Quote
ab
I get the sense that Lennon was a bit of an arse.

He was a Scouser! They can be very bitchy!

Yeah, The Beatles were consistently outselling most bands who were making new music in the 70s. The Red and Blue album greatest hits was huge. Their catalog was selling millions during the 70's.

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, The Beatles were consistently outselling most bands who were making new music in the 70s. The Red and Blue album greatest hits was huge. Their catalog was selling millions during the 70's.

The ongoing need for certain stones fans to put down the Beatles is mystifying...it's kind of like lacking self esteem.

I bet it would embarrass the hell out of Mick and Keith.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
Totally disagree lem motlow, I don't even feel the need to explain it

Me too...I wonder if lem was born after the 70s...doesn't sound as though he was there. Anyway, a very weak attempt at revisionist history.

The solo Beatles were ALL OVER the charts throughout the 70s, John's 5 year hiatus notwithstanding.

Didn't the Beatles even chart a top ten single with Got To Get You Into My Life in 76...ten years AFTER it was originally released on Revolver?

I'm willing to bet the Beatles catalogue, and solo stuff far outsold the Stones during the 70s.

Doesn't sound like a band people forgot about or left behind.

I was born in '65, so I came of age musically just after the Beatles broke up, but they were EVERYWHERE in the '70s - the solo work...the Red & Blue albums...the "Rock 'n' Roll Music" double album in '76 (when 'Got To Get You Into My Life' charted)...Paul's Wings Over America tour (huge)...even the "Beatlemania" musical. And most prevalent of all was the constant speculation of a reunion...dating all the way back to the "Ringo" album in '73, where the other three Beatles had guest spots. They never left the scene.

Maxtil..I get it... no harm no foul. His humor is edgy and not for everyone.

Quote
stonehearted
Lennon also commented later on that he wanted to re-record every song The Beatles had ever made, which was a comment on what he felt was George Martin's excessive production. Martin reveals that he was taken aback by this.

“I said to John, ‘I can’t believe that. Think of all we’ve done, and you want to re-record everything?’ He said, ‘Yeah, everything.’ And I said, ‘What about Strawberry Fields?’ He looked at me and said, ‘Especially Strawberry Fields.’

“I was very disappointed with that. If he felt that way about it, he should have recorded the bloody thing himself.”

I kind of agree with Lennon on this one. George Martin was overated! Some of their production is terrible!

I also sense that Lennon, at times, wanted to be in a real Rock n Roll band like the Stones!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, The Beatles were consistently outselling most bands who were making new music in the 70s. The Red and Blue album greatest hits was huge. Their catalog was selling millions during the 70's.

The ongoing need for certain stones fans to put down the Beatles is mystifying...it's kind of like lacking self esteem.

I bet it would embarrass the hell out of Mick and Keith.

Yeah it is a bit of a joke really. How vehement these so called Stones super fans are is really quite humorous. They actually betray their lack of knowledge about The Stones, and show how rigid thinking is. But now it is just kind of like a parody the more they heap their teenage behavior on this board.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, The Beatles were consistently outselling most bands who were making new music in the 70s. The Red and Blue album greatest hits was huge. Their catalog was selling millions during the 70's.

The ongoing need for certain stones fans to put down the Beatles is mystifying...it's kind of like lacking self esteem.

I bet it would embarrass the hell out of Mick and Keith.

Yeah it is a bit of a joke really. How vehement these so called Stones super fans are is really quite humorous. They actually betray their lack of knowledge about The Stones, and show how rigid thinking is. But now it is just kind of like a parody the more they heap their teenage behavior on this board.

Like I mentioned in a previous thread, since there is a Beatles-related topic here the usual suspects have shown up in this thread to toss their anti-Beatles litter about. We're talking about compulsive behavior here, something pathological. They literally cannot get on with their day unless they let everyone else know how much they don't like the number 1 band of all time, just because their own favorite band is forever number 2 as a result. If The Beatles were the number 3 band of all time, these usual suspects wouldn't bother--they would then simply vent their resentment for another hypothetical number 1 of all time.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Lennon was nothing without Paul. His solo records show that. Junk.

You may not like Lennon and be more of a McCartney fan, but to label all of Lennon's solo work as junk? That is ridiculous.

Tons of amazing material. I like them both. But Lennon's Plastic Ono Band was a groundbreaking rock n' roll album. Beautiful, and far superior to McCartney. I do like McCartney, but those two albums are in different leagues. McCartney and Lennon complimented each other perfectly. And brought out the best in each other supplementing each other's strengths. McCartney rocked, Lennon Rocked, yet what is interesting is McCartney being known as a ballad sentimental guy and Lennon the hard one, but some of McCartney's best songs are his rockers, and some of Lennon's most profound are his sensitive ballad type songs. Julia, Love, Jealous Guy, Aisumasen (I'm Sorry) (with arguably one of the best guitar solos on a Lennon solo disc) are stunning beautifully touching songs. And of course Imagine. Well I guess I like them both and love both their solo careers. Oh, and Walls and Bridges! Another favorite of mine. Gritty New York funk, what Double Fantasy should have been.

Did you actually just say that "Aisumasen (I'm Sorry)" is a good song?!?! Really?! Easily one of the top 10 worst songs he ever wrote; embarrassingly pandering, self-conscious and awkward. Mind Games is one of the worst albums ever made, barely a notch above the abysmal, utterly devoid of value Some Time In New York City.

Quote
Come On
So this went to Lennon vs McCartney..

I guess you can dig 'Silly Love Songs'....I prefer songs like 'Well Well Well' everytime...

You prefer unfinished jams that go on for 7 minutes over well-crafted songs? To each their own.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Lennon was nothing without Paul. His solo records show that. Junk.

Junk? Lennons first solo album is regarded as one of the best albums ever recorded. It is without a doubt the best solo Beatle album. It's highly influential.

Absolutely, unequivocally false. Plastic Ono Band stinks. A sacred cow I gleefully piss on because it's yawnsville ALL the way. So boring and monochromatic. "Mother," "Isolation" and "Love" are each alright at best and the rest is so spare and goes nowhere. His voice sucked after The Beatles, too. Paul wiped the FLOOR with John in the 70s. It may be hip to say otherwise but I prefer to think for myself instead of buying into the John/Jann (Wenner, that is)-created propaganda. John wrote ONE masterpiece after The Beatles and that was "#9 Dream." Paul on the other hand made Ram which is so utterly better than any John solo album that its laughable. McCartney, too. John talked so much shit about Paul not being "honest" and would say utterly baseless stuff like "I was getting to the nitty gritty as usual" when there are hoards of songs like "Dig A Pony," "Bungalow Bill," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields," "Walrus," "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" that do nothing of the sort. His best lyrics IMHO were the so-called stream-of-conscious word painting ones like "Walrus" that sounded cool because of their phonetics, not their meaning. He did stuff like that in his Beatles songs ALL. THE. TIME. For him to say otherwise throughout the 70s to sycophant Jann Wenner doesn't make it true. His solo career is abysmal. Imagine sucks really hard, too. Terrible album, Hallmark card-level song. 3 good songs on it (like its predecessor): "How?," "Oh! Yoko" and "Oh, My Love." The rest you can throw in the garbage. Paul's production was way better than John's throughout the 70s too and guess who produced his records? Paul himself. Guess who played more than 1/3 of The Beatles' guitar solos on their recordings? Paul. Who wrote the arrangement for "Tomorrow Never Knows" and personally chopped up all the tape loops himself? Paul. Who wrote almost half of all The Beatles' drum parts? Paul. Who kept writing fantastic, jaw droppingly complex vocal harmony arrangements all throughout the rest of his career? Paul. John, on the other hand, stopped using them almost entirely. Why were The Beatles great? They were FUN and had great HARMONIES. Who made fun music and didn't give a shit if you liked it or not? Paul. Who was genuinely the experimental Beatle as opposed to putting on those heirs to impress a new girlfriend? Paul (again, "Tomorrow Never Knows" was HIS arrangement and would be so boring just droning on in C if it didn't have it). Who made weird ass albums full of experimentation and maybe one very commercial single that got people to buy the otherwise very adventurous album (I'm talking about Wild Life, Red Rose Speedway, McCartney and McCartney II here)? Yup, Paul. To say that Paul needed John as much as the other way around is to be more a fan of the written word than the musical note. I choose the musical note every time. Ram, not Plastic Ono Band, is by far the best Beatles solo album, but the top 10 would all be by Paul (All Things Must Pass is overrated and patchy but would probably make the top 15).

