abba better than the beatles?

Re: abba better than the beatles?

de solere - 25.01.2007, 09:56
abba better than the beatles?
Hello,
The best sellers in pop music, as a band, are the Beatles and after, Abba?
Who are the best songwriters? Of course, the lyrics by Lennon are poetic, politic and sumptuous, without comparaison with the abba's lyrics. Abba had not the same preoccupations and they are swedish and wrote in english. About music, in my mind, abba was more creative and more "universal". Their melodies were sensitive or perfect for dancing or joyous or touching etc, always pure, not so simple that some people said, perfect beauties. Almost all tracks are in an high state, so abba had an harmonious discography.
I can't speak about voices: how compare two ladies and two (or 4) boys? We, all, think that Frida and Agnetha are two of the best singers in the world and i am sure it's right. I don't like Lennon's voice but i love Mc Cartney's interpretations. When she recorded Something going on, in ondon (for the strings), Frida met Mc Cartney: i am sure that a duet with him would be wonderful. In another life, perhaps.
regards,
Pierre

Re: abba better than the beatles?

ABBAnator - 25.01.2007, 10:19

Matt,

As a former Beatlemaniac turned ABBAholic I'd say you nailed that analysis with utter perfection, couldn't have put it better myself.

You wouldn't happen to be a writer would you? :wink:

I'd say this topic is done....next

Bruce :)

Re: abba better than the beatles?

johnny59 - 25.01.2007, 10:58

I agree with Bruce. Quite impressing, Matt. What kind of writer are you?

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 25.01.2007, 11:29

Thanks Matt for a well balanced arguement. It gives credit to both The Beatles and Abba, which they both deserve.
Personally I have to go for Abba but acknowledge the fact that The Beatles were and still are a very popular group. Being a teenager in the seventies and just having been bitten by the music bug, Abba came along at the right time. I again acknowledge that if I had been a teenager in the sixites The Beatles probably would have been 'The group' for me.
Its difficult to compare different eras, the music was very different in the Sixites to the Seventies. So this is why I believe that Matt has done a good job in balancing the arguemnet.

For me there really aren't that many who can match Agnetha and Frida for singing talent but one last thing have to say is that as far as the writing goes , I have to give it to Benny & Bjorn. To write such brillant songs in a foreign language is a real talent.

Shall we call it a draw between these two greats of music.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

abbascots - 25.01.2007, 15:45

Hi Pierre
ABBA is and has always been my favourite group,The beatles are also one of the worlds best groups Matt you put it perfectly! I have to say for me nobody comes close to Abba but the beatles are a legacy on there own
Regards johnsteven :)

Re: abba better than the beatles?

jules - 25.01.2007, 20:17

i love to listen to both ABBA and the Beatles

i think they are both fab

xx

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Maxi-saxi - 25.01.2007, 23:21

Well said Matt.

I like some of the Beatles songs and you must remember different times, different decades.

Different sounds and in the Seventies & Eighties Better Recording Studios and over all equipment were there, were as in the Beatles Hey Day they oftern only had a couple of takes, Were as ABBA had the time to overdub and really put the finishing touches to there work.

Maxi-saxi :wink:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

TorOnt - 26.01.2007, 02:04

Well my thoughts on this are that ABBA is far superior to the Beatles , Stones etc.. etc..
I grew up with their music liked it at one point then I heard ABBA loved their music and still do can't seem to get enough of it, guess I'm a ABBAholic.
I don't care if I never heard another Bealtes or Stones song, I wouldn't miss them. :D

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 04:53

You're risking your life around here with that opinion, Pabs--believe me!
The Beatles were/are significant.
ABBA was/is popular (and not second in international record sales; that would be Elvis).
That should lock this topic, no?!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 05:27

Fans will always have difficulty separating taste from objectivity. But we're all human....or most of us, anyway!
Here's a sobering point to support your claim;
I just did an AMAZON search on books published on both acts. The Beatles(+music)--1,937; ABBA(+music)--159. Not scientific and not edited to weed out books unrelated to the respective acts, but generally revealing overall, nonetheless. Run for cover!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Carribean - 26.01.2007, 06:06

The Earl wrote: You're risking your life around here with that opinion, Pabs--believe me!
The Beatles were/are significant.
ABBA was/is popular (and not second in international record sales; that would be Elvis).
That should lock this topic, no?!

