Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.

Softer kind of music. " I wanna hold your hand" or "Stupid Girl"/"Under my Thumb? That's why parents were told to lock up their girls when the Stones came to town.

I had a feeling you'd compare songs from different years when the times were different... Love Me Do vs. Jumpin' Jack Flash. Obviously The Stones are hard and Beatles soft! D'uh!

There's opinion and then there's hack journalism. Who is the author of that "article", mickscarey? Where did it come from, care to provide a link? There's a lot of bullshit in that article. This one caught my eye: Sadly, poor old Ringo lacked sufficient talent to even polish John Bonham’s cymbals.

Ignorance of one's talent does not make one untalented.

"While I accept that all art is largely a subjective matter, surely we can all agree that “I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really, really, really, wanna zigga zig ahh” is, frankly, bollocks by any commonly accepted criteria? Mind you, it holds up at least as well as “she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah. She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah, she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah”"

Right, because "I said yeah, yeah, yeah, wooooo!" is so rock and roll.
or "woo woo, woo woo, woo woo, woo woo" is so deep, man.

[sabotagetimes.com]

We can all copy and paste:
"whoever wrote this article is a twat"


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

it really does not matter who wrote. It simply shows there are differences of opinion. What is wrong with that?

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.

Softer kind of music. " I wanna hold your hand" or "Stupid Girl"/"Under my Thumb? That's why parents were told to lock up their girls when the Stones came to town.

Soft and Safe are two different words with two different meanings.

Correct

I saw the Beatles in Nice, France, in June 1965. They showed up on stage after two hours late. No apologize. Their sound could not been heard by the audience. They stayed on stage only twenty minutes. They appeared on stage only to take money. Their gig was quite a shit. The Beatles had no respect for the audience.
Afterwards, I saw the Stones on stage: it was terrific. It was really something.
The Stones have always been the best ones.

But still--I bet I'm not the only one thinking "Wow, you saw the Beatles!"

Why couldn't you hear them, was it the girls screaming? (It would have been the same with the Stones in 1965, if so.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-01 18:36 by Aquamarine.

I will always love the Beatles, but I will never forgive them for quitting on their fans. I really blame John. They brought much joy to the world until that self serving and self destructive bastard Lennon destroyed it all.

Sigh.

Quote
Aquamarine
But still--I bet I'm not the only one thinking "Wow, you saw the Beatles!"

Why couldn't you hear them, was it the girls screaming? (It would have been the same with the Stones in 1965, if so.)

Saw them fishing from their room at The Edgewater Inn in Seattle in the mid-sixties with my neighbor's telescope.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I will always love the Beatles, but I will never forgive them for quitting on their fans. I really blame John. They brought much joy to the world until that self serving and self destructive bastard Lennon destroyed it all.

How pathetic you place all those expectations on the back of Lennon. And to be so selfish to hinge your happiness on his slavery. Yes, that's right slavery. Why should anyone stay in something they are unhappy with and not grow as a person because a "fan" would be unhappy. This is real life. The man had other priorities. And he was in love and wanted something new. George did as well. It would have collapsed under its own weight eventually anyhow. Lennon is not at fault for wanting to live his life and not be a slave to The Beatles and misguided "fans" who hinge their entire life to a band.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I will always love the Beatles, but I will never forgive them for quitting on their fans. I really blame John. They brought much joy to the world until that self serving and self destructive bastard Lennon destroyed it all.

I blame John for dying on us when he was shot. Not everyone dies when they get shot but he chose to die. What an ass-hole. He had so much more music in him. That bastard!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-01 20:07 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Hairball, that is an amazing video. Erie how well those two mashed together!

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I will always love the Beatles, but I will never forgive them for quitting on their fans. I really blame John. They brought much joy to the world until that self serving and self destructive bastard Lennon destroyed it all.

I blame John for dying on us when he was shot. Not everyone dies when they get shot but he chose to die. What an ass-hole. He had so much more music in him. That bastard!

John had no control over his own death, but he did have control over his own life.

There's me thinking all along that it was Paul McCartney who announced he'd left the band, who timed the release of a solo album a couple of weeks ahead of the band's final studio release, who disagreed with the other three regarding hiring Allen Klein as an adviser and who ended up suing the rest of the band to break up their partnership at the end of 1970.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I will always love the Beatles, but I will never forgive them for quitting on their fans. I really blame John. They brought much joy to the world until that self serving and self destructive bastard Lennon destroyed it all.

How pathetic you place all those expectations on the back of Lennon. And to be so selfish to hinge your happiness on his slavery. Yes, that's right slavery. Why should anyone stay in something they are unhappy with and not grow as a person because a "fan" would be unhappy. This is real life. The man had other priorities. And he was in love and wanted something new. George did as well. It would have collapsed under its own weight eventually anyhow. Lennon is not at fault for wanting to live his life and not be a slave to The Beatles and misguided "fans" who hinge their entire life to a band.

The Beatles were a gift to the world. We are brought into this world to serve others for the greater good of humanity not to feed our own selfish desires. Slavery? I wouldn't compare being a member of the most popular band in the world, and being adored by millions as a form of slavery. John wasn't "in love" so much as he was "in need" of a mother figure. Yoko met that need. Pathetic? Any person that makes fun of the retarded is pathetic. Have you read his first wife's book? No, it's John Lennon who was pathetic.

Anyone who refers to The Beatles as a "boy band" is not expressing an opinion, but is instead displaying a willful ignorance.

Boy bands don't get covered by the likes of Jimi Hendrix--not once, but twice. Was Hendrix "soft" and "safe"?

Quote
Gazza
There's me thinking all along that it was Paul McCartney who announced he'd left the band, who timed the release of a solo album a couple of weeks ahead of the band's final studio release, who disagreed with the other three regarding hiring Allen Klein as an adviser and who ended up suing the rest of the band to break up their partnership at the end of 1970.

Paul never wanted the Beatles to end, but he could see the writing on the wall.

Well silly old you!

May your enlightenment transform you.

What a piece of crap saying The Beatles were a safe and soft band. They challenged their audience every time and pushed it to the limit. They broke down the barrieres of how rock music could be written and presented.
The big difference between them and Stones is that Stones did what they did best: writing fantastic rock music, nothing more nothing less. The Beatles were more than rock, they wrote everything that could be incorporated in the rock genre.
This is not to underestimate The Stones, but they are a far more traditional based band than The Beatles.

"Challenged the audience" -- hee hee hee hee . Broke down barriers. Hee hee hee hee.I kinda thought that was the likes Of Elvis. Hee hee hee.

Face it, they were popular because your Mom could like them. Its really is a simple formula to follow boys and girls.

So is your musical taste based on what your mom likes or doesn't like? Interesting.
When The Beatles first appeared, what were mommys and daddys listening to? Frank Sinatra, probably, right? Is he therefore bad because mommy liked him? Is Rosemary Clooney bad? I can totally picture a 60-70 year old mom at the time rocking out to Helter Skelter. Yep.

You do realize the "The Beatles were good boys, Stones were bad boys" thing was a total myth, right? The Beatles weren't good, upstanding, go to church, well-mannered, don't break the law, wash behind the ears every night and say prayers before bed-kind of guys. You knew that? Apparently, not.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-01 22:48 by GumbootCloggeroo.

You weren't around in 1962 when your Mom loved Elvis is those crappy movies, while the kids were discovering Roll Over Beethoven through the Beatles, I take it?

(Not you, Gumboot. Though I have to take issue with you on the point about the Beatles washing behind their ears, I believe they did this quite frequently. )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-01 22:49 by Aquamarine.

Hmm, I cannot break it down any simpler for you. Sorry that you cannot follow. Oh well.

Well, I'm pretty stupid, that could be the problem.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyway, Rolling Stones are #1

Quote
Aquamarine
Well, I'm pretty stupid, that could be the problem.

Not as stupid as mickscarey.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"