Best Ever Albums

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Charicature — Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:42:31 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 08/04/2014 19:42

I'm still waiting on the facts Kiki asked us to face. She said "let's face the facts" but then followed it up with opinion and conjecture. 😁

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

NowhereMan — Fri, 1 Aug 2014 19:27:05 GMT

Author: NowhereMan

Posted: 08/01/2014 23:27

satiemaniac wrote:

The Beatles are half dead

Your point?

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Anonymous — Fri, 1 Aug 2014 19:26:17 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/01/2014 23:26

The Beatles are half dead

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

NowhereMan — Fri, 1 Aug 2014 19:22:32 GMT

Author: NowhereMan

Posted: 08/01/2014 23:22

Mdemauri wrote:

The Beatles are The Beatles of today.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Mdemauri — Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:47:05 GMT

Author: Mdemauri

Posted: 08/01/2014 19:47

The Beatles are The Beatles of today.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

paladisiac — Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:12:05 GMT

Author: paladisiac

Posted: 08/01/2014 19:12

i missed this thread before, and thus, haven't been able to add my "ha ha".

ha ha

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

NowhereMan — Fri, 1 Aug 2014 07:06:15 GMT

Author: NowhereMan

Posted: 08/01/2014 11:06

StreetSpirit wrote:

The title of this forum makes me want to kill myself.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

CA Dreamin — Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:10:42 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 07/31/2014 23:10

The title of this forum makes me want to kill myself.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

MattSA421 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:49:17 GMT

Author: MattSA421

Posted: 06/12/2013 23:49

hmm going by that logic, if Kings of Leon are The Beatles of today, then does that make Justin Bieber the Frank Sinatra of today?

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

drakonium — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:10:12 GMT

Author: drakonium

Posted: 06/11/2013 22:10

ColumnatedRuins wrote:

Eh, it's not that bad; I've heard worse. Expand on why you think that's the most ignorant statement you've ever read. Tbh, I too find it hard to imagine another act that will ever be as well-sold and culturally ubiquitous as The Beatles/Michael Jackson. I don't really have the words to explain why, just a gut feeling. I think because less people are buying music nowadays, combined with the internet exposing everyone to a massive variety of artists (more acts to chose from, less likelihood of one blowing up), there won't be an one group reaching the "success" (in terms of selling things and making themselves known, as Dingerbell was arguing I think) of ultra-popular artists like The Beatles.

I'm not saying any of this for sure, btw: just a feeling I have. It is admittedly very hard for me to argue this because I wasn't alive in the 60s/80s so everything I know about the Beatles' or Michael Jackson's contemporary popularity I know from books and the like. All I know is that when the Beatles came to America for the first time, they made headlines. Like front page news in newspapers. Do you see another musical act accomplishing that?

You might say I'm pernickety (what a strange word, Internet says it's the right one, though), but I think the word "never" was really inappropriate. How much time do you think the human race has before disappearing? Thousands of years? Millions? What do rock music represent compared to the entirety of music composed by humans? How can you predict things like that?

No, I don't see a phenomenon like this happen within the next decades, or even the next centuries. But what does this represent next to the lifetime of the whole human race? Do you know what will happen in a decade? What music will sound like then? And what will sales be like? Will there even be sales anymore? Wow, so many questions, I'm sorry but it makes my post look dramatic and it's kinda cool.

There's no way we can say that there will never be any band like The Beatles. But again, and I apologize if I appeared picky (I think this word is fitting, too), what annoyed me in his post was just the use of that word.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

ColumnatedRuins — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:45:27 GMT

Author: ColumnatedRuins

Posted: 06/11/2013 21:45

drakonium wrote:

Wow. I can't tell if it's the most ignorant statement I've ever read or if it's just a bad use of words.

Eh, it's not that bad; I've heard worse. Expand on why you think that's the most ignorant statement you've ever read. Tbh, I too find it hard to imagine another act that will ever be as well-sold and culturally ubiquitous/loved as The Beatles or Michael Jackson. I don't really have the words to explain why, just a gut feeling. I think because less people are buying music nowadays, combined with the internet exposing everyone to a massive variety of artists (more acts to chose from, less likelihood of one blowing up), there won't be an one group reaching the "success" (in terms of selling things and making themselves known, as Dingerbell was arguing I think) of ultra-popular artists like The Beatles.

I'm not saying any of this for sure, btw: just a feeling I have. It is admittedly very hard for me to argue this because I wasn't alive in the 60s/80s so everything I know about the Beatles' or Michael Jackson's contemporary popularity I know from books and the like. All I know is that when the Beatles came to America for the first time, they made headlines. Like front page news in newspapers. Do you see another musical act accomplishing that?

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

drakonium — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:29:17 GMT

Author: drakonium

Posted: 06/11/2013 21:29

Dingerbell wrote:

So really, there'll never be anyone as successful as the Beatles again.

Wow. I can't tell if it's the most ignorant statement I've ever read or if it's just a bad use of words.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Jasonconfused — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:54:01 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 06/11/2013 17:54

Necharsian wrote:

I have not found this to be true at all.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Necharsian — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:39:06 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 06/11/2013 16:39

Dingerbell wrote:

There will probably never be a band as critically successful or popular as the Beatles. They are completely in a league of their own. I know- although I can only speak in experience of the people I know at my school- that the Beatles are the only rock artist that everyone has heard or knows about, they are that influential. Sure, everyone's heard of Bieber, but firstly, possibly not the older generations will be as knowledgeable, and secondly, Bieber tends to get more well-known due to his actions and his fans, rather than his music. Also, you've got to consider that in this day and age, anyone can access his music from YouTube almost anywhere. Back when the Beatles were around, you had to buy all music you got as vinyl- singles and albums included- and they still were incredibly successful regardless.

So really, there'll never be anyone as successful as the Beatles again.

I think the Beatles also have that trait of people knowing who they are but not knowing specific songs. It's just a generational thing. Older people will know and love the Beatles and not know Biebs while young folk will probably know Baby more than any Beatles song.

Also much like how bieber utilized the Internet to become an international sensation, the Beatles utilized new and popular technologies ala tv and radio. Sometimes I wonder if the real difference between the two is simply just 40 years

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:38:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/11/2013 16:38

This is what some people don't seem to understand, The Beatles are considered great because of when they created the music they did.

Kings of Leon are among a plethora of dull stadium rock bands who make perfectly decent, but completely uninspired and unoriginal music that's been circulating for about 20 years now. If Kings of Leon did what they in the 60s or 70s, then hell yeah you could give them praise. But they're not.

The Beatles, alongside a few other bands, where hugely significant in changing the course of modern popular music. Simply put, Kings of Leon have not done that, and so long as the money is coming in, they will not do that.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

SamuelPear — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:23:13 GMT

Author: SamuelPear

Posted: 06/11/2013 16:23

The Beatles are The Beatles and Kings Of Leon are Kings Of Leon end of discussion !

I love to death The Beatles and I really dig Kings Of Leon but I don't see the connection, they don't have the same quality of continuity in their records. Don't have the same cultural impact on society and Kings of Leon's career is not done.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Dingerbell — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:35:06 GMT

Author: Dingerbell

Posted: 06/11/2013 15:35

There will probably never be a band as critically successful or popular as the Beatles. They are completely in a league of their own. I know- although I can only speak in experience of the people I know at my school- that the Beatles are the only rock artist that everyone has heard or knows about, they are that influential. Sure, everyone's heard of Bieber, but firstly, possibly not the older generations will be as knowledgeable, and secondly, Bieber tends to get more well-known due to his actions and his fans, rather than his music. Also, you've got to consider that in this day and age, anyone can access his music from YouTube almost anywhere. Back when the Beatles were around, you had to buy all music you got as vinyl- singles and albums included- and they still were incredibly successful regardless.

So really, there'll never be anyone as successful as the Beatles again.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

meccalecca — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:44:36 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 06/11/2013 14:44

I liked the first couple Kings of Leon records, and then they seemed to lose any edge they had and just gave the labels what they wanted. I wish they would've taken challenges, because now they just sort of bore me.

If any American band deserves to be called the Beatles of today it's probably Wilco. Critically adored, influential, and commercially successful despite taking risks. Obviously they're nowhere near as popular as the Beatles though. Plus who needs a Beatles of today when you could have a Wilco of today?

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Bach — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:19:36 GMT

Author: Bach

Posted: 06/11/2013 11:19

paladisiac wrote:

i think a two-letter answer of "no" will suffice as a response to the thread's title.

Re: Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today.

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:54:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/11/2013 06:54

ColumnatedRuins wrote:

In brief:

The problem I have with your first point, and the reason why I based my definition of "well known" is sales is that sales are the only objective data we have when dealing with the relative popularity of artists. Otherwise, we base our arguments on our subjective experiences with our perceptions of the popularities of Beatles/KOL/Bieber, which leads into "yeah-uh" and "nuh-huh" bullshit that doesn't go anywhere (and I don't want to argue further with this). For example, in my experience, I don't believe that the examples you gave (Bieber and Lil' Wayne) are good enough. I don't believe they are more well known than the Beatles. This is from my experience: I have found that most adults I know over the age of 50 or so that don't have teenage children have no fucking clue who Bieber is, or what he does. The adults over 50 you know may be different. On the other hand, I've seen that people from 60+ all the way to their grandchildren have a layman's understanding of what the Beatles are (they know the name and know they make music and remember I mentioned "general public"). I haven't heard Lil' Wayne mentioned in conversation in years. So your examples, in my experience, fail. And you can see how this argument is just splitting hairs and will not conclude. So, I'm done here.

Basically, I chose sales because sales are the strongest language we have for interpreting the relative popularities of artists. They may not paint the full picture, but they are the most objective portrayal, I think.

Ahhh, so that's what you meant.

Makes sense. You're right, someone's popularity is all relative to their crowd, area where they live, and etc. making it a subjective experience, but that's what I find great about music and debates in general, that they are relative to yourself. If we start objectifying things, that'd be no fun. That being said, I'm fine with the whole objective thing you're talking about. Nothing wrong with it. Sales are fine to use as an "objective" medium for this sort of argument (though, I get the feeling that sales don't really equate to popularity, I can't exactly choose an artist who has had major sales and isn't that popular without this falling back into this argument. For ex. Collective Soul is a band that once had many sales though their popularity is medium at this point. With that being said, it's, once again, relative to whoever the statement is coming from). In essence, I agree, but I also get the feeling that i disagree and that I can't really put into words why.