What is your point this time Earl?

Let me see: ABBA fans...

* don't know anything about the world and only care for Sweden because of ABBA
* want to see ABBA as the best of the world ever
* don't like people with other opinions
* are wimps and very sensitive

No idea where this image of ABBA fans comes from but it really makes me wonder why you join an ABBA forum...

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 07:57

ABBAnator wrote:
Back to topic though ".....Beatles or ABBA...." Beatles. I didn't think there was any more question about that.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 08:09

Carribean wrote: The Earl wrote: But I like this forum because of the fun I have with members like you. And you ARE fun!

Yes I am giving you what you want. You want to stir things up and I respond annoyed. I do not know why you feel the need to surround yourself with controversy but I hope that the day will come that you do not longer need all that attention.
Attention I actually don't need--I get enough of it elswhere. But worthy and passionate responders is always a kick!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 08:11

Carribean wrote: The Earl wrote: But I like this forum because of the fun I have with members like you. And you ARE fun!

Yes I am giving you what you want. You want to stir things up and I respond annoyed. I do not know why you feel the need to surround yourself with controversy but I hope that the day will come that you do not longer need all that attention.
Attention I actually don't need--I get enough of it elswhere; and contoversy is not my cup of absinthe. But worthy and passionate responders are always a kick!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

abbafreak - 26.01.2007, 08:12
Abba
I never cared for the Beatles. Period.

Plus, why throw all of this negative mud around about ABBA fans and pronounciations, and so-on.....who really cares? The music is nice, and we ABBA fansa like the way that the group sounded, and we are obviously all have very personal reasons as to why we like who we like.

You asked who we liked better...ABBA or Bealtes.....keep it at that and quit throwing non-related comments and insults into the mix! Please lock this before it gets any more hateful! :cry:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 08:22

Isn't "hateful" a little severe? We're just debating. That's a far cry from "hateful". Lighten up, kids, this is all in good fun.
Sorry my previous response got posted before I had finished correcting it. Could you remove it for me, Carribsy, to keep things clear and consistent. My firstborn is yours if you do. Thanks!
And AA, you misunderstood--I PREFER The Beatles--though I'm wild about ABBA's music, too. Also, my joke about locking the topic was just that--a joke. (There's that problem again with humor being lost in the written word). Also also, The Beatles didn't create pop/rock music as we know it. It's an ongoing evolution going far back beyond even Elvis, Little Richard, and Chuck Berry. Ask Bjorn and Benny. They'll tell you the same!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 26.01.2007, 08:26

I really need to get to bed now. Does anyone mind? Just checking.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Maxi-saxi - 26.01.2007, 09:49


Well I see some very intresting comments coming through on this forum.

Maxi-saxi :wink:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

michiganrafter - 26.01.2007, 11:33

Pabs, thank you very much for your compliments.

And thank you all for illustrating my point about sex, religion and politics. When we start asking ourselves "who is better," we sometimes lose subjectivity and get into a "my penis is bigger than your penis," argument. I ask you, what does it matter if they are both very big? :D

Cheers!

Matt Urdan

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Pabs - 26.01.2007, 12:21

jenlovesabba1982, I agree with you. And you don't have to apologise about your English. I think I understand everything you wrote. For you, knowing and speaking mainly Gaelic, English is a completely foreign language. I think it's great that you're making the effort to write in English.

I personally think that The Beatles and Beach Boys will never lose their place at the top of the lists for -

1.) most influential pop/rock group

and

2.) most revolutionary pop/rock group

Pablo

Re: abba better than the beatles?

de solere - 26.01.2007, 21:05
abba or beatles
Pabs and Matt,
I am sad because i don't understand english enough and it's impossible to me to know your discussion.
If we write in French, it will be more easy for me :D :D :D :D and more hard for you :lol: :?
Please, could you think to all people who don't speak english very well when you write your topics or replies, to be understand by all.
Many thanks,
Pierre

Re: abba better than the beatles?

michiganrafter - 26.01.2007, 21:28

Original Post translated for Pierre:

[Please excuse any grammatical errors.... I hope this is more understandable for you Pierre.]

