December 16th, 2017, 03:40 PM | #411 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Unaffordable housing
Posts: 4,923
Thanks: 31,646
Thanked 68,928 Times in 4,921 Posts
|
Quote:
Funny how the Stones were portrayed as the antisocial hard men - when, like the Who, they were art school boys from my neck-of-the-woods in leafy Middlesex (Who started in local pub here - the Railway). The Beatles cut their teeth in a tough northern port and played countless gigs in Hamburg - many fights and scrapes in their lives. Yet they always appeared to be the urbane sophisticates. Great marketing and they had the nous to carry it off. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to bloke57 For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 04:38 PM | #412 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 587
Thanks: 1,559
Thanked 4,320 Times in 577 Posts
|
Quote:
Like, silly as this may sound, when I was a child growing up in the 1970s, honestly I didn't consider The Beatles to be any more important than KISS, K.C. and the Sunshine Band, The Bee Gees or even The Monkees which I enjoyed watching in syndicated reruns back then. Probably because I was too young in the 1970s to really hold The Beatles in any type of reverence...because I was too young to - according to rock media - know that I supposedly SHOULD. I simply listened to The Beatles because I liked them, just like all the other bands I mentioned. I didn't have any real understanding of how big The Beatles were in the 1970s, because they had already broken up. I didn't really get it in terms of what The Beatles meant until the day John Lennon was killed, and my 5th grade teacher had to leave our classroom in tears because of it. Even after that, though, as I got older and would read all the various Rolling Stone magazine accounts about how The Beatles were "the greatest rock band ever" and all that stuff, I was still content to make my own determinations about which bands/acts/artists meant the most to me. I mean, honestly, the classic/original Van Halen meant (and continues to mean) more to me than The Beatles ever did. While I understand the importance of The Beatles in terms of 20th century popular music, for me music is a visceral thing: it either moves me or it doesn't. For some, every single thing The Beatles ever did was some sacred golden musical nugget to cherish above everything anyone else ever did. I'm certainly not one of those people. Yet even having said all of that, I'd still probably put the Sgt. Pepper's album in the top 10 of all-time great pop music albums...and as a rule I don't usually care for the 'Top 10 list of all time' mentality as it applies to anything. But I've always thought Sgt. Pepper's WAS that good. And tunes on that album like She's Leaving Home or other Beatles tracks of that period like Penny Lane have nothing to do with rock and roll to me at all. I suppose that IS a part of the greatness of The Beatles in that they were in some ways BIGGER than rock and roll. Something like Yesterday or Eleanor Rigby...they're more like timeless classical music pieces with lyrics than anything I'd call rock music...or even pop music. But as a rock act, nah. The Beatles weren't the greatest rock act. For THAT to be true, live performance has to come into the equation. And the truth of the matter is that The Beatles weren't a great live act. In part because they stopped performing halfway through their recording career. |
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Quackerson For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 05:04 PM | #413 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 587
Thanks: 1,559
Thanked 4,320 Times in 577 Posts
|
Quote:
Even taking into account the over-the-top nature of the tone of Albert Goldman's book in terms of some of the stories in it (and, frankly, I at least find Goldman's book far more interesting to read than one of the many Yoko-sanctioned Rolling Stone magazine puff pieces that portray John Lennon to be a saint), the bare-bones facts of Lennon's life don't paint a particularly appealing portrait of the guy in terms of personal character. By many corroborated accounts from people who knew Lennon, on numerous occasions he would turn physically abusive when intoxicated on liquor. He left his first wife for Yoko and afterward had only a sporadic interest in establishing a relationship with his first child. He approached politics like one would expect a moneyed dilettante would: at first loudly and proudly for "the cause" then backing away when said public support threatened to put his immigration status to the US in legal jeopardy: the latter half of the 1970s one didn't hear anything from Lennon by way of "power to the people" or "give peace a chance" once he got his green card. He left his second wife for a year and took up a very public romance with a younger woman, whom he then discarded when he went back to his second wife. Not to mention his abuse of heroin, cocaine and the eating disorder that encompassed his last 5 years. Does that sound like someone you'd want to spend much time with were they not famous? People think they 'knew' Lennon from all those years of giving those witty interviews with all those