Animals such as bats, birds, hedgehogs, moles, meerkats, owls and badgers prey on Beetles, so obviously in the food chain Animals are clearly better than Beetles.
Oh sorry I misunderstood you are talking about 1960s British Beat Groups. Well that's no contest The Beatles (aptly pronounced Beat Alls) are the greatest musical act of the 20th Century.
The Beatles were much more prolific, wrote countless brilliant songs, made albums that put most other albums to shame and were years ahead of all their sixties rivals.
The Animals recorded "House Of The Rising Sun", which I prefer to anything the Beatles or any other British sixties band recorded, and they were also one of the best, if not the best British exponents of American rhythm 'n' blues.
The Beatles were better, no question. However, John Lennon was a fan of The Animals when they were first becoming popular. Nowadays, Bruce Springsteen cited The Animals as one of his favorite bands when he was a teenager, especially liking We Gotta Get Out of This Place (he mentioned it during his South By Southwest keynote speech this year).In fact, Bruce played It's My Life at several of his 1970's concerts with the E Street Band.
I would say that if it were not for The Beatles then the chances are that groups such as The Animals or The Searchers may not have had a hook to hang their coats on. The Animals were a fine band and have their place but it will always be behind The Beatles.
I would say that if it were not for The Beatles then the chances are that groups such as The Animals or The Searchers may not have had a hook to hang their coats on. The Animals were a fine band and have their place but it will always be behind The Beatles.
hmmm, im not so sure tbh. i think theres a good chance that pop groups would have appeared anyway.
im not 'dissing' the beatles legacy, they did it, fact, they spearheaded and popularised the pop group format, but if there was no beatles, someone else would have done it or several acts would have done it im sure.
hmmm, im not so sure tbh. i think theres a good chance that pop groups would have appeared anyway.
im not 'dissing' the beatles legacy, they did it, fact, they spearheaded and popularised the pop group format, but if there was no beatles, someone else would have done it or several acts would have done it im sure.
The same could apply to more or less any human innovation.
If Darwin hadn't come up with evolution by means of natural selection, someone else would have done so. (Of course, in actual fact Wallace did and they presented together).
If Einstein hadn't come up with relativity, someone else would have.
The list goes on.
It doesn't stop us lauding innovators for what they did.
Well we have Chas Chandler to thank for the Jimi Hendrix Experience ultimately. Had Chas not convinced Jimi to come to England, would Jimi have met Noel and Mitch?
However, The Animals recorded some excellent tracks. My favourite is their take on 'Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood' with 'We've Gotta Get Out Of This Place' a close second.
I don't get the Beatles, I no their music is considered revolutionary but I don't consider any of the songs I've heard from them to be that great. Vastly overrated in my opinion. I know they did like the first music video and much more but it doesn't mean they were the best at it.
And i don't get how they are called a rock band, they are about as rock as McFly.
Plus I've never really heard any of The Animals music so I can't really comment.
I don't get the Beatles, I no their music is considered revolutionary but I don't consider any of the songs I've heard from them to be that great. Vastly overrated in my opinion. I know they did like the first music video and much more but it doesn't mean they were the best at it.
And i don't get how they are called a rock band, they are about as rock as McFly.
Plus I've never really heard any of The Animals music so I can't really comment.
It really depends how you define Rock music. If it is merely a contraction of the term "rock 'n' roll", then of course the Beatles are a rock band, because they played a set of rock 'n' roll at the Cavern and in Hamburg, and tracks like "I'm Down", "Back In The USSR" and "Get Back" are unquestionably rock 'n' roll. If your definition of rock, is as something quite different from rock 'n' roll, e.g. the sort of music played by the likes of Queen, Pink Floyd or Bon Jovi, then the Beatles most certainly cannot be called a rock band, because they're so much better than that.
The Animals were actually an (exceptionally good) R'n'B band, back in those halcyon days when the term stood for Rhythm 'n' Blues rather than Rihanna 'n' Beyonce (or Rubbish 'n' B*ll*cks).
I don't get the Beatles, I no their music is considered revolutionary but I don't consider any of the songs I've heard from them to be that great. Vastly overrated in my opinion. I know they did like the first music video and much more but it doesn't mean they were the best at it.
And i don't get how they are called a rock band, they are about as rock as McFly.
Plus I've never really heard any of The Animals music so I can't really comment.
to understand what the beatles did, you have to view them in context. by todays standards you might think whats all the fuss about? but back in the 60's they cut new ground, even IF it was basic stuff. they started out as a very basic beat group, but within a few years had created tracks that have stood the test of time, their true influence is immessurable.
they are considered the most influencial act of all time for a reason you know, admired and respected by all across the spectrum of music, from musicians, producers, composers, over a long period of time. if you dont get it. maybe its your perception thats wrong, unless you know more then the rest of the music industry over the last 50 years! :D
oh and theres considerable doubt who did the first music video, queens 'bohemian rhapsody' is often cited as the first purpose made one, but acts in the 60's created films (pre video) for their singles. the beatles used film clips off their films 'help' and 'a hard days night' but they were extracts, not purpose made.
i know the yardbirds in 65 made a purpose made film to accompany their first hit 'for your love', there are probably older ones.
While the Beatles are my fave band of all-time and surely the most creative, the Animals recorded quite a few distinctive songs themselves. As well as House of the Rising Sun, they had Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, It's My Life, I'm Crying, San Fransiscan Nights and a few other notable songs.
I know its snobbery, but its hard to take someone seriously who says they don't "understand" the Beatles or that they're "overrated". :rolleyes: You have to look at it in the context of the time period and the ways they changed how the music industry worked. and yes the music is f*cking brilliant as well.
Both bands have done some fab songs. From The Animals I particularly like 'Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood' and 'We've Gotta Get Out of This Place'. Of course their 'House of the Rising Sun' is also a classic.
With The Beatles I especially like their albums 'Revolver' and 'Sgt Pepper'. A very diverse band.
Comments
Stop it
Oh sorry I misunderstood you are talking about 1960s British Beat Groups. Well that's no contest The Beatles (aptly pronounced Beat Alls) are the greatest musical act of the 20th Century.
The Beatles were much more prolific, wrote countless brilliant songs, made albums that put most other albums to shame and were years ahead of all their sixties rivals.
The Animals recorded "House Of The Rising Sun", which I prefer to anything the Beatles or any other British sixties band recorded, and they were also one of the best, if not the best British exponents of American rhythm 'n' blues.
love
"inside looking out"
"its my life"
Marshall
My article on Five Paul McCartney collectible CD's:
http://marshfish.hubpages.com/hub/Five-collectible-Paul-McCartney-related-compact-disc-releases
hmmm, im not so sure tbh. i think theres a good chance that pop groups would have appeared anyway.
im not 'dissing' the beatles legacy, they did it, fact, they spearheaded and popularised the pop group format, but if there was no beatles, someone else would have done it or several acts would have done it im sure.
The same could apply to more or less any human innovation.
If Darwin hadn't come up with evolution by means of natural selection, someone else would have done so. (Of course, in actual fact Wallace did and they presented together).
If Einstein hadn't come up with relativity, someone else would have.
The list goes on.
It doesn't stop us lauding innovators for what they did.
However, The Animals recorded some excellent tracks. My favourite is their take on 'Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood' with 'We've Gotta Get Out Of This Place' a close second.
The Beatles win for me overall though.
And i don't get how they are called a rock band, they are about as rock as McFly.
Plus I've never really heard any of The Animals music so I can't really comment.
It really depends how you define Rock music. If it is merely a contraction of the term "rock 'n' roll", then of course the Beatles are a rock band, because they played a set of rock 'n' roll at the Cavern and in Hamburg, and tracks like "I'm Down", "Back In The USSR" and "Get Back" are unquestionably rock 'n' roll. If your definition of rock, is as something quite different from rock 'n' roll, e.g. the sort of music played by the likes of Queen, Pink Floyd or Bon Jovi, then the Beatles most certainly cannot be called a rock band, because they're so much better than that.
The Animals were actually an (exceptionally good) R'n'B band, back in those halcyon days when the term stood for Rhythm 'n' Blues rather than Rihanna 'n' Beyonce (or Rubbish 'n' B*ll*cks).
to understand what the beatles did, you have to view them in context. by todays standards you might think whats all the fuss about? but back in the 60's they cut new ground, even IF it was basic stuff. they started out as a very basic beat group, but within a few years had created tracks that have stood the test of time, their true influence is immessurable.
they are considered the most influencial act of all time for a reason you know, admired and respected by all across the spectrum of music, from musicians, producers, composers, over a long period of time. if you dont get it. maybe its your perception thats wrong, unless you know more then the rest of the music industry over the last 50 years! :D
oh and theres considerable doubt who did the first music video, queens 'bohemian rhapsody' is often cited as the first purpose made one, but acts in the 60's created films (pre video) for their singles. the beatles used film clips off their films 'help' and 'a hard days night' but they were extracts, not purpose made.
i know the yardbirds in 65 made a purpose made film to accompany their first hit 'for your love', there are probably older ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoF-7VMMihA (she loves you)
to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spjcPS4ekOA (tomorrow never knows)
in 3 years.
Much, much, much older!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_video
Having said that I also liked the Beatles and history shows they have had a more long term impact on music in general
With The Beatles I especially like their albums 'Revolver' and 'Sgt Pepper'. A very diverse band.