The Beatles

Status
Not open for further replies.
zwartekat said:
Yeah, but life without debate can be a bit dull. A bit like both Primus and Emmylou Harris.
Click to expand...
I love debate but it only works if you understand there is no right answer ,and people who say you are just saying you don't like them to appear cool need to be on carpark watch
 


JAZZMANB said:
I love debate but it only works if you understand there is no right answer ,and people who say you are just saying you don't like them to appear cool need to be on carpark watch
Click to expand...
Fair enough,as you say, there is no right answer. I actually like Primus and Emmylou Harris because I like music. Essentially, music isn't a competition, as you've already pointed out.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
'Got My Mind Set On You' was never considered for a Beatles record and it was not written by George Harrison. It was written by Rudy Clark and cut as a James Ray single in 1962. George selected it as a cover on his 'Cloud 9' album.

He had a tonne of very deep songs that he was struggling to get considered for Beatles album up until the band broke up. For instance, the Beatles cut a very strong version of 'Not Guilty' which was dropped in favour of the dollop of shite' Revolution No. 9' on the White Album. He had plenty of other great songs that he cut in his solo career that were written and offered to the Beatles. For example most of the material on 'All thing must pass' was offered to Beatles (the title song, Isn't it a pity, Wah-Wah, I'd Have you Anytime, Hear Me lord, Behind that locked door, and more). Then there were others that cracking songs that turned up on later albums that had also been offered to the Beatles such as 'Woman don't you cry for me', 'Circles' and 'See Yourself'.
Click to expand...
My mistake on Set on You. I knew that he brought the song to the band but I assumed that he wrote it. The rest is spot on, came into his own later on and wrote some superb songs.
PinzaC55 said:
Awe man you make as much sense on this as you do on religion :lol:



Not only that but Lennon produced shite records too...."Woman" ffs horrible anally retentive stuff.
Click to expand...
 
RichD said:
Anyone who says they don't like the Beatles are just trying to make themselves sound chic, but are in fact making themselves sound like a twat
Click to expand...

I like a couple of their songs squire but on the whole I'm not a fan. I think they're massively overrated and were dragged along by a f***ing great producer. Each to their own though and the world would be a boring place if everyone liked the same shit.
 
PinzaC55 said:
Awe man you make as much sense on this as you do on religion :lol:
Click to expand...
Aye. You should listen a bit more then. Mebbys you'd understand.

When The Beatles toured America it was like a second coming. In the US rock and roll had joined the army and was producing musicals. Rock and roll had married its cousin and had gotten into trouble with guns. Why do you think that Beatles tour was so huge, you dunderhead? The lasses were starved of a genuine dangerous band and The Beatles terrified parents once again. The British were cumming...literally. The Beatles resuscitated rock and roll. They changed everything when they broke in the US.
Think before you type.
 
JonMc said:
Aye. You should listen a bit more then. Mebbys you'd understand.

When The Beatles toured America it was like a second coming. In the US rock and roll had joined the army and was producing musicals. Rock and roll had married its cousin and had gotten into trouble with guns. Why do you think that Beatles tour was so huge, you dunderhead? The lasses were starved of a genuine dangerous band and The Beatles terrified parents once again. The British were cumming...literally. The Beatles resuscitated rock and roll. They changed everything when they broke in the US.
Think before you type.
Click to expand...
Terrified parents ? Nice English boys wearing suits singing woop woop ,it was the typical pretty boy band from another place thing like The Osmonds with us later .If parents had any concerns they would have bombed ,look at the Pistols and that was the 70s
 
JAZZMANB said:
Terrified parents ? Nice English boys wearing suits singing woop woop ,it was the typical pretty boy band from another place thing like The Osmonds with us later .If parents had any concerns they would have bombed ,look at the Pistols and that was the 70s
Click to expand...
Absolutely they terrified parents. Their hair was long.

In 1964 they were the Sex Pistols. :lol:

And US parents were terrified of the Likes of Jagger, Burdon, Plant, Hendrix (I still count him in as British ;)) and a whole lot more before they were scared of jokes like Sid Vicious.
 