tart quips. Doubtless that was part of his public persona. Lennon in the end, like everyone else, was only human. He was just a man, and had plenty of unsavory aspects to his character. Somehow, after he was shot in the back by a deranged looney, Lennon became mythologized far beyond what he was. Perhaps because people believed had it not been for Lennon's assassination we would have had that wonderful Beatles reunion everyone had been clamoring for since the day they split up. Some actually believe had it not been for Lennon's death, [Lennon] was on the cusp of organizing a concert tour to coincide with the No Nukes movement of the early 1980s, and Lennon would have went on to spearhead a nuclear disarmament movement with that tour. The whole "John Lennon was Jesus" idolatry nature of his enduring myth to some. Personally, I find the truth of the man far more interesting, but I suppose people need their various fairy tales to believe in. |
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Quackerson For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 05:08 PM | #414 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Unaffordable housing
Posts: 4,923
Thanks: 31,646
Thanked 68,928 Times in 4,921 Posts
|
Quote:
But it is true that they lost interest in live performance - and equipment limitations (such as no fold-back speakers) made it almost impossible for them to hear what they were doing. Remember also, if you read the Lewisohn diaries, they hardly ever had a day off. So you are right, performance did suffer as they got bored and tired with it - but one-take wonders such as "Twist and Shout" and "Rock & Roll Music" show that they could rip it up with the best. |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to bloke57 For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 05:49 PM | #415 | |||
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1,731
Thanks: 2,663
Thanked 19,958 Times in 1,685 Posts
|
I disagree
Quote:
Quote:
Of many generations actually. Even the young ones now coming to know them > Quote:
Lennon made music as good, but by & large the others rarely matched their hey day with one or two exceptions. Name a few songs which are clearly better than Beatles classics. Can you? |
|||
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to howerd For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 09:21 PM | #416 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 587
Thanks: 1,559
Thanked 4,320 Times in 577 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Quackerson For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 11:06 PM | #417 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 604
Thanks: 61
Thanked 5,415 Times in 595 Posts
|
Quote:
The Beatles that we the wider world came to know were the product of Brian Epsteins taming. He's the one that got them out of their leather/rocker gear and into the uniform suits we all know them for. He's the one that got them to stop jumping around and acting up on stage. He's the one that made them into the sedate stage shows everyone saw. You can still see flashes of the old Kaiser Keller Beatles in a few shows where John starts to act goofy on stage, or bang on the keyboards with his elbows, things like that. Lennon said as much himself when he said if you never saw them live before they became THE BEATLES you missed it. As others have mentioned, and it's 100% true, the Beatles were the bad boys in reality, but not in image. Once again it was Brian who got them to put forward that non-bad boy image. If they hadn't agreed to go along with it, they probably never would've gotten anywhere. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to cginok For This Useful Post: |
December 16th, 2017, 11:57 PM | #418 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In postal purgatory
Posts: 760
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 14,114 Times in 748 Posts
|
I am a big fan of the Beatles...together and apart.
But, what they were, simply, was a rock 'n roll band. That's it. Nothing more. Except to add that they were human. We hold celebrities of all kinds in a certain reverence...where we are free to secretly envy them and publicly abhor them. The Beatles' place in all of this was simply to make music. What they were in addition, was an example of what to be and not to be. As I say about actors, athletes, and writers: I like their works...but I've never met them.
__________________
LET FREEDOM WAIT |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to maildude For This Useful Post: |
December 17th, 2017, 03:34 AM | #419 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1,731
Thanks: 2,663
Thanked 19,958 Times in 1,685 Posts
|
No no no!
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to howerd For This Useful Post: |
December 17th, 2017, 07:01 AM | #420 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Number 22 Acacia Avenue.......
Posts: 287
Thanks: 83,502
Thanked 3,343 Times in 270 Posts
|
I personally couldn't stand them, I hated their music! The Who, The Rolling Stones produced vastly superior music!
__________________
"Are you not entertained"? |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Marcsimus For This Useful Post: |
|
|