• The Jimi Hendrix Experience or The Beatles
    110 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Akayz;21412505]no.... its just that the other beatles thread was utterly shit.. that was asking whether beatles was good or not don't cry because I want to see what people prefer, go back to your oversized catalogue of beatles albums that you have stored in a golden box...[/QUOTE] Wow calm down
Hendrix To be honest, this thread is stupid. How can you compare 2 different kinds of rock? God Damnit...
The Beatles.
come together (beatles) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcQGtigeadM[/media] or voodoo child (hendrix experience) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg[/media] tough choice..... quote from tasty-man "calm down" try listening to those songs above..calming down doesn't really come to mind :]
Hendrix.
Hendrix. A thousand times Hendrix.
The sad thing is that the Beatles pretty much sucked live. I wish they hadn't but that's the reality. Case in point: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2JP90LEbVE[/url] They wrote far better songs though.. it's such a difficult comparison because hendrix was all about his guitar- and then he was a horrible singer- case in point: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aBxXJBJNjA[/url]
[QUOTE=Risdofad;21423942]The sad thing is that the Beatles pretty much sucked live. I wish they hadn't but that's the reality. Case in point: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2JP90LEbVE[/url] They wrote far better songs though.. it's such a difficult comparison because hendrix was all about his guitar- and then he was a horrible singer- case in point: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aBxXJBJNjA[/url][/QUOTE] talking live...... you can't TRULY judge by watching shoddy recordings of the shows unless you experience the atmosphere which overwhelms the quality of singing or any defects of the performance.. in truth no performers are truly pleased with their live performances although when feedback is good they always think that they can do better. Live performances are really tough to judge in all respects... if the singing is bad is it really a bad performance?
Why do people try to compare 2 bands that don't even sound alike?
Hendrix, obvious choice for me.
[QUOTE=Peavy262;21424254]Why do people try to compare 2 bands that don't even sound alike?[/QUOTE] not about sounding alike if you read the OP it states "in the 60s" not many ground breaking bands in the 60s as good as hendrix experience or beatles.... theres the answer to your pathetic point :classic_fillmore:
Hendrix FTW!!! [editline]03:15PM[/editline] [quote=mastermaul;21421159]hendrix because his band wasn't a gaggle of wife-beating overrated attention whores. He was still a druggie who's solos were 25% ugly screeching.[/quote] Nevermind.
[QUOTE=Jewsus;21419819]He didn't write most of his songs.[/QUOTE] Explain. You're telling me you went through every single song he played and figured out that he didn't write most of them? He wrote a lot of songs for his short career. Many WERE NOT covers. [QUOTE=Risdofad;21423942]They wrote far better songs though.. it's such a difficult comparison because hendrix was all about his guitar- and then he was a horrible singer- case in point: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aBxXJBJNjA[/URL][/QUOTE] Hendrix wasn't a horrible singer. He was okay. Also, he's exhausted and on drugs there. Listen to the studio versions and you'll see that he's not a horrible singer. [QUOTE=mastermaul;21421159]He was still a druggie who's solos were 25% ugly screeching.[/QUOTE] Who cares if he did drugs? Practically every musician does and look at the era he was from.
Led Zeppelin > The Beatles > Hendrix
Gotta say Jimi Hendrix Exp. I prefer it much more than Beatles
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;21429349]Led Zeppelin > The Beatles > Hendrix[/QUOTE] Led Zeppelin fanboy saying that they're the best. How surprising.
You can't really compare the two, they had different styles of music.
I'm gonna go with The Beatles, but this is because I don't really know much Hendrix. My favourite Beatles album is the beatles [QUOTE=TheBrokenHobo;21412860]It was just an observation. Calm down. And I don't have every album in a golden box. They are in a black one. [url]http://seanammerman.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/489px-beatles_stereo_box_set.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] My friend has the remastered collection, I borrowed it and ripped all the tracks :3
[QUOTE=JDK721;21429661]Led Zeppelin fanboy saying that they're the best. How surprising.[/QUOTE] But it isn't just my opinion; it is a well known fact.
[QUOTE=Wii60;21416103]Beatles because i never listened to jimi hendrix and i get pissed off when someone asks if i am related to him (My last name is Hendricks)[/QUOTE] I have a friend named Jonathan Hendrix. He doesn't seem to mind much
I wouldn't say they are comparable, different types of music, you may as well compare Beethoven to Winds of Plague, both good at there own thing, but they can't compare. But, if you were too, The Beatles are better studio-wise, both at performing songs in the studio, and also getting albums out, Hendrix was better live. Hendrix, better songwriter, in terms of composition, whereas Beatles in terms of meaning. Etc, etc, etc. Neither is better than the other, they both excel over each other in different ways. Also, people have different opinions on what is best.
The fact is the beatles were simply more influential, they did a lot of things that no one had ever done before.
[QUOTE=tasty-man;21432400]The fact is the beatles were simply more influential, they did a lot of things that no one had ever done before.[/QUOTE] Smoking pot one of them? :)
[QUOTE=tasty-man;21432400]The fact is the beatles were simply more influential, they did a lot of things that no one had ever done before.[/QUOTE] So did Hendrix...
[QUOTE=psychomidget;21437288]So did Hendrix...[/QUOTE] Well I never said he didn't. But there are things like music videos that were first created(in a way) by The Beatles believe it or not.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;21416219]I dearly hope you are a troll[/QUOTE] He is.
Because someone who doesn't like the beatles must be a troll.
lets compare butter with lumber next.
I prefer the Beatles. While Jimmy is great I can only listen to his music for so long before I turn it off. Jimmy is vastly over played to the point of annoyance. Sure the Beatles are probably played on radio just as much if not more then Jimmy but at least they range and variety. Also there is the fact that Jimmy made a few albums and then overdosed, where as the Beatles owned an entire decade.
[QUOTE=zkm2009;21438003]where as the Beatles owned an entire decade[/QUOTE] then ragequitted, a few went on to make more music/beat their wife, and some died while the last few are selling out for the last streak of attention they can get.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.