Hé, Pour ne pas retentir le négatif ou quelque chose, mais discussions au sujet de « qui est meilleur » est assez subjectif et souvent le grade parmi des discussions de sexe, religion, et la politique--ce qui sont probablement meilleur seuls gauche.

Il n'y a aucun nier qu'ABBA et le Beatles appartiennent dans la catégorie même de rarefield au dessus du bruit et de la musique de roche en tant que les maîtres vrais de leur métier et innovateurs et influencers de leurs pairs. Et tandis qu'il y a beaucoup de similitudes concernant ABBA et le Beatles, , les la plupart semblent s'articuler sur leurs ventes record, quel nain tous les concurrents.

Le Beatles étaient premier, et pour seul cela, ils se rangent au dessus. ABBA a tiré bénéfice de la traînée que le Beatles a pavée. Mais ABBA a eu des techniques plus modernes et plus sophistiquées d'enregistrement. ABBA et le Beatles ont créé les bruits très uniques avec des voix uniques. Lyrically, qui est de dire qui est meilleur ? Comment comparez-vous quand j'ai 64 ans et hier à le moment où tout est dit et fait et le gagnant le prend tout ? Naturellement, Le Beatles ont également le sous-marin jaune et je suis le morse, ainsi je devine qu'ils sont le match de chaque manière à que diriez-vous de Livingstone et de Roi Kong Song.

Tous les deux ont enregistré le duvet. Tous les deux ont enregistré le commentaire politique. Les deux chansons enregistrées de roche et les deux chansons enregistrées d'amour. Tous les deux ont dominé les diagrammes. Tous les deux ont des legs qui supportent, et vendu centaines de millions de disques et continuez à vendre plus journalier.

Qui a les voix meilleures ? Je mettrais Agnetha et Frida contre juste environ n'importe qui. Qui a écrit le lyrique meilleur ? Comme Anglais, Lennon et MCARTNEY obtiennent le bord. Qui a eu la bande meilleure d'hommage ? Beatles a eu Beatlemania. ABBA a eu Bjorn encore entre d'autres ainsi le bord va à ABBA. Qui a eu le musical meilleur ? Je pense que la maman Mia est comme le 15ème plus grand musical de Broadway de toute l'heure, ainsi je pense qu'il obtient le bord. Qui a eu de meilleurs films ? Le Beatles a eu la nuit d'un jour dur, ABBA a eu le film d'ABBA-The. Je l'appellerais une aspiration.

Mais finalement, ABBA et le Beatles se sont respectés. Le Benny et le Bjorn les citent en tant qu'influences, Lennon a reconnu KMKY comme une chanson et un ABBA impressionnants que le bruit final groupent selon d'autres poteaux sur cet emplacement.

N'importe qui vous préférez, tous les deux étaient des originaux, tous les deux ont eu le succès sans précédent, et continuez à amuser et inspirer des millions avec leurs legs musicaux chaque seul jour.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

supertrouper - 26.01.2007, 23:35

As I listened to ABBA as I grew up, they will always have a special place in my heart. I'm also a Beatles fan. Their music has stood the test of time just like ABBA. Both creators of classic pop music.

We all know this is an English language forum. It would be impossible or extremley difficult to run it in multiple languages. I don't think anyone would feel excluded for the translation of the original post. It was just done so french speaking people could understand the original post.

Regards.

Anthony. :lol:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 27.01.2007, 00:29

Well, in spite of all of us being ABBA-fans, most of you seem to agree on the Beatles being no. 1 in many ways....and so do I! :D

Apart from all the objective and obvious reasons mentioned by some of you, I have to say that they were my first love when it comes to music, and so theyŽll always be most special to me, I suppose.....

Re: abba better than the beatles?

michiganrafter - 27.01.2007, 00:41

:fight: Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh Ron?

I have no intention of writing or posting in multiple languages. Pierre expressed an interest in my post and he expressed he couldn't follow the discussion. I was trying to help him and to suggest where he might find translation aids online, but in the meantime I wanted him to understand a discussion he said he wanted to understand.

