Rock Band. More Awesome.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by RaptorHaysewus

Think back to the 60-70s when The Beatles first surfaced.

They were amazing, there was no music like it.

I guess new listeners won't like them as much as people who have listened to them in the past.

Short of possibly the very early 60s, no, there has always been commercially available music with skilled instrumentalists and extremely good harmony.

The Beatles are not one of these bands. All of their instrumental sections are - objectively - total jokes. None of them could play anything mildly difficult if they tried.

Also, good music stands the test of time. There are loads of bands from the same period that do have skill and do continue to stand out as extraordinary music. People didn't magically attain musical skill in the past 20 years. They've had it all along. Don't say "well the Beatles may not have very much skill but back then they were considered very skilled" because they weren't.

All of their music is so mindnumbingly simplistic and unimaginative that I'm amazed some people consider them the best band of all time. Or even good enough to have their own game.

Originally Posted by Seth

Urgh, what the hell are you even arguing about? Yes it is true. If a one band sells more than any other band, it's for a reason. It's because people like them. And what puts bands higher than other bands? Their fanbase. Biggest fanbase wins. That's just how it works. If you don't like it fine whatever, but thousands love it. I don't care if you don't like them, that's your preference, I just have to cut in when you're like "Omg they suck WHY should they have their own game WHY I don't get WHY".

Telling you why.

lmfao you say that like i need to be told why

except as i already pointed out i know it's a good marketing decision

And I'm not saying I don't like them - I'm saying they're bad. You can wave around the "lol they sold a lot" card all you want, but just because there are more people saying "1+1 = 11" doesn't make it true. In fact, most of the musicians I know think that Beatles are tripe, and these are people making a living off of music, who know it inside out. If the general population is satisfied with a group of monkeys that can't do much more than strum and keep rhythm, good on them.

Here's a comparison for you. Do you know about Twilight? It is a very successful series. It has sold extremely well and even has attracted attention from Hollywood, so now it has movies being produced that are based on it, which means even more revenue for the author.

By your standards, this makes the book good. The only problem is, it isn't. Ask anyone with a lick of literary know-how (or anyone who isn't a teenage schoolgirl). The books are utter garbage.

Bad things can still sell. That doesn't make them good. Sorry.

[Cyanite]

Instrumentally they're really not that talented, but even you have to admit they were very good songwriters.

Judging them as instrumentalists, yeah, they probably should have been forgotten about by now. As songwriters, they didn't really do anything that'd still be considered progressive, but they definitely knew what they were doing. I don't even like the Beatles but I have to respect them in that regard

Also, Seth, I don't agree with that at all. Saying that a band's capacity in terms of songwriting and instrumental ability is judged solely on how popular they are is basically inferring that every person who listens to music is a perfect judge of those characteristics. The fact that musicians like Benny Benassi and Soulja Boy are multi-millionaires because of their music is enough to prove that isn't the case. There probably isn't any purely subjective way to measure how good one band is compared to the other, but how commercial their music is should be one of the last ways to consider it.

[SethSquall]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

lmfao you say that like i need to be told why

except as i already pointed out i know it's a good marketing decision

And I'm not saying I don't like them - I'm saying they're bad. You can wave around the "lol they sold a lot" card all you want, but just because there are more people saying "1+1 = 11" doesn't make it true. In fact, most of the musicians I know think that Beatles are tripe, and these are people making a living off of music, who know it inside out. If the general population is satisfied with a group of monkeys that can't do much more than strum and keep rhythm, good on them.

Here's a comparison for you. Do you know about Twilight? It is a very successful series. It has sold extremely well and even has attracted attention from Hollywood, so now it has movies being produced that are based on it, which means even more revenue for the author.

By your standards, this makes the book good. The only problem is, it isn't. Ask anyone with a lick of literary know-how (or anyone who isn't a teenage schoolgirl). The books are utter garbage.

Bad things can still sell. That doesn't make them good. Sorry.

Did you completely miss the point or something. Seriously. I could just repost what I said before. I don't care if you like them or not or whether you think they are bad or not, I am telling you if something has done well it means A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE IT. I'm not saying everything popular is good, please point out where I said that? I don't know why I'm asking you to do it rofl because I know you can't I ****ing typed out the response and know I didn't say it.

