These are bad things? His other complaint is laughable of their being "no drugs" in their songs. The fuck? And no violence in Beatles songs? Obviously never listened to Run For Your Life or Maxwell's Silver Hammer. And on "no vietnam, no politics" - I respect them more for not jumping on the bandwagon and making shit like that. I'm not a blind Beatles are god type person but the guy who wrote this article just doesn't understand anything at all. If I met him I'd give him a swift kick in the vagina.unlike the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead they didn't foster the hippie movement; unlike Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix they didn't further the myth of LSD;
Interesting Take on the Beatles
- Jimmy Jazz
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 6:40pm
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38370
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116593
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap.Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38370
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.Dr. Medulla wrote:Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap.Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
DrugProwlingWolf wrote:I liked that article a great deal, but only because I just can't fuckin' stand the Beatles.
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35949
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
Heston wrote:He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.Dr. Medulla wrote:Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap.Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
See, this is where I part ways with some Beatles fans. The Rolling Stones and The Who were contemporaries with roots going back to before the Beatles existed (in terms of who was influencing them musically, how they met and started and decided what they wanted to play). All the bands influenced each other, sure, but saying that without the beatles there would be no Stones or Who is a pretty big leap to make.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
- threecoffins
- Sasquatch Determinator
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 10:33am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
I agree, though I think those band owe a lot of their international success to the Beatles. The Beat boom was gonna happen regardless of the Beatles, but the Who and the Stones may not have captured the American imagination in quite the same way.Flex wrote:Heston wrote:He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.Dr. Medulla wrote:Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap.Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
See, this is where I part ways with some Beatles fans. The Rolling Stones and The Who were contemporaries with roots going back to before the Beatles existed (in terms of who was influencing them musically, how they met and started and decided what they wanted to play). All the bands influenced each other, sure, but saying that without the beatles there would be no Stones or Who is a pretty big leap to make.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116593
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
A more defensible argument might be that if the Beatles hadn't cultivated the pop market and opened the eyes of more record execs, groups like the Stones or the Who might not have been signed (think of how the Pistols made every label think they needed a punk band).Flex wrote:Heston wrote:He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.Dr. Medulla wrote:Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap.Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
See, this is where I part ways with some Beatles fans. The Rolling Stones and The Who were contemporaries with roots going back to before the Beatles existed (in terms of who was influencing them musically, how they met and started and decided what they wanted to play). All the bands influenced each other, sure, but saying that without the beatles there would be no Stones or Who is a pretty big leap to make.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35949
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
Well, they almost certainly would have been signed and recorded by at least a smaller label. I think the basic point though (which you and threecoffins are making), is that without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has. There's a good chance of that, although Bob Dylan did at least much for rock n roll as the Beatles and he still would have been around so it's hard to say for sure one way or the other... but I'd agree with the assessment that without the Beatles "modern rock" would have remained a more underground phenomenon.Dr. Medulla wrote:A more defensible argument might be that if the Beatles hadn't cultivated the pop market and opened the eyes of more record execs, groups like the Stones or the Who might not have been signed (think of how the Pistols made every label think they needed a punk band).
Addendum: that was unintentionally Joe Morganesque. What I mean is that I agree with the basic idea that without the Beatles modern rock wouldn't be what it is, but there are some other variables (like Bob Dylan) at play.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38370
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35949
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.Heston wrote:Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116593
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
The Beatles embodied a lot of the trends going on around them, sometimes quite deliberately. They served, at least for awhile, as a focus for the next leap forward of rock in terms of its penetration into the general culture. It's important to remember that there wasn't as much choice and variety back then, and having faces and personalities like Elvis and the Beatles made the public more receptive to the new music. If there's no Elvis, does, say, Carl Perkins make the huge leap forward? If no Beatles, can the Stones conquer America? Hypothetical, of course, but you don't have to be a "great man" proponent to recognize that particular human beings can alter the historical equation.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35949
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
I think everyone, even the writer of that horrible article in a weird and perverse way, agrees with this.Dr. Medulla wrote:The Beatles embodied a lot of the trends going on around them, sometimes quite deliberately. They served, at least for awhile, as a focus for the next leap forward of rock in terms of its penetration into the general culture. It's important to remember that there wasn't as much choice and variety back then, and having faces and personalities like Elvis and the Beatles made the public more receptive to the new music. If there's no Elvis, does, say, Carl Perkins make the huge leap forward? If no Beatles, can the Stones conquer America? Hypothetical, of course, but you don't have to be a "great man" proponent to recognize that particular human beings can alter the historical equation.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38370
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
My two points were fully consistent with eachother.Flex wrote:What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.Heston wrote:Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116593
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles
Re-reading what I scribbled, yes, you're right. It's a matter of whether you regard it as a net positive or negative.Flex wrote:I think everyone, even the writer of that horrible article in a weird and perverse way, agrees with this.Dr. Medulla wrote:The Beatles embodied a lot of the trends going on around them, sometimes quite deliberately. They served, at least for awhile, as a focus for the next leap forward of rock in terms of its penetration into the general culture. It's important to remember that there wasn't as much choice and variety back then, and having faces and personalities like Elvis and the Beatles made the public more receptive to the new music. If there's no Elvis, does, say, Carl Perkins make the huge leap forward? If no Beatles, can the Stones conquer America? Hypothetical, of course, but you don't have to be a "great man" proponent to recognize that particular human beings can alter the historical equation.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft