Creedence Clearwater Revival vs. The Beatles

[TurdBerglar]

i never really understood what was so great about the beatles. i can understand why they are considered the foundation of modern rock with how they structured and wrote their songs. i feel that's all they had going for them, though. CCR on the other hand had the same basic structures but incorperated a lot more. they had much more of a groove to them. they were also around almost the exact same time as the beatles. i credit why the beatles are considered the rock gods because they were just more media friendly.

fuck the beatles.

[abcdefz]

The Beatles were way more inventive. CCR just found their perfect sound and stuck with it.

On different days I'd probably pick differently. Rough poll, Turd.

[TurdBerglar]

they invented acid induced tripped out crap or they had shit like i wanna hold your hand.

i just find them to be extremely corny

[abcdefz]

I'm not that nuts about the earliest stuff, but from around Beatles for Sale onward, they got it going. Sgt. Pepper is really uneven, but the
highs are really high. Then the white album and Abbey Road were just stone masterpices. Masterpi. Whatever.

I'm not saying CCR wasn't brilliant. I have as much CCR on my computer as Beatles. I think CCR vs. The Beatles would be a hell of a
death match.

[TurdBerglar]

i can't think of the tittle of that one song. that song that aerosmith covered real well. that is the type of shit i like from the beatles. i think that's the shit the was mostly written by lennon? right?

[abcdefz]

"Come Together." Yeah, that's pretty surely John's. That song opens Abbey Road.

McCartney did some great stuff, too. You just gotta open your heart. :D

[abcdefz]

You know, if you ever want to get your hair blown back, get John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band. (y)(y)(y)

[Auton]

i LOVE creedence... but uh, comparing them to the beatles? beatles blow them out of the water.

[abcdefz]

Wow. That's pretty wrong.

[Auton]

what? creedence is great, i just think the beatles are much better.
turd said "fuck the beatles" and you didn't "wow-that's-pretty-wrong" him.

[HEIRESS]

I saw john fogerty live this summer

he's like a little overly positive gnome who drinks from the fountain of youth. dude had energy to spare and sounded fantastic.

(y)

[TurdBerglar]

what? creedence is great, i just think the beatles are much better.
turd said "fuck the beatles" and you didn't "wow-that's-pretty-wrong" him.

he told me i was wrong too

[Auton]

^gave a reason though.

althought this is kind of a kettle-calling-the-pot-black thing seeing how i've had more than my fair share of "they suck" posts without anything to support my claim...

[abcdefz]

what? creedence is great, i just think the beatles are much better.
turd said "fuck the beatles" and you didn't "wow-that's-pretty-wrong" him.



That's because it's a given that Turd doesn't know any better. I give you much more credit.

[TurdBerglar]

what the fuck is that suppose to mean

[abcdefz]

See?

[Auton]

he was just joking around.

honestly though, their first album though cosmo's factory are all AMAZING albums, but i just didn't think the absolute BEST really touched the beatles' absolute best. they're both 5 star bands, but *insert every beatles cliche here*

[TurdBerglar]

fuck politeness


fuck you, a-z


dick

[abcdefz]

(y)



he was just joking around.

honestly though, their first album though cosmo's factory are all AMAZING albums, but i just didn't think the absolute BEST really touched the beatles' absolute best. they're both 5 star bands, but *insert every beatles cliche here*



I think you could make a solid argument that CCR had just plain better songs than the Beatles. And I think, as a band, they had a way better sound.

[TurdBerglar]

i also think they were a whole lot more consistent. if you compared the beatles worst to ccr's worst i think ccr's crappy songs would be better. better as in not as crappy.

[abcdefz]

i also think they were a whole lot more consistent. if you compared the beatles worst to ccr's worst i think ccr's crappy songs would be better. better as in not as crappy.



Uhhh.... did you ever hear Mardi Gras?

[HEIRESS]

what turd is saying is that the beatles had a higher song median than ccr. perhaps, but ccr had a better mode than the beatles because their worst songs still didnt such as much as the beatles worst songs.

[TurdBerglar]

mardi gras does not count. tom left and the writing was split up between the remaining.

[TurdBerglar]

what turd is saying is that the beatles had a higher song median than ccr. perhaps, but ccr had a better mode than the beatles because their worst songs still didnt such as much as the beatles worst songs.

the beatles had a bunch of A's and a bunch of D's. that averages out to what? a C+? CCR were straight B students.

