T1B

Jay in Phoenix wrote:The Beatles are the quintessence of modern pop and rock. Yet, in the beginning of the groundswell of their success, lies a nifty little processed package wrapped up in haircuts and matching suits. In that very specific sense, how does that differ from what we see today?

Well, if you discount the fact that they actually wrote their own songs and arranged them and performed all the instrumentation (save for the occasional George Martin piano contribution). And that the songs were way advanced for 20-22 year old kids. I guess they don't differ.

ML@Coyote wrote:Name the first great Beatles song, in your opinion.

That's a tough question as I would've been in diapers about the time they first became popular. Too many songs to name actually, but I'll toss this one out as a good example.





Point being, comparing The Beatles to Justin Bieber is ludicrous, no matter how hard Jay tries to equivocate that statement in his earnest, but misguided effort at defending you. You might want to send him a Christmas card or something.

I'll take it a step further and say that when the Beatles arrived on the scene, their appearance was of equal or more importance than their music. The girls went crazy over these guys. John, Paul, George, and Ringo! When these girls went to concerts, they didn't give a shit about the music. They were drooling and shouting over the Fab Four and their crazy hairdos and British accents. The Beatles' opening salvo of music was great catchy pop music, no doubt about it. But there was lots of great and "cool" pop and rock music preceding them. You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong. When the Beatles appeared on the scene, the Beatles were (like Justin Bieber) first and foremost teenage hearthrobs. Appreciation of their music came later, in light of their subsequent efforts. Anyone who tells you their Ed Sullivan Show appearance suddenly (and for the first time) made being in a rock band "cool' just isn't telling it like it was. Unless, of course, you define "cool" as making young girls scream and cry and hang pictures of you on their bedroom walls; I guess in that case Dee might have a point.

ML@Coyote wrote: Unless, of course, you define "cool" as making young girls scream and cry and hang pictures of you on their bedroom walls; I guess in that case Dee might have a point.

Guitar and drum mfrs didn't quadruple their business overnight because suddenly a bunch of kids were "on the pavement, thinkin 'bout the government".

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote: Unless, of course, you define "cool" as making young girls scream and cry and hang pictures of you on their bedroom walls; I guess in that case Dee might have a point.

Guitar and drum mfrs didn't quadruple their business overnight because suddenly a bunch of kids were "on the pavement, thinkin 'bout the government".

Like I said.

ML@Coyote wrote:You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong.

With all due respect, you were nine yrs old in 1964 (if I am recalling your post correctly). What did you know about cool? Were you rockin in a band, smokin cigarettes, picking up chicks, contemplating Gene Vincent? Unless you were some glandular freak, probably not. I'm not asserting it was not cool because I was there. I'm quoting people like Little Steven Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen, Lindsey Buckingham and other people who have related how and why they got into music. Accomplished folk whose memory is probably a lot more vivid of the musical climate of the time than you at nine. And let me clarify, nobody's saying the Beach Boys weren't cool. I'm saying that it was much cooler to be a jock in school than in a rock band on Feb 8, 1964. On Feb 10th, not so much.

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong.

With all due respect, you were nine yrs old in 1964 (if I am recalling your post correctly). What did you know about cool? Were you rockin in a band, smokin cigarettes, picking up chicks, contemplating Gene Vincent? Unless you were some glandular freak, probably not. I'm not asserting it was not cool because I was there. I'm quoting people like Little Steven Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen, Lindsey Buckingham and other people who have related how and why they got into music. People whose memory is probably a lot more vivid of the musical climate of the time than you at nine.

Are you saying these people got into music because they thought it wasn't cool to do so? Did they go into music because they felt it was less cool than, say, becoming a CPA? Can you give me some direct quotes so I can see what you're talking about?

BTW, I was a very cool kid.

Dee Snutz wrote:Let's just pretend the ridiculous and assume you were right. What joy is there in being right if you still come off like an asshole? In this instance, you're clueless and come off like an asshole.

No "pretend" involved -- I AM right, and that's not even subject to debate.

"Right" is neither joyous or sorrowful, unless you're really a neener-neener sort of person.

And if I came across as an asshole, then it was mission accomplished, since there's no room for niceties when dealing with an ignoramus spouting complete and utter horseshit, not in this forum, anyway.

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong.

With all due respect, you were nine yrs old in 1964 (if I am recalling your post correctly). What did you know about cool? Were you rockin in a band, smokin cigarettes, picking up chicks, contemplating Gene Vincent? Unless you were some glandular freak, probably not. I'm not asserting it was not cool because I was there. I'm quoting people like Little Steven Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen, Lindsey Buckingham and other people who have related how and why they got into music. People whose memory is probably a lot more vivid of the musical climate of the time than you at nine.

