Eagles vs. Beatles
h.h. wang
While I agree (probably with most people on this newsgroup) that Beatles
are the coolest band in all of history, the Eagles have got to be one of
the worst in all of history.
With grating, one dimensional songs with cliched arrangements and
playing, the Eagles embody the very worst in rock music. I even think
about Hotel California and I start to retch. Beatles are classic;
Eagles are classic rock. That one can list similar facts about the two
bands says more about the way rock bands are formed rather than any
inherent value of the Eagles.
ED HOPKINS
Eagles in the 70s
For the 80s I propose Huey Lewis and the News
I'm serious. As in the previous bands, all the members sing. Although only
Lewis is always lead, the group's live acapella numbers prove everyone's
vocal abilities. Most of the tunes are written by Lewis, Chris Hayes and
Johnny Cola. They were huge in the 80s, even with rock at a low point
thanks to Madonna and Michael Jackson. They are out of fashion right now
but they will return as one of the few great bands of the 1980s.
Songs:
Workin' For a Livin'
Heart of Rock & Roll
Bad is Bad
I Want a New Drug
If This Is It
The Power of Love
Back in Time
Stuck With You
Hip to Be Square
Couple Days Off
:-D
*******************************************************************
* *
* ED *
* *
* "I'll tell you what you did, smart boy. You tied into a loaded *
* mark over on 47th across a' Maxie's. Then you and Coleman *
* played the switch for him and blew him off to a cab on 49th. *
* If he hadn't been a numbers runner for Doyle Lonnagan it would *
* have been perfect." *
*******************************************************************
David A. Rae
says...
>
> The Beatles were clearly the best rock group of the 60's. What made
>them so special was they wrote all their songs. The song writing team of
>Lennon and McCartney was one of the best of all time. Also, the Beatles
>did not rely on one lead singer. Although Lennon and McCartney sang most
>of their songs, all the Beatles sang lead vocals more than once.
> The Eagles are the group that most remind me of The Beatles. The
>Eagles were one of the best rock bands of the 70's. The Don Henley/Glenn
>Frey songwriting duo were almost as proficient Lennon/McCartney. Also,
>the Eagles featured such a talented lineup they could also feature
>different indiviudals on lead vocals.
> Although I feel the Beatles were a far more successful group, I
>feel the comparison is valid. Even though the style and content of this
>British band was far different than their American counterparts, one
>thing is clear - the Beatles and the Eagles have made their mark in rock
>history.
> So what about the 80's and 90's, are there any groups that deserve
>to be compared to the Bealtes? Most of the groups today are led by just
>one lead singer. They are not as versatile as either the Eagles or
>Beatles. I don't see any similarites with contemporary rock groups and
>the Beatles. Clearly, none of them are as accomplished as the Beatles or
>even the Eagles.
>
Roger!!!
Great to see you on the net! The REAL net, that is... ;)
That was an interesting post. I do not personally see the connection but you
stated your case very well, nonetheless. Don't be discouraged by idiots who
respond with stupid comments (i.e. the one who said the Eagles only wrote
one-dimensional songs). I have faith that most people out there with access
to the net have half a brain (at least) and do not side with them. Keep on
posting!
See ya at work,
Dave
h.h. wang
First of all, no need for name calling just because you don't agree with
me. Newsgroups can be a place for differing opinions and discussions,
and not just for the sycophantic ravings of people who don't really know
anything about anything.
I stand by my comments about the Eagles. If we're just talking about
popularity (hardly the only criterion for greatness, but bear with me),
in a hundred years from now, everyone will still know who John Lennon and
Paul McCartney were. Who's going to remember or care about Don Henley's
or Glenn Frey's names? Who will be able to name more than one Eagles
song?
Look at all the hubbub surrounding the release of Anthology (CDs videos
prime time ABC tv specials), outtakes from a band that hasn't existed for
a quarter of a century. The Eagles reunion this summer boosted MTV's
ratings for a few weeks probably. That's all.
No band can really compare with the Beatles because they cut such a wide
swath in the jungle of pop music. They were immensely talented AND
happened to be working during a time when there was SO much to be
discovered in terms of sounds, subject matter, arrangements, and
pretensions of rock music. They were great not only because of their
talent and vision but also because they were in the right place at the
right time. Virtually every great band after them, from the Rolling
Stones to REM to the Replacements to Pavement to Sebadoh owes 'em one.