Quote
Elmo Lewis

Quote
tatters

Quote
Come On
mmm and McCartney's 'London Town' or Harrison's 'Extra Texture must be examples of the worst ones...

There's loads of 'em that are so much worse .... depressingly enough.

McCartney II, for example. "Temporary Secretary", anyone?

That album and song are fantastic! Both album and song sound very contemporary right now; I couldn't tell you how many people I've shocked to their core with that specific song. They're always amazed that it's Paul, and they ALWAYS love it and think it sounds like an indie artist from the past 10 or 15 years. It's great. I absolutely love it, and ironically enough, so did John. McCartney II was one of only two albums Paul made while John was still alive that John loved with a passion.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
tatters

Quote
slew
Gee Lennon picked those and left Revolution 9 off the list. That is pure CRAP!

Funny how he said that "Let It Be" had nothing to do with the Beatles. Revolution 9 really had nothing to do with the Beatles!

Actaully they both do: Rev. 9 is the best piece of avantarde music by anyone and could have been a solo work on and Let it be is the worst ballad ever written and could have been a solo work.

"Let It Be" is the worst ballad ever written?!?! Right, that's why everyone at Paul's Outside Lands show here in SF were absolutely flipping out when he played it. Because it's so bad. You probably don't like "Hey Jude," either. Bizarre. I've never met ANYONE in my entire life who doesn't like "Let It Be." It's very powerful.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
ab
I get the sense that Lennon was a bit of an arse.

I think the word jerk best describes him.. A total Narcissist and a bore.

And what a surprise, he constantly wrote songs only about himself and his relationship with his wife and second child. I have never see anyone do this before. Narcissist .

Lennon was a great song writer, but I have to question the judgment of anyone who admires the person.

Agreed. I'd only add that Lennon was a great songwriter (one of my three or four favorite ever!) up through 1969.

Quote
CanYouHearTheMusic

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Lennon was nothing without Paul. His solo records show that. Junk.

Junk? Lennons first solo album is regarded as one of the best albums ever recorded. It is without a doubt the best solo Beatle album. It's highly influential.

