Jump to content


Photo

The Beatles


  • Please log in to reply
2280 replies to this topic

#16 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28,319 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:10 PM

"Back in the USSR" in which Russia is a metaphor for womankind.

Then that happened.

 

I traveled to Tijuana to smack the federali

Who packing avocado toast like Mario Batali--Black Thought


#17 g.johnson

g.johnson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:20 PM

I was trying to figure out what "Action Men" are-- capitalized and all. Then I realized Wilf meant action figures. Are they called Action Men in the UK?

Action Man = GI Joe.
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson

#18 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,903 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:06 PM

can an admin please re-title this thread? maybe something like "you thought wilfrid was dumb for not being able to start polls? wait till you get a load of this!"

my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#19 g.johnson

g.johnson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:18 PM

710 for 7 and a king pair. You don't often see that in one day.
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson

#20 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,903 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:27 PM

cricket is for pussies. kabbadi is where it's at.

my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#21 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,317 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:50 PM

How extensive was The Beatles' influence on subsequent British pop music? I am taking that to mean, very roughly, post-1967; there's no dispute that a zillion Beatles copyists appeared between 1963 and 1967, but I assume that's not what we're talking about.

I am just reading a kind of history of British pop (more about it when I have time), so I am in the mood for this.

An incomplete list of where I don't hear The Beatles' influence:

Progressive rock (outside lyrics and pretensions).
Heavy rock, morphing to heavy metal.
Glam rock (Bolan, Bowie, Roxy).
British soul (influenced The Beatles rather than vice versa).
Reggae (ha!).

I'll let someone else list positive examples of influence - there are some, of course.

#22 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,399 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:52 PM

The Smiths.
sandwiches that are large and filling and do not contain tuna or prawns

#23 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,594 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:54 PM

How extensive was The Beatles' influence on subsequent British pop music? I am taking that to mean, very roughly, post-1967; there's no dispute that a zillion Beatles copyists appeared between 1963 and 1967, but I assume that's not what we're talking about.

I am just reading a kind of history of British pop (more about it when I have time), so I am in the mood for this.

An incomplete list of where I don't hear The Beatles' influence:

Progressive rock (outside lyrics and pretensions).
Heavy rock, morphing to heavy metal.
Glam rock (Bolan, Bowie, Roxy).
British soul (influenced The Beatles rather than vice versa).
Reggae (ha!).

I'll let someone else list positive examples of influence - there are some, of course.


You don't hear the Beatles' influence in Glam Rock????????????????

One of us is crazy.

And, unlike mongo, I think they're all over prog.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#24 g.johnson

g.johnson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:54 PM

Lead, rhythm, bass and drum four-pieces became the standard. A rather superficial influence to be sure and I'm sure there were earlier precedents.
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson

#25 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,317 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:56 PM

Yes, there were. The Beatles didn't start that, although obviously they turned it into a big UK craze.

In the States, Buddy Holly and the Crickets is the first example which springs to mind. More proximately, the skiffle groups. The Beatles were into both of course.

#26 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,594 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:59 PM

The Beatles standardized it.

Everytime you see a four- or five-piece band, with someone singing lead and two other guys leaning into a microphone singing back-up, you're seeing something that came from the Beatles.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#27 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,903 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 02:59 PM

And, unlike mongo, I think they're all over prog.


that's because everyone listened to the beatles. but by the time they grew their beards the noodlers of the nice etc. were already in business. the blame for prog noodling probably traces better to the american jam bands; the british proggers just made it tedious in a different way (with "classical" and celtic infusions).

my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#28 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,958 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 03:01 PM

Every time this question comes up, the anti-Beatles party claims a limited number of bands that sound like the Beatles, conveniently discounts the important bands that built on what they did (Smiths, Radiohead, etc), the bands that took their ideas about what pop music can do in a wholly different directions, and then erases the half million technical innovations of The Beatles. Influence is not synonymous with 'sounds like'.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#29 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,317 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 03:02 PM

The Beatles standardized it.

Everytime you see a four- or five-piece band, with someone singing lead and two other guys leaning into a microphone singing back-up, you're seeing something that came from the Beatles.


I disagree. Many people "see" that because The Beatles became so tediously ubiquitous. But it was standardized for rockabilly and skiffle bands years before. Unless switching out the stand-up bass is a big deal. It surely comes out of country and blues bands which couldn't afford brass sections.

#30 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,317 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 03:04 PM

Every time this question comes up, the anti-Beatles party claims a limited number of bands that sound like the Beatles, conveniently discounts the important bands that built on what they did (Smiths, Radiohead, etc), the bands that took their ideas about what pop music can do in a wholly different directions, and then erases the half million technical innovations of The Beatles. Influence is not synonymous with 'sounds like'.


You're presuming. All I am inimical to is indirect influence. I am quite open otherwise.

It's as if I were to say the pro-Beatles faction will name every band simply because they must have heard the Beatles and influence can't be ruled out.

I think there's rational ground in between.