Jump to content

The Beatles


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This might be worth further analysis.   Something which occurred to me last night was that The Beatles, for all the hysterical female following of their early days, are musical Action Men. Their so

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

Not sure why, but I just got a kick out of you choosing to not use one screen name but use the other.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have jangly guitars, that's a direct Beatles influence.

 

Hmm, the Byrds' guitars were pretty jangly(?)

 

eta: Hollywood -- Jinx!

 

The Beatles begat the Boy Band. Fact. :)

yes, probably the first band where you knew the name of each member, and each tried to have a "personality"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

 

Again, that's a big difference between your country and mine.

 

In the U.S., the Beatles were never last year's thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

 

Again, that's a big difference between your country and mine.

 

In the U.S., the Beatles were never last year's thing.

My immediate reaction is one of complete agreement, but I wonder if that's entirely true as the Beatles ended and listeners got younger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

 

Again, that's a big difference between your country and mine.

 

In the U.S., the Beatles were never last year's thing.

And we love you for your quaint anachronisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

 

Again, that's a big difference between your country and mine.

 

In the U.S., the Beatles were never last year's thing.

My immediate reaction is one of complete agreement, but I wonder if that's entirely true as the Beatles ended and listeners got younger.

 

I'll give you that. But this discussion really comes down to the late '60s and the '70s, right? Because Dr. Johnson is asserting that, in Britain, there was a willful break in Beatles appreciation, an actual active rejection. Whereas here, AT MOST, there was a fading over time. (Which I'm not convinced ever happened, but which I'll concede for purposes of this exchange.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

 

Again, that's a big difference between your country and mine.

 

In the U.S., the Beatles were never last year's thing.

And we love you for your quaint anachronisms.

 

And we love you for the odd things you do to each other at public school.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue that the Beatles weren't important, even though I think they're overrated. But I agree with Wilfrid about influence. Even when I was growing up (and I'm a significant in this context bit older than him), they were last year's thing. It's hard for me to imagine that the british bands that started in the late 70s and 80s were inspired by the Beatles and what they did take from them (largely indirectly) is a matter of style rather than substance.

 

Again, that's a big difference between your country and mine.

 

In the U.S., the Beatles were never last year's thing.

My immediate reaction is one of complete agreement, but I wonder if that's entirely true as the Beatles ended and listeners got younger.

 

I'll give you that. But this discussion really comes down to the late '60s and the '70s, right? Because Dr. Johnson is asserting that, in Britain, there was a willful break in Beatles appreciation, an actual active rejection. Whereas here, AT MOST, there was a fading over time. (Which I'm not convinced ever happened, but which I'll concede for purposes of this exchange.)

The Beatles were unique when they arrived in this country and they remained so. Iconic even. Apparently not the case in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, if you have jangly guitars, that's a direct Beatles influence.

or possibly Byrds.

 

There's no difference between a Byrds influence and a Beatles influence.

 

Roger McGuinn would be the first person to acknowledge where he got the jangly-guitar-thing from.

 

The difference is key to the discussion. The Byrds were considered very hip. The coolest kids would check for The Byrds. Quite possible for a band of The Smiths era to be listening to The Byrds day and night while ignoring The Beatles (I know everybody heard The Beatles).

 

I have Byrds CDs. I don't have single recording by the Fab Four.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...