[abcdefz]

mardi gras does not count. tom left and the writing was split up between the remaining.



Dude, that was a CCR album. By your logic, there hasn't been an REM album since New Adventures in Hi-Fi.

[TurdBerglar]

i don't give a shit about rem


it may have been a ccr album but the whole dynamics were switched up

[abcdefz]

Yeah, but it's still part of the canon. An album so bad it killed the group.

Actually, it's got a couple good songs. But the Beatles never made an album as bad as that. Even a mess like Let it Be was better than Mardi Gras.

[TurdBerglar]

maybe they should have changed the name of the band then. a major contributor leaves and his spot is taken up by the two others of lessor quality. it was essentially a new band decendant from the original.

[abcdefz]

Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship. One of the few things they did right.


I think John should've just called it quits and gone solo rather than do the democracy thing with guys who clearly didn't have his talent.

Maybe it was a contractual obligation album.

[TurdBerglar]

i was gonna add the stones too this battle, but i don't think they are in the same generation as ccr and the beatles. they may have been around at the same time but they didn't write their own shit during that time. i think the stones are really in the cream/hendrix generation of progression. right before the led zepp sabbath generation. or maybe even a stepping stone between the the ccr/beatles generation and the cream/hendrix generation.

[abcdefz]

Actually, timing-wise, the Stones would've made more sense than the Beatles. But this is a tastier argument, anyway.

You did good, Turd. (y)

[TurdBerglar]

were the stones ealier timing wise? well anyways they were nothing but pawns of the record execs and just a coverband in their early years.

[abcdefz]

The Stones and the Beatles were pretty much neck and neck. I think the Beatles started around '63, and the Stones around '64.
Creedence started around '68, I think.

[TurdBerglar]

im not going by when they released albums. im going by when they formed.

[abcdefz]

...as Quarrymen and Polliwogs?

[TurdBerglar]

what became CCR formed in 59
what became The Beatles Formed in 60
what became The Stones Formed in 62

[HEIRESS]

THERE SHALL BE NO BAD MOUTHING OF ANYTHING DONE BY THE ROLLING STONES IN THE 60s IN THIS THREAD

[TurdBerglar]

they didn't write a whole lot of "their" shit during the 60's

well, ealy 60's that is.

[abcdefz]

THERE SHALL BE NO BAD MOUTHING OF ANYTHING DONE BY THE ROLLING STONES IN THE 60s IN THIS THREAD




Not even Satanic Majesties Request?

[HEIRESS]

TSMR contains my favorite stones song "2000 man"

so shut it.

[abcdefz]

Sing this all together...

[HEIRESS]

I even own the remastered cd with the fancy shiny cover.

[abcdefz]

Do you actually listen to the whole album very often?

[yeahwho]

The Beatles set the template for how to succeed beyond your wildest dreams playing rock & roll music with your buddies.

Most every band that came after the Beatles copped part of their act.

Musically and politically.

On the other hand the Beatles could never touch CCR when it comes to playing a truly American song. CCR are one funky swampy rockin' unit.

Give it to the beatles for sheer output of product, extremely prolific.

[TurdBerglar]

i think there were so prolific just by chance, though. a lot of there success has to do with the well thought out superficial pop aspect of their music/image.

[fucktopgirl]

I like both of them!(y)

[yeahwho]

i think there were so prolific just by chance, though. a lot of there success has to do with the well thought out superficial pop aspect of their music/image.

Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Rubber Soul, White Album, Abbey Road, a Hard Days Night, the Second Album........All different, All great. Excellent musicianship and lyrical content. All very tight albums.

Overplayed yes, superficial only because of this aspect. I tend to really tone down how much I listen to either of these bands. I'm dangerously close to being over saturated on both bands.

[TurdBerglar]

i feel they definitely had a well thought out image(s) they use to help boost their popularity. im not saying they are not very good musicians. im saying a lot of their prolificness(is that a word?) has a large basis based on this pop aspect.

[DroppinScience]

Now I know I'm VERY biased since I grew up on the entire Beatles discography, coupled with the fact that just seeing the movie "Across the Universe" managed to make all those songs vital and exciting once again, but any day, any time, it's The Beatles. And I don't care what people say, but I have a strong affection for the early mop top days before they discovered LSD and sitars as well. The simplistic "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"/"Love Me Do" is integral to their charm, just as much as the later, more sophisticated "Revolution"/"I Am The Walrus" is. The transformation(s) and evolution of The Beatles is unparalleled. For me, when you get into The Beatles, you embrace the whole package, their whole recording span.

