Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
Some people don't like to click on links...

Let alone reading it.

You might learn something.

Forget the past. We cannot repeat it.

Then move along - nobody is forcing you to read anything.

Nobody is forcing you to post it. It's ancient history. Just listen to the music. That's all that matters.

This is a forum based on a band that's best days are far behind them, and a majority of the content of this forum is based on the past.
Based on your advice, not sure why you even bother posting anything...maybe you should "just listen to the music" instead.

You start making sense.

Yet you haven't made sense at all.

Because it's impossible to make sense on writing about music. Music is freedom of speech.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Music is a language that everybody understands. Some dialects might sound ugly to people though . You got it?

Nobody is forcing you to listen to any specific "dialects" that you think "sound ugly".
To use your phrase: "Music is freedom of speech".

Absolutely; answers are also freedom of speech; as far as music is concerned.

And posting articles and links about our favorite bands are also "freedom of speech"...feel free to ignore or reply!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
Some people don't like to click on links...

Let alone reading it.

You might learn something.

Forget the past. We cannot repeat it.

Then move along - nobody is forcing you to read anything.

Nobody is forcing you to post it. It's ancient history. Just listen to the music. That's all that matters.

This is a forum based on a band that's best days are far behind them, and a majority of the content of this forum is based on the past.
Based on your advice, not sure why you even bother posting anything...maybe you should "just listen to the music" instead.

You start making sense.

Yet you haven't made sense at all.

Because it's impossible to make sense on writing about music. Music is freedom of speech.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Music is a language that everybody understands. Some dialects might sound ugly to people though . You got it?

Nobody is forcing you to listen to any specific "dialects" that you think "sound ugly".
To use your phrase: "Music is freedom of speech".

Absolutely; answers are also freedom of speech; as far as music is concerned.

And posting articles and links about our favorite bands are also "freedom of speech"...feel free to ignore or reply!

We might as well close the conversation now.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
Some people don't like to click on links...

Let alone reading it.

You might learn something.

Forget the past. We cannot repeat it.

Then move along - nobody is forcing you to read anything.

Nobody is forcing you to post it. It's ancient history. Just listen to the music. That's all that matters.

This is a forum based on a band that's best days are far behind them, and a majority of the content of this forum is based on the past.
Based on your advice, not sure why you even bother posting anything...maybe you should "just listen to the music" instead.

You start making sense.

Yet you haven't made sense at all.

Because it's impossible to make sense on writing about music. Music is freedom of speech.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Music is a language that everybody understands. Some dialects might sound ugly to people though . You got it?

Nobody is forcing you to listen to any specific "dialects" that you think "sound ugly".
To use your phrase: "Music is freedom of speech".

Absolutely; answers are also freedom of speech; as far as music is concerned.

And posting articles and links about our favorite bands are also "freedom of speech"...feel free to ignore or reply!

We might as well close the conversation now.

You say hello, and I say goodbye.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

the entire above post and all the quotes are hilarious

you two are something else

In other current Beatles/Stones related news....

The return of the Beatles vs Stones wars

As news of a Rolling Stones album featuring Paul McCartney appears, the press reignites a culture war it confected.

By David Hepworth

Beatles vs Stones

Beatles or Stones? Light or dark? North or south? Pop or rock? Grace or grit? Fab or anti-fab? It’s been one of Britain’s culture wars since 1965 – and it’s back in the media again after news that an upcoming Stones album will feature Paul McCartney. Evidently, as the remaining members of both bands advance into their eighties, the press loves nothing more than to give this rivalry another prod. It might as well. After all, the press started it.

I don’t remember exactly when the idea took hold that people could only love either the Beatles or the Stones, but it certainly wasn’t true among anyone who was a teenager in the Sixties. We couldn’t believe how lucky we were to have both. If in 1965 the Beatles chose to give us “Help!”, “Ticket To Ride” and “Day Tripper” while the Stones served up “The Last Time”, “Satisfaction” and “Get Off My Cloud”, then this 15-year-old wasn’t going to waste his energies arguing that liking one meant you couldn’t like the other.

