The Beatles

Status
Not open for further replies.
vinegar hill said:
When you read comments like this,you realise on here cluelessness has been taken to new levels.
Click to expand...
I have to agree mate, I know some things are said to provoke a reaction, but one or two posts on this thread are totally f***ing insane.
 


Teed said:
I have to agree mate, I know some things are said to provoke a reaction, but one or two posts on this thread are totally f***ing insane.
Click to expand...
Again,read the conversation, i'm not provoking anyone its the Beatles devotees who provoke simply because others don't love them
 
JAZZMANB said:
Again,read the conversation, i'm not provoking anyone its the Beatles devotees who provoke simply because others don't love them
Click to expand...
It's not. It's about rewriting history. I do love The Beatles' music but this is because I got to them late and their whole catalogue was available to me at once. I have to admit though that if I were a teen during those years The Stones and their r&b influence would have been easily more attractive to me rather than the straight rock and roll that they were putting out.

This is about giving credit where it's due and it's beyond a doubt that The Beatles should be given credit for reigniting rock and roll, paving the way for the stones who would quickly follow. It's a well worn phrase that The Beatles scared parents until those parents saw The Stones and then Lennon and co didn't seem that scary anymore, a trend that would continue though the new wave years.

You asked me earlier what a decade has to do with shock valve and the answer is this...Elvis couldn't be filmed from the waist down on stage because he was basically twerking and 50yrs afterwards twerking is hardly shocking at all. It was the same with The Beatles. They were dangerous to parents because in those days their hair was considered too long and they were too brash and loud. These 'qualities' would be eclipsed very shortly afterwards as the 60s took off and by today's standards they look rather weak. But in those early to mid 60s days they were considered anything but.
 
JonMc said:
It's not. It's about rewriting history. I do love The Beatles' music but this is because I got to them late and their whole catalogue was available to me at once. I have to admit though that if I were a teen during those years The Stones and their r&b influence would have been easily more attractive to me rather than the straight rock and roll that they were putting out.

This is about giving credit where it's due and it's beyond a doubt that The Beatles should be given credit for reigniting rock and roll, paving the way for the stones who would quickly follow. It's a well worn phrase that The Beatles scared parents until those parents saw The Stones and then Lennon and co didn't seem that scary anymore, a trend that would continue though the new wave years.

You asked me earlier what a decade has to do with shock valve and the answer is this...Elvis couldn't be filmed from the waist down on stage because he was basically twerking and 50yrs afterwards twerking is hardly shocking at all. It was the same with The Beatles. They were dangerous to parents because in those days their hair was considered too long and they were too brash and loud. These 'qualities' would be eclipsed very shortly afterwards as the 60s took off and by today's standards they look rather weak. But in those early to mid 60s days they were considered anything but.
Click to expand...
Fair points,despite all the wiki style 500 word gushings on this thread which i read (with a Paul gambacini accent )its music at the end of the day and no amount or earnest respect or whatever it is can make you like something you don't and you shouldn't need essays to prove people are wrong,there is a world outside of The Beatles and plenty of alternative views of how ,when and why stuff happened.
 
JAZZMANB said:
ta;)
Click to expand...
Nee bother, these Beatles threads are always the same, you always, without fail, get some dopey arsehole coming on and spouting shite like, "Well McCartney wrote the frog song" aye he did, the stupid fucker that he is, fancy writing a song like that for a children's cartoon about frogs!
Did he not think something like "smack my bitch up" would have suited the theme better, what a fool the man is. :rolleyes: some of the posts on here are just plain f***ing stupid, like them or hate them, you do as you please, but some people make themselves look like top class fools.
 
Teed said:
Nee bother, these Beatles threads are always the same, you always, without fail, get some dopey arsehole coming on and spouting shite like, "Well McCartney wrote the frog song" aye he did, the stupid fucker that he is, fancy writing a song like that for a children's cartoon about frogs!
Did he not think something like "smack my bitch up" would have suited the theme better, what a fool the man is. :rolleyes: some of the posts on here are just plain f***ing stupid, like them or hate them, you do as you please, but some people make themselves look like top class fools.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

I like the Frog Chorus if you take it for what it is.
 
JAZZMANB said:
Despite my indifference to the fab four,i quite like some random Macca,Wings in particular.
Click to expand...

I used to think Live and Let Die was the greatest most exciting piece of music ever and play my mams copy over and over again. Then I realised that not all records were to be played at 45 rpm and the bigger ones were meant to be at 331/3. Lost a fair bit of it's charm then - still like it though.

I also like Pipes of Peace and Say Say Say :oops:
 
PinzaC55 said:
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:
Click to expand...

The Who even wore suits when they were starting out in 1963 and Townsend played an acoustic guitar identical looking to the one Lennon played in that era. Again I just think the whole emphasis put on image is a way for people to try and put the Beatles down because it's difficult to do so in a musical sense. The Beatles were playing in Hamburg clubs wearing jeans and leather jackets and shagging prossies when the Stones/Who were probably still in school...
 
Sgt Pepper said:
The Who even wore suits when they were starting out in 1963 and Townsend played an acoustic guitar identical looking to the one Lennon played in that era. Again I just think the whole emphasis put on image is a way for people to try and put the Beatles down because it's difficult to do so in a musical sense. The Beatles were playing in Hamburg clubs wearing jeans and leather jackets and shagging prossies when the Stones/Who were probably still in school...
Click to expand...
The Shadows wore suits before all of them.
Anyways, can't be arsed to read this thread. No doubt it'll be full of nonsense. The Fabs were fab. Fabber than any other band. That's not to say there hasn't been loads of other tremendous bands since them but not one of them would be the same if there'd been no Beatles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top