As for CCR, enjoying The Beatles or CCR really just depends on your mood. I'm not looking for the same thing out of either group when I listen to them.

[Drederick Tatum]

I probably listen to more CCR than the Beatles, but I think the comparison is pretty unfair.

CCR rocked hard, but then you listen to something like Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields Forever and you realise that they were on some next level shit. they were pushing the envelope in the most creative and influential musical era of the last 100 years.

[-T-]

I enjoy CCR more then The Beatles most of the time but that does not mean they are "better".

[mathcart]

i was gonna add the stones too this battle, but i don't think they are in the same generation as ccr and the beatles. they may have been around at the same time but they didn't write their own shit during that time. i think the stones are really in the cream/hendrix generation of progression. right before the led zepp sabbath generation. or maybe even a stepping stone between the the ccr/beatles generation and the cream/hendrix generation.

I'm very amused by your sense of time

Beatles '60-'70 (Ed Sullivan show nov. '63)
CCR '68- '72

The Beatles had transformed (and I don't use that term lightly) popular music five years before the first Credence album was released. I LOVE Credence (much as the next guy) but this comparison your trying to make isn't fair. Theres probably less than ten musicians from Mozart to the present who have been as revolutionary as The Beatles. The list of things they did first is quite long- they influenced EVERYBODY making music the same time as them and their influence is still felt in every catchy pop song (Spoon- among my favorite new artists are clearly heavily influenced).
But their music holds up- go listen to any of the classic soul covers of their songs- there amazing. I understand how overexposed they have been for so many decades, but I'm never disappointed to hear one of their songs, which I think, is the point I trying to make here.

Again in brief:
the Beatles invented-
the concept album
studio recording wizardry
the concert movie
not to mention a body of work that besides being both incredibly popular was incredibly good (no small feat- Britney Spears anybody?).

Lastly I think the most interesting thing about the Beatles is that they served as the soundtrack/conscience of a generation. This seems to be a little hoaky to say, and I also think is the main reason people react negatively to them. This seems a little weird coming from someone who is not of that generation, but everything that any generation was able to do afterwards, in terms of questioning their realities/ standing up for themselves to older generations with dangerous habits- while not begining here, came to a head in mass way all over the world. The Beatles were the thought process of a maturing generation question all conventions- musically and otherwise. There music perfectly captures a time period (It really does help to listen to their discography chronologically to get a sense of the can do spirit of the early sixties through the darkening end of the decade).

Ok- thats my 2 cents

[mathcart]

im not going by when they released albums. im going by when they formed.

whoops just saw this:o

[TurdBerglar]

i fucking hate catchy pop songs

[b-grrrlie]

Now I know I'm VERY biased since I grew up on the entire Beatles discography, coupled with the fact that just seeing the movie "Across the Universe" managed to make all those songs vital and exciting once again, but any day, any time, it's The Beatles. And I don't care what people say, but I have a strong affection for the early mop top days before they discovered LSD and sitars as well. The simplistic "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"/"Love Me Do" is integral to their charm, just as much as the later, more sophisticated "Revolution"/"I Am The Walrus" is. The transformation(s) and evolution of The Beatles is unparalleled. For me, when you get into The Beatles, you embrace the whole package, their whole recording span.

As for CCR, enjoying The Beatles or CCR really just depends on your mood. I'm not looking for the same thing out of either group when I listen to them.

Are we brother and sister?

[RobMoney$]

THERE SHALL BE NO BAD MOUTHING OF ANYTHING DONE BY THE ROLLING STONES IN THE 60s IN THIS THREAD

Rock On Sister.



I've gotten in countless arguments over the years about the Stones being superior to the Beatles on this MB, and also IRL for that matter.
The Beatles are a great band, but they are also very overrated. Turd was right about the Beatles vast amount of "suck songs" dragging their entire catalog down.

Everyone loves to praise the Beatles for pushing the bounds of music like they invented LSD and Psychadelic Music and Art or something.

[RobMoney$]

Do you actually listen to the whole album very often?

Yeah, not one of their premier albums, I'll admit that.

But A-Z, do you really listen to the whole White Album very often?

[RobMoney$]

BTW, Does anyone know the longest concert the Beatles ever played?