Last edited:
I'm Spartacus said:
I like a couple of their songs squire but on the whole I'm not a fan. I think they're massively overrated and were dragged along by a f***ing great producer. Each to their own though and the world would be a boring place if everyone liked the same shit.
Click to expand...

The Beatles themselves had vastly more say in the production of their records than most bands. It would be fair to say that by the Magical Mystery Tour EP they were producing on equal terms with George Martin. The unique part of George Martin's job was maintaining law and order in the recording schedules. John, Paul and George Harrison were leading multiple dubbing sessions at the same time in various studios of Abbey Road when recording The White Album. Paul McCartney produced very strong singles for Mary Hopkin and The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band around that time, and George Harrison produced his own Wonderwall album, and under various nommes de Plume for various other artists after the Beatles. Labi Siffre's 'It must be love' jumps to mind, as well as co-writing and producing 'It Don't come easy' for Ringo. He did a solid job producing his own solo records as well, particularly '33 1/3' and his lovely self-titled album.

George Martin had a very good career in producing comedy records and some solid talents like Matt Munro, but his career had slowed down a lot by the 1980's, and it seems like he many ended up contributing string arrangements rather than actually procuing. I like Martin's style as a producer, and he is one of the best balance engineers I have seen in action, and he can put incredible records together when with the right people. I do not think he ever really got the chance to push the boundaries and give opportunities to artists to do new things once the Beatles ended. That was a great shame. He still worked with a lot of very good bands afterwards, but I think they picked him because he was the producer of the Beatles, rather than because of his own considerable talents.

JonMc said:
My mistake on Set on You. I knew that he brought the song to the band but I assumed that he wrote it. The rest is spot on, came into his own later on and wrote some superb songs.
Click to expand...

I have feeling they covered it in Hamburg, but I have never heard it was ever proposed as a song to be recorded for any albums.
 
Last edited:
JonMc said:
Aye. You should listen a bit more then. Mebbys you'd understand.

When The Beatles toured America it was like a second coming. In the US rock and roll had joined the army and was producing musicals. Rock and roll had married its cousin and had gotten into trouble with guns. Why do you think that Beatles tour was so huge, you dunderhead? The lasses were starved of a genuine dangerous band and The Beatles terrified parents once again. The British were cumming...literally. The Beatles resuscitated rock and roll. They changed everything when they broke in the US.
Think before you type.
Click to expand...

"Dangerous band" :lol: PMSL
 
JonMc said:
Absolutely they terrified parents. Their hair was long.

In 1964 they were the Sex Pistols. :lol:

And US parents were terrified of the Likes of Jagger, Burdon, Plant, Hendrix (I still count him in as British ;)) and a whole lot more before they were scared of jokes like Sid Vicious.
Click to expand...
I used the Pistols as an example of what they do when they really don't like bands ,I would say terrified is way past the mark ,4 nice lads in suits even with long hair is hardly a threat ,the other brits had a bit more menace about them

JonMc said:
Yes. Dangerous. Try thinking 1964 rather than 2015. Christ, but you're dumb.
Click to expand...
How does the year make Terrified and Dangerous any different ? Blokes singing She loves you yeah yeah smiling profusely and shaking their heads is neither .They were teen heart throbs
 
Last edited:
PinzaC55 said:
The Stones were dangerous. The Who were dangerous. The Beatles......"I want to hold your hand" :lol:
Click to expand...

I Want To Hold Your Hand was 1963, what were The Who and Stones, or anyone for that matter, writing in 1963? That was about as dangerous as it got up until then, of course parents were petrified because they seen the reaction and behaviour of their kids to it/them. Pete Townsend has even said on record (might be a video of it on YouTube) saying he was at a Beatles gig in Blackpool in 1963 and the smell inside the arena was horrible because a lot of the lasses had actually pissed themselves on their seats - if that wouldn't frighten their parents I'm not sure what will.

