Strider Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Ah...you mean dense. But I still don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. Regarding your 'boy band' argument, you're wrong. WRONG. The Beatles were not manufactured. Did a pervy svengali introduce John & Paul to each other? No. Did they hire a hit machine to write their songs? No. Does the fact that they wrote a few love songs make them a boy band? No. Does the fact that their concerts were drowned out by screaming girlies make them a boy band? No. The Stones got the same kind of reaction in the early days - ever heard 'Got Live If You Want It'? And that was despite their having written some seriously misogynistic songs by then - Stupid Girl, Play With Fire etc. They were hardly aiming for the screaming girlie market with those, were they? But they still got it. What you fail to appreciate is the cultural context of the times. Tame as they might seem to you now, The Beatles, the Stones and certain other bands represented a seismic shift in the musical paradigm, generating a wildness with their records and shows that had not been seen before, and unleashing a hitherto repressed tidal wave of adolescent female sexuality that nobody could have predicted. Compare that to the cynical, calculated bullshit that passes for girlie music these days, and you have your answer. I don't wish to sound unkind, but for someone with such a pompous, grandiose nom de net, you sure have a lot to learn. BRAVO!!! I cannot believe we're traveling down this road again, where people continually try to say the Beatles were nothing but a boy band. It's such an epic failure of recognizing cultural and musical context. And no, I don't care what Wikipedia says about ANYTHING...it's been proven time and time again how often Wiki gets it wrong. As for that link you provided...just another hack blogger puffing himself up with some self-important muiscologist title. Rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I don't see any reason why anyone should be banned for their opinions. Spritied conversations are always going to have some elements of teasing jabs, but you sounded like you were making a threat to someone who just stepped up to your challenge to provide a counter argument to your assertions about the Beatles. I thought that Major Major's rebuttal was very well made and offered excellent points that refuted the notion about the Beatles being a boy band. His last comment in that aside; it would be interesting for the sake of this discussion to see you offer a rebuttal to the musical and cultural points he made in the historical context he was alluding to. I don't see where providing a 'link' to someone else's blog is really a good attempt at making an argument for your position. My problem with any member has nothing to do with you. I have my reasons- for staing what I said-and he's aware of what I mean. That's not a threat either..it's called a suggestion or a "heads up"where it's going. I feel it nessesary. But, if you wanna keep going on again, maybe they will block this thread too, depending on where you wanna go with this. I don't wanna put you in the same boat with a few others. If you wanna talk Beatles, Im here. Im not gonna talk about another member on here with you. It's not something for you to concern yourself with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 There's Early Beatles...there's Later Beatles...and then, there is the Late Beatle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 BRAVO!!! I cannot believe we're traveling down this road again, where people continually try to say the Beatles were nothing but a boy band. It's such an epic failure of recognizing cultural and musical context. And no, I don't care what Wikipedia says about ANYTHING...it's been proven time and time again how often Wiki gets it wrong. As for that link you provided...just another hack blogger puffing himself up with some self-important muiscologist title. Rubbish. Strider, the WIKI link is one of many examples. Actually the other link is far better as far as describing how some people relate that sort of success, etc etc to what happens today. And, I had this exact vision of them before I even discovered the link-which shows that while it may be rubbish to you and many others, it's still viewed that way by more than one person- Life goes on. I see nobody likes to get down on the Beatles here, huh? I notice whenever someone doesn't agree with a post, link, etc. even though it comes with some meaning and point behind it-it's viewed as garbage, rubbish, etc-because you don't agree. I guess your opinon of them is the Right one and my opinion is Wrong. That's what it sounds like. Go tell that to all the other hundreds of webpages that are on the other side of the fence and they may tell you that YOU are the one who's wrong. There is No right or Wrong, it's a view of how someone sees them in that period. My comments on them are not degrading. Do I claim to know it all??? Hell NO. Have we even had a discussion before??? Have we voiced an opinion towards one another? Jump on the bandwagon-no prob. You gonna take the same route as the others now? Nice to meet you too buddy. Give me another attack because you don't agree with my view on a band (even though I admire them) or a link you don't agree with. If you care to read everything I voiced my opinion on about The Beatles, I think they were a great band, and I never ever said that their entire career was nothing but a "boy band". I feel they evolved into much more after the first few albums. But as for that early era, I stick to my thoughts. Did they break boundaries, records and set a standard for bands of that era and decades that followed? No doubt- I am referring to a time frame-not an entire carrer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I see nobody likes to get down on the Beatles here, huh? Like any band or artist that I'm a fan of, the Beatles also aren't free of constructive criticism but I strongly disagree with your (and others') assessment of them as a "boy band". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Like any band or artist that I'm a fan of, the Beatles also aren't free of constructive criticism but I strongly disagree with your (and others') assessment of them as a "boy band". And I can respect that view. There are many who look at it both ways. Im just the one who speaks my mind-regardless of the back-lash. Thanks for stepping it up- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 There's no backlash, there's just a very strong prevailing opinion that any reference to the Beatles and "boy bands" is just global Internet gibberish. From Wiki by the way about the definition of gibberish: Gibberish (sometimes spelled Jibberish) is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but carries no actual meaning. This meaning has also been extended to meaningless text or gobbledygook. The common theme in gibberish statements is a lack of literal sense, which can be described as a presence of nonsense. One of the more famous examples of using gibberish in literature is the poem "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibberish Like I said before, Led Zeppelin can't be blamed for a band like Kingdom Come or any other knock off specifically created to make money from Zep's legacy or sound. Conversely you cannot claim that four Liverpool guys in suits created the boy band genre. Gibberish by the very definition there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 There's no backlash, there's just a very strong prevailing opinion that any reference to the Beatles and "boy bands" is just global Internet gibberish. From Wiki by the way about the definition of gibberish: Gibberish (sometimes spelled Jibberish) is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but carries no actual meaning. This meaning has also been extended to meaningless text or gobbledygook. The common theme in gibberish statements is a lack of literal sense, which can be described as a presence of nonsense. One of the more famous examples of using gibberish in literature is the poem "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibberish Like I said before, Led Zeppelin can't be blamed for a band like Kingdom Come or any other knock off specifically created to make money from Zep's legacy or sound. Conversely you cannot claim that four Liverpool guys in suits created the boy band genre. Gibberish by the very definition there. Somebody let me know when they provide me with a FACTUAL statement and NOT an opinion, that what my view is, is %100 incorrect, and be sure you also notify any author of a website page that feels differently than you do (there are plenty of em') -so it can be written in the the constitution, that nobody is allowed to view the early Beatles any other way nor relate any part of their career other then how you describe them - ok- thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 So I have to find somebody blogging from their mom's basement that the Beatles weren't a boy band? That's the proof you need? I gotta find my own "musicologist". OK. Wait for that one then. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 So I have to find somebody blogging from their mom's basement that the Beatles weren't a boy band? That's the proof you need? I gotta find my own "musicologist". OK. Wait for that one then. Seriously. Ok, go find it. Make sure it's fact and not an opinionated view. (good luck) I also find it incredibly funny that you took time to find the definition of Gibberish, but you couldn't even remember the correct name of the Rush album you liked (Planet Waves???) - well, you should have looked that up before posting- it would have made you look just a little bit intelligent. When you decide to post a comment about a band or album name, make sure you at least know what your talking about. (since you wanna get anal) The famous quote you like to use (which is so cute) EPIC FAIL..well, dear buddy PLanet Waves is a total EPIC FAIL-so your credibility to me isn't worth two shits unless you wanna get down to talking about The Beatles music and their transition from beginning to end (just a suggestion for discussion) -make it interesting. I'm honestly willing to learn something from you- (im all ears) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 That doesn't even warrant a response. Seriously? That's all you can send back at me? You've got nothing then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 That doesn't even warrant a response. Seriously? That's all you can send back at me? You've got nothing then. HAHAHA!!! Just as I suspected. Nothing credible. You don't want a discussion nor do you have the knowledge to talk sense about The Beatles-all you are able to do is send the same crappy, non productive comments. Well, I just gave you a shot to bring up something about the Beatles that we can discuss. (I was serious about that) So YOU sir, are the real EPIC FAIL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I don't wish to discuss anything with you because after posting two and a half pages of nonsense where you tried to link Beatlemania with boy bands and finding you couldn't make that argument valid, NOW you wish to discuss Beatle music with me? No thanks. I've never posted anything here setting myself up as an authority yet you do this on a consistent regular basis. This little argument you're having with me isn't your first one here and after we finish our little dance you'll move on to another thread and start over with someone else about a different band or music. So listen to Caress of Steel and enjoy your life, ok? Epic Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I don't wish to discuss anything with you because after posting two and a half pages of nonsense where you tried to link Beatlemania with boy bands and finding you couldn't make that argument valid, NOW you wish to discuss Beatle music with me? No thanks. Im going present a little bit of truth to ya here since you think you know me so well. Unlike you and a few of your " clone buddies" that seem to make the same roundabout, pinpointed remarks, when it's not something you agree with or feel is out of context. I welcome any debate, discussion, exchange of knowledge or something that adds good movement to the thread/forum. It's very rare that I ever get flip with someone unless negativity or a personal jab is directed towards me FIRST - then it's another ballgame. If you wanna come at me-with an open mind with the accepted fact that everyone here has their own opinion, I'll talk with you any day. It all depends on you and how you wanna approach me. Im telling you straight up..And thats a real as I can put it to ya. Another thing I notice is the lack of apologies people give one another. A simple "sorry" or " i was wrong" takes a big person to realise they are out of line. Everybody thinks they are a fuckin musical guru with the only opinion that matters. It's not so. Saying your wrong, or admitting a fault seems to be much harder than just adding bullshit to the threads and looking like a tough guy behind a computer. It's a shame, it really is. There are members out there that I have had PM discussions with that feel the same way, but they choose not to get caught up in the already doomed threads-once arguments arise. I can't blame em' and it is a distraction from what we are supposed to be here for. I was ready for a discussion from the moment you posted your first comment- (just look at the debate Jahfin and I had on this) Even though we don't agree on a few subjects, he made his point with logic- So, it started and ended good, like it's supposed to-when there's no bullshit involved. You and I could have ended up going that route too, but you don't prefer that. But you chose to continue posting little flip comments (as usual) - just go read. Are you a big enough person to want a discussion?? Or do you much more enjoy throwing in the non-productive post? (like a few other clones) Well, I suggested you give me some Beatles information that we could exchange- and converse about, but apparently it isn't for you. And quite honestly, your post would have continued to bring no progression to the thread (as is still an example) You have yet to engage in anything that takes this thread further or to actually write something of substance about a band your quick to defend. -just a quick lip towards me. So go ahead and retreat, until you can post something else that Im sure adds fuel to the fire. Maybe you can prove me wrong-but again, that's all up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 ...something that's unlikely ever to happen to you. Oh, I forgot about you...another one who likes to add nothing but non-productive comments to the board. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 The best way to look at it would I'd say be that the Beatles were one of the earlier(not the earliest) examples of the kind of popularity that was later exploited by the music industry with manifactured bands making inferior music. A Zep forum hardly seems like the place to throw that kind of criticism around as a negative though given how much dubious metal/hard rock has been made down the years, is hair metal Page and Plant's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 The best way to look at it would I'd say be that the Beatles were one of the earlier(not the earliest) examples of the kind of popularity that was later exploited by the music industry with manifactured bands making inferior music. That's fair way of explaining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 You've been here nearly 4 years according to your profile, yet you're still writing like a n00b. I've made more productive comments in a month or so than you're ever likely to do in a thousand lifetimes. Get over yourself. Lucky for you son, I wont waste my time posting you the same "rediculous" comments you make (to many members) on a daily basis-but this one sent above is a good enough example of your type of contribution. I don't have to tell you who you are-you know what you write. Once again-non-productive. I don't know what your social skills are like in the real world (outside this site) but as far as this community goes-you win first place - hands down for the most consecutive rude, reviling, bone-headed, redundant post on this entire forum. And that's not an opinion-that's a total fact. And something you take pleasure in. You wanna talk music ? - go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 It is my opinion that the thread you mentioned was blocked because people made personal attacks in it. That would include you, I had nothing to do with that. And now in this thread you are once again using a dismissive tone with me because I asked what/who you were referring to. As far as I can tell you said that openly in this thread, but you never were specific about who it was you were talking about. I assumed you meant me, just based on some of the other things you have said about me. You know, there is a message funtction on this forum. It might be in your better interest to use that if it was your intention to direct your comment to a specific person. By making your remarks openly you then give others a green light to comment, or at least inquire about what/who you are directing your comments to. If you did that then you wouldn't need to come back later and sound so borish by saying things like, "it's not something for you to concern yourself with". Unless you fancy sounding that way as a "the Rock authoritarian". As to the Beatles discussion: now you have me, Jahfin, Major-Major, Dazedcat and Stryder disagreeing with and your absurd position on this. Not that I don't think you are entitled to stick to your guns if that what you want to do. But obviously every detailed point you attempt to make on this argument is not convincing the people I have mentioned. I am no music expert, but the other people here seem to have age and extensive knowledge on these subjects which you don't seem to respect or appreciate. I'm not old enough to have been a Beatles fan growing up, but I can see where you have made a superficial analysis of what the definition of a "boy band" is. And putting the Beatles in that genre is just so insulting to their legacy. Hey brotha, guess what? You can disagree as much as you like, I didn't say you had to agree. That's the beauty of an opinion.So throwing Jahfin in the mix doesn't constitute anything - because he chose to have a logical, reasonable discussion about it. Disagreeing is always welcome - it's all about the approach. And as for respecting or appreciating a view of another member-have I ever said I didn't? If you care to read-I'm very appreciative of any post-as long as it's a positive contribution and not a personal intentional jab without merit.. You also have not acknowledged the fact that, the one time I knocked you for your on-going verbal abuse of RP, I also apologized. But you still hold that grudge- (just go see how many times people man up around here and actually apologize for their "unwanted" personally aimed sarcasm) -it's rare. It just goes to show the mentality and maturity of some people sitting behind a computer desk (and if anyone takes offense to this remark-you must be one of em') So at any cost you should be appreciative that I was able to admit that to you in all due respect. (Even though I was sick and tired of your repetitive grudge against RP) I do not browse the boards , purposely placing attacks, rude remarks or anything related against someone-unless it's a reaction of something directed at me. I'm not here to be negative in that way-there are plenty of others that enjoy doing an excellent, professional job of that-but it ain't my cup of tea. It's not on my agenda. Just because I have a different view on something, or that Im in the minority on doesn't mean I disrespect or am unappreciative of anyones opinion (unless it's a sarcastic jab, or imflammatory remark) . Again, read the Jahfin discussion for an example- I know what I post. And if your still hung up on the thread that got blocked...well, it was your own post that had not only myself, but two or three others disagreeing with you on that. And the biggest difference (since you want to compare) between this thread and the other one is - Your post were nothing more than complaints about RP, (basically bashing the guy for what he does now) that you cannot get over. That's why you got all of that harsh feedback. (and the wah,wah,wah comment I gave you) That's about as far as it went with me- on that level. There are plenty of RP bashing/complaining threads here. Your post were mostly a continuation of that. You wanna twist my profile name? Go ahead if it makes you feel better. Im proud of who I am buddy. So you hold a grudge, even after someone apologises to you? My post on this thread is a view on how I relate the early Beatles to what pop bands try and emulate today-BIG difference. I have not critizied The Beatles entire carreer or their contribuiton to music - nor have I disrespected their talents. I've