- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
I know they had very profound songs such as a Philosophy of the World and Things I Wonder. I need more reasons so I can convince my Beatles fan sister that she has awful taste in music and mine is superior.
Why are the Shaggs better than the Beatles?
- Thread starter Agent Abe Caprine
- Start date
Solution
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
This song is really cute and it honestly made me appreciative of The Shaggs a little bit more. (Appreciative in the sense that hey, they managed to make a simple enough tune that doesn't sound like a cat dying. But I also like the pure teenage whimsy that this song invokes)
Although no they're not as good as The Beatles, those girls were forced to become a half-assed band because their weird dad forced them into it. The moment their dad died they immediately disbanded.
Although no they're not as good as The Beatles, those girls were forced to become a half-assed band because their weird dad forced them into it. The moment their dad died they immediately disbanded.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Beatles got rich from their music. Total hack corperate sell outs. The Shaggs never even sought out fame or fortune. Way more authentic. Also, the Beatles never wrote a song about Halloween AKA the BEST holiday known to man. And they never had a pal named foot foot.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2021
Product Placement
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2019
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics, instead, are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
Because the Beatles are fucking gay that’s why
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
Ironically a lot of the hate here towards The Beatles seems to be either directed completely at Yoko Ono (aka, John Lennon), or more realistically and deservedly, John Lennon.
I genuinely don't see why the other three (McCartney, Harrison, and Ringo) deserve the same vitriol.
Also, yes, whether y'all like it or not, THEY. WERE. BETTER. THAN. THE. SHAGGS. The Shaggs couldn't make a tune to save their lives, not that they even cared or wanted to! They were forced into a band because their dad listened to his schizo "palmreading" mother as a boy and she happened to "predict" that his future daughters would create a "world famous band". Kind of a "coincidence" that "Philosophy of the World" was released in '69, four years after "Beatlemania" took the world by the balls.
I'm not even trying to defend The Beatles as a "good" band here either, I really don't care for them like some others. @legtard respecter makes one of the best points in the entire thread, because it's wholeheartedly true. But I'll at least give The Beatles a hell of a lot more credit when compared to The Shaggs, because at least those four men not only cared about music, they actually could hold a tune and understand basic music theory. The only "care" that The Shaggs had in making their music was to ensure their abusive father didn't have an all out freak out on them. They feared him until the day they died, why the hell do you think they immediately disbanded and wanted to forget that past? What I really don't understand is the actual, unironic "appreciation" some have for The Shaggs. The fuck do you mean Zappa considered them one of his "favorites"?
Shit music is shit music, simple as. The Shaggs and The Beatles can at least be comparable on that level, they're both garbage.
I genuinely don't see why the other three (McCartney, Harrison, and Ringo) deserve the same vitriol.
Also, yes, whether y'all like it or not, THEY. WERE. BETTER. THAN. THE. SHAGGS. The Shaggs couldn't make a tune to save their lives, not that they even cared or wanted to! They were forced into a band because their dad listened to his schizo "palmreading" mother as a boy and she happened to "predict" that his future daughters would create a "world famous band". Kind of a "coincidence" that "Philosophy of the World" was released in '69, four years after "Beatlemania" took the world by the balls.
I'm not even trying to defend The Beatles as a "good" band here either, I really don't care for them like some others. @legtard respecter makes one of the best points in the entire thread, because it's wholeheartedly true. But I'll at least give The Beatles a hell of a lot more credit when compared to The Shaggs, because at least those four men not only cared about music, they actually could hold a tune and understand basic music theory. The only "care" that The Shaggs had in making their music was to ensure their abusive father didn't have an all out freak out on them. They feared him until the day they died, why the hell do you think they immediately disbanded and wanted to forget that past? What I really don't understand is the actual, unironic "appreciation" some have for The Shaggs. The fuck do you mean Zappa considered them one of his "favorites"?
Shit music is shit music, simple as. The Shaggs and The Beatles can at least be comparable on that level, they're both garbage.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Why are you taking obvious jokes dead seriously?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021