Yes I loved the Beatles, and Tupac's lyrics were great, and that is my stand on them. I don't think of any music artist as the best, but they have a place in my library.

Now, the point I want to get across is, are these artists only known as the best because of their chart success? Mainstream hits of the past living on until today? The chart toppers garnering praise? I remember my dad saying "The Beatles WERE the best!" at one time, yet at another, I told him that I got a couple of their albums and he said "Why? They only have a few good songs."

So the Beatles were the ..Akon of the past, except they had some decent songs(And they weren't featured on 90 thousand songs). They were the pop musicians, the best selling artists.

I mean, there are a lot of great artists of today, yet they aren't receiving the same amount of praise. What if they were shot, quit music, or just died?

tl;dr - Do music artists of the past get a bit more praise than normal? What about ones who died/were killed?

they are just a band

and a nigger.

The difference from the beetles and the bands of today is simple.

Most popular bands today have insinuated themes that are controversial. The beetles were generally accepted for their easy going and poignant messages.

The Beetles have twenty something songs that hit #1. Tell me another band that comes close. They ARE the best.

The beatles were amazing.

Tupac was good.

That's the difference between the two. And by the way, it's the ****ing beatles, not beetles.

Quote from Dudeman.

The difference from the beetles and the bands of today is simple.

Most popular bands today have insinuated themes that are controversial. The beetles were generally accepted for their easy going and poignant messages.

Quote from Dragon077

The Beetles have twenty something songs that hit #1. Tell me another band that comes close. They ARE the best.

You both said similar things. You both referred to being popular, being on the top charts. You don't have to be famous to be good, nor do you have to be good to be famous, but popularity doesn't necessarily mean that one is the best.

And popular bands today do tend to be quite bad, but I am sure there are great bands that are never acknowledged.

Err...don't you get on the charts by the number of times your song is listened to or liked? That would mean their individual songs were popular. So they weren't just on the charts because they were popular, or more of their songs would be on the charts.

Beatles composed songs that everyone could get into. They had enough flexibility to create music spanning the genres of the day.

Tupac does rap.
Thats about it.
Gee.



Plus, Tupac is a nigger and the Beatles were British. Duh.

Quote from Doomdooer

Beatles composed songs that everyone could get into. They had enough flexibility to create music spanning the genres of the day.

Tupac does rap.
Thats about it.
Gee.



Plus, Tupac is a nigger and the Beatles were British. Duh.

This thread isn't addressing the difference between the two artists based on unfunny tries at humor. Adrenalineflash is asking why old classic bands or artists that have long been deceased get so much recognition.


Basically, artists like the Beatles are so revered because they were thought of as pioneers of music. They pretty much paved a solid path for today's music. The same can be said about Tupac (even though today's artists sort of got lost on the path he paved and veered off in a completely different direction). Although, most of his recognition comes from his death. Much like many of our painters and writers of the Yester-year. I'm not sure, but I guess people see posthumous recognition as sort of a memorial. Either that or it may come from that old saying "You don't know what you have until it's gone."

Quote from Spazz

This thread isn't addressing the difference between the two artists based on unfunny tries at humor.

You think?

Adrenalineflash is asking why old classic bands or artists that have long been deceased get so much recognition.

Beatles composed songs that everyone could get into. They had enough flexibility to create music spanning the genres of the day.

Tupac does rap.
Thats about it.

Lookie here.

With a little thought, you can see my point.

Back in the "good old days" of the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and others, you found a lot more diversity in the song composition than today.

Rap artists do rap, pop artists do pop. You really don't see much flexibility like in the Beatles.

Quote from Doomdooer

Rap artists do rap, pop artists do pop. You really don't see much flexibility like in the Beatles.

If this is just going to be another "Which genre is better" thing compiled of nothing but stereotypical generalizations based on what little experience you have with the genre, then you might as well drop it now.

And I think you have a completely different definition of the word "flexibility" going through your head right now.

I hate threads like this

it's all a matter of opinion

no one is right

no one is wrong

/thread

Quote from Nodbarnacle

I hate threads like this

it's all a matter of opinion

no one is right

no one is wrong

/thread

I asked one thing and Spazz addressed it - Why do deceased artists / disbanded bands get so much more recognition once they have died? It wasn't a matter of "WHUZ BETTAR "TOOPACK" OR "The Beatles" ?!?/!>

We aren't comparing the two.

Quote from Jeremy

Err...don't you get on the charts by the number of times your song is listened to or liked? That would mean their individual songs were popular. So they weren't just on the charts because they were popular, or more of their songs would be on the charts.

My point was that being on the charts doesn't necessarily mean that you are any good of an artist.


The Beatles were great, but there were songs I disliked as well, in fact many I wasn't a fan of.

Check the sig for awesome Beatles song.

If you don't rate a band as "good" by their success in the charts, what else are you gonna rate them for? The kind of music they make? No, because tastes in music differ, but the chart positions are the same for everyone who looks at them.