Absolutely, unequivocally false. Plastic Ono Band stinks. A sacred cow I gleefully piss on because it's yawnsville ALL the way. So boring and monochromatic. "Mother," "Isolation" and "Love" are each alright at best and the rest is so spare and goes nowhere. His voice sucked after The Beatles, too. Paul wiped the FLOOR with John in the 70s. It may be hip to say otherwise but I prefer to think for myself instead of buying into the John/Jann (Wenner, that is)-created propaganda. John wrote ONE masterpiece after The Beatles and that was "#9 Dream." Paul on the other hand made Ram which is so utterly better than any John solo album that its laughable. McCartney, too. John talked so much shit about Paul not being "honest" and would say utterly baseless stuff like "I was getting to the nitty gritty as usual" when there are hoards of songs like "Dig A Pony," "Bungalow Bill," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields," "Walrus," "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" that do nothing of the sort. His best lyrics IMHO were the so-called stream-of-conscious word painting ones like "Walrus" that sounded cool because of their phonetics, not their meaning. He did stuff like that in his Beatles songs ALL. THE. TIME. For him to say otherwise throughout the 70s to sycophant Jann Wenner doesn't make it true. His solo career is abysmal. Imagine sucks really hard, too. Terrible album, Hallmark card-level song. 3 good songs on it (like its predecessor): "How?," "Oh! Yoko" and "Oh, My Love." The rest you can throw in the garbage. Paul's production was way better than John's throughout the 70s too and guess who produced his records? Paul himself. Guess who played more than 1/3 of The Beatles' guitar solos on their recordings? Paul. Who wrote the arrangement for "Tomorrow Never Knows" and personally chopped up all the tape loops himself? Paul. Who wrote almost half of all The Beatles' drum parts? Paul. Who kept writing fantastic, jaw droppingly complex vocal harmony arrangements all throughout the rest of his career? Paul. John, on the other hand, stopped using them almost entirely. Why were The Beatles great? They were FUN and had great HARMONIES. Who made fun music and didn't give a shit if you liked it or not? Paul. Who was genuinely the experimental Beatle as opposed to putting on those heirs to impress a new girlfriend? Paul (again, "Tomorrow Never Knows" was HIS arrangement and would be so boring just droning on in C if it didn't have it). Who made weird ass albums full of experimentation and maybe one very commercial single that got people to buy the otherwise very adventurous album (I'm talking about Wild Life, Red Rose Speedway, McCartney and McCartney II here)? Yup, Paul. To say that Paul needed John as much as the other way around is to be more a fan of the written word than the musical note. I choose the musical note every time. Ram, not Plastic Ono Band, is by far the best Beatles solo album, but the top 10 would all be by Paul (All Things Must Pass is overrated and patchy but would probably make the top 15).

Well My Sweet Lord that was a long rant.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
CanYouHearTheMusic

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Lennon was nothing without Paul. His solo records show that. Junk.

Junk? Lennons first solo album is regarded as one of the best albums ever recorded. It is without a doubt the best solo Beatle album. It's highly influential.

Absolutely, unequivocally false. Plastic Ono Band stinks. A sacred cow I gleefully piss on because it's yawnsville ALL the way. So boring and monochromatic. "Mother," "Isolation" and "Love" are each alright at best and the rest is so spare and goes nowhere. His voice sucked after The Beatles, too. Paul wiped the FLOOR with John in the 70s. It may be hip to say otherwise but I prefer to think for myself instead of buying into the John/Jann (Wenner, that is)-created propaganda. John wrote ONE masterpiece after The Beatles and that was "#9 Dream." Paul on the other hand made Ram which is so utterly better than any John solo album that its laughable. McCartney, too. John talked so much shit about Paul not being "honest" and would say utterly baseless stuff like "I was getting to the nitty gritty as usual" when there are hoards of songs like "Dig A Pony," "Bungalow Bill," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields," "Walrus," "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" that do nothing of the sort. His best lyrics IMHO were the so-called stream-of-conscious word painting ones like "Walrus" that sounded cool because of their phonetics, not their meaning. He did stuff like that in his Beatles songs ALL. THE. TIME. For him to say otherwise throughout the 70s to sycophant Jann Wenner doesn't make it true. His solo career is abysmal. Imagine sucks really hard, too. Terrible album, Hallmark card-level song. 3 good songs on it (like its predecessor): "How?," "Oh! Yoko" and "Oh, My Love." The rest you can throw in the garbage. Paul's production was way better than John's throughout the 70s too and guess who produced his records? Paul himself. Guess who played more than 1/3 of The Beatles' guitar solos on their recordings? Paul. Who wrote the arrangement for "Tomorrow Never Knows" and personally chopped up all the tape loops himself? Paul. Who wrote almost half of all The Beatles' drum parts? Paul. Who kept writing fantastic, jaw droppingly complex vocal harmony arrangements all throughout the rest of his career? Paul. John, on the other hand, stopped using them almost entirely. Why were The Beatles great? They were FUN and had great HARMONIES. Who made fun music and didn't give a shit if you liked it or not? Paul. Who was genuinely the experimental Beatle as opposed to putting on those heirs to impress a new girlfriend? Paul (again, "Tomorrow Never Knows" was HIS arrangement and would be so boring just droning on in C if it didn't have it). Who made weird ass albums full of experimentation and maybe one very commercial single that got people to buy the otherwise very adventurous album (I'm talking about Wild Life, Red Rose Speedway, McCartney and McCartney II here)? Yup, Paul. To say that Paul needed John as much as the other way around is to be more a fan of the written word than the musical note. I choose the musical note every time. Ram, not Plastic Ono Band, is by far the best Beatles solo album, but the top 10 would all be by Paul (All Things Must Pass is overrated and patchy but would probably make the top 15).

Well My Sweet Lord that was a long rant.

Yeah, I was kinda in a ranting mood . . .

I wonder what 18 Beatles songs John Lennon loved?

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

Imagine It might stop at ' All you need is love ' ...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Hairball
I wonder what 18 Beatles songs John Lennon loved?

I don't think John was one to hand out praise easily but from various interviews I've read, he seemed to think these were ok

Got To Get You Into My Life.

Help.

I Want To Hold Your Hand.

Strawberry Fields.

Eleanor Rigby.

and more



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-17 09:54 by howled.

Never noticed JL actually, personally, admitted he was a serial women beater which is what drove him into preaching exactly for the opposite. Makes him look better (obviously it was common knowledge that who he was, but I didn't know he openly talked about it) and some of his more "emotionally driven" female worshipers look rather bad (as a self redeemed woman beater might be seen as some sort of hero in terms of being re born, but definitely not the sugar honey romantic sweetheart some women see him as...).

Quote
Come On
Imagine It might stop at ' All you need is love ' ...

good one Come On...that almost belongs in the quip thread.

Personally I don't have anything against the Beatles. They were innovators in lots of ways, and one of the best pop bands ever. But this glorification of Lennon has always mistified me. He was talented, but the real big talent was clearly McCartney (Yesterday, Hey Jude, Let it Be). That's okay as is, but clearly Lennon was jealous of that and felt the need to put McCartney down. Same as his comments about the Stones. Obviously, as songwriters Jagger&Richards were not so innovative, harmonically and melodically, as the Beatles. They were fine, better than most, but not on the level of Lennon/McCartney. On the other hand, the Stones were/are about something else: about that groove, based on Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, soul, etc... Clearly, in that sense the Beatles were not so great (only Beatles fans would say that Helter Skelter is a great rock song, it clearly isn't). No problem, so we have one great pop band and one great groove band. But again, Lennon couldn't leave that alone and had to go on criticising them. That constant whining, and his holier-than-thou preaching, without looking at his own defects (ironically, Imagine ("living life in peace" ) is on the same album as "How Do You Sleep" ), makes that he rather annoys me. Still, if I believed in an afterlife, I would have wished that he may rest in peace.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Come On
Imagine It might stop at ' All you need is love ' ...

good one Come On...that almost belongs in the quip thread.

which I understand nothin' of...

Quote
matxil
Personally I don't have anything against the Beatles. They were innovators in lots of ways, and one of the best pop bands ever. But this glorification of Lennon has always mistified me. He was talented, but the real big talent was clearly McCartney (Yesterday, Hey Jude, Let it Be). That's okay as is, but clearly Lennon was jealous of that and felt the need to put McCartney down. Same as his comments about the Stones. Obviously, as songwriters Jagger&Richards were not so innovative, harmonically and melodically, as the Beatles. They were fine, better than most, but not on the level of Lennon/McCartney. On the other hand, the Stones were/are about something else: about that groove, based on Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, soul, etc... Clearly, in that sense the Beatles were not so great (only Beatles fans would say that Helter Skelter is a great rock song, it clearly isn't). No problem, so we have one great pop band and one great groove band. But again, Lennon couldn't leave that alone and had to go on criticising them. That constant whining, and his holier-than-thou preaching, without looking at his own defects (ironically, Imagine ("living life in peace" ) is on the same album as "How Do You Sleep" ), makes that he rather annoys me. Still, if I believed in an afterlife, I would have wished that he may rest in peace.

The glorification of Lennon over McCartney is kind of the same thing as the Beatles over the Stones(and I have no problem saying they're number 1). There's a romanticism about going out while you're relatively young and not growing old. The Beatles were done before their 30s, Lennon before his 50s. But, when you consider the Stones and Paul, in the back of your minds are their older years when they obviously weren't at their peaks anymore.

treacle,did you just say you thought i was born "after the 70's??"
i was not only there,i saw EVERYTHING, and i dont"hate" the beatles.
class is now in session-

the biggest thing in the 1970s was not "selling records" that was only half of it.the 1970s is when the modern rock and roll tour was born.

this was an age of monster rock and roll acts putting out albums that to call legendary is an understatement and doing tours that will live in infamy-

from wiki-the LED ZEPPELIN 1970 TOUR
"it was their highest grossing tour to date.with the rolling stones off the road[in the states]only THE WHO could now compete with led zeppelin for the title of the worlds top concert attraction.the band were widely hailed as bigger than the beatles,dethroning them in the polls for the first time in rock history"
THE WHO countered in 1971 with a record called "who's next"[you may have heard of it]and another huge tour.

SHOWCO-at the same time the tour age was taking off the showco company began.they brought on the road lighting and sound to a new level,the lasers and flashpots that are common today as well as the travelling state of the art sound systems didnt exist before showco.the only reason i ever took notice was because every concert i went to the roadies would be wearing showco t-shirts.

THE STONES IN 72-again from wiki:-"it came at the height of the stones reputation as "the greatest rock and roll band in the world"the attention was focused on the groups multi-edged visibility in popular consciousness as purveyors of raw r&b carnal energy and the epitome of bohemian decadence,the band were seen as the opposite of the now-defunct and relatively wholesome beatles."
AND THAT WAS IT-its not a disrespect for the beatles or that anyone "hated" them.the ex-beatles put out some good music but its hard to compete in rock and roll when paul is everywhere with his wife, a smiling and happy family man and every other word out of johns mouth is "yoko". the beatles were back to being seen as "wholesome "again.
meanwhile its -" zeppelin are coming to town, did you hear about the nude chick they left tied to the bed in seattle,how bout driving the harley through the hotel in L.A? the stones have released STICKEY FINGERS and EXILE back to back -"did you see that plane with the big tongue on the side?? man keith richards looks waaasted" it was just rock and roll down to the bone..

i saw PAUL in 1976.he was good,but showco did the tour and they had the usual flashbombs and lasers [for live and let die i think}that we'd all seen a few times by then.his voice sounded great live though.

MARK FISHER-pink floyd had really become monsters by the mid 70's.the who,the stones and zep were thought to own the decade but nobody could mess with the floyd.they had a fcking quad p.a.-speakers to the left and right of the stage and then stacks to the left and right at the rear of the building.
the first time i saw mark fishers work was the animals tour-now we've all seen the pig but the first time i saw it,it was coming up behind me and a guy about 3 feet from me who was high on acid was begging it not to kill him.

i was very lucky to have older siblings so i could go to shows before i could drive and when i was old enough i would go out of town with my cousins.i remember once early on being a little confused when all the girls fell in love with this guy who looked like a girl himself.they had his record and were going to a show-now i wish i wouldve gone,it was the spiders from mars tour.

anyway thats all for now-again,i dont hate the beatles or their fans i just see things differently,no problem.

Yeah, I was just baiting you a bit Lem...I figured you for more of an old geezer!

But your examples don't do anything to destroy the notion that the Beatles and the solo Beatles still weren't huge during the 70s.

No one is saying other big acts didn't come along, but the fab four didn't evaporate during that time period either.

Wasn't Mull of Kintyre the biggest selling single ever...at least in the UK?

