home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Big Star or The Beatles?

Alex, Chris, Andy, and Jody
28
35%
John, Paul, George, and Ringo
53
65%
 
Total votes : 81

Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby P.J. Craven on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:52 am

The Beatles had a larger discography, but I think that both bands had similarly consistent and irresistible careers. In defense of their smaller output, Big Star seemed to pack nothing but memorable songs onto their three proper records. If you've heard the Keep an Eye on the Sky box set, this might not seem such a laughable question.

So, Big Star or The Beatles?
ty-lot wrote:Sick bro
P.J. Craven
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:55 am
Location: Surfing the Web!

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby Wood Goblin on Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:56 am

I listen to Big Star way more, but what the Beatles accomplished in the roughly seven-year period between their first record and their last is nothing short of breathtaking.
User avatar
Wood Goblin
Guardian Diety of the Planet
Guardian Diety of the Planet
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: South Loop, Chicago

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby placeholder on Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:04 am

I voted Big Star because I think Third is better than any Beatles record.

I like a lot of the good (Rubber Soul and after) Beatles stuff more than the first two Big Star albums, though.

Waffle Factor of 10.
User avatar
placeholder
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 2:06 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby Major on Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:48 am

Big Star. No contest.
User avatar
Major
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6511
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:19 am
Location: 29.7604° N, 95.3698° W

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby punch_the_lion on Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:36 am

The Beatles. I'm deaf when it comes to understanding the appeal of Big Star. I feel the same way about bands like R.E.M. or Pink Floyd.
User avatar
punch_the_lion
Eternal Bosom of Hot Love
Eternal Bosom of Hot Love
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:09 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby tbone on Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:42 am

Oh come on. I like Big Star but it's pretty laughable to compare them to the Beatles.
I play guitar in Mayor For Life and Jackhammer Hearts
User avatar
tbone
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Chicago Proper

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby tmidgett on Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:52 am

Big Star
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby zom-zom on Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:57 am

Big Star is but a footnote.

Like, come on man.. a band that made a large dent in history vs. a band most people have never heard.
User avatar
zom-zom
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis/Grand View

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby SecondEdition on Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:58 am

Big Star was a '70's update on mid-'60's Beatles.

I love Big Star more than most bands, but come on now.
Life...life...I know it's got its ups and downs.

In the someday, what's that sound.


CS. PC. MM.
User avatar
SecondEdition
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 22448
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:32 am
Location: Midwest, USA

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby tmidgett on Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:17 am

SecondEdition wrote:Big Star was a '70's update on mid-'60's Beatles.

I love Big Star more than most bands, but come on now.


First, no. Big Star was a unique band. There isn't another band that has ever sounded like them, despite many of them trying their level best.

zom-zom wrote:Big Star is but a footnote.

Like, come on man.. a band that made a large dent in history vs. a band most people have never heard.


Second, this is an old argument: band A sold a jillion records and influenced band B who did not sell a jillion records, therefore band A > band B.

Personally, I do not care about record sales or reach or the timeline or whatever.

I like Rubber Soul and Revolver and probably the White Album better than #1 Record.

But I like Radio City and Sister Lovers much, much more than any Beatles record.

Pretty easy for me.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby zom-zom on Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:32 am

I like maybe a few Big Star songs, but that's about it.. 5-6 songs.

And it's not the record sales as it is being a band that changed music and popular culture.
A huge, huge impact on the world record sales or not.

Big Star only had an impact on dudes in bands that wanted to sound like Big Star.
User avatar
zom-zom
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis/Grand View

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby Brett Eugene Ralph on Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:44 am

I'm fairly certain that there are less than ten bands whose music means more to me than Big Star's. The Beatles is not one of them.
User avatar
Brett Eugene Ralph
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6808
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Western Kentucky

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby vockins on Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:47 am

tmidgett wrote:First, no. Big Star was a unique band. There isn't another band that has ever sounded like them, despite many of them trying their level best.

