For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
jbwelda
>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never
I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.
jb
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
jbwelda
>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never
I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.
jb
I just watched the full Beatles Anthology over the past week and yeah, I wasn't around then but it definitely looks like (not that this is the first time I'm seeing it or anything) that the Beatles set the trends and people followed. Obviously thats what they'll push, but thats also totally true. The Beatles did a lot of their own things and they became iconic of the time period. I don't even mean to give them the credit, I don't even think they meant at the time to take credit. Its just that they really were THAT big that anything they did just became magnified, even if they weren't the first people on Earth. The one thing thats true about them is all the hype about Beatlemania was right on the money. They truly were just larger than life.
It really is amazing to immerse yourself in the Beatles every now and then. Haven't done a DEEP dive like this in a long time, watching the Anthology then listening to those albums after each corresponding episode. They really did just never stop. Its truly mind blowing how young they were. The whole thing was done by the time they were 30 or younger! George wasn't even 20 when they had their first album out. You watch it and it feels historical. It feels like every innovation is just this stroke of genius. Which obviously isn't true, they were just messing around, same as any band, but they had a great track record and the results really do speak for themselves. While they were like every other band, because of where it lead I watch that thing and it feels different than any other band. While I prefer a ton of Stones albums to any one Beatles record, there is something that seems unlike any other band when you hear how they did Tomorrow Never Knows. Or I'm Only Sleeping.
I also think they are incredibly lucky. Paul McCartney LOVES that their discography is remembered exactly the way he hoped it would be. Cause you can never predict that, but his dream seems like it always was for people to cherish every little move that band made, and boy if that ain't the truth. Its nuts because things like Rocky Raccoon, Martha My Dear... if they were solo efforts no one would even mention them. But any Beatles track is just treated with this different respect. And I'm not knocking it, its just fascinating to me. Cause those guys DID do that kind of stuff solo and it doesn't get talked about the same way. Hell, they did some BETTER stuff than their Beatles work in their solo time and its still never talked about in the same air. The Beatles are very much the sum of its parts. On its own, there's really nothing spectacular about What Goes On, The Word, Wait, etc, the way that every track really does shine on something like Sticky Fingers. But its the Beatles, and somehow they did it perfectly that they are remembered exactly as they'd probably want you to remember them, at least Paul. I really don't think there's any other band remembered the same way, and a lot of times I can't even explain why beyond "that just is how it is." Its not even them that propagate it, they just feed off the lasting impression from 50 years.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
jbwelda
>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never
I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.
jb
I just watched the full Beatles Anthology over the past week and yeah, I wasn't around then but it definitely looks like (not that this is the first time I'm seeing it or anything) that the Beatles set the trends and people followed. Obviously thats what they'll push, but thats also totally true. The Beatles did a lot of their own things and they became iconic of the time period. I don't even mean to give them the credit, I don't even think they meant at the time to take credit. Its just that they really were THAT big that anything they did just became magnified, even if they weren't the first people on Earth. The one thing thats true about them is all the hype about Beatlemania was right on the money. They truly were just larger than life.
It really is amazing to immerse yourself in the Beatles every now and then. Haven't done a DEEP dive like this in a long time, watching the Anthology then listening to those albums after each corresponding episode. They really did just never stop. Its truly mind blowing how young they were. The whole thing was done by the time they were 30 or younger! George wasn't even 20 when they had their first album out. You watch it and it feels historical. It feels like every innovation is just this stroke of genius. Which obviously isn't true, they were just messing around, same as any band, but they had a great track record and the results really do speak for themselves. While they were like every other band, because of where it lead I watch that thing and it feels different than any other band. While I prefer a ton of Stones albums to any one Beatles record, there is something that seems unlike any other band when you hear how they did Tomorrow Never Knows. Or I'm Only Sleeping.
I also think they are incredibly lucky. Paul McCartney LOVES that their discography is remembered exactly the way he hoped it would be. Cause you can never predict that, but his dream seems like it always was for people to cherish every little move that band made, and boy if that ain't the truth. Its nuts because things like Rocky Raccoon, Martha My Dear... if they were solo efforts no one would even mention them. But any Beatles track is just treated with this different respect. And I'm not knocking it, its just fascinating to me. Cause those guys DID do that kind of stuff solo and it doesn't get talked about the same way. Hell, they did some BETTER stuff than their Beatles work in their solo time and its still never talked about in the same air. The Beatles are very much the sum of its parts. On its own, there's really nothing spectacular about What Goes On, The Word, Wait, etc, the way that every track really does shine on something like Sticky Fingers. But its the Beatles, and somehow they did it perfectly that they are remembered exactly as they'd probably want you to remember them, at least Paul. I really don't think there's any other band remembered the same way, and a lot of times I can't even explain why beyond "that just is how it is." Its not even them that propagate it, they just feed off the lasting impression from 50 years.
Quote
NastyHabits
I've recently found in some sources, including the German Wikipedia, that certain Beatles albums (With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, and Revolver) were released in West Germany before the UK:
[de.wikipedia.org] (November 12 vs. November 22, 1963)
[de.wikipedia.org]) (July 9 vs. July 10, 1964)
[de.wikipedia.org] (November 13 vs. December 4, 1964)
[de.wikipedia.org]) (July 28 vs. August 5, 1966)
Is this information true? I admit I am relatively unable to research further in German sources due to my very poor command of the language, but I found it very strange (particularly because, if those dates are true, certain releases seem very rushed, such as Beatles for Sale, the recording sessions of which ended on October 26).
Quote
NastyHabits
Do you know websites of this type (or chart databases, etc.) in German?
Another source in English, 45worlds, seems to agree with those Wikipedia dates:
[www.45worlds.com]
Quote
NastyHabits
Do you know websites of this type (or chart databases, etc.) in German?
Quote
KevinM
Stones logo ="Day Tripper" in Alan Aldridge's The Beatles Illustrated lyrics '69
Borrowed? Impression & then forgotten logo? Stolen?
Quote
IrixQuote
KevinM
Stones logo ="Day Tripper" in Alan Aldridge's The Beatles Illustrated lyrics '69
Borrowed? Impression & then forgotten logo? Stolen?
We'll probably never know it since Alan Aldridge unfortunately died in 2017 (aged 78).
Maybe Ron Schneider knows more - [iorr.org] . I've posted a picture of the 1969 Lyrics-Book - [iorr.org] - and that Tongue-comparison already here in 2015 - [iorr.org] .
The famous logo from Sticky Fingers 1st US-Edition 1971 was redrawn in New York - [iorr.org] - by Craig Braun's in-house illustrators Walter Velez and Toni DiMiceli - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .
Quote
dcba
"only the good die young"
Bob Dylan "Foot Of Pride (1983)
Quote
loog droog
Why would a good vibes, peace promoting person like Ringo inspire such snark?