I don't put the Beatles down they were a great band. Revolution 9 I put down Avant garde Shiite is whatg it is nothing more nothing less.

of course they didnt go away-what i was trying to explain was the mindset of that time between 1970-1980.the beatles were broken up,the individual members were working with one hand tied behind their backs.

they were gonna make hits and sell records but they'd lost their band and their writing team.meanwhile the stones,zeppelin,the who,pink floyd and others were making these epic records and tours.even the most diehard beatles fan wouldnt try to compare their solo stuff in the 70's to an exile or who's next or dark side of the moon.
if they stayed together-think maybe i'm amazed and imagine on the same record with ringos hits from the early 70's and some living in the material world stuff on there.think a huge tour with showco sound and lights then we're talking.

the beatles music was just too much "of its time" for me, too black and white screaming girls then onto too trippy.if they would've gotten back together after the LSD and started just straight out rocking we've got another conversation going here.

everyone just thought "oh,they're marking time making these little solo records,they'll make up soon" but when john died time just stood still.
they stopped being the great rock band from the 60's and became gods.all i was saying is that i remember when they were just a very famous rock band from the 60's

Quote
lem motlow
of course they didnt go away-what i was trying to explain was the mindset of that time between 1970-1980.the beatles were broken up,the individual members were working with one hand tied behind their backs.

they were gonna make hits and sell records but they'd lost their band and their writing team.meanwhile the stones,zeppelin,the who,pink floyd and others were making these epic records and tours.even the most diehard beatles fan wouldnt try to compare their solo stuff in the 70's to an exile or who's next or dark side of the moon.
if they stayed together-think maybe i'm amazed and imagine on the same record with ringos hits from the early 70's and some living in the material world stuff on there.think a huge tour with showco sound and lights then we're talking.

the beatles music was just too much "of its time" for me, too black and white screaming girls then onto too trippy.if they would've gotten back together after the LSD and started just straight out rocking we've got another conversation going here.

everyone just thought "oh,they're marking time making these little solo records,they'll make up soon" but when john died time just stood still.
they stopped being the great rock band from the 60's and became gods.all i was saying is that i remember when they were just a very famous rock band from the 60's

I think it's just perspective...I'd never known a time when the Beatles actually were together, but I was very aware of Paul McCartney and he was one of the biggest acts of the 70s.

But I was also aware of the other Beatles and the Beatles catalogue and I'd suggest it cast a fairly long shadow over the 70s.

They even made "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (a horribly misguided effort) with some other acknowledged big 70s acts, Bee Gees, Peter Frampton and Aerosmith. SNL famously tried to get them back together. They were still on everyone's minds.

Anyway, I think it's only a matter of perspective.

What I will agree with you on is John's last album...it hadn't done all that well upon release and was well on it's way out of the charts until the unthinkable happened.

putting that silly beatles vs stones trashtalk aside for a minute,i remember the decade being split into two distinct halves as far as the beatles were concerned.
from 1970 to 1975 they were doing really well with their solo work.
mccartney,ram, plastic ono band,and imagine were all #1 albums.georges all things must pass and living in the material world also went #1 and ringo had a few hit singles as well.

around 74 it changed.ringo and georges records started to not be as good and georges tour didnt go well.he was losing his voice from being on the road.by around 75 john just left the business altogether.
paul always did well but was catching flak for being too pop.they were always gonna be huge million selling pop stars but the rock and roll crowd was getting a little tired off them.
theres a creem magazine from around that time with paul on the cover that sums up the feeling perfectly.its a cartoon paul with mcdonalds style golden arches behind him and he's wearing a paper hat -it says "mccartneys" over a million sold.
and paul responded to that sentiment -thats what he's talking about in silly love songs.

it just seemed like hubris,paul having the non-musician wife in the band,john pushing yoko on everyone with those horrible records of hers and everything he said was yoko this yoko that.and george seemed a little nuts with that hare krishna stuff,at that time krishnas were just weirdos that bothered you in the airport-the whole thing had just worn a bit thin.
they were pop legends but they were also guys in their mid 30's who's best work was a few years behind them,

if you went to someones house they weren't pulling out the white album or abbey road,as great as those records were,they were from the last decade and everyone heard them a million times.
you were gonna hear physical graftti or wish you were here.
everything changed again in 1980 of course.you had no chance of a beatles reunion, led zeppelin were gone,the who were gone.rock and roll was basically finished at that point.