them. That's my point.

[soccer10k]

No doubt Metallica is the heavier rock band. If his argument had been, "some people like to crank up the radio, and Metallica is better for that b/c they rock harder than the Beatles" - no problem. It's just that this has come up a few times now "the Beatles aren't rock" or whatever. But people always bring up Yesterday as support.

 

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one.

 

Sure, but there are a handful (or more) that do and you were careful to steer clear of them. That's my point.

 

Isn't that what you do in an argument thought, try and prove your point? You surely don't want to give evidence to disprove your point and make your opponent correct do you? If somebody doen't think, on the whole, that the Beatles rock, they are not going to cite the songs that do rock but are going to cite the songs that don't rock (and usually the more famous songs) to prove their point.

[Soul]

U2 was a big band, but I don't recall their concerts being the mass events that Metallica's were. I also don't recall any radio stations doing 2 hours of "Mandatory U2." Hundreds of them across the country did shows where the only thing they played was Metallica. Come to think of it, I don't recall any stations doing that even for the Beatles.

"Breakfast with the Beatles" was (is?) a 3 or 4 hour weekly radio program that was dedicated to their songs, their outtakes and alternate takes, other musicians covering their songs, etc. I wouldn't doubt if there were other shows like that throughout the country. Not to mention events such as Beatlefest which celebrate the Beatles.

 

Metallica was my favorite band for several years, I had every album until St. Anger, Master of Puppets and Fade To Black are two of my favorite songs, and I still enjoy listening to them. That said, in my opinion The Beatles are hands-down the better band. Obviously, though, the two bands are quite different and likely attract quite a different fanbase.

 

Fair enough. And most will undoubedtly agree with you.

 

I remember when the Beatles broke up it was like when JFK was shot. Their impact is unquestioned; their body of work undeniable.

[WindyCity]

U2 was a big band, but I don't recall their concerts being the mass events that Metallica's were. I also don't recall any radio stations doing 2 hours of "Mandatory U2." Hundreds of them across the country did shows where the only thing they played was Metallica. Come to think of it, I don't recall any stations doing that even for the Beatles.

"Breakfast with the Beatles" was (is?) a 3 or 4 hour weekly radio program that was dedicated to their songs, their outtakes and alternate takes, other musicians covering their songs, etc. I wouldn't doubt if there were other shows like that throughout the country. Not to mention events such as Beatlefest which celebrate the Beatles.

 

Metallica was my favorite band for several years, I had every album until St. Anger, Master of Puppets and Fade To Black are two of my favorite songs, and I still enjoy listening to them. That said, in my opinion The Beatles are hands-down the better band. Obviously, though, the two bands are quite different and likely attract quite a different fanbase.

 

"Breakfast with the Beatles is still a weekly regular on XRT... a Chicago station that spent an entire broadcast day playing U2's "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" non-stop prior to its release.....

 

 

Greatness isn't measured in decibels.

[OleMissCub]

No doubt Metallica is the heavier rock band. If his argument had been, "some people like to crank up the radio, and Metallica is better for that b/c they rock harder than the Beatles" - no problem. It's just that this has come up a few times now "the Beatles aren't rock" or whatever. But people always bring up Yesterday as support.

 

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one.

 

Sure, but there are a handful (or more) that do and you were careful to steer clear of them. That's my point.

 

Isn't that what you do in an argument thought, try and prove your point? You surely don't want to give evidence to disprove your point and make your opponent correct do you? If somebody doen't think, on the whole, that the Beatles rock, they are not going to cite the songs that do rock but are going to cite the songs that don't rock (and usually the more famous songs) to prove their point.

 

I respect your opinion that Metallica is a better band....I'm a massive fan myself, in fact, the bands that are pretty much constantly on my ipod are Radiohead, Beatles, Zep, Sigur Ros, Smashing Pumpkins and Metallica. As someone who has played rock drums since I got my first kid trap set at age 5, I'm a huuuge Lars fan and his method has been very influential to my development. Also a huge fan of James' voice as well.

 

Now, to this whole absurd Beatles 'rock music' question, which I think is a massive slap in the face to the men, who, as teenagers were quite literally one of the only 'rock bands' in the world (which is how they got their first gigs in strip clubs in Germany, because they were such a novelty and their music was considered to be somewhat risque at tha time) ...some things to consider.

 

1) When they first coming up in the late 50's playing those gigs in Germany, they were famous in the underground music scene at the time because they played traditional 50's music (elvis, chuck berry) twice as fast and twice as loud with pumped up electric guitars and electric bass with a constant heavy backbeat from the drummer, thus helping to create the very sound that some of you accuse them of not having.

 

2) If you aren't going to call the Beatles 'rock', then you may as well say that the Rolling Stones, the Doors, or the Kinks aren't rock. You have to view things in context...when 'Satisfaction', 'You really got me', and the Beatles' 'Day tripper' came out, that was as hard as rock had gotten at that point for the most part. You can't expect those guys to bust out with 'Seek and Destroy' in 1965 do you?

 

I guess someone could make an argument that the Rolling Stones aren't rock because of 'Play with fire' or 'As tears go by'.

 

3) One would have to be a complete fool to argue that their last 3 albums, White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road, aren't rock in the traditional sense of what classic rock is.

 

The fact that some people are stuck in this mindset that the Beatles are just She Loves You, Yesterday, or Love Me Do, really just proves that they haven't listened to the Beatles, but are rather forming their opinion off of the Beatles pop culture and radio play status.

[ConstableRabbit]

No doubt Metallica is the heavier rock band. If his argument had been, "some people like to crank up the radio, and Metallica is better for that b/c they rock harder than the Beatles" - no problem. It's just that this has come up a few times now "the Beatles aren't rock" or whatever. But people always bring up Yesterday as support.

 

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one.

 

Sure, but there are a handful (or more) that do and you were careful to steer clear of them. That's my point.

 

Isn't that what you do in an argument thought, try and prove your point? You surely don't want to give evidence to disprove your point and make your opponent correct do you? If somebody doen't think, on the whole, that the Beatles rock, they are not going to cite the songs that do rock but are going to cite the songs that don't rock (and usually the more famous songs) to prove their point.

 

I respect your opinion that Metallica is a better band....I'm a massive fan myself, in fact, the bands that are pretty much constantly on my ipod are Radiohead, Beatles, Zep, Sigur Ros, Smashing Pumpkins and Metallica. As someone who has played rock drums since I got my first kid trap set at age 5, I'm a huuuge Lars fan and his method has been very influential to my development. Also a huge fan of James' voice as well.

 

Now, to this whole absurd Beatles 'rock music' question, which I think is a massive slap in the face to the men, who, as teenagers were quite literally one of the only 'rock bands' in the world (which is how they got their first gigs in strip clubs in Germany, because they were such a novelty and their music was considered to be somewhat risque at tha time) ...some things to consider.

 

1) When they first coming up in the late 50's playing those gigs in Germany, they were famous in the underground music scene at the time because they played traditional 50's music (elvis, chuck berry) twice as fast and twice as loud with pumped up electric guitars and electric bass with a constant heavy backbeat from the drummer, thus helping to create the very sound that some of you accuse them of not having.

 

2) If you aren't going to call the Beatles 'rock', then you may as well say that the Rolling Stones, the Doors, or the Kinks aren't rock. You have to view things in context...when 'Satisfaction', 'You really got me', and the Beatles' 'Day tripper' came out, that was as hard as rock had gotten at that point for the most part. You can't expect those guys to bust out with 'Seek and Destroy' in 1965 do you?

 

I guess someone could make an argument that the Rolling Stones aren't rock because of 'Play with fire' or 'As tears go by'.

 

3) One would have to be a complete fool to argue that their last 3 albums, White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road, aren't rock in the traditional sense of what classic rock is.

 

The fact that some people are stuck in this mindset that the Beatles are just She Loves You, Yesterday, or Love Me Do, really just proves that they haven't listened to the Beatles, but are rather forming their opinion off of the Beatles pop culture and radio play status.

 

I agree -- there should be absolutely no question as to whether or not The Beatles were "rock" when they came out. As you said, they were THE rock band.

 

However, the argument that they, by today's standards are not "rock" is not so easy to dispute. They have had a number of songs that embody what we know as "rock music" today, ("Helter Skelter" is actually a great example) however, as you noted, most associate the band with their softer titles, ("Love me do" etc.). I would like to point out that the reason for that is that those songs were their greatest and most successful hits. Out of their 30 #1 singles, the vast majority more closely resemble the pop music of today, not the rock music of today. That's not necessarily their fault, but it's something to note that their most popular stuff was also some of their softest.

 

The Beatles revolutionized popular music, pop culture, and gave way to many of the bands and styles we listen to today, and that's (rightfully so) a HUGE part of why they could be considered the "Greatest Rock Band Ever." We simply cannot forget that influence.

 

However, being the first or the influence, despite great musical talents, does not necessarily make you the best.

 

I guess you could compare it to different eras in baseball:

 

Could you make the argument that Greg Maddux (or Clemens, etc.) is a better pitcher than Mordecai Brown? Even though Brown's raw stats are better, I think you could.

[cubweiser03]

U2 was a big band, but I don't recall their concerts being the mass events that Metallica's were. I also don't recall any radio stations doing 2 hours of "Mandatory U2." Hundreds of them across the country did shows where the only thing they played was Metallica. Come to think of it, I don't recall any stations doing that even for the Beatles.

"Breakfast with the Beatles" was (is?) a 3 or 4 hour weekly radio program that was dedicated to their songs, their outtakes and alternate takes, other musicians covering their songs, etc. I wouldn't doubt if there were other shows like that throughout the country. Not to mention events such as Beatlefest which celebrate the Beatles.

 

Metallica was my favorite band for several years, I had every album until St. Anger, Master of Puppets and Fade To Black are two of my favorite songs, and I still enjoy listening to them. That said, in my opinion The Beatles are hands-down the better band. Obviously, though, the two bands are quite different and likely attract quite a different fanbase.

 

"Breakfast with the Beatles is still a weekly regular on XRT... a Chicago station that spent an entire broadcast day playing U2's "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" non-stop prior to its release.....

 

 

Greatness isn't measured in decibels.

 

Thats a good thing otherwise Spinal Tap would rule the world. Their amps went to eleven. One louder.

[J.R.]

Metallica, easy.

 

I buy Beatles stuff for my wife. Personally, I liked McCartney better in Wings.

[treebird]

Metallica is my most favorite band of all time. Personally I think they are better than the Beatles and nothing will be able to convince me otherwise.

.

 

you like them better personally or you think Metallica are actually better songwriters-musicmakers?

 

i'm not sure there is a difference.

 

applause for the dob

 

this tournament is fun because it creates conversation and stuff, but at the end of the day, if i say that the beatles aren't any good because i don't like them, i'm not wrong.

[wolf stansson]

if i say that the beatles aren't any good because i don't like them, i'm not wrong.

In your view you aren't, but if someone likes the Beatles then by that logic you would indeed be wrong to them.

 

 

Wow. This is heavy stuff. It leads to greater philosophical thought on the nature of right and wrong.

 

Ex - Mel Gibson might not think Hitler is bad, but it's pretty universally acceptable to think he is. Is Melvin wrong?

 

Edit - Unless the real truth you are alluding to is that you, tree, are the definitive authority of what is deemed "right" or "wrong" in this universe. IN that case you'd be right.

[MPrior]

if i say that the beatles aren't any good because i don't like them, i'm not wrong.

In your view you aren't, but if someone likes the Beatles then by that logic you would indeed be wrong to them.

 

 

Wow. This is heavy stuff. It leads to greater philosophical thought on the nature of right and wrong.

 

Ex - Mel Gibson might not think Hitler is bad, but it's pretty universally acceptable to think he is. Is Melvin wrong?

 

Edit - Unless the real truth you are alluding to is that you, tree, are the definitive authority of what is deemed "right" or "wrong" in this universe. IN that case you'd be right.

 

Whoa.

[MPrior]

I respect your opinion that Metallica is a better band....I'm a massive fan myself, in fact, the bands that are pretty much constantly on my ipod are Radiohead, Beatles, Zep, Sigur Ros, Smashing Pumpkins and Metallica. As someone who has played rock drums since I got my first kid trap set at age 5, I'm a huuuge Lars fan and his method has been very influential to my development. Also a huge fan of James' voice as well.

 

Now, to this whole absurd Beatles 'rock music' question, which I think is a massive slap in the face to the men, who, as teenagers were quite literally one of the only 'rock bands' in the world (which is how they got their first gigs in strip clubs in Germany, because they were such a novelty and their music was considered to be somewhat risque at tha time) ...some things to consider.

 

1) When they first coming up in the late 50's playing those gigs in Germany, they were famous in the underground music scene at the time because they played traditional 50's music (elvis, chuck berry) twice as fast and twice as loud with pumped up electric guitars and electric bass with a constant heavy backbeat from the drummer, thus helping to create the very sound that some of you accuse them of not having.

 

2) If you aren't going to call the Beatles 'rock', then you may as well say that the Rolling Stones, the Doors, or the Kinks aren't rock. You have to view things in context...when 'Satisfaction', 'You really got me', and the Beatles' 'Day tripper' came out, that was as hard as rock had gotten at that point for the most part. You can't expect those guys to bust out with 'Seek and Destroy' in 1965 do you?

 

I guess someone could make an argument that the Rolling Stones aren't rock because of 'Play with fire' or 'As tears go by'.

 

3) One would have to be a complete fool to argue that their last 3 albums, White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road, aren't rock in the traditional sense of what classic rock is.

 

The fact that some people are stuck in this mindset that the Beatles are just She Loves You, Yesterday, or Love Me Do, really just proves that they haven't listened to the Beatles, but are rather forming their opinion off of the Beatles pop culture and radio play status.

 

Very good post. The Beatles are as "rock" as it gets. Are we to blame them because they expanded upon rock and roll? Because they had - and exercised - the capacity to transcend the borders of the musical genre for whose very existence they were largely responsible? If anything, we should celebrate it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

applause for the dob

 

this tournament is fun because it creates conversation and stuff, but at the end of the day, if i say that the beatles aren't any good because i don't like them, i'm not wrong.

 

ManCrushonNomar is burning you in effigy as we speak.