only related them to a cultural movement. Are they free of critisism? Is Zeppelin free of critisism? It's because you feel that my words about The Beatles are insulting that you want to defend them-to me it's not insulting at all-I actually like the Beatles. it's just an identification of a period of time. Never once did I say they were talentless This post started (for me) over a different view on a musical movement and era and how it was established. I have posted the links that I feel I agree with, to show my view and opinions. Because you don't agree-you find them to be rubbish, but at end of the day does it change the Beatles legacy? Didn't think so. So now that you've gotten a well deserved response, are you interested in having a fan to fan discussion - talking about a Beatles transition, or anything relating to the thread that can get it back on topic? Or will this path continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 The whole point that you obviously missed is that it is NOT a challenge-it's supposed to be a discussion. You get No challenge. I've already stated my view/idea more than enough times..As for your authoritarian comment, It was a suggestion to talk about the Beatles, unless you wanna contribute to beating this thread into submission too (which is already far gone) I've done enough explaining my thoughts on this-there's nothing else to add-unless you choose to go further into something of the thread topic, in which I don't see you ready to do. And yes, you do hold a grudge-to not only RP and myself, but to anyone you feel insulted by or don't agree with-unless the terms and conditions fit your needs. So forgive me for the suggestions and apologies-you obviously aren't satisfied with that result. To answer your comment properly, I do own what I say-because it's my opinion. I doesnt change-regardless of how many are on the other side of the fence. It's called sticking to your beliefs...Why, do you change your mind on an opinion you believe in once the going gets tough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Why is it that my posts are "beating this thread into submission" but your lenghty posts about RP threads and the history of Mother Goose is not beating the subject into submission? There was at least something in my last post about the Beatles to discuss, but you just want to ignore that. I don't think you really want a discussion, you just want/need agreement. Well, if that is the case, then choose something that is easier to agree to. Comparing the Beatles to In Sync and the Jonas Brothers is only going to spark a debate, or at least a contradiction. Good luck with your future "history lessons". Won't you be kind enough to send me your Beatles thoughts..all the other bullshit you sent superseded that. You placed much more emphasis on it. So, if you would like a discussion I'll be happy to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I'm not actually even a big fan of the Beatles, I am just pointing out that your theory doesn't hold water. It's like saying that just because kids today wear their hair longer they represent the same counter culture, and share the same political and philosophical views of the beatnik and folk music era of the early 60s. When in reality these kids are more concerned about who just de-friended them on facebook, and when the newest version of World of Warcraft is coming out. Just because they cut their hair in a mop-top and have season tickets to Justin Beiber on ice doesn't in anyway corelelate to Beatlemania. "Mania" is not what defined the Beatles, even if it attached it self to them. You are only making a very shallow comment on the outward view of Beatlemania and not doing any critical analysis of the popular music that helped define a generation and reshaped rock and roll in the process. If the same can be said about these current "boy bands" 50 years from now; I'll eat my words. So, hold on a minute. If you are not even a big fan of the Beatles, why did you spend so much time on this thread? Are you just trying to exploit my thoughts on them as being incorrect no matter how I explain my views on this??? We shall see. I already know you disagree, so no matter what I say- it will not "hold water" with you. I don't claim to be a scholar of true history, but I'll answer the best I can. Everything in culture comes around sooner or later in a circle. Kids with long hair do not exactly represent the movement of the 60's but it did start somewhere,. And with a movement comes a certain mindset-if it's purposely driven. Boy bands of today try and emulate what the Beatles did. They set the stage for that level of success and it is to be considered and looked upon as what those type of bands today try and re-create. The marketing, the look, the sound. Did the Beatles intentionally do this? Probably not, but because of what they achived in the way, and so widely accepted by a generation-that same formula is used today-only in a manufactured way-with a great deal less talent. If you relate the kind of crowd that went to see the Beatles, it was undoubtably unanimously girls and young women, (in the early years) same with the bands of today. I think that qualifies in some way shape or form as a boy band even if it's for a fragment of time. The material they performed in the early days was total pop as well, also the same trendy music that appeals to a wide audience today. The Beatles got so big that some people just wanted to see them, just to actually look at them-not even totally interested in the music-same as today-Again, is it their fault? -no. But the image remains the same. (back then and now) But at least they had talent. That's the up-side. Once the music changed and got deeper and less pop-(more meaningful) the audience changed as well. But for that period- The combination of 50,000 screaming girls along with the type of pop they played-I think would qualify as such-even if it's not on the level you think. And basically that's my view on that. So now that I've explained why I feel that way-are you willing to go further, or you wanna exploit my reasons as being total bullshit. Just asking (I have no connection with you yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 This is a very telling comment that leads me to suspect that your perspective comes from being a fanboi and not a music historian. Since the Beatles represent a noteworthy aspect of music and cultural history; why shouldn't I comment on them? I was not a fan of Lyndon Johnson, but I would probably weigh in on any discussion about a theory that he may have been involved in the assination of JFK. If you are a "historian" I shouldn't need to explain that to you. And really please! Must you continue to draw the victim card? Let's try to keep this discussion on point. petitio principii Everything does? Does it actually, or does it only appear that way? Examples please? Should we be expecting another Puritan revival in parts western Europe, England and the United States? Will there be another Victorian era? Should I consider buying a powdered wig? I have no idea what this even means? Is their hair going to make them feel, think or see things a certain way? Hairstyles may have represented a rebellion in the 50s and 60s, a depature from the norm, or just a way to annoy ones parents and teachers. But if the parents and teachers already made those expressions themselves; what are kids today trying to say with the same 60s and 70s styles? Is it a form of rebellion, or really just a nostalgic and lazy conformity to another generation's rebellion? Once again, what does that have to do with Beatles and what they did in their time? How does that make the Beatles a boy band? Still waiting for an explanation of how that make THE BEATLES a boy band? I've seen a man in Las Vegas impersonating Aretha Franklin, but that doesn't make him Aretha Franklin. I just think you have that flat wrong. Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Chuck Berry all had their vast compliments of young women as adoring fans. And maybe they were even screaming the loudest at their performances. But all of them, including the Beatles, had boys, men, bankers, construction workers, university professors, other artists, politicians, KINGS AND QUEENS and many, many other representative fans. I hope you aren't basing all of your assumptions on news reel archives and not a complete appreciation for the Beatles' VAST appeal during their time? You think Led Zeppelin had any less amount of "trendy fans" at their performances? Listen to any live concert of Led Zeppelin and hear the crowd roar when "Stairway to Heaven" is announced by Robert. That tells me that many, if not most of the people even at a Led Zeppelin concert (in the era), probably only knew a handful of songs that they recognized from the radio. Are we now going to anylize this on the merits of what defined a Beatles fan in the early days? Of course Beatles music tended to be more on the pop side of things in the early days. But consider why the Beatles became so big in the early 60? In short: 1) Buddy Holly dead 2) Chuck Berry goes to prison 3) Elvis goes into the Army 4) American record companies try to force watered down teen idol crap (real boy bands) on the consumers and 5) THE BEATLES ARE VERY TALENTED AND FRESH. They didn't need to be manufactured. They had great appeal. I'm sorry, but this is far too simplistic a view. Take away the thousands of screaming teenage girls from the Beatlemania equation and you still have four very talented and revolutionary artists. Take away all the media buzz from the Beatles and you have something at least as good as Buddy Holly, Elvis and Chuck Berry; and that's something. Exploit? What is with all this victim stuff Rock Historian? I see you wear a helmet; you need to toughen up some friend. It's just a discussion, not WW3 Guess what Tiki, I know nothing about you, other than what you post-and after reading this-you get no reponse because you direct yourself like the other few that have social disorders on how to have a grown up discussion- I gave you a fair response on my view, and stayed on the subject at hand, but you wanna start off a reply by calling me a fanboi? your a total idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Relax, guys, it's just music, nothing more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelin Led Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Later beatles holds up more than early beatles so I'll go with Later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.