Printable View
I am so sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Speaking of Elvis, yeah, I love the old Elvis when he was mean and lean and... clean. Did you ever hear his Devil in disguise or Guitar Man? The intense energy he exudes, and passes on to his band.
:bow:
May I suggest the 3rd part of Dvorak's 8th Symphony for further restoration of one's inner peace? The Allegretto grazioso. Nearly made me cry the day before yesterday. Just a waltz, but so. freakin. perfect. Me big lump in throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Lennon's music is sure great.
Lennon's better than McCartney, Prince, Stevie Wonder and just slightly over Marvin Gaye.
Lennon's equal to Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, EWF, and Fela Kuti
Although still short of my favorites.
Anyway, the Chapman guy got his autograph then he killed him 6 hours later but didn't flee.
You're welcome...Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I come back from a trip to Seattle, and I can't believe what I'm reading here. I showed more respect for that bastard Reagan at his death than most of you are showing for Lennon now. Unbelievable.
This is one of those rare circumstances when I'm going to side with Gawain.
From what I'm reading, most of you know very little about John Lennon, and your opinions don't count for much. It's true about some of the faults you listed, but your attacks were much stronger than he deserved.
While I'm at it, I support Yoko as well. I'm not sure I would like her in person, but I don't blame her for the breakup of the Beatles, and I don't think she's "evil".
So many of you have no idea what world Lennon came out of. He grew up in a sad, drab, twisted society, the same one that produced Roger Waters. His parents both abandoned him. He spoke for the other young people who grew up in that era, the victims of neglecting or over-restrictive parents and a repressive society.
He faced his faults and made strides to rid himself of them. He was evolving into an extremely devoted father with Sean in the years before his death. He was maturing into a very good man. I respect anyone who goes through pain to rid themselves of their old demons.
Shame on you people who bad mouth him out of your own ignorance. I could say equally bad things about almost all the other musicians you have mentioned.
By the way, the musical world disagrees with you as well. The music of Lennon and McCartney is considered the work of geniuses, only rivaled by Dylan in that era. There are university courses built around studying their work.
I didn't say anything about that idiot Regan when he died, I didn't care. Lennon is an ass who was undeserving of all the abulation he gets to this day. I don't believe in not speaking ill of the dead, they don't care there dead.
In my last year of high school (that would have been '00) there was a girl in my class who still wore a Nirvana T shirt everyday, and wrote poetry, about Cobain, and once showed a documentary about his death for some project...Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Cobain worship has put me off of idol worship for good.
Neglecting or over-restrictive parents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
I may have a better idea than you. Lennon grew up in Mendips among doctors and lawyers. Yoko recently bought that old house because John claimed that it had been his only real home throughout his life. His aunt Mimi and uncle George took care of him very well and the relationship with his mother, who did not abandon him but took rather good care of him, was excellent. She was actually the first who taught him how to play the banjo. His father was a dead-beat Dad, but John did not grow up in a drab, twisted atmosphere; he was better off than the other three.
"I was a nice, cleancut suburban boy, and in the class system I was about a half an inch in a higher class than Paul, George and Ringo, who lived in subsidized government houses. We owned our own house, had our own garden. They didn't have anything like that. So, I was a bit of a fruit compared to them in a way."Apart from which, I think you missed Proletariat's reference to Yoko's most famous 'Painting to hammer a Nail'. Just as Gawain apparently missed the entire Mahareshi episode; John literally left Cynthia behind on a train station in Wales as he and the others went off to see the fat man. My dislike for The Beatles is not rooted in lack of knowledge about them, or in a dislike of rock music, blues or soul, something I tried to demonstrate by posting pics of other, superior bands and musicians.
John Lennon in Imagine John LennonConsidered by whom? That would be the old fallacy, the 'appeal to authority'. There are courses built around all sorts of nonsense. I would rather take a degree in astrology, so sorry. If pushed, I could write a thesis on musical genius about Elvis or Van the Man. About Lennon -- not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Many people receive more adulation than they deserve, it's called the history of society. The process is very simple, do something new, not very good, but just original, make it public, keep on feeding in the same BS, and in years you're respected by everybody, they follow your gossip and they even praise to you. Later the propaganda closes the job. It happened many times really, but with Lennon who cares? Really.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
I still agree with Tachikaze in one point, if you don't have nothing good to say then don't start an aniversary thread or don't enter the thread once started...or don't put it in the Backroom.
Yah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
If this thread had been in the Frontroom, I would merely have written that Sergeant Pepper's has an intro that rocks. Since this is the Backroom, let me add that it is the only Beatles piece that does... ~D
You don't even like Hey Jude or Yesterday even a tiny bit ?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Fool on the Hill is, um, singeable. I will grant you that. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
At the same point that the Beatles aquired undeserved fame, a lot of bands did a better job and only achieved honorific prizes. Now the themes from the Beatles are not that bad, but they're not great...they're called rock n' roll with out rocking anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Good idea. Let's call their music 'Roll'. Just like that. As in:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
"Well, Bob, that's a generational thing. I've always been into popular music, you know, Andy Williams, Mantovani, Roll..."