Such sectarianism was for the future. At the time it was all beat music, which was still a sub-division of showbusiness. Both bands wore uniforms on stage. They did the same variety shows. They both had an edition of Juke Box Jury devoted to them. The Beatles aced that test; the Stones had trouble when called upon to simply be themselves.

The Stones’ first hit was “I Wanna Be Your Man”, a Lennon-McCartney song the authors “gave” to the other band on a visit to see them rehearse in 1963. By then the Liverpool group were not merely the toast of the nation, they were also old pros, and bumptious with it. The Beatles’ commercial touch was so Midas-like that there was no question of the still hitless Stones turning down the offer. It was only later that the Stones’ manager Andrew Oldham, who had previously worked as a PR for the Beatles, made much of the fact that his new clients wore their street clothes on stage, didn’t bow at the end of their numbers, would never be awarded MBEs, and were the polar opposite of the establishment darlings.

Even as late as January 1967 Oldham was still trying to coax his surly charges to join the other variety stars waving and grinning from the carousel that traditionally closed Sunday Night at the London Palladium, just as the Beatles had done. Everywhere the Stones turned up their elder brothers had been there first. The eight-month start that the Beatles had on the Stones at the beginning never went away. By the time the Stones got to the United States the Beatles had already made that nation their own and the only tune the press could play was contrasting the Liverpudlians’ cheerfulness with the Stones’ calculated moodiness. However, the rougher and readier band made a big impression on young wannabes such as the 15-year-old Steve Van Zandt. He recalled thinking that while he and his peers could never hope to match the Beatles’ polish and harmonies, they could have a go at being the Rolling Stones. Boys were always more comfortable admiring the Stones. This still applies even when some of those boys are in their seventies.

By 1967 the Beatles were beginning to fancy a bit of the other group’s perceived edginess. John Lennon and McCartney sang the refrain on “We Love You”, the Stones’ response to their drug bust, to underline which side they were on. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards made sure they turned up at Abbey Road when the Beatles made their “All You Need is Love” telecast. There is a wonderful picture (opposite) of McCartney and Jagger waiting for their train to leave Euston that summer. Here they are, two princelings with the world at their feet, waiting to go to Bangor to hang out with an actual Indian mystic.

By that time McCartney’s group had released their psychedelic album Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band to universal acclaim. At Christmas the same year Jagger’s group put out their own hallucinogenic record, Their Satanic Majesties Request, to derision of an almost equal measure. The cover of the former contains the message “welcome the Rolling Stones”, while the cover of the latter has pictures of all four Beatles hidden in it. Both pictures feature the bands in fancy dress and were taken by the same photographer. This was when you could put the whole of Swinging London in a room and still have space to swing a cat.

By the time the new decade had begun, the Beatles had gone their separate ways and the Rolling Stones had gone professional, embracing the new world of massive amplification, huge venues and audiences of young adults. This was a world the Beatles were never to know, though they did all have huge solo success, which evades the members of the Stones to this day.

When provoked by journalists, who never tired of trying to stir up the rivalry between the two institutions, both could be bitchy in the way that pop groups never grow out of, particularly when the spokesperson was one of the less measured members. In the 1970 interview in which he irritated the whole universe, Lennon said he liked “Honky Tonk Women” but couldn’t take Jagger seriously what with his “fag dancing”. Decades later, Keith Richards announced that Sgt Pepper was “a mish-mash of rubbish”, which proved how sore he remained about the reviews of Their Satanic Majesties.

The more diplomatic members, on the other hand, preferred to go in for the very faintest of praise. McCartney recently told the New Yorker that when all was said and done the Rolling Stones were essentially a blues covers band. We might know what he meant, but that was a singularly uncharitable way of putting it. Every salvo the two have aimed at each other across the years has been payback for some slight apparently delivered decades before. At its root is the Stones’ resentment that the Beatles are regarded with greater awe than ever, and McCartney’s feeling that the Stones are the only people left in the world who still underestimate his old group.

In 1988 Jagger made a speech when the Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. He managed to do this without actually finding anything complimentary to say about them other than that when he met them they were all wearing “beautiful” leather coats. Since McCartney wasn’t present on that occasion because of a legal squabble with his former band-mates, Jagger must have known that he wasn’t really honouring the Beatles at all. As a member of a band who had then been together for 25 years, Jagger must also have known how wounding his presence at this investiture would be.

The remarkable thing about the press reports of a new collaboration is what it says about the power the Beatles and Stones still have to make news, so long after their halcyon days. It is 60 years since the summer of Beatlemania and the release of the first Stones record. If you subtracted the same number of years from 1963 you would be almost in the 19th century.

Some people are always trying to fix pop’s past. There are romantics who yearn to see a band that has lost its original rhythm section pair up with another that has nothing but a rhythm section. I’m in no great hurry to hear it because the interesting thing to me is that the two greatest British bands had many of the same influences, came up at the same time, used the same kit, vied with each other for the same airwaves, were inspired by a lot of the same things, probably slept with a lot of the same people – and yet never once sounded remotely like each other. They shouldn’t spoil it now.

“Abbey Road: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Famous Recording Studio” by David Hepworth is published by Transworld

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Today, February 25, would have been George’s 80th birthday, Gone too early, his spirit continues to shine. Thank you George for making this world a little better!

It's so bittersweet. Gone way too soon at 58 years old. RIP George. You are missed.

Thinking of George on his 80th birthday...........





_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

According to legend he told Decca's Dick Rowe (who turned down The Beatles) to sign a certain band who played in Richmond.
Thanks George.

He's the best ! What a great catalog of music -- his work with the Beatles has been covered a million times, but there was so many great albums and tracks during his solo years, as well as his work with Ravi Shankar and of course, the Willburys ! Happy to have been alive in your time George ! You made the world a better place !

Front page on 25-Feb-2023 of [TheBeatles.com] :



From Paul McCartney: "Happy would’ve been to my mate George Harrison - Paul" - [Twitter.com] , [www.Facebook.com] , [www.Instagram.com] .

From Ringo Starr: "Happy 80 my friend, peace and love. I miss you man." - [Twitter.com] , [www.Facebook.com] , [www.Instagram.com] .

I find a bit "strange" to wish an happy birthday to a deceased person.

Ok it is a way to remember him and tell we love him but I would try to find another words.

Very nice version - live in Honolulu, 1973





_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

lost again ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
ds1984
I find a bit "strange" to wish an happy birthday to a deceased person.

Ok it is a way to remember him and tell we love him but I would try to find another words.

I feel the same way too......but any way thanks for the great tunes George...............





__________________________

Of all the solo Beatle albums, I like George’s best.

Me too...


...but I do have a soft spot for John's "Rock N Roll" album

...which has none of his silly political posturing , Just John and some great musicians playing the music he loved as a kid.

I got to thinking one of the things I love best about the Stones is they did a lot of sleazy songs: Stoned, Dear Doctor, On With the Show, culminating in Honky Tonk Women. In all, I count 33 official releases that could easily be considered sleazy. I love the Beatles, too, but by my estimation they only had 7 at best and most of those are iffy. I guess their sleaziest number was "You Know My Name (look up my number)".

It was 55 years ago almost to the day....