You can wave around the "lol they sold a lot" card all you want, but just because there are more people saying "1+1 = 11" doesn't make it true.

I never waved that card in response to "The Beatles suck" I waved it about to "Why game beatlez?".

Okay although this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the price of fish. And Math answers aren't debatable or about opinions. I'm going to assume you mean "just because loads of people like The Beatles doesn't mean they are good".

I'm not arguing with you whether they're good or not, stop trying to steer it that way it's subjective and not debatable sorry, it'll come down to the same thing. What I AM saying refers back to your "Why why why why" post. I know you've taken on board that it was a good marketing decision, however you still say,

By your standards, this makes the book good

No it doesn't. Again, I don't feel popularity = good. Where are you getting that? Twilight is horrible in my opinion, but a lot of people must like it, hence why it's a franchise now. Never said things that are bad in my opinion couldn't sell.

To wrap this up, dude. Everything I've said is to do with your why post and your misinformed attack at standards that aren't mine.

I can admit that maybe I should of just taking what you said as a simply "I do not like the Beatles and think they are terrible" and be done with it, you just came across strong on something purely opinionated.

[RaptorHaysewus]

I believe and respect "each to their own opinion", but not when you're being ignorant and saying **** like "why did they have to do a band-exclusive game for a horrible band", why not just say "I don't really like The Beatles but Rock Band is cool, can't wait to play the new DLC" or something like that?

Or, if that's too light, "The Beatles aren't very good imo", rather than speaking in a tense that makes you sound like you're STATING that The Beatles are a horrible band.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by SethSquall

I don't feel popularity = good.

In response to me saying that the band is not the best band ever, you said:

Urgh, what the hell are you even arguing about? Yes it is true. If a one band sells more than any other band, it's for a reason. It's because people like them. And what puts bands higher than other bands? Their fanbase. Biggest fanbase wins.

Or more simply, "most popular = best".

[Tibs]

Originally Posted by tokzic

HELP ME IF YOU CAN I'M FEELING DOOOWN

Originally Posted by seth

AND I DO APPRECIATE YOU BEING ROUND

Originally Posted by tokzic

HELP ME GET MY FEET BACK ON THE GROUND

Originally Posted by seth

WONT YOU PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME

i like let there be rock it has a very fun drum chart

[Tokzic]

lmfao i love you tibs

[Afrobean]

tokzic, speaking of objective measuring methods, there are only things like critical reception and record sales to look at.

The Beatles score very well in both regards. How many bands do you know of where a critic could say "the best band ever" about them and it would be par for the course for their critical reception?

Basically, you're in the minority here. Everyone else loves them. Jerk.

[EnR]

I dislike the beatles, the drum charts are going to be a joke, so there's no point in anyone that plays drums to buy the game, guitar and bass aren't going to be very hard either I'm pretty sure, so no point in buying it for those. Singing is the only thing worth buying this game.

[SethSquall]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

Or more simply, "most popular = best".

Nope. I'm saying that's why they have their own game. Because they're popular and have a huge fanbase. No-where there did I say "They have the most fans and so they are good". I'm saying that when you put opinions aside and look at it business wise, they are the best. Again no-where did I say this makes them a good band. Although I do love The Beatles.

Afro said, "looking at the charts point of view they are the best band"

You said, "No this isn't true"

I said, "Yes it is true, chart wise the more you sell and the bigger your fanbase is, the better you do"

You said, "Bigger fanbase doesn't make them talented, twilight is popular and it's trash"

I said, "That's not what I'm debating about. That's purely opinion"

You said, "No you said popular = a good band"

I said, "No I didn't, unless you mean sales wise then I did, I think you mean opinion wise and so no I didn't say that".

Also I love that song tibs it's like my favourite song by them.

[B0NK]

i see a big argument about the Beatles and its way too much to read so heres my opinion:

the Beatles invented rock n roll but they are ****ing terrible. the end

also, like enr said, the only reason to get this game is for singing

[fireking550]

Simply, Beatles suck Instrumentally and even though everyone says they have great Lyrics, i have heard better lyrics from Megadeth and Death Cab songs, their lyrics and pretty stupid and make no sense if you read them carefully although doing this is only for old widows who had nothing to do but cry over the lose of their loves one and ummmm a giant flaming phenix.... cause their is a lot of similarity in those two things

[SethSquall]

Iron Maiden pack is epic. Impressed with The Troopers charts. Also it feel so good to be playing the original Run to the Hills, specially after that dire cover on RB.