Excuse me but I must post this:
Take on Me
Can't Touch Me
This Rocks them all!!
This are links...I've to clearify with this new interface.
Hows that. Someone mentioned he had his head up some Indians skirt? I should figure thats what their talking about?Quote:
Just as Gawain apparently missed the entire Mahareshi episode
In this case its the opposite. It seems the younger generation has no idea of what the 60s were really like and how much the Beatles meant to our generation. 40 years after their break up they still hold just about every sales record. In rock theres the Beatles and then theres everybody else. They stand head and shoulders above the rest. No one has ever disputed their place in music other than a few nitwits on these boards.Quote:
Many people receive more adulation than they deserve, it's called the history of society
That's because it is and always has been easy listening, every housewife's safe choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can lie that can't be told.
Nothing you can do that can't be sold... :san_rolleyes:
Damnit, Gawain, just because I have different taste than you do doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make me right, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I will not lie to you. I cannot see the appeal in the Beatles. However, I cannot see the appeal in any record produced after 1979, either (with the possible exception of the Beastie boys, the only psychedelic rap group in history.) It is all a question of taste. The majority of people prefer certain kinds of music for certain reasons.
As for their place in history, that is highly subjective. In my opinion, Pink Floyd was a lot better than the Beatles, especially under Syd Barrett, becuase they were a lot more psychedelic. I also would argue that Hendrix had a lot more influence on modern music than the Beatles- he reinvented the way in which the electric guitar was used. The Beatles were just really popular. And don't give me that "on par with the classics" crap- have you ever heard "Echoes"?
So open your eyes and don't try to put the Beatles above everybody else, just because they were so damn popular. Real musical influence and meaning don't come from incredible sales records and popularity alone.
I think the 60s produced the most degenerate generation bestowed on America. Thanks to you guys, we now have women breast feeding in public, boca burgers and 'Happy Holidays!' instead of 'Merry Christmas'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Once again, if you like his music, fine. Go ahead and listen to elevator music. But your arguments here have been ridiculous so far.
'Everyone likes them except you idiots!' and
'They used to rewl!'
These points could be used to defend that song about humps and lady lumps that's so popular right now.
Can we stop putting musicians and artists on these ridiculous pedestals? They're singers, for God's sake. You don't ever hear this foolishness about CEOs or entrepreneurs.
Btw, I'm loving the new smiley set.
:san_laugh: :san_lipsrsealed: :san_kiss: :san_kiss: :san_kiss: :san_smiley: :san_shocked:
Those christmas smilies scare me. :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
The hats always remind me of those characters I read about while studying the French Revolution.
That's actually a great point. Same goes for actors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
You occasionally hear it about politicians though :san_smiley:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
:san_laugh: Lol, they do resemble un 'bonnet phrygien', don't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
http://www.liberte.ch/histoire/ddhc/bonnetphrygien.gif
And here's a painting of Marianne wearing one. She's from aproximately the same time period as Adrian's and Gawain's favourite musicians: :san_kiss:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/jmace/euro.../marianne2.JPG
Chopin was a little later, Tchaikovsky a lot later. Don't know about Gawain's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Yo Adrian! I found a drawing of the young Pete Townsend! Here he is, in 1767:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
http://www.lastoria.org/protagonisti...ni/billaud.jpgHe never did change his hair or that thingy around his neck, did he? :san_tongue:
Billaud was deported as a terrorist; don't get me in trouble with the CIA, will ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
BTW I found the oldest known picture of John Lennon:
Youtr quite right . Taste is a matter of opinion . However the vast majority of people and especially musicians agree with me and not you.Quote:
Damnit, Gawain, just because I have different taste than you do doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make me right, either.
Not accordding to any authorities on music it isnt. Find me one who doesnt rate the Beatles as the number one rock group of all time. By every measurable means we have they blow away the competition. Im not saying your taste is any worse than mine but you cant deny the fact that most people consider thm the best. And this is akmist 40 years after they broke up. Mc Cartney is probably the most respected man in the bussiness today.Quote:
As for their place in history, that is highly subjective.
Well I love Floyd but I like later floyd better. Heck I even worked for them.Quote:
Pink Floyd was a lot better than the Beatles, especially under Syd Barrett, becuase they were a lot more psychedelic
Wrong again. He got that from Townsend. Who do you think had the first song with intentional feedback on it? Would you believe it was the Beatles? You seem to forget who came first.Quote:
I also would argue that Hendrix had a lot more influence on modern music than the Beatles- he reinvented the way in which the electric guitar was used.
Again Im in the music bussiness. Not only do I do work for rock groups as a roadie.Ive been doing it since 1968. I also work as a sales rep for a cd distributor. I was there when all this music came out. I lived the 60s. Something most of you here can only read about. My eyes arent closed. I love all types of music. The best musicians dont even play rock. They play Jazz and Fusion. But when it comes to who is the greatest rock band ever there is no contest. My second favorite is the Who.Quote:
So open your eyes and don't try to put the Beatles above everybody else, just because they were so damn popular. Real musical influence and meaning don't come from incredible sales records and popularity alone.
