Question for you Brits

[ludwig72]

Could someone please indulge me as to why The Beatles are such a big thing? I have really tried with them, but they leave me a bit flat. But in the same token, I dig John, loathe Paul. I know, I know...

For the record, I piss people off here with that same question, so you won't offend with your responses.

 

[Meladori Magpie]

> Could someone please indulge me as to why The Beatles are such a big
> thing? I have really tried with them, but they leave me a bit flat. But in
> the same token, I dig John, loathe Paul. I know, I know...

> For the record, I piss people off here with that same question, so you
> won't offend with your responses.

I dislike the Beatles . . . I hate J. Lennon, I think they should give Michael Jackson his place in Rock n' Roll heaven when he passes . . . He did more for music than John Lennon did in his entire life. f*** John Lennon. Not a huge McCartney fan either, but I like him more than Lennon. Ringo is my fave Beatle, but that is not saying much, considering that I don't care for him much other than for the fact that he is a munny and amusing character.
I don't believe you should be asking the Brits this question . . . us Yanks have more of an obsession with the Beatles than they do . . .

t o m E

 

[Meladori Magpie]

> I dislike the Beatles . . . I hate J. Lennon, I think they should give
> Michael Jackson his place in Rock n' Roll heaven when he passes . . . He
> did more for music than John Lennon did in his entire life. f*** John
> Lennon. Not a huge McCartney fan either, but I like him more than Lennon.
> Ringo is my fave Beatle, but that is not saying much, considering that I
> don't care for him much other than for the fact that he is a munny and
> amusing character.
> I don't believe you should be asking the Brits this question . . . us
> Yanks have more of an obsession with the Beatles than they do . . .

> t o m E

"Munny" ? Haha . . . I meant FUNNY

t o m E

 

[ludwig72]

Dude, Michael Jackson??? No wonder half the world hates us...

 

[Meladori Magpie]

> Dude, Michael Jackson??? No wonder half the world hates us...
You don't get it . . .
Like him or not . . . M.J. did more to change music than anyone else since Elvis. I personally do not care for his music much, but this is something that I cannot deny. He is much more relivant than the Beatles ever were, they were just a fad, only some never grew out of that

 

[ludwig72]

Uh yeah, I get it. But you are referring to popular music, or as the masses call it, "Pop". In that genre, I don't think you have an argument, but for music as a whole, I beg to differ. Who are your 2nd and 3rd choices? The Backstreet Boys and Hootie and the Blowfish? Besides, I would not call MJ a musician, more like an entertainer/performer.

 

[russ t]

Michael Jackson?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

err...apart from Off the Wall and Thriller, hasn't he been releasing the same (embarrassing) nonsense for 20 years?!?!?

If anyone deserves Lennon's place it'll be Jagger. The Stones have always appealed far more to me than the Beatles. The Beatles needed drugs to explore themselves and their music. The Stones were mad anyway.

> Uh yeah, I get it. But you are referring to popular music, or as the
> masses call it, "Pop". In that genre, I don't think you have an
> argument, but for music as a whole, I beg to differ. Who are your 2nd and
> 3rd choices? The Backstreet Boys and Hootie and the Blowfish? Besides, I
> would not call MJ a musician, more like an entertainer/performer.

 

[Meladori Magpie]

Re: Michael Jackson?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

> err...apart from Off the Wall and Thriller, hasn't he been releasing the
> same (embarrassing) nonsense for 20 years?!?!?

> If anyone deserves Lennon's place it'll be Jagger. The Stones have always
> appealed far more to me than the Beatles. The Beatles needed drugs to
> explore themselves and their music. The Stones were mad anyway.

My first, second, and third place . . .
1st Elvis/Johnny Cash - tie
2nd MJ
3rd ME . . .

Don't ask me silly questions like that . . . I am sure I could think of many, many more to put ahead of Beatles, Stones, MJ, etc if I was given enough time to weigh the contenders.

 

[Meladori Magpie]

Re: Michael Jackson?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

> My first, second, and third place . . .
> 1st Elvis/Johnny Cash - tie
> 2nd MJ
> 3rd ME . . .

> Don't ask me silly questions like that . . . I am sure I could think of
> many, many more to put ahead of Beatles, Stones, MJ, etc if I was given
> enough time to weigh the contenders.

sorry, replied to wrong person . . . but I'm sure you all get the point

 

[RH]

Re: Michael Jackson?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

> sorry, replied to wrong person . . . but I'm sure you all get the point

The Beatles contribution to music should never be understated. This is something that seems to be happening as time goes by and, naturally, younger people will always have new stuff. Just listen for a fortnight to some pre-Beatles stuff, some Elvis, 50's cruisin, Buddy Holly etc. All really good stuff, fantastic some of it, and then listen to the Beatles afterwards in comparison. The chord changes, use of instruments, the way the sound was engineered, the experimentation element of their songwriting. It is so common now to throw in minor chord bridges and pre-chorus changes in all genres of music even to this day, it's a formula that the Beatles pioneered and perfected. I was at the Lennon and Harrison tribute outside the Dakota building on Lennons anniversary and people still love them. They have their own celestial place, please respect them.

Whilst I agree that Michael Jackson is a good entertainer, his contribution to real pioneering music is non-existant. I tend to think of people like Bob Marley, The Stones, Stevie Wonder, The Smiths etc. People that really love the ART of music, I think this is the difference between the pioneers and people like Robbie Williams. Real talent and a desire to be different and break new ground.

 

[ludwig72]

Re: Michael Jackson?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well put RH. Kudos. Maybe we should have said "Tito Jackson"?

 

[Lifeguard Sleeping]

> You don't get it . . .
> Like him or not . . . M.J. did more to change music than anyone else since
> Elvis.

And what was it that he did, exactly, to change music?

 

[Punchdrunk1975]

I am not a great Beatles fan but you gotta admit they are a decent band.They must have a zillion records that everyone likes.

> Could someone please indulge me as to why The Beatles are such a big
> thing? I have really tried with them, but they leave me a bit flat. But in
> the same token, I dig John, loathe Paul. I know, I know...

> For the record, I piss people off here with that same question, so you
> won't offend with your responses.

 

[Billy Budd]

Re: Forget The Beatles, The Velvet underground

are the number one 60s band, truly breathtaking music, years ahead of their time, visionary beyond anyone else at that time. The vast majority of music from that period sounds terribly dated now, but VU don't, apart from their awful, terrible last album 'Loaded' which went completely against the grain of their previous avant garde work as to become some flower power poppy nonsense. However the album with Nico, White Light White Heat, and 'VU' a compilation of unreleased songs from a scrapped album which was finally released in 84 are really great. Easily the best band to ever come out of America, and in my humble opinion there haven't been many.

Lou Reeds Transformer is a masterpeice but the rest of his solo work is quite simply mundane nonsense.

> Could someone please indulge me as to why The Beatles are such a big
> thing? I have really tried with them, but they leave me a bit flat. But in
> the same token, I dig John, loathe Paul. I know, I know...

> For the record, I piss people off here with that same question, so you
> won't offend with your responses.

 

[Billy Budd]

> And what was it that he did, exactly, to change music?

The only thing he changed was his face.

Yes its a cheap shot, tacky, low brow, who gives a flying f***.

 

[Makarios]

Re: Forget The Beatles, The Velvet underground

Say no more!

> are the number one 60s band, truly breathtaking music, years ahead of
> their time, visionary beyond anyone else at that time. The vast majority
> of music from that period sounds terribly dated now, but VU don't, apart
> from their awful, terrible last album 'Loaded' which went completely
> against the grain of their previous avant garde work as to become some
> flower power poppy nonsense. However the album with Nico, White Light
> White Heat, and 'VU' a compilation of unreleased songs from a scrapped
> album which was finally released in 84 are really great. Easily the best
> band to ever come out of America, and in my humble opinion there haven't
> been many.

> Lou Reeds Transformer is a masterpeice but the rest of his solo work is
> quite simply mundane nonsense.

 

[Banging em' Dave]

> Could someone please indulge me as to why The Beatles are such a big
> thing? I have really tried with them, but they leave me a bit flat. But in
> the same token, I dig John, loathe Paul. I know, I know...

> For the record, I piss people off here with that same question, so you
> won't offend with your responses.

The success of the Beatles is down to much more than their music alone-

At the time they were genuinely different and the first (and only) British band to gain mass acclaim on the other side of the Atlantic. In addition, the hysteria they generated surely gives them the dubious honour of being the first 'boy band'.

My Dad saw them in Colne, Lancashire during the sixties and was uninspired. All he could hear was girls' screaming and being only 5ft 7" like myself, he could only just make out Pauls mop-top in the distance.

Try The Kinks or The Small Faces.

 

[Ruffian]

> Try The Kinks or The Small Faces.

You truly are a mod and not a rocker Mr.Bangin' Dave. Lazing on a Thrusday afternoooon.

 

[Ruffian]

The Beatles ?

> Could someone please indulge me as to why The Beatles are such a big
> thing? I have really tried with them, but they leave me a bit flat. But in
> the same token, I dig John, loathe Paul. I know, I know...

> For the record, I piss people off here with that same question, so you
> won't offend with your responses.

They wrote the best melodies, had the best songs, and appealed to the largest popular (music) worldwide audience never known before.

I appreciate them for that but I am not a massive fan. Funnily enough though, I have only started getting into Rubber Soul and the White Album. There are gems aplenty in those albums. And John Lennon? Well, his anti-establishment, indeed everything, stance was sort of cool for that moment in rock apart from the dubious dalliance with Yoko.

Also, must be said, but McCarteny was never cool, and isn't now really, as respected as a musician as he is.. It's odd, but some people have cool and have a dangerous edge, and some just don't.

Ps, And the Beatles were the first band to 'break' America.

 

[Banging em' Dave]

> You truly are a mod and not a rocker Mr.Bangin' Dave. Lazing on a Thrusday
> afternoooon.

Must be to do with the overgrown hair and dodgy second-hand fur-lined Parka I got packed off to school in; we were so poor I could nt afford the pointy shoes though - my mum had to paint my feet black and tie my toes together.

I could never afford a scooter either, but I had 24 wing mirrors on my skateboard.