I really hope you understand that and I can't believe I'm being reprimanded for doing so. Maybe you should have been the one to respond to Pierre before I took time to translate my original post into French. I seek to help and to elucidate, not to harm nor exclude, and I believe my entire posting history illustrates that.

Perhaps you are the one that should have sent me a polite note to my email address rather than choosing a public forum as a reprimand when absolutely no harm was intended.

Matt Urdan

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 27.01.2007, 01:05

Carrie wrote: Well, in spite of all of us being ABBA-fans, most of you seem to agree on the Beatles being no. 1 in many ways....and so do I! :D

Apart from all the objective and obvious reasons mentioned by some of you, I have to say that they were my first love when it comes to music, and so theyŽll always be most special to me, I suppose.....



Isn't she just adorable?!*

Re: abba better than the beatles?

TorOnt - 27.01.2007, 06:59

Hi! Johnny59
Holy smokes is right this seems to have taken on a life of it's own. This topic was going along smoothly then all a sudden it sprouted wings and took off.
Looks like it's unstopable, but funny I like it, got some excitement going on here. Well I made my choice and I'm sticking with it. :lol:
Regards
TorOnt

Re: abba better than the beatles?

MarryMeAgnetha - 27.01.2007, 10:25

I have to agree with those who have asserted that there can be no universally agreed-upon answer to the question of which artist is better than another.

Theoretically, I suppose there could a definitive answer if there were some criteria agreed upon to establish a definition for "better". For example, The Beatles played a wider variety of music, were capable of considerably more harmonic and rhythmic complexity, and were far more influential in their time and beyond than ABBA were. Those strike me as legitimate criteria. Judging by them, The Beatles would win.

But as compelling as the logic of my argument is, I'm sure I did not change one mind. People like what they like. Both ABBA and The Beatles were great, popular, innovative, creative, and very successful artists. To argue about which is better doesn't really make much sense. There's no way to "prove" who is "better" unless some legitimate criteria are established, which doesn't look likely.

I don't even mind people discussing the differences as long as the discussion stays friendly, or at least reasonable and logical. But just as was the case on ABBAsite, this kind of unanswerable question usually just leads to some kind of arbitrary, childish choosing of sides.

I don't imagine that changed anyone's mind about anything either.

--Daniel

Re: abba better than the beatles?

supertrouper - 27.01.2007, 10:41

Well said Daniel.

I really think this topic has run its course now.

Regards.

Anthony. :lol:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

MarryMeAgnetha - 27.01.2007, 10:47

Hi Anthony. It looks like we crossed each other while posting at nearly the same time. Thanks for your kind words.

--Daniel

Re: abba better than the beatles?

kristinafan - 27.01.2007, 13:16

MarryMeAgnetha wrote: I have to agree with those who have asserted that there can be no universally agreed-upon answer to the question of which artist is better than another.

Theoretically, I suppose there could a definitive answer if there were some criteria agreed upon to establish a definition for "better". ...
Both ABBA and The Beatles were great, popular, innovative, creative, and very successful artists. To argue about which is better doesn't really make much sense. There's no way to "prove" who is "better" unless some legitimate criteria are established, which doesn't look likely.
--Daniel

I agree with you, Daniel.

I think everybody has the right to say which group he likes more - friendly.
I believe it is as legimate to like ABBA more than the Beatles than the other way around. In this discussion I had the impression that you somehow should like the Beatles more, because they are objectively better. But there is no objectivity 8)

:band:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Toni - 27.01.2007, 13:56

The Beatles and ABBA: I love both groups.

What the Beatles made was 100% ingenious. I have all their original songs and their music still sounds great.

The same goes for ABBA. Although many music experts say, that the Beatles are the most important group and ABBA made only "commercial" music, I think that ABBAŽs music is as brilliant as the BeatlesŽ.

Both groups are on the same level, they are equally good. But my heart beats for ABBA, I grew up with them, and for me they are Nr. 1. Perhaps it would have been different if was was born ten years earlier.