From UCR:

55 Years Ago: The Beatles Become First Rock Act to Win Album of the Year

Bryan Rolli, February 28, 2023

> Sgt. Pepper - BEATLES GRAMMY


No artist did more to legitimize rock music as a serious art form than the Beatles — and perhaps no accolade symbolized that shift more than the band's magnum opus, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the first rock LP to win Album of the Year at the 10th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 29, 1968. The Fab Four had shown a staggering amount of growth since winning their first two Grammys — Best New Artist and Best Performance by a Vocal Group for "A Hard Day's Night" — in 1965. The Rubber Soul track "Michelle" earned them another trophy for Song of the Year in 1967. Still, the most coveted prize of the ceremony had eluded them so far, with Help! and Revolver losing back-to-back years to Frank Sinatra's September of My Years and A Man and His Music, respectively. The Chairman of the Board had won Album of the Year three times in the Grammys' first nine years, leading a pack of recipients that also included Henry Mancini, Judy Garland, Stan Getz, Joao Gilberto and even comedians Bob Newhart and Vaughn Meader.

Many establishment types still viewed rock 'n' roll as a childish novelty, hardly deserving of the music industry's top honor. But even rock's staunchest opponents were no match for the paradigm-shifting Sgt. Pepper. The album captured the zeitgeist of the late-'60s counterculture and almost singlehandedly ushered in the Summer of Love upon its release in late May 1967. It topped the charts on both sides of the pond and sold more than 30 million copies worldwide. It further cemented the LP as the predominant medium of music release and consumption. It was fitting, then, that the Beatles finally defeated Sinatra in their third consecutive clash for Album of the Year, with Sgt. Pepper triumphing over Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim. The psychedelic opus also beat Vikki Carr's It Must Be Him, Ed Ames' My Cup Runneth Over and Bobbie Gentry's Ode to Billie Joe. Sgt. Pepper also won Best Contemporary Album, while engineer Geoff Emerick was honored with Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical, and art directors Peter Blake and Jann Haworth collected the golden gramophone for Best Album Cover, Graphic Arts. Notably, none of the Fab Four attended the Grammys for their big win, as they had recently flown to Rishikesh, India, with their significant others to study Transcendental Meditation at the ashram of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Paul McCartney would become the first Beatle to grace the Grammys stage in 1971 when he accepted the award for Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture for Let It Be. Ringo Starr appeared in 1973 to co-present Best Male R&B Vocal Performance to Billy Paul's "Me and Mrs. Jones" with Harry Nilsson and to accept Album of the Year for George Harrison & Friends' Concert for Bangladesh. John Lennon made his Grammys debut in 1975 when he and Paul Simon co-presented Record of the Year to Olivia Newton-John for "I Honestly Love You." Harrison, who died in 2001, never set foot on the Grammys stage. Sgt. Pepper marked the first of four Grammy wins for Emerick, who was just 22 years old at the time. Half a century later, the engineer still considered the LP's final track the high point of his work with the Beatles. "Perhaps the greatest peak of all was the production of 'A Day in the Life' on Sgt. Pepper," Emerick told Variety in 2017. "John first played an acoustic version of the song for George Martin, and I heard it and told a colleague, 'Wait until you hear this.' I still had the shivers. And the night we put the orchestra on it, the whole world went from black and white to color."




_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-01 07:58 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
It was 55 years ago almost to the day....

From UCR:

55 Years Ago: The Beatles Become First Rock Act to Win Album of the Year

Bryan Rolli, February 28, 2023

> Sgt. Pepper - BEATLES GRAMMY


No artist did more to legitimize rock music as a serious art form than the Beatles — and perhaps no accolade symbolized that shift more than the band's magnum opus, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the first rock LP to win Album of the Year at the 10th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 29, 1968. The Fab Four had shown a staggering amount of growth since winning their first two Grammys — Best New Artist and Best Performance by a Vocal Group for "A Hard Day's Night" — in 1965. The Rubber Soul track "Michelle" earned them another trophy for Song of the Year in 1967. Still, the most coveted prize of the ceremony had eluded them so far, with Help! and Revolver losing back-to-back years to Frank Sinatra's September of My Years and A Man and His Music, respectively. The Chairman of the Board had won Album of the Year three times in the Grammys' first nine years, leading a pack of recipients that also included Henry Mancini, Judy Garland, Stan Getz, Joao Gilberto and even comedians Bob Newhart and Vaughn Meader.

Many establishment types still viewed rock 'n' roll as a childish novelty, hardly deserving of the music industry's top honor. But even rock's staunchest opponents were no match for the paradigm-shifting Sgt. Pepper. The album captured the zeitgeist of the late-'60s counterculture and almost singlehandedly ushered in the Summer of Love upon its release in late May 1967. It topped the charts on both sides of the pond and sold more than 30 million copies worldwide. It further cemented the LP as the predominant medium of music release and consumption. It was fitting, then, that the Beatles finally defeated Sinatra in their third consecutive clash for Album of the Year, with Sgt. Pepper triumphing over Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim. The psychedelic opus also beat Vikki Carr's It Must Be Him, Ed Ames' My Cup Runneth Over and Bobbie Gentry's Ode to Billie Joe. Sgt. Pepper also won Best Contemporary Album, while engineer Geoff Emerick was honored with Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical, and art directors Peter Blake and Jann Haworth collected the golden gramophone for Best Album Cover, Graphic Arts. Notably, none of the Fab Four attended the Grammys for their big win, as they had recently flown to Rishikesh, India, with their significant others to study Transcendental Meditation at the ashram of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Paul McCartney would become the first Beatle to grace the Grammys stage in 1971 when he accepted the award for Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture for Let It Be. Ringo Starr appeared in 1973 to co-present Best Male R&B Vocal Performance to Billy Paul's "Me and Mrs. Jones" with Harry Nilsson and to accept Album of the Year for George Harrison & Friends' Concert for Bangladesh. John Lennon made his Grammys debut in 1975 when he and Paul Simon co-presented Record of the Year to Olivia Newton-John for "I Honestly Love You." Harrison, who died in 2001, never set foot on the Grammys stage. Sgt. Pepper marked the first of four Grammy wins for Emerick, who was just 22 years old at the time. Half a century later, the engineer still considered the LP's final track the high point of his work with the Beatles. "Perhaps the greatest peak of all was the production of 'A Day in the Life' on Sgt. Pepper," Emerick told Variety in 2017. "John first played an acoustic version of the song for George Martin, and I heard it and told a colleague, 'Wait until you hear this.' I still had the shivers. And the night we put the orchestra on it, the whole world went from black and white to color."

One of the greatest examples journalistic propaganda ever.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
Hairball
It was 55 years ago almost to the day....

From UCR:

55 Years Ago: The Beatles Become First Rock Act to Win Album of the Year

Bryan Rolli, February 28, 2023

> Sgt. Pepper - BEATLES GRAMMY


No artist did more to legitimize rock music as a serious art form than the Beatles — and perhaps no accolade symbolized that shift more than the band's magnum opus, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the first rock LP to win Album of the Year at the 10th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 29, 1968. The Fab Four had shown a staggering amount of growth since winning their first two Grammys — Best New Artist and Best Performance by a Vocal Group for "A Hard Day's Night" — in 1965. The Rubber Soul track "Michelle" earned them another trophy for Song of the Year in 1967. Still, the most coveted prize of the ceremony had eluded them so far, with Help! and Revolver losing back-to-back years to Frank Sinatra's September of My Years and A Man and His Music, respectively. The Chairman of the Board had won Album of the Year three times in the Grammys' first nine years, leading a pack of recipients that also included Henry Mancini, Judy Garland, Stan Getz, Joao Gilberto and even comedians Bob Newhart and Vaughn Meader.

