Strawberry Fields Forever

The two sound nowhere near the same, so I'm not really sure where you can get the comparison from.

 

depends on which side of the fence you're on.

as for me, i totally disagree with you.

beatles had more talent then any of that stuff out there now.

 

You obviously haven't been looking.

And the reason I can compare Beatles with Rap is because talent is talent: it doesn't matter what kind.

 

Right on! Except for the rap stuff. :tongue:

 

Maybe it's just because I'm from the south, but the only rap I can actually tolerate is crunk music.

Other than that, I get my kicks pickin on lil jon and ludicris. Jawjuh...!!!!11!!1!!111!

And the only concerts I've been to that could be considered close to rap are Michael Franti & Spearhead, G Love & Special Sauce, and Kottonmouth Kings.


Pecan country like catfish with grits
Candy yams and chitlins
Gram's homemade baked biscuits
The land of classical Caprices and Impala super sports
Ingredients in the peach cobbler called Georgia
I love the women out in L.A.
And the shopping stores in New York
The beaches in MIA
But they ain't nothin like that GA red clay
Look on your map, we right above Florida
Next to Bama
Under the Carolinas and Tennesse, you'll see Georgia

 

i saw g. love and the special sauce at soul kitchen in mobile, alabama.

you're from the south?

cool, where from?

 

I have looked.
I have swam through the CD aisles.
At my place of employment,
The prepper in the back keeps rap on 24/7.
I can tolerate some of it.
Mainly crunk shit.

But as far as making the comparison,
I know you put on that it's talent.
But it just doesn't make the cut.
As far a s comparison goes.
And as far as talent goes,
I won't get into it, bc that last thing I want to end up in is a virtual debate.
Because I'm hardly in my own mind right now.
So, keep on keepin' on.

You're a beautiful person, anyway.
Have a wonderful day.

 

But when it comes to raw talent. Talent on their instruments and their songwriting ability, it doesn't match some rappers, or even other musicians. Let's be fair: The Beatles weren't the best musicians when it came to their instruments.

 

VA Beach/NC area. I've hopped between the states ever since I was two or three...

But my favorite area is probably the Florida Panhandle/Gulf area. People always get chased by cops on ATVs while shrooming on cow pastures. A friend of mine used to go out at 4 or 5am and chase shrooms down before they went back into the colonies. He had about twenty minutes to do it before someone made it onto the pasture and started chasing him.



This is the river I live on. That's Yorktown, VA on the left... where Gen. Cornwallis' troops surrendered to Washington's troops and the country was founded.

 

actually that's wrong. Compared to others in the rock genre, their writing and arragning was more complicated then most rock guys. A lot of the stuff they did was seen in things like jazz and such. Just because they did'nt "shred" does'nt mean they were'nt good muscians.

 

Wow...A time change from 4/4 to 2/4...That is extra-ordinary... The Beatles were far too squeaky-clean for my liking.

 

actually, I was thinking of the ways the melodies were layerd onto the rythems in their earlier music. Also the use of inversions and cadences. There's also the ways they used appergios into their leads and melodies. And of corse in their later music when they started intergrating other instraments and such. Ad things like the chords they used, like 7s and extended chords, it's nothing special but almost un-heard of in rock n roll. They were talented musicans, you can't take that away from them.

 

Yeah, okay. When I'm wrong I admit it. I suppose calling them untalented was abit of an over-exaggeration.:tongue:

 

metaphors, antonio.

and besides. i heard they were prosethetic.

 

Alot of the time changes were done in the studio by Martin.