Each year had changed considerably from the previous year in the 1960s, by the time The Stones and Who caught up a little bit by say 1965 the Beatles were tripping out on LSD, writing songs about drugs and whores and experimenting way beyond what any other band had even thought about attempting with the likes of Rubber Soul.

I love the Stones and Who as well by the way, I just think some people put too much emphasis on the Beatles' cleaner cut image in the early 60s (which all bands had then by the way) as a way to compensate and try to just write them off as a glorified boyband when it was just the way it was that early in the 60s.
 
Sgt Pepper said:
I Want To Hold Your Hand was 1963, what were The Who and Stones, or anyone for that matter, writing in 1963? That was about as dangerous as it got up until then, of course parents were petrified because they seen the reaction and behaviour of their kids to it/them. Pete Townsend has even said on record (might be a video of it on YouTube) saying he was at a Beatles gig in Blackpool in 1963 and the smell inside the arena was horrible because a lot of the lasses had actually pissed themselves on their seats - if that wouldn't frighten their parents I'm not sure what will.

Each year had changed considerably from the previous year in the 1960s, by the time The Stones and Who caught up a little bit by say 1965 the Beatles were tripping out on LSD, writing songs about drugs and whores and experimenting way beyond what any other band had even thought about attempting with the likes of Rubber Soul.

I love the Stones and Who as well by the way, I just think some people put too much emphasis on the Beatles' cleaner cut image in the early 60s (which all bands had then by the way) as a way to compensate and try to just write them off as a glorified boyband when it was just the way it was that early in the 60s.
Click to expand...

This could go on forever. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones
"The Rolling Stones were in the vanguard of the British Invasion of bands that became popular in the US in 1964–65. At first noted for their longish hair as much as their music, the band are identified with the youthful and rebellious counterculture of the 1960s. Critic Sean Egan states that within a year of the release of their 1964 debut album, they "were being perceived by the youth of Britain and then the world as representatives of opposition to an old, cruel order — the antidote to a class-bound, authoritarian culture."
From Bill Wyman ""we were the first pop group to break away from the whole Cliff Richard thing where the bands did little dance steps, wore identical uniforms and had snappy patter". – Bill Wyman"
Logon or register to see this image


Logon or register to see this image
 
JAZZMANB said:
Terrified parents ? Nice English boys wearing suits singing woop woop ,it was the typical pretty boy band from another place thing like The Osmonds with us later .If parents had any concerns they would have bombed ,look at the Pistols and that was the 70s
Click to expand...
When you read comments like this,you realise on here cluelessness has been taken to new levels.
 
PinzaC55 said:
This could go on forever. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones
"The Rolling Stones were in the vanguard of the British Invasion of bands that became popular in the US in 1964–65. At first noted for their longish hair as much as their music, the band are identified with the youthful and rebellious counterculture of the 1960s. Critic Sean Egan states that within a year of the release of their 1964 debut album, they "were being perceived by the youth of Britain and then the world as representatives of opposition to an old, cruel order — the antidote to a class-bound, authoritarian culture."
From Bill Wyman ""we were the first pop group to break away from the whole Cliff Richard thing where the bands did little dance steps, wore identical uniforms and had snappy patter". – Bill Wyman"
Logon or register to see this image


Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...

How many songs on that album did they write themselves?

Could be argued the Stones tactically created the bad boy image as a way to differentiate themselves from the Beatles since, at the time, the Stones were mainly still doing covers and miles behind the Beatles as they were writing all their own stuff.

Not sure of the relevance of the pictures either, here's another of the Stones from 1963....

 
Sgt Pepper said:
How many songs on that album did they write themselves?

Could be argued the Stones tactically created the bad boy image as a way to differentiate themselves from the Beatles since, at the time, the Stones were mainly still doing covers and miles behind the Beatles as they were writing all their own stuff.

Not sure of the relevance of the pictures either, here's another of the Stones from 1963....

Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...
That's addressed in the Wikipedia article - they ditched the matching suits as soon as they could.
Here's the Beatles live in 1965 in matching gear.
And the Who in 1964. Daltrey looking as cool as fuck in black glasses :cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top