For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
Quote
Rockman
Of course Crosby would say that .....
They were suckin' on similar lolly-pop ...
Neither of 'em have the blues grind the Stones have ...
Quote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
We're on different pages here, but disagreement is fine.Your posted definition of propaganda is completely in line with my take on the article. Music is subjective
but this article is focused on all the stuff that builds the myth, and it's myth that elevates the Beatles more than their music. Propaganda for sure.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
We're on different pages here, but disagreement is fine.Your posted definition of propaganda is completely in line with my take on the article. Music is subjective
but this article is focused on all the stuff that builds the myth, and it's myth that elevates the Beatles more than their music. Propaganda for sure.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but agree to disagree!
Quote
coffeepotman
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
coffeepotman
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Thanks! My regret in the discussion was using the word "spouting" which was unkind and did nothing to further my point, so I apologize unreservedly to MKjan for that.
Quote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
coffeepotman
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Thanks! My regret in the discussion was using the word "spouting" which was unkind and did nothing to further my point, so I apologize unreservedly to MKjan for that.
No offense taken Treacle,
and thanks for your comment coffeepot man.
Quote
lem motlow
That “the Beatles had a wider group of influences” is laughable.
Ok, early rock and roll- check
Blues- 1 song and it’s the worst piece of feces I’ve ever heard.Lennons voice is sufficiently tortured but it sounds like amateur musicians playing.
If that was your “Blues playing “ you couldn’t be the warm up act at a local barbecue joint.
Country-Ringo singing “they’re gonna put me in the movies”? If you listen how the Stones melded the entire genre into their sound,Country Honk/ Honky Tonk Women, please,it’s just so far beyond that cutesy pop bullshit.
Reggae-oops you guys didn’t exist then.
Punk-nope, been gone for years by then too
Dance/funk/disco- nothing there
Jazz-anything? we had a jazz drummer for about 60 years so…..do the bugs have a jazz influenced piece of music I can compare to the second half of CYHMK?
WTF are we talking about then? vaudeville? show tunes, opera?
again GTFOH
Quote
ds1984
Being a Beatle wasn't fun anymore in 1966.
Quote
24FPS
I could have fun seeing an Elvis impersonator. For some reason it feels sad to see a 'Fab Four'. There's some Will Lee group that does Beatle songs live that we never got to hear on stage. They don't pretend to be 'Beatles'. Jeff Beck performing A Day In The Life was amazing. Seeing a Fab Four feels like being on a discount cruise ship.