[SethSquall]

Neither on-disc or downloadable songs for The Beatles: Rock Band will be available for play in Rock Band or Rock Band 2.

Harsh. I thought RB had solved the annoying change disc problems. It's like taking a step backwards.

[hi_top]

yngwie malmsteen pack ftw

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by SethSquall

Neither on-disc or downloadable songs for The Beatles: Rock Band will be available for play in Rock Band or Rock Band 2.

Harsh. I thought RB had solved the annoying change disc problems. It's like taking a step backwards.

It's a rights issue no doubt.

But isn't the music being locked to the disc better than the songs not being available at all? Haters would disagree, but I say music of different types being made available is a good thing, even if its in an exclusive format.

Anyway, isn't ACDC already like this? Is it any surprise The Beatles music would be exclusive?

Originally Posted by fireking550

Simply, Beatles suck Instrumentally and even though everyone says they have great Lyrics, i have heard better lyrics from Megadeth and Death Cab songs, their lyrics and pretty stupid and make no sense if you read them carefully although doing this is only for old widows who had nothing to do but cry over the lose of their loves one and ummmm a giant flaming phenix.... cause their is a lot of similarity in those two things

lmao "make no sense"

Yeah, the Beatles songs that make no sense are supposed to make no sense. The other ones make perfect sense. For example, "Help!", makes sense just fine. On the other hand, "We All Live in a Yellow Submarine" does not make obvious sense. To be mad about this is to miss the point completely.

ps tokzic i am still pissed off that you said "The Beatles are bad because their music does not require a high level of technical skill". You might not have as much fun playing a song by them in a game like this, but that doesn't give you any right to make a statement that implies objectivity and universal understanding when you really just mean to say that what you are saying applies subjectively only to yourself. And seriously, **** playing games like this to be challenged. I want to have fun, I don't want to work my ass off just to finish the song. You want to be challenged? Go out and do something actually physically or mentally taxing. This is a god damned video game.

[SethSquall]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It's a rights issue no doubt.

But isn't the music being locked to the disc better than the songs not being available at all? Haters would disagree, but I say music of different types being made available is a good thing, even if its in an exclusive format.

Anyway, isn't ACDC already like this? Is it any surprise The Beatles music would be exclusive?

"All 18 songs from AC/DC Live: Rock Band Track Pack can be downloaded for use in Rock Band and Rock Band 2 by means of a one-time use code printed on the game's instruction manual."

It's why I am a bit annoyed. I mean I'd prefer if they did it like the AC/DC release. Have a separate game but still able to transfer songs over.

[dore]

the beatles don't want Spikey McEmo singing Here Comes the Sun and they don't want the fab four playing visions

seems fair enough lol

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

And seriously, **** playing games like this to be challenged. I want to have fun, I don't want to work my ass off just to finish the song. You want to be challenged? Go out and do something actually physically or mentally taxing. This is a god damned video game.

Why wouldn't you want to be challenged in a game like this?

I know in a party setting or something like that, challenge isn't exactly what you're looking for, and I understand that. But I play the game alone and sober about as much as I do in a band while drinking, and when I'm alone, I don't want to pass every song I play without even putting a bit of conscious thought into it. And I would think that applies to all video games. If you don't actually have to put some effort into what you're playing, you don't have much of a push to keep playing.

And why should video games be an exception to enjoying challenge? You get more satisfaction out of doing something you struggled with than something you just bulldoze through. Of course this should apply to video games and not just "the real world". That's why harder difficulties exist - it increases the satisfaction of completing it. It makes it feel like an achievement.

also, play everlong on expert drums and tell me this game is not physically taxing

[Cyanite]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

also, play everlong on expert drums and tell me this game is not physically taxing

or better yet, Blinded by Fear. though everlong hurts like **** too

And to be honest I don't know why afrobean is complaining about you stating a personal subjective preference as a universal fact if he's going to simultaneously say that video games are meant to be fun, and a game being challenging plays no part in that. That doesn't make any sense. If you're actually good at the game, then pushing your limits is probably the single most satisfying way to play the game.