Erwin Gunadi
> The Beatles were clearly the best rock group of the 60's. What made
>them so special was they wrote all their songs. The song writing team of
>Lennon and McCartney was one of the best of all time. Also, the Beatles
>did not rely on one lead singer. Although Lennon and McCartney sang most
>of their songs, all the Beatles sang lead vocals more than once.
For me, Beatles are special because each album they;ve made has more
greatest hits rather than junks. Compare to most groups, which create
one or two greates hits and lots of junks.
The other thing is : the ability of Lennon and McCartney to create
songs together without losing each other style.
> The Eagles are the group that most remind me of The Beatles. The
>Eagles were one of the best rock bands of the 70's. The Don Henley/Glenn
>Frey songwriting duo were almost as proficient Lennon/McCartney. Also,
>the Eagles featured such a talented lineup they could also feature
>different indiviudals on lead vocals.
Regarding Eagles, so sorry to say this, but they kept on making Eagles
Greatest Hits (vol 1, vol 2.....etc). What did they want to do with
that actually ? I have to admit that some of their songs are good (New
Kid in Town, Desperado...etc, nope...not Hotel California, hate that
song). Just because too many Eagles Greatest Hits, I decided not to
buy purposely their album. I don't mind having their songs, as long as
they are a part of a various artist compilation album.
I don't have any intention of flaming Eagles at all. But the question
above has been bothering me and lots of my pals for long time.
Well...
Finally, is it true that Hotel California is a song about Church of
Satan ? This question is optional.
- Erwin
David J. Coyle
release of previously unreleased recordings, is that after the novelty
wears off, it won't be a newsworthy item anymore.
Now, almost a full year after the release of "Live At The BBC," it's
become just another album in my collection. Not that I don't think the
Beatles are extraordinary, or that they aren't my favorite all-time band,
it's just that I've gotten used to hearing them. When I compiled the
complete Beatles release collection on cassette a couple years ago,
everything that I hadn't heard on the "Red" and "Blue" albums was a new
experience. Even the most mundane songs. But once I had heard all the
songs the Beatles released a few times over, I could hear them without a
player going.
When I buy the "Anthology," it will be fresh, new and exciting for about
all of two or three weeks. I will play it every day, probably. I will try
to sit through CDs that I have had for months, just to break the
monotony, but I will go back to the Anthology CDs. Pretty soon, I will
know all the songs by heart, down to the slightest anomaly. While I will
never, ever, sell or otherwise get rid of any of my Beatles CDs (except
"Sessions"), they may go for days unplayed, like many of the CDs in my
collection.
As a case in point, _everytime_ I buy a new CD, one that I especially
like, I play it over and over again for a while and then only
occasionally. It's probably a given thing that with over 60 CDs in a
collection, you can't listen to them all the time.
I guess what my one point is: The fact that the Eagles are touring again,
and have recorded new songs, is not a big deal to me anymore. I've taken
it for granted. Same goes for "Live At The BBC" and the fact that
previous unreleased recordings are now part of the official catalog. Same
will be the deal with the "Anthology."
Enjoy the resurgence of Beatlemania while you can. As a certain composer
once said "all things must pass."
|| DAVID J. COYLE / E-Mail: dc33...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu ||
|| Diversified Communications / "Sunset doesn't last all evening..." ||
|| Ohio University / --George Harrison, 1970 ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FrDowney
Frank
Theron Macay Quist
In a previous article, han_...@abtassoc.com ("h.h. wang") says:
>I stand by my comments about the Eagles. If we're just talking about
>popularity (hardly the only criterion for greatness, but bear with me),
>in a hundred years from now, everyone will still know who John Lennon and
>Paul McCartney were. Who's going to remember or care about Don Henley's
>or Glenn Frey's names? Who will be able to name more than one Eagles
>song?
>
I'll be surprised if even a substantial minority of the population know
who the members of either band are (although I agree that it's much more
likely that the Beatles will be remembered by some). My kids (6 and 9) love
the Beatles, so I'm not saying they don't have great staying power, but
how many young people today know who George Gershwin is? About 10 years
ago I heard someone say, "Weren't the Beatles the band Paul McCartney was
in before he joined Wings?". Music comes and goes, but at least we can
enjoy it, and share it with others while we're here. Sorry to interrupt
the debate - carry on.
Bob Stahley
: As a case in point, _everytime_ I buy a new CD, one that I especially
: occasionally. It's probably a given thing that with over 60 CDs in a
: collection, you can't listen to them all the time.
Here's what you do: Amass a collection of about a thousand albums.
Wait twenty-five years. Then see what you listen to most of the time.
--
__ __
._) _) bo...@primenet.com
__)__) bob.s...@twb.com Why is a raven like a writing desk?
Erwin Gunadi
>Ha! Talk about one dimensional songs? How about "I want to hold your
>hand"?? At least the Eagles were of rock and roll, the Beatles were
>nothing but a front runner in POP, kinda like todays Michale Jackson or
>Modonna
I don't really like to join any argument or so, but I think I need to
say this : if you are considering The Beatles as 'nothing but a fron
runner in pop', then I can guarantee you that there will be thousands
or even millions of people who will be disagree with you. The Beatles
were not just like any other bands. They were the pioneer, they were
those who created the new sounds, today's sounds. For my personal
opinion, without The Beatles, there wouldn't be any today's music.
If you find my opinion as an exageration, it's OK. It's only my
opinion.
About Eagles, they are good, but can't compare them with Beatles, for
sure.
- Erwin
SMoorgsbrd
quarter as good as Neil Diamond. EAGLES vs. BEATLES? SPARE
ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Miller inv Miller investments
Raenna Peiss
: Frank, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, they weren't even a
: quarter as good as Neil Diamond. EAGLES vs. BEATLES? SPARE
: ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey...you guys pretty much know how much I love the Beatles. I also really
like the Eagles. Been hearing Hotel California a lot lately and thoroughly
enjoying it.
Raenna
--
((__)) inf...@umich.edu "Listen to the colour of your dreams"
(00) ft...@cleveland.freenet.edu -John Lennon
nn--(o__o)--nn am...@detroit.freenet.org TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS
http://www.umd.umich.edu/~infinit/
Paul Tyler Margach
don't get it myself.
Paul
PS The only band in history comparable to The Beatles is The Smiths.
James Gardner
>Never heard of The Smiths before. Who are they ?? Tell us more,
>please.
They used to be known as The Crabalockers until someone
served them with a ceast [sic.] and desist order. They
were f*b and ge*r. Not a bit grotty. (Can we still use
that one, Mr. Aspinall?)
J**** A. Gardner
wot...@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Erwin Gunadi
>PS The only band in history comparable to The Beatles is The Smiths.
Never heard of The Smiths before. Who are they ?? Tell us more,
please.
- Erwin
ryan.m....@gmail.com
Norbert K
> The EAGLES???? They weren't even half as good as Fleetwood Mac!
>
> Frank
Joe Walsh was and is a good guitarist, though.
P-Dub
There were LOTS of GREAT bands that appeared as a result of being influenced by the Beatles. But everyone was expecting the 'next' Beatles, and that wasn't even possible.
The Eagles, Fleetwood, Chicago, Edgar & Johnny Winter, Yes, Floyd, Genesis, The Dead, AC/DC, Moody's, Santana, Beach Boys, Bob Segar, Who, Guess Who, Tull, Cat, Elton, Billy, on and on -- great hits, great albums, great live performances fed the late 60s, 70s, and on. It's important to note that the Beatles influenced all these bands to write their own stuff, perform it, demand excellence, innovate in recording, and rock on.
The Beatles splitting up didn't hurt music. Music exploded thanks to the Fab Four.
Pudgy the Bear and Jasper
Norbert K
jtees4
wrote:
Laughing Jaw
P-Dub
There's not much new in the world of the Beatles in 2018. Oh yeah - I got an email from Paul McCartney's website about updated privacy terms.
Laughing Jaw
Tim
Laughing Jaw
Tim
Laughing Jaw
All the others that I mentioned wrote more than enough to deserve mention. But there are plenty of artists that would deserve mention besides. The Turtles would deserve mention for chissakes.
It's just not a songwriting/musician thing... People would deserve mention solely on the basis of the interaction with their career.
IMO, of course. I see no reason to be exclusive. I just don't see the Eagles as being any great shakes.
Tim
> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 12:13:16 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:05:13 AM UTC-7, Laughing Jaw wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 9:15:01 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 4:53:53 PM UTC-7, Laughing Jaw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're going to dumpster dive through 23 years of material, I'd think you could find something more substantial than a Beatles/Eagles comparison.
> > > >
> > > > My sentiments prezactly. Only other acts who deserve honorable mention within this group would have to be limited to Dylan, Stones, Queen and jo momma.
> > >
> > > Well, Pink Floyd, Simon & Garfunkel, Nirvana, Marilyn Manson... but most certainly Elvis Presley.
> >
> > You mean "the" Elvis Presley who never penned an original hit song in his lifetime? Or the others that you've noted who never penned enough?
>
> With Elvis you are talking about the match that lit the gas filled room. Elvis was the super normal stimulus that inspired the world.
> All the others that I mentioned wrote more than enough to deserve mention. But there are plenty of artists that would deserve mention besides. The Turtles would deserve mention for chissakes.
> It's just not a songwriting/musician thing... People would deserve mention solely on the basis of the interaction with their career.
> IMO, of course. I see no reason to be exclusive. I just don't see the Eagles as being any great shakes.
Laughing Jaw
> >
> > With Elvis you are talking about the match that lit the gas filled room. Elvis was the super normal stimulus that inspired the world.
>
> You're also talkin' bout Col. Parker's golden goose who had no real say in his career other than to continue to woo women after hitting 300 lbs atop his Graceland toilet whilst relentlessly poppin his death defying pills just cause he was best at turning Chuck Berry music into white folk R&R music.
>
As to the race stuff... Even Albert Goldman acknowledged Elvis' sheer talent on the Sun Recordings. His first RCA recording though was Heartbreak Hotel -- and that is the record that caught the imagination of Lennon and Harrison. Goldman also acknowledged that Elvis was always right up with where credit was due to black people. As far as the songwriting credits... it's really hypocritical to, on the one hand talk about his ignorance of business and then criticize him for not correcting abuses that was just standard practice within the industry.
In short, my reference to Elvis concerns his impact on the world. Even black people of the time saw Elvis as an ambassador. The stuff you seem to be peddling is all revisionism.
How about the Beatles? They covered Chuck Berry. Weren't they also doing the same?
> > All the others that I mentioned wrote more than enough to deserve mention. But there are plenty of artists that would deserve mention besides. The Turtles would deserve mention for chissakes.
>
> Hmm - and just who was it who appointed you to the role of the great decider as to whether or not songwriting ability shouldn't carry a huge amount of weight towards deserving mention "here" beyond being a very successful 50's R&R performer who gave the Beatles some of their early inspiration in developing their own untouchable career.
>
But really, you just seem to be cantankerous. When I was asking why the person who dug this thread up couldn't find better subject matter I wasn't talking about a better musical comparison. I was just suggesting that they could find something that had a little more depth. Something that would actually be worth reading. I mean, with 23 years of old posts... surely SOMEONE said something interesting.
zippl...@gmail.com
> Ugh.
>
> While I agree (probably with most people on this newsgroup) that Beatles
> are the coolest band in all of history, the Eagles have got to be one of
> the worst in all of history.
>
> With grating, one dimensional songs with cliched arrangements and
> playing, the Eagles embody the very worst in rock music. I even think
> about Hotel California and I start to retch. Beatles are classic;
> Eagles are classic rock. That one can list similar facts about the two
> bands says more about the way rock bands are formed rather than any
> inherent value of the Eagles.
guitar lick too.
zippl...@gmail.com
> On Thursday, September 21, 1995 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, FrDowney wrote:
> > The EAGLES???? They weren't even half as good as Fleetwood Mac!
> >
> > Frank
>
> Agreed! Fleetwood Mac were 100 times better than the Eagles.
zippl...@gmail.com
1995 when it began.
RJKe...@yahoo.com
> Ugh.
> While I agree (probably with most people on this newsgroup) that Beatles
> are the coolest band in all of history, the Eagles have got to be one of
> the worst in all of history.
> With grating, one dimensional songs with cliched arrangements and
> playing, the Eagles embody the very worst in rock music. I even think
> about Hotel California and I start to retch. Beatles are classic;
> Eagles are classic rock. That one can list similar facts about the two
> bands says more about the way rock bands are formed rather than any
> inherent value of the Eagles.
geoff
Googlegroups huh ?
geoff
Dennis Rowan
RJKe...@yahoo.com
> So was Wang wong?
LOL! No, Wang was White.
The Eagles sucked. "Eagles," my ass. They were doves.