I totally agree with you and have apoligised for it many times on these boards. Damn hippies. To think I was once one.Quote:
I think the 60s produced the most degenerate generation bestowed on America. Thanks to you guys, we now have women breast feeding in public, boca burgers and 'Happy Holidays!' instead of 'Merry Christmas'.
Oh just for some others thoughts on the matter. From VH1
Most of you seem cluless on how innovative they really were and how they set the stage for all of the restQuote:
To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did. Relentlessly imaginative and experimental, the Beatles grabbed a hold of the international mass consciousness in 1964 and never let go for the next six years, always staying ahead of the pack in terms of creativity but never losing their ability to communicate their increasingly sophisticated ideas to a mass audience. Their supremacy as rock icons remains unchallenged to this day, decades after their breakup in 1970.
LINK
From wikopedia
LINKQuote:
The Beatles were a British pop and rock group from Liverpool, England. The group shattered many sales records and charted more than 50 top 40 hit singles, including 20 #1 hits in the USA alone, becoming arguably the most famous musical act of the 20th century. EMI Records estimates that the band has sold over a billion records worldwide[1]. The band's songs covered many genres, from ballads to reggae, and from psychedelic music to blues to heavy metal, and opened the door for many new musical styles. The Beatles influence extended beyond music into the social and cultural revolutions of the 60s.
And their influnce went far further than music. It was they who were the first to make the young realise what power they had.
Ah, the famous ‘firsts’ with which The Beatles are often credited. Creatively, these ‘firsts’ were not all that clear. They were often a technician’s feat rather than that of a musician. Studio technicians were crossbreeding all the time in those days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Anyway, some of those ‘firsts’ belong to others. The Who claimed to have used intentional feedback first. Johnny Burnette already used it in his records in the late fifties. Others credit Lowman Pauling of the ‘5 Royales’ with its invention (I have no Pauling recordings, so I couldn’t say). Jimmy Page used the sitar (when he was in The Yardbirds) before any Beatle did. As far as I know, Page used distortion first as well. Etcetera.
But I think the point is that many such innovations were ‘in the air’ at the time, just like Elvis’s body movements or the habit of musicians growing long hair. As they each went solo after 1970, none of The Beatles was particularly innovative either. If you want to credit The Beatles with anything in particular, it must be that they popularised rock & roll and brought it into the cultural mainstream. The musical genre itself has Godfathers who were really… different. I mean, look at the following pictures and tell me who is the odd one out. And why.
https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/...hard5oz.th.jpg https://img465.imageshack.us/img465/...mino2kb.th.jpg
https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/...erry1uc.th.jpg https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/...nnon7es.th.jpgWhat power? The power to sing ‘Love, love, loooove’? This is just more deification, Gawain. Compare that to the raw power of Midnight Rambler and you see the essential difference. One reason why I like The Stones better is that they never watered down their blues origins and never gave in to ‘family audiences’ to the point when they completely lost their inspiration. The Stones were a counter-culture within the counter-culture as well. They were disheartened souls, reflecting a planet torn by war and drugs and street fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The contrast couldn’t have been clearer by the year 1969. In 1969 The Beatles were so messed up they could hardly pull off a rooftop concert. John Lennon was busy writing his third book, a diary called John’s Diary – The Diary Of A Working Man (Lennon of course had never been a working man in all his life), as well as divorcing Cynthia and rediscovering heroine. Two years earlier All You Need Is Love had already been a sort of good-bye, really, a tasteful ballad but extremely middle of the road. On the other hand in 1969 The Stones released Let It Bleed and did a legendary concert at Madison Square Garden on two consecutive nights. No feel-good cr@p, no funny uniforms. They were telling it like it is. The lyrics are still haunting today. You can’t. Always get. What you want…
Okay, let's begin again...
Again, you use a baseless argument of "everyone says I am right". A majority in opinion does not automatiically denote truth. Hell, not that long ago, we thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Then, it was the Sun, which was still incorrect. But most people still agreed that it was...
My ass it was. Intentional feedback was invented by the Bluesmen, long before the Beatles were playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And I did not mean that Hendrix was the creator of his style- he was the fulchrum. He adopted his style from the bluesmen he played with, and listened to, from an early age. However, he was still an incredible innovator, combining multiple styles and methods, and creating completely new out of them. THe base was blues, but the result was undeniably Hendrix.
Show me, if you will, someone else who managed to create songs such as Purple Haze, Voodoo Child, and Machine-Gun (The Berekely version, not the studio version) at the same time as Hendrix. You can't. He used the old to create something new, and no music after his was the same.
Again, this argument is meaningless! What law, what basic fact, sets the "authorities" apart from any other idiot? If they were educated, what is there to say that they just throw all of this away mentally, and choose the Beatles- only to back this up with a certificate of knowledge they do not use? Drop the majority/authorities argument, it means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Ooh, a roadie, that really qualifies you automatically... Sorry, Gawain, but being a roaide gives you no more authority on music than being a line grunt does on warfare. (Actually, that is not fair- grunts get a better atuomatic eduaction on warfare than roadies do on music.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And as for sales rep, I have three names for you: Kid Rock, 50 cent, and Britney Spears. Really influential, those three. Yet each, in their own time, was a superstar, especially 50 cent.