Toni :wink:

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 27.01.2007, 14:30

kristinafan wrote: In this discussion I had the impression that you somehow should like the Beatles more, because they are objectively better. But there is no objectivity It is a sad comment on our age that such fundamentalist mantras ("There is no objectivity) can be voiced and everyone nods in self-satisfied agreement. In the field of aesthetics, the critical study of art forms, there is indeed a measurable way of determing quality through established criteria. These have existed for centuries (see "On Quality In Art" by Jacob Rosenberg, for instanmce); but the modern insistance that nothing is demonstrably superior to anything else is nothing more than a feel-good response to the possible challenge of one's position. The phrase "in my opinion" has become the individual's personal armour against intellectual challenge, while taste and quality have become all too commonly interchangeable--in other words, "If I like it, it must be good".

Re: abba better than the beatles?

kristinafan - 27.01.2007, 17:54

Yes, dear Earl, I know I am stupid and fundamentalist and a bad example for our age and our generation.
I am sorry, but I did not read "On Quality In Art" by Jacob Rosenberg. Instead I read a lot of books about sociology which make me question objectivity. For example Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste by Pierre Bourdieu.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

MarryMeAgnetha - 27.01.2007, 23:02

The Earl wrote: ...In the field of aesthetics, the critical study of art forms, there is indeed a measurable way of determing quality through established criteria. These have existed for centuries (see "On Quality In Art" by Jacob Rosenberg, for instanmce); but the modern insistance that nothing is demonstrably superior to anything else is nothing more than a feel-good response to the possible challenge of one's position. The phrase "in my opinion" has become the individual's personal armour against intellectual challenge, while taste and quality have become all too commonly interchangeable--in other words, "If I like it, it must be good".
[/color]

I don't necessarily agree 100% with The Earl, but at least he writes fairly coherently most of the time and presents his case logically. (Use the spell checker once in a while, though.) He also likes to stir things up, but people have a right to do that if they wish.

Anyway, more to the point:

It's true that some art forms have been controlled by academia or The Church or the government or whoever at various times in history. These institutions were/are considered the standard bearers and authorities that established criteria for judging art. But surely no one thinks that some hierarchy's or bureaucracy's standards are universal, and are the only acceptable standards by which art should be judged.

For example, in the Middle Ages The Church controlled music throughout Europe and the rest of its sphere of influence, dictating what was and wasn't acceptable as good music. Its hegemony included such stringent details as what notes may not be played together. An augmented fourth (for example, playing a C and an F# at the same time) was considered "the devil in music" and was not allowed! Most music from the time of Bach on (and quite a bit of music from even before them) would have been condemned -- by the established authorities -- as bad-sounding and morally evil!

There are modern examples of this as well. If you've ever had the, uh, pleasure of watching American Idol, you know what I mean. Imagine for one moment Bob Dylan appearing before Simon Cowl and company. How long do you think he would last singing in front of them? Can you imagine them ripping into Bob's rough, sometimes nasally voice and unkempt, "non-pop-star" appearance? I'm not even a huge Dylan fan myself, but his status as the poet laureate of a generation speaks loud and clear for itself. There's always a high priest (or king, or programming director, or producer, etc.) who just knows what's good and what isn't. And the rest of us just jolly well better fall into line and accept that unassailable judgement.

This brings up the whole point of why Simon and friends are considered authorities on music in the first place. The answer, as it most often is throughout history, is that they have the money and power to declare themselves authorities. That in itself doesn't mean they have no qualifications, but lots of people with credentials as good or better -- but no wealth or influence -- don't get to call the shots that Simon gets to.

OK -- so, even after writing all that, I do have to agree with The Earl's assertion that some art is demonstrably better than other art. Almost anyone would consider Eugene Fodor a better violinist than a kid who just picked up the instrument for the first time three weeks ago. Almost anyone would consider a Beethoven piano sonata a more sophisticated composition than the theme from The Andy Griffith Show.

I agree that not all art is equally good and that sometimes some people are possibly being a bit disingenuous in their non-judgemental, "feel-good" assertions. But the criteria established by any standard are just the criteria of the given organization or individual. Sorry if I sound like I'm sitting on the fence in this matter, but even though it's possible to compare works of art and rank them hierarchically, I question the value of doing so in most contexts. Furthermore, I assert that absolute standards are almost impossible to come by. We can only establish standards that pertain to our own time and understanding.

--Daniel

Re: abba better than the beatles?

johnny59 - 28.01.2007, 01:05

MarryMeAgnetha wrote: He also likes to stir things up, but people have a right to do that if they wish.