Are you saying these people got into music because they thought it wasn't cool to do so? Did they go into music because they felt it was less cool than, say, becoming a CPA? Can you give me some direct quotes so I can see what you're talking about?

BTW, I was a very cool kid.

No, some people are innately drawn to music. Like Brian Wilson and his brothers. I'm saying that after the Beatles, people that really had no aptitude for music or genuine love for it, got into it to change their social status. And maybe even the outside chance of fame. And nothing has changed since. There are people that aren't "artists". They are simply interested in fame. American Idols come to mind. These are mostly kids that have zero interest in the hard work required to make a legitimate career. They don't even have the drive to learn an instrument. And then they sob when they fail the audition. Like that's the end of their dream. Instead of just putting a band together and going to plan B. Which should have been plan A.

ML@Coyote wrote:When the Beatles appeared on the scene, the Beatles were (like Justin Bieber) first and foremost teenage hearthrobs.

Whatever. I wasn't there at the time and can't speak to if they were more popular for their music or their so called teen-age heart throb image. I can't speak to anything about Justin Bieber, musically or image wise either and quite frankly don't give a fuck. I couldn't name even one of his songs, while I'm pretty sure that in 1964, had I been maybe 10 years older, I could reel off a litany of Beatles tunes.

Appreciation of their music came later, in light of their subsequent efforts.

Sure, they evolved over time and grew out of their Love Me Do opening phase, but that early period was just as impressive as anything they did later, imo.

When comparing classic rock bands, I've always ranked Led Zep, Pink Floyd and The Who as the top 3 and in that order. Sure, there were other great bands as well, but nobody else can be considered within that legendary pantheon.

Inevitably, some body will say "but what about The Beatles"? To which I'll reply, they were in a category all their own. LZ, PF, The Who would not have existed without the influence of the Fab Four. You can no more compare them to the top 3 than you can Justin fucking Bieber.... and I can't even believe I had to type that, again, for the 3rd fucking time.

Justin Bieber? yeah, just like The Beatles [:insertstringof17consecutiverolleyeshere:] :brad:

Dinsdale wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:Let's just pretend the ridiculous and assume you were right. What joy is there in being right if you still come off like an asshole? In this instance, you're clueless and come off like an asshole.

No "pretend" involved -- I AM right, and that's not even subject to debate.

"Right" is neither joyous or sorrowful, unless you're really a neener-neener sort of person.

And if I came across as an asshole, then it was mission accomplished, since there's no room for niceties when dealing with an ignoramus spouting complete and utter horseshit, not in this forum, anyway.

Look, kid, I realize you have a lot to make up for with your new internet life. After your woefully deficient social skills and having spent your youth being pummeled in dodgeball and stuffed in a locker hanging by your underwear wasteband. But the adults are trying to have a friendly, intelligent discussion. Go see if your "on the cusp of national fame" friends will let you carry some gear or hang some flyers. Try and make yourself useful.

Dee Snutz wrote:I'm saying that it was much cooler to be a jock in school than in a rock band on Feb 8, 1964. On Feb 10th, not so much.

good point and well played... who are you, again?

Somebody has to come up with an appropriate shorthand moniker for you.

Deez?

Snuts?

Those don't work. Need a little help here.

Dee Snutz wrote:After your woefully deficient social skills

I'm quite popular, and always have been.

having spent your youth being pummeled in dodgeball

I was consistantly the first pick in dodgeball and bombardment games.

stuffed in a locker hanging by your underwear wasteband.

Not fucking likely. I'm not a small guy, nor a wimp.

But the adults are trying to have a friendly, intelligent discussion.

No, the "adult" known as "You" is trying to have a moronic, revisionist-history discussion.

Go see if your "on the cusp of national fame" friends will let you carry some gear or hang some flyers.

Since I'm not in touring production, I think I'll pass. They seem quite capable of doing it themselves, and they are many years my juniors... no small feat, having such a wide scope of age range in my friends, die to my woefully deficient social skills.

You have me pegged about as well as you do music history and today's talent level.

Dinsdale wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:After your woefully deficient social skills

I'm quite popular, and always have been.

having spent your youth being pummeled in dodgeball

I was consistantly the first pick in dodgeball and bombardment games.

stuffed in a locker hanging by your underwear wasteband.

Not fucking likely. I'm not a small guy, nor a wimp.

But the adults are trying to have a friendly, intelligent discussion.

No, the "adult" known as "You" is trying to have a moronic, revisionist-history discussion.

Go see if your "on the cusp of national fame" friends will let you carry some gear or hang some flyers.

Since I'm not in touring production, I think I'll pass. They seem quite capable of doing it themselves, and they are many years my juniors... no small feat, having such a wide scope of age range in my friends, die to my woefully deficient social skills.

You have me pegged about as well as you do music history and today's talent level.

0 fucks given.

I've only read a couple of your posts which. Which is all it took to make the determination that you're a frustrated, abrasive, shit poster. I'll be ignoring you in the future. I'd appreciate you reciprocating in kind.

War Wagon wrote:I couldn't name even one of his songs, while I'm pretty sure that in 1964, had I been maybe 10 years older, I could reel off a litany of Beatles tunes.

Fair enough.

Justin Bieber? yeah, just like The Beatles [:insertstringof17consecutiverolleyeshere:] :brad:

Try not to explode.

Dee Snutz wrote:I'll be ignoring you in the future.

No, you won't.

I'd appreciate you reciprocating in kind.

Because my presence here revolves around seeking your appreciation?

Pretty much everything you've done in this thread screams "delusional."

Zeppelin absolutely exists without The Beatles. Musically, lyrically, stylistically—basically any way you care to name—they came from a completely different place. Page and Jones were practically contemporaries of the Beatles.

Zeppelin doesn't exist without Gene Vincent, Elvis, and a buttload of American blues artists.

War Wagon wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Funny thing about the Beatles. When they first came upon the music scene, they were the Justin Bieber's of the day.

that statement is so preposterously ridiculous as to not even deserve a serious response other than to say you probably know a lot more about Bieber than The Beatles because you obviously don't know jack shit about them.

He's got a point. Getting carpet bombed with 'Please Please Me' and 'Love Me Do' on every radio station, day and night must have been a horrifying experience.

While The Beatles were busy celebrating themselves in 'A Hard Days Night', the Dave Clark Five were asking the really tough questions to the tune of a thumping great bass drum in 'Having A Wild Weekend'. Disenfranchisement of youth as opposed to alienation, crass consumerism, how do you define success and can it bring complete happiness.

Clear cut case of men and the boys.

Van wrote:Zeppelin absolutely exists without The Beatles...


...they came from a completely different place.

Like John Mayall never happened...

Dr_Phibes wrote: He's got a point. Getting carpet bombed with 'Please Please Me' and 'Love Me Do' on every radio station, day and night must have been a horrifying experience.

The Beatles' success does not diminish the legitimacy of their talent.

That's like saying pizza is terrible food because everybody likes it.

Martyred wrote:

Van wrote:Zeppelin absolutely exists without The Beatles...


...they came from a completely different place.

Like John Mayall never happened...

What does that have to do with anything?

And while being served pizza before it's had a chance to warm up in the oven is shitty, it's not an indictment of properly cooked pizza.

Dr_Phibes wrote:And while being served pizza before it's had a chance to warm up in the oven is shitty, it's not an indictment of properly cooked pizza.

So, stop eating shitty Domino's Pizza.

Van wrote:

Martyred wrote:

Van wrote:Zeppelin absolutely exists without The Beatles...


...they came from a completely different place.

Like John Mayall never happened...

What does that have to do with anything?

You claim Zeppelin came from a "different place".

That ground was broken long before Jimmy Page started lifting Jeff Beck's riffs...

Not to diminish The DC5. But I really like that song better when it was done the first time, six yrs prior, by Henry Mancini.

Martyred wrote:
That ground was broken long before Jimmy Page started lifting Jeff Beck's riffs...

Jeff Beck's riffs?

http://voices.yahoo.com/video/led-zeppe ... tml?cat=33

Martyred wrote:

Like John Mayall never happened...

Van wrote:What does that have to do with anything?

You claim Zeppelin came from a "different place".

Than from The Beatles? Yes, Zeppelin absolutely came from a different place, and John Mayall had nothing to do with it.

That ground was broken long before Jimmy Page started lifting Jeff Beck's riffs...

Of course it was, though not by The Beatles.

Van wrote:Yes, Zeppelin absolutely came from a different place, and John Mayall had nothing to do with it.

Okay, Van...where is this "place" Led Zeppelin came from?

I will forever put you on my ignore list if you answer "Wag's 8-track player"... :x

War Wagon wrote: When comparing classic rock bands, I've always ranked Led Zep, Pink Floyd and The Who as the top 3 and in that order. Sure, there were other great bands as well, but nobody else can be considered within that legendary pantheon.

I don't think you would get an argument from many on this assertion. However, for those that think that the talent pool could never be too watered down and that the contemporary music scene is healthy and thriving. Taylor Swift has six Grammy's. Pink Floyd has no less than ZERO Grammy's. Led Zeppelin has one "Whoops, sorry we missed back when you were actually vital" Lifetime Achievement Grammy in 2005. As does the Who from 2001. Taylor Swift has 4 more Grammys than Floyd, Zep, and the Who combined (if you count those "pity" Grammy's). And she's only 22. That disparity will probably grow exponentially over the next few yrs.

Nuts, again, WGARA? Grammies mean precisely dick. Those are the same people who awarded Jethro Tull a Grammy for 'Best Heavy Metal Album,' or whatsuch. Also, McDonald's sells lots of burgers. Doesn't mean they're anything like the best.

Marty, Zeppelin came from Gene Vincent, Elvis, and countless American blues acts. The Beatles didn't, and they also weren't any sort of a major influence on Page, Jones, Plant or Bonham.

I thought I'd made that point fairly clearly. And John Mayall has fuckall to do with Zeppelin. Zeppelin's primary influences predate Mayall by decades, plus they're from the opposite side of the Pond.

Van wrote: Zeppelin came from Gene Vincent, Elvis, and countless American blues acts. The Beatles didn't

:?

Elvis? Yes. Countless American blues acts? No. There's not a lot of Willie Dixon swimming around in the Lennon/McCartney oeuvre.

Van wrote:Nuts, again, WGARA? Grammies mean precisely dick. Those are the same people who awarded Jethro Tull a Grammy for 'Best Heavy Metal Album,' or whatsuch. Also, McDonald's sells lots of burgers. Doesn't mean they're anything like the best.

WGARA? Oh,I don't know, maybe the young new David Gilmour's, John Bonham's, or Pete Towsend's who can't make a fucking radio programmer's play list who are counting on McDonalds for gainful employment because they made the mistake of honing their musical skills and finding inspiration in talent rather than spending their time and money with an image consultant. Or auditioning for American Voice Factor. No, they're counting on the discernible taste of the general public to find them and "float their talent to the top". The same general public that requires the every metropolitan newspaper be published at an eighth grade reading level.

Fundamentally we're not in disagreement.

Van wrote:And John Mayall has fuckall to do with Zeppelin. Zeppelin's primary influences predate Mayall by decades, plus they're from the opposite side of the Pond.

Really?

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:And John Mayall has fuckall to do with Zeppelin. Zeppelin's primary influences predate Mayall by decades, plus they're from the opposite side of the Pond.

Really?

I was thinking the same thing, but then realized what he was trying to say. Zeppelin & Mayall are from the same side of the pond, but Zep's primary influences (and Mayall's, for that matter) were mostly American bluesmen. The implication was not that Zep & Mayall are from opposite sides, although I read it that way at first as well.

Van wrote:Zeppelin absolutely exists without The Beatles. Musically, lyrically, stylistically—basically any way you care to name—they came from a completely different place. Page and Jones were practically contemporaries of the Beatles.

Zeppelin doesn't exist without Gene Vincent, Elvis, and a buttload of American blues artists.

I do think it is fair to say that Zeppelin as a STADIUM act doesn't exist without The Beatles selling out football stadiums around the world.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:And John Mayall has fuckall to do with Zeppelin. Zeppelin's primary influences predate Mayall by decades, plus they're from the opposite side of the Pond.

Really?

I was thinking the same thing, but then realized what he was trying to say. Zeppelin & Mayall are from the same side of the pond, but Zep's primary influences (and Mayall's, for that matter) were mostly American bluesmen. The implication was not that Zep & Mayall are from opposite sides, although I read it that way at first as well.

So Van doesn't write very well. Noted.

I'm describing Zep's influences in both instances. Their primary influences predate Mayall by decades, and they're from the opposite side of the Pond. Had I been referring to Mayall I would have used the singular 'he'—"plus he's from the opposite side of the Pond"—rather than 'influences,' which refers to the plural.

Obviously I know Mayall is British, not American. Jesus, people.

Sam wrote:I was about to crawl all over Van

Ewwww!

The beatles, like all british kids in the late 50s were fans of american blues, but, their handlers realized that that "mvscal music" wasn't quite ready for prime time, so they justin beibered it up.

Of course the fact that they "justin beibered" it about 8,134,184,799 X better than justin "beibered" it, does make it difficult to accept to some.

smackaholic wrote:The beatles, like all british kids in the late 50s were fans of american blues, but, their handlers realized that that "mvscal music" wasn't quite ready for prime time, so they justin beibered it up.

Of course the fact that they "justin beibered" it about 8,134,184,799 X better than justin "beibered" it, does make it difficult to accept to some.

To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, talent recognizes talent, genius recognizes genius, and mediocrity can't see beyond itself.