Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Ribsspare, Jan 21, 2019.
I'll take "Terrible at Trolling for $100, Alex."
They were the band that started a revolution.
The Beatles were self contained in every regard, and every member was highly skilled.
They earned their success with hard work.
They launched countless imitators, but no equals.
Millennials and Gen X’ers hate em’ cause they represent the previous generation (Baby Boomers) and their excesses.
No one touches them, IMO.
The Beatles , were they not an Oasis tribute band!
You don't explain The Beatles, you play their records.
Must be about a year ago we had a client come through our office called Robert Plant. The other people in my office were women aged about 25 to 50 all of whom claimed not to get the Zeppelin reference when I started talking about it. I remember trying to explain Chas n Dave in similar circumstances, compared to Led Zep they were massive in terms of singles chart success in the UK.
Some people just aren't interested in this kind of stuff. It feels like it's just in the fabric of society and how could people not know but you see what you see. I know I've seen cricket on the sports news all my life but honestly I know nothing about cricket, when it comes up it's just white noise to me and other people are like that about music.
I think I'd rather talk to people who know nothing about The Beatles than those people who think they know all about it and that the fab four invented music.
Boy band that started making experimental music.
But really, who are all of these people who have not heard of them and are you sure they speak in a language that allows you to communicate with them? They probably have never heard of boy bands or experimental music either.
A lot of people really hated them because of that Beatlemania crap. I didn't understand that aspect of it either, but they did work their asses off unlike the bands of today. They toured the world for 4 years, non-stop, ('64-'67) while recording at least 2 albums a year while doing so, and even kept touring with a replacement drummer when Ringo got his tonsils out.
And the complexity of the music grew exponentially in that time. Most seem to remember just the screaming fans, and simple lyrics, i.e. She Loves You, I Wanna hold you hand, that kind of stuff. They started playing mostly covers, but they were still school aged when they were doing that. But they were also doing their own stuff way back when John and Paul were just 15.
With George Martin, the instrumentation changed, the later music wasn't the standard 1-4-5 anymore, that we all learned to play. The lyrics were much more complex/surreal, and a lot of it couldn't even be classified as rock music anymore. By 1965, they were so much different than they were even just 2 years prior. But again I digress, we go with what we know, and people who came much later are never going to appreciate what they don't know. I know I don't care for some very popular bands simply because I chose to turn a deaf ear to it...
I don't explain, I just smile and think how lucky they are, not to have heard of the Bootles.
My own explanation would be “they were the greatest pop-rock band ever”. Then, if practical, I'd put on any of their records from Rubber Soul onwards.
Gen X'ers don't hate babyboomers on principles like the millenials (Boo hoo hoo they ruined it for us)
Babyboomers are our parents. If we hate them it's personal!
Nice suits, interesting gear..
And they didn't even write their own songs, couldnt play instruments and gave up touring as they were caught out miming all the time.
Same as every clone boy band pop act ;-)
Joke? Not Joke? I go for “no joke” and comment:
- Couldn’t play is very subjective. I think Ringo and John were perfectly adequate for the music and that Paul and George were great at their respective instruments, especially in later recordings;
- The tour thing is wrong (see any documentary);
- “Didn’t write” is so wrong it's intriguing: where did you get this from?
Yea, no, that won't work. You need to know what other things were around and what was done before and after before you have any means of understanding the impact. Not only in music, pop culture in general. And it's still not halfway enough to appreciate Martin and Emerick.
It's been long enough that @JuneauMike and @El Marin can lay down basically diametrically opposed arguments and both be correct
I go for "You might have gone wrong there"...
And if they don't like them you immediately put them in the waiting list for an urgent FUNCTIONAL BRAIN and GOOD TASTE transplant.
From someone who obviously missed his date for the aforementioned functional brain transplant
How do you explain the Beatles?
To the uninformed it would all depend on how much time they had.
It's tough to just explain their history and their music without also talking about the social revolution they and other British Invasion Bands helped to begin.
As Stewart Copeland and Tina Weymouth have explained in recent documentaries about drums and bass shown on UK BBC4, Ringo was a much more creative drummer than given credit for and Paul was certainly a bass innovator. I was 13 when they took off and always preferred Kinks and Stones, but I've caught up since. Certainly the Beatles together have never been matched by any of their individual solo work. Mull of blasted Kintyre for example.
Simple: BEATLES = 4 mop-heads from Liverpool, England.