The Replacements are better than The Beatles...

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by BigDanT, Feb 7, 2014.

  1. BigDanT

    BigDanT Supporting Member

    Aug 26, 2011
  2. BigDanT

    BigDanT Supporting Member

    Aug 26, 2011
    Oh. And so is Radiohead.
  3. Not another Fox News thread, please.

    (Frankly, I'm amazed anyone there has ever heard of either band. And I can't believe either Thom Yorke or Paul Westerberg would be pleased with the association.)
  4. BigDanT

    BigDanT Supporting Member

    Aug 26, 2011
    Honestly not intending to bash Fox News. I just find it pretty incredible. I think if you asked most of the bands on this list they'd disagree with the assertion. I just think some writers writer these lists to illicit negative feedback.
    Well maybe I'm just playing into that. But $$&@#^k it's just SUCH a ridiculous assertion! Not that all the bands on the list aren't great in their own regard but "better" than the Beatles??
  5. Sponsored by:

  6. You nailed it. It's about provoking, getting the clicks for the advertisers.

    I think if you asked any band on the list they'd call BS and probably say it's the Beatles, then everyone else.

    In any case, "Who's better?" is not a grown-up question as regards something whose merits are largely subjective.

    But then I expect nothing grown-up from Fox News.
  7. jj4001


    Dec 27, 2010
    Providence, RI
    Cool, I got to record a record with someone even better than the Beatles. ;)

    Somehow, I doubt Mr. PW would care one bit about this list.
  8. FOX doesn't get anything else right , Why should they start now?:rollno:
  9. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    I suppose the yahoos & yentas @CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, et al would know better, right?
  10. pacojas

    pacojas "FYYA BUN"

    Oct 11, 2009
    of course, silly rabbit! :bag:
  11. callofcthulhu


    Oct 16, 2012
    I've never heard of The Replacements and either couldn't care less about or actively despise 7 of the other bands.

    Needless to say I'm in full agreement with this list.
  12. ChriszW


    Jan 14, 2013
    Surprise, AZ
    The Replacements are one of my favorite bands and I'm not really a Beatles fan, but I can understand the influence of the Beatles alone putting them higher than the Replacements.
  13. GregC

    GregC Johnny and Joe Gold Supporting Member

    Jan 19, 2007
    To be fair, the author isn't a Fox staffer. "Mike Mettler is the former editor-in-chief and current music editor of Sound & Vision, and he interviews artists and producers about their love of music and high-resolution audio on his own site,"

    And yeah, this is just one of those stir-the-pot deals. Very little substance, too, I think I could have written this in less than 15 minutes.:meh:
  14. ZenG


    Dec 13, 2013
    So after 50 years (half a century) there are only 11 bands that are better than the Beatles?

    'dem Beatles must be pretty friggin' good.........
  15. Rocker949


    Apr 20, 2005
    Muse blows Radiohead off the stage. There are some great bands on there, but I'm not actually a fan of any of them. Plus, I've never even heard of the Replacements.
  16. BigDanT

    BigDanT Supporting Member

    Aug 26, 2011
    I guess I can't quite put my finger on why this particular article got to me. It's not even that I'm the world's biggest Beatles fan. In fact, there are other bands on this list that I am a bigger fan of than the Beatles. I guess part of my rage may be coming from the fact that this whole "list" thing has gone so far. I mean I would assume the author has some degree of credibility because a major news outlet has published his opinion. So, does he really believe and want to argue that tom petty and the heartbreakers are "better" than the Beatles or did he just decide to throw his credibility out the window for the sake of clicks? If it is the latter, why not put Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black on the list?
    And there article doesn't list any real argument as to why the bands listed are "better." If you have a list that is based on something like #1 hits, $ sold or even number of other artists who site the band as an influence, there is some validity to it. Otherwise it is "I like these bands more so... Here's my list."
    Just makes me angry and I don't get angry about this stuff very often!
  17. sjeverett


    May 10, 2013
    Being "better" than a band is different than band being more influential than another. A coworker of mine will tell you that Slipknot is better than Zepplin but Zepplin influenced way more artists than Slipknot has.
  18. bluesblaster


    Jan 2, 2008
    played on the same bill as the "mats" a few times back in the day, they were entertaining but "better?" I think not.
  19. mellowinman

    mellowinman Free Man

    Oct 19, 2011
    Slipknot is in no way "better" than Led Zeppelin.
  20. Kmonk


    Oct 18, 2012
    South Shore, Massachusetts
    Endorsing Artist: Fender, Spector, Ampeg, Curt Mangan Strings
    As usual, a music journalist who hasn't got a clue. I wouldn't even have most of those bands on my top 10 list, never mind putting them ahead of The Beatles.
  21. ZenG


    Dec 13, 2013
    Were The Osmonds better than the Monkees?