Do you prefer Queensryche over the Beatles, too?
vockins
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:29 pm
Location: New York

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby tmidgett on Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:11 pm

vockins wrote:
tmidgett wrote:First, no. Big Star was a unique band. There isn't another band that has ever sounded like them, despite many of them trying their level best.

Do you prefer Queensryche over the Beatles, too?


Huh?

The contention was that Big Star was a mere update of the Beatles.

I said that isn't true b/c it isn't.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby SecondEdition on Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:18 pm

tmidgett wrote:
SecondEdition wrote:Big Star was a '70's update on mid-'60's Beatles.

I love Big Star more than most bands, but come on now.


First, no. Big Star was a unique band. There isn't another band that has ever sounded like them, despite many of them trying their level best.


That initial post left out the "among other things" that I'd meant to put in between "on" and "mid-'60's," which gave the wrong impression. Sorry. Fast typing and all that.

I wasn't saying that they weren't unique - no one has ever fused the Byrds, 1965-era Who and mid-'60's Beatles with a sense of rhythm, joy and drive that's more akin to soul than to rock, which is what Big Star did on the first two albums - but I was saying that Big Star wouldn't have existed without the Beatles. And sure, you could say that most bands wouldn't exist without the Beatles. But it's especially true for Big Star.

And I'm not sure I'd even really count Sister Lovers as a Big Star album. There's more I could write about that, but I don't want to completely derail the thread.
Life...life...I know it's got its ups and downs.

In the someday, what's that sound.


CS. PC. MM.
User avatar
SecondEdition
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 22448
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:32 am
Location: Midwest, USA

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby tmidgett on Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:20 pm

big_dave wrote:Half the tracks on every Big Star record are flavourless filler, or gross-arse trend-hopping Bowie shit like "Feel" and "India Song". The great Big Star songs are certainly unique, and nothing if not heartbreaking but there's probably less than a dozen of them across three albums.


Nah. Every single song on Radio City and Sister Lovers is great. Maybe "She's a Mover" is a bit off, but it is still as good as any of the lesser tracks on the best Beatles record you care to pick.

I like the Beatles, like some of their music a whole lot, but I always feel like I can hear them think. I don't like that about their music.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby vockins on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:22 pm

tmidgett wrote:The contention was that Big Star was a mere update of the Beatles.

I said that isn't true b/c it isn't.

Right. Too much coffee. I agree with you.

Although I also agree with the R.E.M. statement. I do not get why people go batshit about Big Star, and I have heard a shit ton of Big Star, many times over.

Big Star v. B.I.G., I'm going with Biggie.

Beatles
vockins
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:29 pm
Location: New York

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby motorbike guy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:38 pm

I'm with Tim M on this one. the Beatles i like just fine, but they are -by definition- history's most overrated band. I could go my whole life without hearing another Beatles song.

big star songs are just so fundamentally right to me - and so perfectly turned out. If they had the kind of fame and money that the Beatles were afforded, Big Star never would have made Sgt. Peppers. (History's most overrated album)

Big Star.
Robert Ohlmstead wrote:Our warlike impulses and warlike pride are dangerously coupled with our insufferable vanity, our permanent immaturity, our lives of fear and pleasure.
User avatar
motorbike guy
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4159
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: hope well

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby Limmo on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:53 pm

big_dave wrote:By the time Lennon was throwing away their career with Spector, the Beatles had recorded five or fewer sub-par songs.


Let's up that number to, I dunno, ten or fifteen.

Still. This is like comparing Jupiter to Pluto.

Beatles. WF 0.
User avatar
Limmo
walter cronkite
walter cronkite
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:55 pm

Re: Either/Or: Big Star vs. The Beatles

Postby Bill Swansea on Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:23 pm

Where were you haters during the Beatles/Rolling Stones thread eh?
big_dave wrote:Hark at this boy and his "we".

He was Welsh yesterday.

Iesu Grist . NCB .PC .
User avatar
Bill Swansea
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8705
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Bristol

Next

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests