THE BEATLES: All-Encompassing Thread!! in Off Topic Discussions Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

THE BEATLES: All-Encompassing Thread!!

Author	Comment
Koukol 5		#61	[-]
Feb 14 12 2:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ejazzyjeff wrote: Martin & Epstein early input ruined the Beatles. They took a black leathered Rock n Roll band playing in clubs, put them in preppie uniforms and cleaned them into a VOCAL POP GROUP pandering to the Baby boomer's little girls! Nobody twisted their arms to dress preppie... Didn't John say he hated being 'watered down' (my words)
	Remove this ad
Monsterpal		#62	[-]
Feb 14 12 3:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Without Epstein and Martin, I doubt that we'd even know who they were.
emoore7		#63	[-]
Feb 14 12 3:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Koukol 5 wrote: I believe it took bands like the Animals, The Who and The Stones to bring back Rock n Roll. >No no no...it was the Dave Clark 5 I take back what I said about the Beatles being "it" in the 60's I should have said they were "it" for POP culture. >The Beatles never would have made it without the haircuts...(Moe Howard had it first) Lets not forget about Dylan too. By mid early mid sixties the Beatles were experimenting with folk music thanks to Dylan. >and Dylan went electric thanks to the Beatles. Then... WHAM!..The Doors come out of the blue and put out a record that was 10 years ahead of it's time! >then Jimi came along When I tell some people that The Doors 1st album was released around 65...they usually are quite amazed. >Was released in January '67...(Cream's first album and Hendrix's first singles were out before this.)
sthorntn		#64	[-]
Feb 14 12 3:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	< Martin & Epstein's early input ruined the Beatles. They took a black leathered Rock n Roll band playing in clubs, put them in preppie uniforms and cleaned them into a VOCAL POP GROUP pandering to the Baby boomer's little girls! I believe it took bands like the Animals, The Who and The Stones to bring back Rock n Roll. > Without Martin and Epstein, I suspect the Beatles would have never made it out of the Liverpool dance halls. It’s easy, after 40 years of blues-based heavy metal, to dismiss early Beatle music as the stuff of lightweights. But I was around at the time and I remember that the Beatles rocked as hard as any group on the scene. It was sort of an Elvis meets Buddy Holly meets Chuck Berry meets the Everly Brothers sound and it was dammed exciting. And it was danceable too, a quality that rock music lost when the Great Guitar Gods took over. The Stones and the Animals deserve credit for establishing the blues as the foundation on which rock music would be built. But without the Beatles to open the door, they too might have been little more than footnotes in pop music history.
Wich2		#65	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>They took a black leathered Rock n Roll band playing in clubs, put them in preppie uniforms and cleaned them into a VOCAL POP GROUP pandering to the Baby boomer's little girls!< Kouk, I see you point, but your timing's a little off. Boomers begin in about '46, as the post-WWII sprouts; so the Fab Four was actually playing for Boomer girls, not Boomer's girls. >I don't really agree with the idea that Lennon HAD to tour and go with the flow of rock stardom. You always have a choice in life,regardless of your station ... If your family is most important in life,stand by them. If not,go for the brass ring. You can't have both.< Word, Spoiler. Whether it's Lennon, Imus, or many others, the "I'll spoil the second batch of kids, that'll make up for the fact that I shat on the first" has never flown for me. -Craig Last Edited By: Wich2 Feb 14 12 4:07 PM. Edited 2 times.
Colossus Rex		#66	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Beatles, quite openly and honestly, wanted to be very, very successful. "Bigger than Elvis." Paul later said they went "quite happily" to the tailors to get their fancy new suits. And of course they had the incredible talent needed to back up their ambition.
Koukol 5		#67	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Without Martin and Epstein, I suspect the Beatles would have never made it out of the Liverpool dance halls. With all due respect, that's just speculation...we'll never know.
Koukol 5		#68	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	emoore7 wrote: Koukol 5 wrote: I believe it took bands like the Animals, The Who and The Stones to bring back Rock n Roll. >No no no...it was the Dave Clark 5 I take back what I said about the Beatles being "it" in the 60's I should have said they were "it" for POP culture. >The Beatles never would have made it without the haircuts...(Moe Howard had it first) Lets not forget about Dylan too. By mid early mid sixties the Beatles were experimenting with folk music thanks to Dylan. >and Dylan went electric thanks to the Beatles. Then... WHAM!..The Doors come out of the blue and put out a record that was 10 years ahead of it's time! >then Jimi came along When I tell some people that The Doors 1st album was released around 65...they usually are quite amazed. >Was released in January '67...(Cream's first album and Hendrix's first singles were out before this.) OOPS!..I forgot about JIMI and CREAM
Joe Karlosi		#69	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Whether it's Lennon, Imus, or many others, the "I'll spoil the second batch of kids, that'll make up for the fact that I shat on the first" has never flown for me. What about forgiveness and a second chance? Sure, it would be better if no parent had ever made any errors in parenting. But what's a dad to do after he's already made a mistake? He can't go back and change history, right? Next best thing -- If a father does not do right by his first child, all he can do is later on try to learn, apologize, and not repeat his mistakes. And hopefully - as in the case of John Lennon - live long enough to establish something of a relationship with the first kid and try and make it up to him the best he can. That should account for something. You can see Julian on camera in 1988's IMAGINE JOHN LENNON saying he regretted John's death at a time where - quote - "We were getting so close". re: George Martin and Brian Epstein -- yes, they were extremely vital to the Beatles' success. I firmly believe that if George Martin (in particular) had not taken a chance on them we may never have had The Beatles. And if anyone can lay claim to the title of "Fifth Beatle", I'd say it's Martin. He arranged so many things on their songs (such as editing two tempo takes together to create STRAWBERRY FIELDS), and even played piano and came up with important suggestions. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Feb 14 12 5:00 PM. Edited 4 times.
Koukol 5		#70	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sthorntn wrote: < Martin & Epstein's early input ruined the Beatles. They took a black leathered Rock n Roll band playing in clubs, put them in preppie uniforms and cleaned them into a VOCAL POP GROUP pandering to the Baby boomer's little girls! I believe it took bands like the Animals, The Who and The Stones to bring back Rock n Roll. > Without Martin and Epstein, I suspect the Beatles would have never made it out of the Liverpool dance halls. It’s easy, after 40 years of blues-based heavy metal, to dismiss early Beatle music as the stuff of lightweights. But I was around at the time and I remember that the Beatles rocked as hard as any group on the scene. It was sort of an Elvis meets Buddy Holly meets Chuck Berry meets the Everly Brothers sound and it was dammed exciting. And it was danceable too, a quality that rock music lost when the Great Guitar Gods took over. The Stones and the Animals deserve credit for establishing the blues as the foundation on which rock music would be built. But without the Beatles to open the door, they too might have been little more than footnotes in pop music history. I was around too and I said earlier THE BEATLES turned ME on to music But I think you guys are giving THE BEATLES a little too much credit. What about BUDDY HOLLY? Wasn't he in the very first group with THE CRICKETS?
	Remove this ad
Koukol 5		#71	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: Kouk, I see you point, but your timing's a little off. Boomers begin in about '46, as the post-WWII sprouts; so the Fab Four was actually playing for Boomer girls, not Boomer's girls. -Craig OOPS!..(again) Forgive me, I've been withdrawing from some serious medication lately.
CapnDunsel		#72	[-]
Feb 14 12 4:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I just watched the movie "Kafka"(1991) and now this thread pops up. Surely it's not a coincidence - four musicians who wake up one morning to find they've turned into insects.
Monsterpal		#73	[-]
Feb 14 12 10:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It’s easy, after 40 years of blues-based heavy metal, to dismiss early Beatle music as the stuff of lightweights. But I was around at the time and I remember that the Beatles rocked as hard as any group on the scene. It was sort of an Elvis meets Buddy Holly meets Chuck Berry meets the Everly Brothers sound and it was dammed exciting. And it was danceable too, a quality that rock music lost when the Great Guitar Gods took over. The Stones and the Animals deserve credit for establishing the blues as the foundation on which rock music would be built. But without the Beatles to open the door, they too might have been little more than footnotes in pop music history. This is the way I remember it too. We're talking about 1963-64, nearly half a century ago. And it wasn't a preppy style. They had adopted the hair and clothing styles from art students in Hamburg, thanks to Astrid Kirchner and Klaus Voorman. Stuart Sutcliffe was the first in the group to do it. Pete Best refused to wear his hair in that style. It was Vaseline city back in those days. It's hard to understand if you weren't around then, but it was a different world. And when it comes to rockin', think of the Beatles version of "Twist and Shout." Nobody rocked harder than that.
Zombie Dad		#74	[-]
Feb 14 12 11:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ZD Zombie Dad's Online Art Store www.zazzle.com/zombiedad
Colossus Rex		#75	[-]
Feb 14 12 11:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: Whether it's Lennon, Imus, or many others, the "I'll spoil the second batch of kids, that'll make up for the fact that I shat on the first" has never flown for me. What about forgiveness and a second chance? We should forgive John and be glad he got a second chance with Sean ... and even some chance to re-connect with Julian. But I always felt bad when he rhapsodized about the joys of raising Sean ... in interviews or in song. ("Beautiful Boy") If I were Julian, that would have been really hard to hear.
Joe Karlosi		#76	[-]
Feb 14 12 11:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, John allowed Julian to play some drums on his 1974 WALLS AND BRIDGES album when the boy was 11, and John wishes him "Happy Xmas, Julian!" at the start of the HAPPY XMAS single. Also, if you watch the 1975 STAND BY ME studio recording video near the beginning of this thread, you will hear John say "Hello, Julian" to his son in England from the NY studio at one point. We don't know what Lennon might have done had he lived, but I'd bet he would have recorded a song for Julian too at some point. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Michael Elliott		#77	[-]
Feb 15 12 12:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's somewhat of a joke to say Dylan went electric because of The Beatles. He played electric before he went folk. He also didn't stay electric very long. Dylan is one artist who has worked just about every genre so I think he does what he wants to and I'm sure he would have eventually threw the middle finger up to those freaks who were demanding that he be their father and lead them into a battle that he was tired of fighting. If the media and political freaks weren't so strong then perhaps he would have stuck with folk for a few more albums. I'd give them credit for pushing him electric. This whole thing seems to be Beatles fans wanting to "show" that they did something for Dylan whenever debates break out about who was more important. Dylan fans do the same thing by saying that he forced them into making more "mature" music. I'm sure both respected each other but I think both sides would have moved on musically without the other. I went through PAUL MCCARTNEY IN RED SQUARE today and enjoyed it for what it's worth. It was funny seeing how Russia banned them for all those decades. I do wonder what Lennon would have done in concert had he been alive and able to play there in 2003. I wonder if he would have been so nice to some of the officials there as McCartney was. Last Edited By: Michael Elliott Feb 15 12 12:13 AM. Edited 1 times.
Colossus Rex		#78	[-]
Feb 15 12 12:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Of course, Julian can take comfort in the fact the he inspired two of the Beatles' greatest songs ... "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "Hey Jude." But Lennon talked very openly ... and perhaps insensitively ... about how Sean, as a planned baby, was different. While Julian was, like John himself, born "out of a bottle on a Saturday night." (Not sure I'm remembering the quote exactly). John seemed to think Julian would understand that... I hope he was right!
grgstv338		#79	[-]
Feb 15 12 12:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dylan is one artist who has worked just about every genre so I think he does what he wants to If the media and political freaks weren't so strong then perhaps he would have stuck with folk for a few more albums So which is it? An artist who follows his own muse and does what he wants to or someone who's pressured into changing his music? And exactly what "media and political freaks" were forcing Dylan to go electric? If anything, the folk scene was more overtly political - part of their criticism of Dylan ("Judas!") came from the view that he was abandoning the social commitment of folk and going "commercial" with a more rock 'n' roll sound.
Joe Karlosi		#80	[-]
Feb 15 12 7:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Elliott wrote: It's somewhat of a joke to say Dylan went electric because of The Beatles. He played electric before he went folk. He also didn't stay electric very long. Dylan is one artist who has worked just about every genre so I think he does what he wants to and I'm sure he would have eventually threw the middle finger up to those freaks who were demanding that he be their father and lead them into a battle that he was tired of fighting. I believe Dylan was somewhat influenced by the Beatles as well as other electric groups of the period. It was "what was happenin', man." This whole thing seems to be Beatles fans wanting to "show" that they did something for Dylan whenever debates break out about who was more important. Dylan fans do the same thing by saying that he forced them into making more "mature" music. I'm sure both respected each other but I think both sides would have moved on musically without the other. I think you're probably right that both Dylan and The Beatles would have progressed anyway. I like Dylan and think he was a great songwriter, but I don't want to get into the "who's more important" debate -- I went through PAUL MCCARTNEY IN RED SQUARE today and enjoyed it for what it's worth. It was funny seeing how Russia banned them for all those decades. I do wonder what Lennon would have done in concert had he been alive and able to play there in 2003. I wonder if he would have been so nice to some of the officials there as McCartney was. I wonder if Dylan would have been nice to the officials -- or if he'd even bother to say anything at all. Colossus Rex wrote: But Lennon talked very openly ... and perhaps insensitively ... about how Sean, as a planned baby, was different. While Julian was, like John himself, born "out of a bottle on a Saturday night." (Not sure I'm remembering the quote exactly). John seemed to think Julian would understand that... I hope he was right! I don't think there's anything wrong with John being up front with his son about this, and it was already well known anyway that John did not expect to have a baby when Beatlemania broke out. To John's credit, he did marry Cynthia when he found out he was going to be a dad. (I realize that it's not just getting married that's important, the main thing is to be there for the baby -- but not every new dad becomes a world-treking Beatle overnight). "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Feb 15 12 7:26 AM. Edited 5 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

THE BEATLES: All-Encompassing Thread!!