Many establishment types still viewed rock 'n' roll as a childish novelty, hardly deserving of the music industry's top honor. But even rock's staunchest opponents were no match for the paradigm-shifting Sgt. Pepper. The album captured the zeitgeist of the late-'60s counterculture and almost singlehandedly ushered in the Summer of Love upon its release in late May 1967. It topped the charts on both sides of the pond and sold more than 30 million copies worldwide. It further cemented the LP as the predominant medium of music release and consumption. It was fitting, then, that the Beatles finally defeated Sinatra in their third consecutive clash for Album of the Year, with Sgt. Pepper triumphing over Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim. The psychedelic opus also beat Vikki Carr's It Must Be Him, Ed Ames' My Cup Runneth Over and Bobbie Gentry's Ode to Billie Joe. Sgt. Pepper also won Best Contemporary Album, while engineer Geoff Emerick was honored with Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical, and art directors Peter Blake and Jann Haworth collected the golden gramophone for Best Album Cover, Graphic Arts. Notably, none of the Fab Four attended the Grammys for their big win, as they had recently flown to Rishikesh, India, with their significant others to study Transcendental Meditation at the ashram of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Paul McCartney would become the first Beatle to grace the Grammys stage in 1971 when he accepted the award for Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture for Let It Be. Ringo Starr appeared in 1973 to co-present Best Male R&B Vocal Performance to Billy Paul's "Me and Mrs. Jones" with Harry Nilsson and to accept Album of the Year for George Harrison & Friends' Concert for Bangladesh. John Lennon made his Grammys debut in 1975 when he and Paul Simon co-presented Record of the Year to Olivia Newton-John for "I Honestly Love You." Harrison, who died in 2001, never set foot on the Grammys stage. Sgt. Pepper marked the first of four Grammy wins for Emerick, who was just 22 years old at the time. Half a century later, the engineer still considered the LP's final track the high point of his work with the Beatles. "Perhaps the greatest peak of all was the production of 'A Day in the Life' on Sgt. Pepper," Emerick told Variety in 2017. "John first played an acoustic version of the song for George Martin, and I heard it and told a colleague, 'Wait until you hear this.' I still had the shivers. And the night we put the orchestra on it, the whole world went from black and white to color."

One of the greatest examples journalistic propaganda ever.

What exactly is propaganda here? Let's call a spade a spade. I don't 'prefer' the Beatles musically but there is no shame in giving credit where it's due.

The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.

Quote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.

You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.

I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.

You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.

I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.

Take away all the talk of awards and firsts. Yes a cultural phenomena, but it's based on hype and and for me, much of the music not worthy of it all. Do know that propaganda is not about "untrue".

Quote
MKjan

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.

You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.

I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.

Take away all the talk of awards and firsts. Yes a cultural phenomena, but it's based on hype and and for me, much of the music not worthy of it all. Do know that propaganda is not about "untrue".

Take away the base hits and home runs from Babe Ruth and yeah, he wasn’t a very good hitter.

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

The premise if that long and boring article is: to be considered as 'art' in music equals achieving a Grammy. Never thought that anyone would thought so, but I guess one cannot underestimate the banality of typical American show business mentality.

I guess The Beatles fit pretty good to the picture.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-04 01:00 by Doxa.

Statues and awards bore the daylights outta me .....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Statues and awards bore the daylights outta me .....

Indeed. That of being acknowledged as a Grammy winner is nothing but a recognizing that one is an established contributor in an established business designed to make money. And that's all. 'Serious art' my ass... I guess someone actually believes on that bullshit.

Actually when rock acts started to get those 'awards' that was a sign that they were not any longer nothing but safe and sure entertainers. That of seeing The Beatles receiving one, oh god - now 'rock music' considered as a 'serious' form of music in field of established entertainment.... Could there ever been worse way to cut one's balls than that?

And the mentality of that being a big honor, oh shit...

- Doxa

Any of those award shows bore me ....
They all piss in each others pockets
and quote what are current agendas in the world zzzzzzzzz
Oh what a lovely person i am ....

A friend showed me the Beyonce Grammy speech .... oh the pain of it



ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN