Tell Me :
Talk
Ah, yeah. The George Martin band with musical director Yoko Ono.They managed to hook the teeny toddlers and then swept the housebound grannies.
It’s rare that I see a post here that i wish I’d written, but this is one.
Did you know the Beatles invented notes? It’s true, John once said to Paul “ what are you doing there? And Paul said I’ve invented this thing called a piano and when I touch the keys it makes a sound. I’m going to call them notes”
Yeah, so many strokes of sheer genius, decades ahead of their time. Little known fact: they anticipated Americana when John Lennon added steel guitar to "For You Blue". Just like that. Also, their use of studio equipment was nothing short of revolutionary. They introduced electricity to the recording process along with microphones, tape machines and the like. Let's not forget: before the Beatles invented stereo, everything had to be in oldfashioned, boring mono, before they came up with the groundbreaking idea of musicians writing their own music all singers had to rely on tunes and lyrics provided by people working in the Brill Building. These four Liverpudlians changed all that and so much more, in actual fact elevating puny pop to noble art. We are not worthy.
Hating a pop band? I guess in that case LIFE OF BRIAN is a showcase of Monty Python hating Jesus. Or ALL YOU NEED IS CASH is all about hating The Beatles.
It just happen that for Not True Believers certain myths and stories surrounding certain figures just do look a bit ridiculous.
But... All You Need Is Hate?
- Doxa
Success is the one reason.
And because the Beatles were the most selling artists in the 60's they can't escape this small phenomeon.
With the Rolling Stones they will remain as the biggest bristish act of the pop music history.
These two are History.
The other thing is people started to said inaccurate things about The Beatles, making the story more beautifil than it already is.
Confusing popularizing with creating, or at least missexpressing it.
Everything the Beatles did was nothing but huge in term of hype.
Part of the attibuted innovation was popularizing things already done but remained obscure before them.
Just being done by the Beatles put an heavy light on it.
And most of the time done with terrfic result.
To last, the legacy of an artist is also seen on how much influencal he has been on others.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-15 21:09 by ds1984.
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
True. They were stating how popular they were at the moment (as you know). They didn’t say they were the best. They didn’t put themselves there, the fans did.
Well I'm not sure I agree...I don't actually think they were more popular than Jesus at that moment in time, (maybe amongst fans aged 12-30?) so it's not like he was actually stating a fact.
I think there was a fair bit of braggadocio that went with that comment.
I guess we’ll never know. Just your assumption vs mine.
Just for the record, I have no problem whatsoever that he made the comment. And I would say that based on what you stated that Lennon was 'backpedalling' a bit when he saw the negative reaction (which was ridiculous).
But I would maintain that while there certainly was an element of truth to what he said, maybe not strictly speaking, he was also bragging. Can you imagine Mick saying well, we're more popular than Jesus now. Just wouldn't happen.
It was flippant more than anything, but he was a 20-something rock star. No different than Muhammed Ali's flippant behaviour which became almost universally adored. It's part of their makeup and I don't mind it at all.
wow, you hear so many story's over and over again, it's nice when there's something that you've never heard before. Thx for sharing that hairball.
Have you actually READ the full article/report in which John said what he said (it's with Maureen Cleave). I have a copy of the actual newspaper.
The fuss and bother about it in the USA was confected medial led nonsense led by under and misinformed slavish followers of unprincipled and amoral people.
In context it's a sensible and fully respectful comment.
He was pointing out the ridiculous nature of their following compared to the following of something worthwhile.
He was saying that it was intrinsically silly that a pop band could be more popular than a meaningful religion. I would say that's VERY respectful!
Captain Corella
I'm not sure what you're pontificating on about. I stand by what I said...here is an excerpt:
His enthusiasm is undiminished and he insists on its being shared. George has put him on to this Indian music. ‘You’re not listening, are you?’ he shouts after 20 minutes of the record. ‘It’s amazing this – so cool’ Don’t the Indians appear cool to you? Are you listening? This music is thousands of years old; it makes me laugh, the British going over there and telling them what to do. Quite amazing.’ And he switched on the television set.
Experience has sown few seeds of doubt in him: not that his mind is closed, but it’s closed round whatever he believes at the time. ‘Christianity will go,’ he said. ‘It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.’ He is reading extensively about religion.
He shops in lightning swoops on Asprey’s these days and there is some fine wine in his cellar, but he is still quite unselfconscious. He is far too lazy to keep up appearances, even if he had worked out what the appearances should be – which he has not.
[www.beatlesbible.com]
My assumption also...
Well as I've already stated and will reiterate, I also stand by John's comments and his right to state them, though if you don't think he was even slightly bragging, and that his intentions were exclusively honourable considering his opinions on organized religion then I'm not sure what to say.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT..The Beatles still amaze me
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: April 15, 2023 00:22
Quote
mkbbcmrQuote
jazzbass
When I think of the Beatles, I think of something so great, so influential, it borders on mythical. To watch a performance like the rooftop concert is to bear witness to greatness. A band so legendary and a moment so iconic, and fleeting, it's almost "Jesus-like". They were so huge that they transcended music and pop culture to mainstream, global, household name popularity.
Moreover, they invented music. On the 8th day they created Country & Western with "Act Naturally" (Ringo's idea - credit where it's due), then introduced Blues to the world by conceiving "Yer Blues" while casually pioneering Avantgarde with "Revolution 9". In quick succession they put Reggae, Heavy Metal and Psychedelia on the map, simply by dreaming up "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", "Helter Skelter" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". They designed a new instrument they called "sitar" to help the people on the Indian subcontinent to a more spiritual life. Furthermore the moptops thought up the concept of the evergreen ballad with "Yesterday" and discovered that children listen to music, too. How? Easy, kids responded favourably to "Yellow Submarine" (Ringo again!). Finally, they innovated the art of songwriting by designing three tunes so overwhelmingly sublime that billions of listeners worldwide found immediate and everlasting happiness. The three tunes? "All Together Now","Good Morning, Good Morning" and "Piggies". Alas, after only ten short years the Fabs were so far ahead of everybody else that they had to disband and call it a day, simply to give all their hopeless disciples a chance to catch up a bit. Fat chance.
Ah, yeah. The George Martin band with musical director Yoko Ono.They managed to hook the teeny toddlers and then swept the housebound grannies.
Re: OT..The Beatles still amaze me
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: April 15, 2023 09:22
Quote
mkbbcmrQuote
jazzbass
When I think of the Beatles, I think of something so great, so influential, it borders on mythical. To watch a performance like the rooftop concert is to bear witness to greatness. A band so legendary and a moment so iconic, and fleeting, it's almost "Jesus-like". They were so huge that they transcended music and pop culture to mainstream, global, household name popularity.
Moreover, they invented music. On the 8th day they created Country & Western with "Act Naturally" (Ringo's idea - credit where it's due), then introduced Blues to the world by conceiving "Yer Blues" while casually pioneering Avantgarde with "Revolution 9". In quick succession they put Reggae, Heavy Metal and Psychedelia on the map, simply by dreaming up "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", "Helter Skelter" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". They designed a new instrument they called "sitar" to help the people on the Indian subcontinent to a more spiritual life. Furthermore the moptops thought up the concept of the evergreen ballad with "Yesterday" and discovered that children listen to music, too. How? Easy, kids responded favourably to "Yellow Submarine" (Ringo again!). Finally, they innovated the art of songwriting by designing three tunes so overwhelmingly sublime that billions of listeners worldwide found immediate and everlasting happiness. The three tunes? "All Together Now","Good Morning, Good Morning" and "Piggies". Alas, after only ten short years the Fabs were so far ahead of everybody else that they had to disband and call it a day, simply to give all their hopeless disciples a chance to catch up a bit. Fat chance.
It’s rare that I see a post here that i wish I’d written, but this is one.
Did you know the Beatles invented notes? It’s true, John once said to Paul “ what are you doing there? And Paul said I’ve invented this thing called a piano and when I touch the keys it makes a sound. I’m going to call them notes”
Re: OT..The Beatles still amaze me
Posted by:
mkbbcmr
()
Date: April 15, 2023 11:20
Quote
lem motlowQuote
mkbbcmrQuote
jazzbass
When I think of the Beatles, I think of something so great, so influential, it borders on mythical. To watch a performance like the rooftop concert is to bear witness to greatness. A band so legendary and a moment so iconic, and fleeting, it's almost "Jesus-like". They were so huge that they transcended music and pop culture to mainstream, global, household name popularity.
Moreover, they invented music. On the 8th day they created Country & Western with "Act Naturally" (Ringo's idea - credit where it's due), then introduced Blues to the world by conceiving "Yer Blues" while casually pioneering Avantgarde with "Revolution 9". In quick succession they put Reggae, Heavy Metal and Psychedelia on the map, simply by dreaming up "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", "Helter Skelter" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". They designed a new instrument they called "sitar" to help the people on the Indian subcontinent to a more spiritual life. Furthermore the moptops thought up the concept of the evergreen ballad with "Yesterday" and discovered that children listen to music, too. How? Easy, kids responded favourably to "Yellow Submarine" (Ringo again!). Finally, they innovated the art of songwriting by designing three tunes so overwhelmingly sublime that billions of listeners worldwide found immediate and everlasting happiness. The three tunes? "All Together Now", "Good Morning, Good Morning" and "Piggies". Alas, after only ten short years the Fabs were so far ahead of everybody else that they had to disband and call it a day, simply to give all their hopeless disciples a chance to catch up a bit. Fat chance.
It’s rare that I see a post here that i wish I’d written, but this is one.
Did you know the Beatles invented notes? It’s true, John once said to Paul “what are you doing there? And Paul said I’ve invented this thing called a piano and when I touch the keys it makes a sound. I’m going to call them notes”.
Yeah, so many strokes of sheer genius, decades ahead of their time. Little known fact: they anticipated Americana when John Lennon added steel guitar to "For You Blue". Just like that. Also, their use of studio equipment was nothing short of revolutionary. They introduced electricity to the recording process along with microphones, tape machines and the like. Let's not forget: before the Beatles invented stereo, everything had to be in oldfashioned, boring mono, before they came up with the groundbreaking idea of musicians writing their own music all singers had to rely on tunes and lyrics provided by people working in the Brill Building. These four Liverpudlians changed all that and so much more, in actual fact elevating puny pop to noble art. We are not worthy.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 15, 2023 12:54
Excellent!!! You guys have recognized the true essence of the fine art and science of 'Beatlelogy', the biggest mythology of our times!
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 15, 2023 13:39
Beatles hating has taken a philosophical turn. I suppose that’s better than saying they’re just a bunch of stupid heads.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 15, 2023 13:59
Quote
frankotero
Beatles hating has taken a philosophical turn. I suppose that’s better than saying they’re just a bunch of stupid heads.
Hating a pop band? I guess in that case LIFE OF BRIAN is a showcase of Monty Python hating Jesus. Or ALL YOU NEED IS CASH is all about hating The Beatles.
It just happen that for Not True Believers certain myths and stories surrounding certain figures just do look a bit ridiculous.
But... All You Need Is Hate?
- Doxa
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 15, 2023 16:08
Hmm, I’m not sure why people believe The Beatles are over hyped. To my knowledge they’ve never displayed or said they’re above anyone else. Actually I think they’ve tried to down play the whole thing individually. On the other hand fans can be accused of having high praise for them, but we could say the same about us here. Myself included 
anyway I find the whole competition boring these days. Maybe I’m getting too old.
anyway I find the whole competition boring these days. Maybe I’m getting too old.Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 15, 2023 20:51
Michael Jordan. The Beatles.
Whenever something is considered the best, the others (second, third, etc.) often get somewhat neglected by the common fan. That, I think is the main issue. The “best,” is often praised disproportionately to those in the same ballpark. Of course, taste is subjective and that is the other main factor.
Thinking you cannot like one band because you like another seems ridiculously petty.
Whenever something is considered the best, the others (second, third, etc.) often get somewhat neglected by the common fan. That, I think is the main issue. The “best,” is often praised disproportionately to those in the same ballpark. Of course, taste is subjective and that is the other main factor.
Thinking you cannot like one band because you like another seems ridiculously petty.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 15, 2023 20:57
This is sure to be polarizing, but I like this Eleanor Rigby Beatles cover by the sons of Metallica’s Lars Ulrich:
[m.youtube.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-15 20:58 by NashvilleBlues.
[m.youtube.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-15 20:58 by NashvilleBlues.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: April 15, 2023 21:03
Quote
frankotero
Hmm, I’m not sure why people believe The Beatles are over hyped. To my knowledge they’ve never displayed or said they’re above anyone else. Actually I think they’ve tried to down play the whole thing individually. On the other hand fans can be accused of having high praise for them, but we could say the same about us here. Myself included
Success is the one reason.
And because the Beatles were the most selling artists in the 60's they can't escape this small phenomeon.
With the Rolling Stones they will remain as the biggest bristish act of the pop music history.
These two are History.
The other thing is people started to said inaccurate things about The Beatles, making the story more beautifil than it already is.
Confusing popularizing with creating, or at least missexpressing it.
Everything the Beatles did was nothing but huge in term of hype.
Part of the attibuted innovation was popularizing things already done but remained obscure before them.
Just being done by the Beatles put an heavy light on it.
And most of the time done with terrfic result.
To last, the legacy of an artist is also seen on how much influencal he has been on others.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-15 21:09 by ds1984.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 16, 2023 16:40
Quote
frankotero
Hmm, I’m not sure why people believe The Beatles are over hyped. To my knowledge they’ve never displayed or said they’re above anyone else. Actually I think they’ve tried to down play the whole thing individually. On the other hand fans can be accused of having high praise for them, but we could say the same about us here. Myself included
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 16, 2023 16:46
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
frankotero
Hmm, I’m not sure why people believe The Beatles are over hyped. To my knowledge they’ve never displayed or said they’re above anyone else. Actually I think they’ve tried to down play the whole thing individually. On the other hand fans can be accused of having high praise for them, but we could say the same about us here. Myself included
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
True. They were stating how popular they were at the moment (as you know). They didn’t say they were the best. They didn’t put themselves there, the fans did.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 16, 2023 17:06
Quote
NashvilleBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
frankotero
Hmm, I’m not sure why people believe The Beatles are over hyped. To my knowledge they’ve never displayed or said they’re above anyone else. Actually I think they’ve tried to down play the whole thing individually. On the other hand fans can be accused of having high praise for them, but we could say the same about us here. Myself included
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
True. They were stating how popular they were at the moment (as you know). They didn’t say they were the best. They didn’t put themselves there, the fans did.
Well I'm not sure I agree...I don't actually think they were more popular than Jesus at that moment in time, (maybe amongst fans aged 12-30?) so it's not like he was actually stating a fact.
I think there was a fair bit of braggadocio that went with that comment.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 16, 2023 17:15
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
frankotero
Hmm, I’m not sure why people believe The Beatles are over hyped. To my knowledge they’ve never displayed or said they’re above anyone else. Actually I think they’ve tried to down play the whole thing individually. On the other hand fans can be accused of having high praise for them, but we could say the same about us here. Myself included
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
True. They were stating how popular they were at the moment (as you know). They didn’t say they were the best. They didn’t put themselves there, the fans did.
Well I'm not sure I agree...I don't actually think they were more popular than Jesus at that moment in time, (maybe amongst fans aged 12-30?) so it's not like he was actually stating a fact.
I think there was a fair bit of braggadocio that went with that comment.
I guess we’ll never know. Just your assumption vs mine.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 16, 2023 17:20
An observation I would like to point out is when John was asked on video about that comment. He said he wasn't trying to compare them to Jesus, you could see the nervousness on his face. I guess that could be interpreted 2 ways also, but I saw an honest guy sorry about the fallout of a comment. Yes, we'll never know the truth. But actually this can be applied to most anything in life in my opinion. This is getting deep. Anyhow, hope I'm not upsetting anyone for what it's worth. Just a conversation between fans about something they love.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 16, 2023 17:47
Quote
frankotero
An observation I would like to point out is when John was asked on video about that comment. He said he wasn't trying to compare them to Jesus, you could see the nervousness on his face. I guess that could be interpreted 2 ways also, but I saw an honest guy sorry about the fallout of a comment. Yes, we'll never know the truth. But actually this can be applied to most anything in life in my opinion. This is getting deep. Anyhow, hope I'm not upsetting anyone for what it's worth. Just a conversation between fans about something they love.
Just for the record, I have no problem whatsoever that he made the comment. And I would say that based on what you stated that Lennon was 'backpedalling' a bit when he saw the negative reaction (which was ridiculous).
But I would maintain that while there certainly was an element of truth to what he said, maybe not strictly speaking, he was also bragging. Can you imagine Mick saying well, we're more popular than Jesus now. Just wouldn't happen.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 16, 2023 17:57
Your right treacle. Mick surely wouldn't say that. I'm also sure John was very proud about how successful The Beatles became, not a bad thing. Also I believe we have to understand these were unchartered territories back then. I think it's easy to forget that. We're living in very different times and it changes us. I think so anyway.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 16, 2023 19:13
Quote
frankotero
Your right treacle. Mick surely wouldn't say that. I'm also sure John was very proud about how successful The Beatles became, not a bad thing. Also I believe we have to understand these were unchartered territories back then. I think it's easy to forget that. We're living in very different times and it changes us. I think so anyway.
It was flippant more than anything, but he was a 20-something rock star. No different than Muhammed Ali's flippant behaviour which became almost universally adored. It's part of their makeup and I don't mind it at all.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 16, 2023 19:25
I'm really happy to be able to know both sides of this. It's a luxury I don't take lightly. Personally I think some things/people were more innocent back then. However, I can be wrong as well. We can never be certain, is my opinion.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 16, 2023 21:21
Quote
frankotero
I'm really happy to be able to know both sides of this. It's a luxury I don't take lightly. Personally I think some things/people were more innocent back then. However, I can be wrong as well. We can never be certain, is my opinion.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 16, 2023 23:22
The Beatles' Ringo Starr and John Lennon tried and failed to move to Texas
The Beatles musicians had already started looking at jobs to go to the United States of America - but were met with a problem.
BEATLES
Just a few years before The Beatles became a worldwide phenomenon, they were all looking for a way out of Liverpool, England. Each of the stars - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr - were working-class lads from the city, and were no doubt looking for a better life. So in 1959, Ringo and John decided to cross the pond to kickstart the next step of their lives.
In 1959 - just before The Beatles had been formed proper in 1960 - Ringo was good friends with John, but had not yet become part of his band. At the time, Pete Best was the drummer for The Quarrymen, the group that preceded the Fab Four. Ringo was interviewed by You and I recently where he explained his love for blues music had him hunting for another life in America. "I love the blues,” he said. “Everybody should know by now. When I was 19, I tried to emigrate to Houston, Texas. I wanted to be where Lightnin’ Hopkins was, my all-time favourite blues player." The drummer explained he and John even got their passports in order and went to get the paperwork started. "John and I went down to the embassy and filled in all these forms," he said. "You know, we were just teenagers then." Ringo explained how they had even worked out how to make a living once they landed. "We even had a list of factories where we wanted to apply for jobs because I was working in a factory at the time," Ringo said.
Years later, of course, The Beatles, would go on to conquer America. Thousands of fans would arrive at their plane hours in advance just to catch a glimpse of the four lads from Liverpool. But, at the time, they struggled to even get through the door into the USA. Ringo went on: "But then, when we went back to the embassy, we were given more paperwork with more questions. We then turned back into teenagers and just ripped them up. Sod it!" He added: "That would have been an interesting move if I’d have done that."
Of course, just a year later, The Beatles were formed. John was instrumental in writing some of the band's biggest tracks alongside his best friend, Paul, which got them a lot of much-needed exposure. Two years after that, in 1962, The Beatles had been signed by their manager, Brian Epstein. And he felt as if they needed a different kind of drum playing in the group. As a result, Epstein sacked the band's drummer, Pete Best, and the Fab Three went on the hunt for their drummer. Naturally, John's head was turned to Ringo, who was playing music in the Liverpool scene at the time. From then on, the band were inseparable. And two years after that, on February 7, 1964, The Beatles made their debut in America, where Beatlemania awaited them at the airport.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
The Beatles musicians had already started looking at jobs to go to the United States of America - but were met with a problem.
BEATLES
Just a few years before The Beatles became a worldwide phenomenon, they were all looking for a way out of Liverpool, England. Each of the stars - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr - were working-class lads from the city, and were no doubt looking for a better life. So in 1959, Ringo and John decided to cross the pond to kickstart the next step of their lives.
In 1959 - just before The Beatles had been formed proper in 1960 - Ringo was good friends with John, but had not yet become part of his band. At the time, Pete Best was the drummer for The Quarrymen, the group that preceded the Fab Four. Ringo was interviewed by You and I recently where he explained his love for blues music had him hunting for another life in America. "I love the blues,” he said. “Everybody should know by now. When I was 19, I tried to emigrate to Houston, Texas. I wanted to be where Lightnin’ Hopkins was, my all-time favourite blues player." The drummer explained he and John even got their passports in order and went to get the paperwork started. "John and I went down to the embassy and filled in all these forms," he said. "You know, we were just teenagers then." Ringo explained how they had even worked out how to make a living once they landed. "We even had a list of factories where we wanted to apply for jobs because I was working in a factory at the time," Ringo said.
Years later, of course, The Beatles, would go on to conquer America. Thousands of fans would arrive at their plane hours in advance just to catch a glimpse of the four lads from Liverpool. But, at the time, they struggled to even get through the door into the USA. Ringo went on: "But then, when we went back to the embassy, we were given more paperwork with more questions. We then turned back into teenagers and just ripped them up. Sod it!" He added: "That would have been an interesting move if I’d have done that."
Of course, just a year later, The Beatles were formed. John was instrumental in writing some of the band's biggest tracks alongside his best friend, Paul, which got them a lot of much-needed exposure. Two years after that, in 1962, The Beatles had been signed by their manager, Brian Epstein. And he felt as if they needed a different kind of drum playing in the group. As a result, Epstein sacked the band's drummer, Pete Best, and the Fab Three went on the hunt for their drummer. Naturally, John's head was turned to Ringo, who was playing music in the Liverpool scene at the time. From then on, the band were inseparable. And two years after that, on February 7, 1964, The Beatles made their debut in America, where Beatlemania awaited them at the airport.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 16, 2023 23:44
Quote
Hairball
The Beatles' Ringo Starr and John Lennon tried and failed to move to Texas
The Beatles musicians had already started looking at jobs to go to the United States of America - but were met with a problem.
BEATLES
Just a few years before The Beatles became a worldwide phenomenon, they were all looking for a way out of Liverpool, England. Each of the stars - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr - were working-class lads from the city, and were no doubt looking for a better life. So in 1959, Ringo and John decided to cross the pond to kickstart the next step of their lives.
In 1959 - just before The Beatles had been formed proper in 1960 - Ringo was good friends with John, but had not yet become part of his band. At the time, Pete Best was the drummer for The Quarrymen, the group that preceded the Fab Four. Ringo was interviewed by You and I recently where he explained his love for blues music had him hunting for another life in America. "I love the blues,” he said. “Everybody should know by now. When I was 19, I tried to emigrate to Houston, Texas. I wanted to be where Lightnin’ Hopkins was, my all-time favourite blues player." The drummer explained he and John even got their passports in order and went to get the paperwork started. "John and I went down to the embassy and filled in all these forms," he said. "You know, we were just teenagers then." Ringo explained how they had even worked out how to make a living once they landed. "We even had a list of factories where we wanted to apply for jobs because I was working in a factory at the time," Ringo said.
Years later, of course, The Beatles, would go on to conquer America. Thousands of fans would arrive at their plane hours in advance just to catch a glimpse of the four lads from Liverpool. But, at the time, they struggled to even get through the door into the USA. Ringo went on: "But then, when we went back to the embassy, we were given more paperwork with more questions. We then turned back into teenagers and just ripped them up. Sod it!" He added: "That would have been an interesting move if I’d have done that."
Of course, just a year later, The Beatles were formed. John was instrumental in writing some of the band's biggest tracks alongside his best friend, Paul, which got them a lot of much-needed exposure. Two years after that, in 1962, The Beatles had been signed by their manager, Brian Epstein. And he felt as if they needed a different kind of drum playing in the group. As a result, Epstein sacked the band's drummer, Pete Best, and the Fab Three went on the hunt for their drummer. Naturally, John's head was turned to Ringo, who was playing music in the Liverpool scene at the time. From then on, the band were inseparable. And two years after that, on February 7, 1964, The Beatles made their debut in America, where Beatlemania awaited them at the airport.
wow, you hear so many story's over and over again, it's nice when there's something that you've never heard before. Thx for sharing that hairball.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: April 17, 2023 01:24
Quote
treaclefingers
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
Have you actually READ the full article/report in which John said what he said (it's with Maureen Cleave). I have a copy of the actual newspaper.
The fuss and bother about it in the USA was confected medial led nonsense led by under and misinformed slavish followers of unprincipled and amoral people.
In context it's a sensible and fully respectful comment.
He was pointing out the ridiculous nature of their following compared to the following of something worthwhile.
He was saying that it was intrinsically silly that a pop band could be more popular than a meaningful religion. I would say that's VERY respectful!
Captain Corella
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 17, 2023 02:56
Thank you CaptainCorella. I didn't know about that full interview with John. Those were some special and interesting times in history. Though it's been talked to death about, I can't imagine what those 4 guys lived through. George said the fans gave all their money and screams but the band gave their nervous systems. I think he was being generous when he might of wanted to say more.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 17, 2023 17:41
Quote
CaptainCorellaQuote
treaclefingers
The "We're more popular than Jesus now" comment notwithstanding.
Have you actually READ the full article/report in which John said what he said (it's with Maureen Cleave). I have a copy of the actual newspaper.
The fuss and bother about it in the USA was confected medial led nonsense led by under and misinformed slavish followers of unprincipled and amoral people.
In context it's a sensible and fully respectful comment.
He was pointing out the ridiculous nature of their following compared to the following of something worthwhile.
He was saying that it was intrinsically silly that a pop band could be more popular than a meaningful religion. I would say that's VERY respectful!
I'm not sure what you're pontificating on about. I stand by what I said...here is an excerpt:
His enthusiasm is undiminished and he insists on its being shared. George has put him on to this Indian music. ‘You’re not listening, are you?’ he shouts after 20 minutes of the record. ‘It’s amazing this – so cool’ Don’t the Indians appear cool to you? Are you listening? This music is thousands of years old; it makes me laugh, the British going over there and telling them what to do. Quite amazing.’ And he switched on the television set.
Experience has sown few seeds of doubt in him: not that his mind is closed, but it’s closed round whatever he believes at the time. ‘Christianity will go,’ he said. ‘It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.’ He is reading extensively about religion.
He shops in lightning swoops on Asprey’s these days and there is some fine wine in his cellar, but he is still quite unselfconscious. He is far too lazy to keep up appearances, even if he had worked out what the appearances should be – which he has not.
[www.beatlesbible.com]
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 17, 2023 20:30
It always sounded to me like was commenting on the downfall of Christianity vs. the current elevated popularity of rock and roll in general, and never came across that he was "bragging" about the Beatles.
He then apologized by stating he didn't intend to offend, and maye have chosen his words poorly. Ultimately, he clarified what he initially meant to say - that rock and roll was more popular than Christianity.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
He then apologized by stating he didn't intend to offend, and maye have chosen his words poorly. Ultimately, he clarified what he initially meant to say - that rock and roll was more popular than Christianity.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 17, 2023 20:35
Quote
Hairball
It always sounded to me like was commenting on the downfall of Christianity vs. the current elevated popularity of rock and roll in general, and never came across that he was "bragging" about the Beatles.
He then apologized by stating he didn't intend to offend, and maye have chosen his words poorly. Ultimately, he clarified what he initially meant to say - that rock and roll was more popular than Christianity.
My assumption also...
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 17, 2023 21:58
At the risk of further "thumping" for John I truly believe his intentions/thoughts were honorable. It's cliche but I stand by John Lennon.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 17, 2023 22:20
Quote
frankotero
At the risk of further "thumping" for John I truly believe his intentions/thoughts were honorable. It's cliche but I stand by John Lennon.
Well as I've already stated and will reiterate, I also stand by John's comments and his right to state them, though if you don't think he was even slightly bragging, and that his intentions were exclusively honourable considering his opinions on organized religion then I'm not sure what to say.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 17, 2023 23:06
treacle, I like you and enjoy reading your posts. Think we're not going to completely agree on this, I'm okay with your opinion/thoughts. Hope you are good with mine. You raise some good points for sure. Again, I think it's impossible to completely know the truth. But we got to make a stand somewhere/sometime.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
blivet , Britney , chpoutre , exilestones , georgelicks , MadMetaphoricalMax , micha063 , PaintMonkeyManBlack , spain73 , spunky , StonesSmeth99 , styrianstones , TW2019 , wachterc , walkingthedog , WelshEdge1 , Wolfgang
Guests:
1098
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10