• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The Beatles

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldman said:
I didn't weigh in on Sir Paul's contributions but you summed up the "zenith" of his talent. To be sure the Beatles were an historical opportunity of promotion and music that kind of happened. They were really lucky...then there was Wings. Some people don't know where to stop, I guess.


Kinda like The Sex Pistols only on a grander scale. John and Paul, Sid and Johnny Rotten....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CycloErgoSum said:
That is funny, and implies the Beatles are in fact great; your humour doesn't work without that premise. :cool:

biggest grossing world tour in history... the beatles..
until.... wings broke the record...
and that record stood until....
mccartneys comeback tour broke the record..

millions of people cant be wrong..

i actually, love both, but i think wings where the better band.. some of what they did was amazing, and band on the run considering it was literally paul and denny doing everything is one of the classic albums..
 
as someone who is a professional musician, i can safely say the influence of the
Beatles on any of the other bands named so far is immense. i saw them live
on the first usa tour september 18,1964. they had the Shirelles and The Bill Black Combo as opening acts. an amazing show, and a truly great live band.
:)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
usedtobefast said:
as someone who is a professional musician, i can safely say the influence of the
Beatles on any of the other bands named so far is immense. i saw them live
on the first usa tour september 18,1964. they had the Shirelles and The Bill Black Combo as opening acts. an amazing show, and a truly great live band.
:)

+1

which is why i respect peoples opinion if they dislike them, but do not have time for anyone who says they are crap and overrated.. its like saying robert johnson didnt influence blues music.
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
biggest grossing world tour in history... the beatles..
until.... wings broke the record...
and that record stood until....
mccartneys comeback tour broke the record..

millions of people cant be wrong..

i actually, love both, but i think wings where the better band.. some of what they did was amazing, and band on the run considering it was literally paul and denny doing everything is one of the classic albums..

Millions of common folk believe in creationism, Brittany Spears, and other myths. That does not make them right :):):)
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
millions of people cant be wrong..

Millions of Germans lost their teutonic minds over David Hasselhoff. Millions of Americans bought Kenny G discs and rocked permed mullets while waving lighters. Millions of people can be very, very wrong indeed.

I think the Beatles have to be put into the context of their time. "She loves you yah yah yah" sounds pretty corny today and hardly stands the test of time. But they changed the way records were mixed and produced and how songs were structured. Sgt. Pepper was a revelation at the time even if it sounds ordinary today. And some of their less heralded songs are excellent even today, just nothing in their first few years of boy bandness.

I'm with the OP on Paul, talentless bug-eyed seal lover, but John really had some genius. "A Day in the Life" is a decent comparison between their ability to write lyrics. Ringo has my endless respect for becoming a musical legend despite being completely bereft of talent.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dimspace said:
biggest grossing world tour in history... the beatles..
until.... wings broke the record...
and that record stood until....
mccartneys comeback tour broke the record..

millions of people cant be wrong..

i actually, love both, but i think wings where the better band.. some of what they did was amazing, and band on the run considering it was literally paul and denny doing everything is one of the classic albums..

George W Bush was elected twice, checkmate:D
 
Oct 13, 2009
72
0
0
Visit site
Now the "BOSS"...... here"s someone who is crap and overrated......and on the cover of AARP to boot. OUCH! One over 40 should be allowed to get on stage to ROCK!
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
All I am saying is that "She loves you, yea, yea, yea" is not what I would call Dylanesque.

i'm sure "too drunk to f#uk" is more your style. everybody remember that dead kennedy's classic? no?
and iggy pop? there was a hero to glue sniffers everywhere.
the beatles and others from the era spawned a generation for whom "music" was actually important. melody, harmony, chord progressions and their voicings, rhythm, subleties of tone, none of which you have the slightest need for to listen, or play for that matter, the dead kenney's, iggy, or the replacements. (musically and sometimes rhythmically i find some jesus lizard to be interesting).

think about the bands you "embraced" and then thing about how the beatles, the who, the stones, the kinks, the doors, santana, cream, jimi hendrix, jethro tull, janis joplin, crosby still nash and young, creedence, stevie wonder, bob dylan, joni mitchle, jefferson airplane, moody blues, led zepplin, and the band were groups performing AT THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, then think again about the groups you "embraced".

if the groups i mentioned, especially the beatles, hadn't broken the existing commercial music marketplace to smitherines, the bands you like would have never been heard.

it does not surprise me that you lean toward punk in your music tastes. you generally sound like one.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Carboncrank said:
i'm sure "too drunk to f#uk" is more your style. everybody remember that dead kennedy's classic? no?

Went to a party, I danced all night, drank 16 beers and started up a fight...brilliant
Carboncrank said:
and iggy pop? there was a hero to glue sniffers everywhere.

I'm a street walking cheater with a heart full of napalm...

Carboncrank said:
the beatles and others from the era spawned a generation for whom "music" was actually important. melody, harmony, chord progressions and their voicings, rhythm, subleties of tone, none of which you have the slightest need for to listen, or play for that matter, the dead kenney's, iggy, or the replacements. (musically and sometimes rhythmically i find some jesus lizard to be interesting).

Hey, I like all of those things, but The Beatles still suck...but you are right, 7 vs 8 is pretty good stuff.

Carboncrank said:
think about the bands you "embraced" and then thing about how the beatles, the who, the stones, the kinks, the doors, santana, cream, jimi hendrix, jethro tull, janis joplin, crosby still nash and young, creedence, stevie wonder, bob dylan, joni mitchle, jefferson airplane, moody blues, led zepplin, and the band were groups performing AT THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, then think again about the groups you "embraced".

Hippie music (I consider Dylan to be in another category.) sucks. Its a bunch of drug fueled, over indulgent, babble about how the world would be perfect if we all loved each other, quit shaving, got the girls to loosen up, and took acid. It makes me want to puke sometimes based on how the "Me" generation progressed into being little more than self indulgent ideologues who harken back to a time when they had no responsibilities and parents who would fund their various and sundry trips into a world that never existed. I'll bet you went to Woodstock, right?


Carboncrank said:
if the groups i mentioned, especially the beatles, hadn't broken the existing commercial music marketplace to smitherines, the bands you like would have never been heard.

If Hitler hadn't invaded Poland...all they did was tell the commercial music marketplace where to start digging for gold. They had psychedelic Chevy commercials by 1968, so much for smashing...

Carboncrank said:
it does not surprise me that you lean toward punk in your music tastes. you generally sound like one.

It doesn't surprise me that you lean toward crappy pop that morphed into crappy hippy drug music. You sound like one
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
Visit site
Carboncrank said:
i'm sure "too drunk to f#uk" is more your style. everybody remember that dead kennedy's classic? no?
and iggy pop? there was a hero to glue sniffers everywhere.
the beatles and others from the era spawned a generation for whom "music" was actually important. melody, harmony, chord progressions and their voicings, rhythm, subleties of tone, none of which you have the slightest need for to listen, or play for that matter, the dead kenney's, iggy, or the replacements. (musically and sometimes rhythmically i find some jesus lizard to be interesting).

think about the bands you "embraced" and then thing about how the beatles, the who, the stones, the kinks, the doors, santana, cream, jimi hendrix, jethro tull, janis joplin, crosby still nash and young, creedence, stevie wonder, bob dylan, joni mitchle, jefferson airplane, moody blues, led zepplin, and the band were groups performing AT THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, then think again about the groups you "embraced".

if the groups i mentioned, especially the beatles, hadn't broken the existing commercial music marketplace to smitherines, the bands you like would have never been heard.

it does not surprise me that you lean toward punk in your music tastes. you generally sound like one.

Well I am going out on a side note and I know there are more knowledgeable and experienced people in GB that can add comments. But IMOH the Beatles, the Stones, the Who are all distractions to the issues that gave seed to the anarchy that gave birth of punk.
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Went to a party, I danced all night, drank 16 beers and started up a fight...brilliant


I'm a street walking cheater with a heart full of napalm...

Originally Posted by Carboncrank
the beatles and others from the era spawned a generation for whom "music" was actually important. melody, harmony, chord progressions and their voicings, rhythm, subleties of tone, none of which you have the slightest need for to listen, or play for that matter, the dead kenney's, iggy, or the replacements

"Hey, I like all of those things,"

no you don't. you haven't got a clue.
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Went to a party, I danced all night, drank 16 beers and started up a fight...brilliant


I'm a street walking cheater with a heart full of napalm...



Hey, I like all of those things, but The Beatles still suck...but you are right, 7 vs 8 is pretty good stuff.



Hippie music (I consider Dylan to be in another category.) sucks. Its a bunch of drug fueled, over indulgent, babble about how the world would be perfect if we all loved each other, quit shaving, got the girls to loosen up, and took acid. It makes me want to puke sometimes based on how the "Me" generation progressed into being little more than self indulgent ideologues who harken back to a time when they had no responsibilities and parents who would fund their various and sundry trips into a world that never existed. I'll bet you went to Woodstock, right?

you should be worshiping at the feet of us hippies. in 1965 it was worse to be a long hair than it was to be black, and you should know what being black was like. we're the ones that got shot at kent, beat mercilessly at chicago. by the time you punks came along long hair didn't mean quite the same thing did it.



If Hitler hadn't invaded Poland...all they did was tell the commercial music marketplace where to start digging for gold. They had psychedelic Chevy commercials by 1968, so much for smashing...

pre beatles, record companies found their own artists and song writers. elvis, the beatles, bob dylan broke that system down... it was called tin pan ally in america. early beatles songs are in the form they are in, length, form, because that's what the record companies demanded.
when they quickly hit it big that all change. it put power in the hands of the actual artist.

It doesn't surprise me that you lean toward crappy pop that morphed into crappy hippy drug music. You sound like one[/QUOTE]

and your punk music was so drug free wasn't it...

and it was not crappy music.. i know music.. i play music.. i've studied music.. i'm a musician...
 
Best punk band (best band) , Dead Kennedys
Best 60's band , The Who
Best end of 60's early 70's , Jefferson Airplane ( not Starsh!t or any of their other *** convolutions)
Best White Boy Blues , Canned Heat
Best Beatle, John Lennon
Other personal Faves (in no particular order) , Mothers of Invention, English Beat, Primus, Reverend Horton Heat, Gang of Four, Bloodhound Gang, X, The Band, The Cramps, Lou Reed, Elvis Costello, Neil Young, Hendrix, I could go on.
Beatles, Stones, etc. all they did was pretty up "Negro music" and sell it to the white man. Oh yeah they stole it too.

Edit: Oh yeah early Allman Bros. totally killed it too. And The Clash, can't forget them.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
Moby Grape, now that was a fun band.

Love Omaha!!!! Skip Spence = genius. Sadly, Moby Grape died from sh*t management, endless litigation, and Matthew Katz.

But back to the thread... I'm ambivalent to The Beatles. Not the soundtrack of my life, to be sure. They were just too everywhere for my taste. They should be so proud too, they've finally made it to Vegas.

I need to digress again...
Canned Heat's On The Road Again brings back good times.
And Hendrix can do no wrong.
Mott the Hoople is another fave.
Saw The Clash open for the Sex Pistols (their last show before they broke up) at Winterland. Nothing but solid fun and fuzzy memories.
I'm also strangely drawn to the music of Dr. John.


But I guess that's what's great about music - and The Beatles - always something for everyone's taste.
 
Apr 12, 2009
2,364
0
0
Visit site
Difference between bealtes and stones?
The beatles made great songs.
The stones made great music.

But when i listen to music of that era, i listen to The Kinks, The Doors, Hendrix, Clapton (Cream/Yardbirds), Pink Floyd... rather than stones or beatles...
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
1
0
Visit site
Many of you wont remember how they started and what the started with never mind all the movies made about how it started the real thing.

We had Rock around the clock Elvis blue suade shoes then came the mersey sound two groups who realy made it Jerry & the pacemakers and Beatles.

We didnt need to go and have a hair cut every week fashion changed very quickly. Hair was long even cyclist.
It was a modern sound totaly different then the record Please please me hit the shelf only to be banned by the Harrold Wilson Labour Government it was too sugestive they said.
That is what made the Beatles.
Remember Best riding a motor bike and sidecar with his drums straped on the side car that is how they got around.

Sorry I am an old timer from way back in the land of Jam butties now I am in the land of sunshine and Kangeroos.