Only to a certain degree, Daniel. Only to a certain degree . . . :P

I liked your very interesting evaluations as well as other points made concerning the comparability of arts and art quality standards.

Anyway, I must be a spoilsport and point out that neither this topic nor this forum holds any place to discuss philosophy about art or the world as a whole, although I agree that these are very important issues.

But there is no miscelllaneous section in this forum and I think everybody knows that. (See guideline chapter 4.2.1) The only way to discuss this issue would be in the Swedish chat board. I will consider to start something like that with kristinafan, but I'm afraid the rest of you will have to stay behind in this case. :twisted:

So would everyone please restrict thjemselves to the question "Beatles vs. ABBA", please, because that's what this topic is about.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 28.01.2007, 02:14

Thank you, MMA, for that measured and sober response. I agree with the overwhelming majority of points you made. I do think, though, that in the end, if we can't aspire to some universally accepted standards of excellence--regardless of their sources--we're left with the logical conclusion that nothing can then ever be deemed bad. And I'm sure most people would feel uncomfortable with that equation. Your illustration of the two violinists is a perfect case in point. I've often countered those who tell me that determining quality is an elitist activity, that they would find it ridiculous to watch a contestant fling himself out onto the ice in some stumbling free-form style during the Olympics and expect the judging committee to deem his performance the equal of those contestants who have aspired to fulfill the required standards of excellence.
As to Daniel and J59, stirring things up is never my motive. That I DO, is only the result of the things I often feel the need to say. And, though this is not necessarily the forum for philosophical discussion, there's no need to shy away from it as long as the posts obey the rules of civility. In fact, some of the ideas posited here may very well result in some members deepening their appreciation for ABBA and other musical acts.
Kristinfan, it is disappointing that you think I would consider you and others "stupid"; I never suggested it and never would. Challenging one's positions is not the same as ridiculing them. That being said, I'm familiar with Bourdieu's theories, and I'm sorry to say I find them to be Marxist claptrap. The idea that all behaviour and motivation can be explained by class and economics is not only insulting and long proved groundless, but flies in the face of experience. He would never be able to account for why generations of poor Jews and Koreans, in the U.S. for example, would inculcate in their children the love of classical music and art, while the upper class is lauding and supporting atonal drivel and portraits of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung. In fact, the ideology he subscribed to has resulted in some of the most horrendous societies in modern times. But there will always be those who are romanced by theory, while ignoring consequences.
I thank you for indulging me.
P.S. I'm not immune to spelling errors--I wrote the earlier piece while trying to keep my eyes open at 4am! But please remind me when I do falter--I welcome it!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 28.01.2007, 02:59

Actulally, theirs not much moore to say. The Beetles asre the greatestest, and that shuold end the discussian!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 28.01.2007, 03:17

Thenks!

Re: abba better than the beatles?

MarryMeAgnetha - 28.01.2007, 03:37

Ohh, yew guise!

--Daniel

Re: abba better than the beatles?

MarryMeAgnetha - 28.01.2007, 04:44

Yes, but ABBA had better legs.

--Daniel

Re: abba better than the beatles?

MarryMeAgnetha - 28.01.2007, 05:49

We are so going to get locked.

--Daniel

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Pabs - 28.01.2007, 13:11

The boys' legs? You gotta be kidding.

You only have to see Benny in those striped pyjamas that Frida bought (trousers too short)... not a pretty sight.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Fire&Ice - 28.01.2007, 13:33

Pabs wrote: The boys' legs? You gotta be kidding.
You only have to see Benny in those striped pyjamas that Frida bought (trousers too short)... not a pretty sight.

:lol: I disagree! Bjorn has quite a nice pair of manly hairy legs! :love4:

Back to the topic - let's think of proper criteria by which we can decide upon which band is better, which in fact is not possible.. :P

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 28.01.2007, 13:41

Fire&Ice wrote: [Back to the topic - let's think of proper criteria by which we can decide upon which band is better, which in fact is not possible.. :P How do you know?

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Anonymous - 28.01.2007, 13:50

I thought so.

Re: abba better than the beatles?

Team ABBA - 28.01.2007, 21:51

Aboot watt ? :?