Ginscpy's everlasting gobstopper Beatles thread - 69 threads combined!

[ginscpy]

62 t0 70.

Sent Elvis to b-movies

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Beatles were sell-outs and their effect on American music has been greatly over-stated. By the time Beatles came to America - musical change was already WELL on it's way.
The Beatles as well as Elivis were heavily, heavily - heavily backed by record companies because they could not stomach that "black music" was what was really changing American music.
Southern blues and southern gospel changed music forever. Period.

 

[PredFan]

I'm almost 56 (next month) for people my age the Beatles were the band that no one cool listened to. They were the Backstreet Boys of my generation.

When the Beatles were playing on AM stations, the cool kids were listening to FM and bands like:

The Who
The Stones
Steppenwolf
Grand Funk Railroad
The Animals
Cream
The Grass Roots
CCR

The importance of the Beatles is/was way over hyped.

 

[Leweman]

The importance of the beatles may be overhyped but the popularity is unmatched.

 

[Warrior102]

Beatles - four uneducated kids who lived their lives mostly in single parent homes/on welfare.


Liberals even you can succeed if you try!

 

[Warrior102]

I'm almost 56 (next month) for people my age the Beatles were the band that no one cool listened to. They were the Backstreet Boys of my generation.

When the Beatles were playing on AM stations, the cool kids were listening to FM and bands like:

The Who
The Stones
Steppenwolf
Grand Funk Railroad
The Animals
Cream
The Grass Roots
CCR

The importance of the Beatles is/was way over hyped.

Highly disagree!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The importance of the beatles may be overhyped but the popularity is unmatched.

Basically true...I don't know about "unmatched"...but no one can take the popularity they had away from them.
The thing a lot of people don't know is that the Beatles, as we know of, were incredibly short-lived. The songs you hear on the radio occurred in only 3-4 years. They were hugely commercially successful, but they had a LOT of help from desperate record producers and TV magnates that used them like Thanksgiving turkey.
As noted above - they were the first "boy band". And like all boy bands - their music is repetitive, simple and not a heckuva lot different than the last one.

I have never been a big fan of the Beatles because I don't respect them. They were a sell out from day one, about a third of their songs were written for them so they could quickly produce the next album as fast as possible. They were faaaaaaarrrr more about SELLING music than making music.

 

[FuelRod]

The Beatles were the band Paul McCartney had before Wings right?

 

[Warrior102]

The Beatles were the band Paul McCartney had before Wings right?

Correct

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Beatles were the band Paul McCartney had before Wings right?

Wings??...

George Harrison went on to make some good stuff....but Wings??? God what fluff that was.

 

[J.E.D]

I. Love. The. Beatles. Best rock/pop band, period.

 

[J.E.D]

The importance of the beatles may be overhyped but the popularity is unmatched.

Basically true...I don't know about "unmatched"...but no one can take the popularity they had away from them.
The thing a lot of people don't know is that the Beatles, as we know of, were incredibly short-lived. The songs you hear on the radio occurred in only 3-4 years. They were hugely commercially successful, but they had a LOT of help from desperate record producers and TV magnates that used them like Thanksgiving turkey.
As noted above - they were the first "boy band". And like all boy bands - their music is repetitive, simple and not a heckuva lot different than the last one.

I have never been a big fan of the Beatles because I don't respect them. They were a sell out from day one, about a third of their songs were written for them so they could quickly produce the next album as fast as possible. They were faaaaaaarrrr more about SELLING music than making music.

That statement is complete BS. There first couple of albums had a lot of covers (which was common in the day), but the bulk of their material was Lennon/McCartney. Nothing was written for them. They did, however, write the Stones' first single.

 

[PredFan]

I'm almost 56 (next month) for people my age the Beatles were the band that no one cool listened to. They were the Backstreet Boys of my generation.

When the Beatles were playing on AM stations, the cool kids were listening to FM and bands like:

The Who
The Stones
Steppenwolf
Grand Funk Railroad
The Animals
Cream
The Grass Roots
CCR

The importance of the Beatles is/was way over hyped.

Highly disagree!

You disagree that I was listening to those bands?

 

[techieny]

magine there's no liberal progressives
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to whine or cry for
And no Media Matters too
Imagine all the people
Living life in PEACE

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The importance of the beatles may be overhyped but the popularity is unmatched.

Basically true...I don't know about "unmatched"...but no one can take the popularity they had away from them.
The thing a lot of people don't know is that the Beatles, as we know of, were incredibly short-lived. The songs you hear on the radio occurred in only 3-4 years. They were hugely commercially successful, but they had a LOT of help from desperate record producers and TV magnates that used them like Thanksgiving turkey.
As noted above - they were the first "boy band". And like all boy bands - their music is repetitive, simple and not a heckuva lot different than the last one.

I have never been a big fan of the Beatles because I don't respect them. They were a sell out from day one, about a third of their songs were written for them so they could quickly produce the next album as fast as possible. They were faaaaaaarrrr more about SELLING music than making music.

That statement is complete BS. There first couple of albums had a lot of covers (which was common in the day), but the bulk of their material was Lennon/McCartney. Nothing was written for them. They did, however, write the Stones' first single.

Look it up.
They had a lot of songs written for them.
They churned a bunch of sound-a-like pop songs that kids ate up.
Not to say that they didn't make any good music....they certainly did...my point is their music sounded very much like alike. It was a product that the music industry could sell easily.
They were immensely lucrative for the record industry, in fact no one compares to the commercial success of the Beatles...however, their influence on future music is considerably less than many, many others.

 

[J.E.D]

Basically true...I don't know about "unmatched"...but no one can take the popularity they had away from them.
The thing a lot of people don't know is that the Beatles, as we know of, were incredibly short-lived. The songs you hear on the radio occurred in only 3-4 years. They were hugely commercially successful, but they had a LOT of help from desperate record producers and TV magnates that used them like Thanksgiving turkey.
As noted above - they were the first "boy band". And like all boy bands - their music is repetitive, simple and not a heckuva lot different than the last one.

I have never been a big fan of the Beatles because I don't respect them. They were a sell out from day one, about a third of their songs were written for them so they could quickly produce the next album as fast as possible. They were faaaaaaarrrr more about SELLING music than making music.

That statement is complete BS. There first couple of albums had a lot of covers (which was common in the day), but the bulk of their material was Lennon/McCartney. Nothing was written for them. They did, however, write the Stones' first single.

Look it up.
They had a lot of songs written for them.
They churned a bunch of sound-a-like pop songs that kids ate up.
Not to say that they didn't make any good music....they certainly did...my point is their music sounded very much like alike. It was a product that the music industry could sell easily.
They were immensely lucrative for the record industry, in fact no one compares to the commercial success of the Beatles...however, their influence on future music is considerably less than many, many others.

Sorry, but that is BS. Maybe you heard it somewhere; maybe you believe it to be true; but it is not. YOU prove it to ME that a third of the Beatles' songs were written for them.

 

[J.E.D]

magine there's no liberal progressives
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to whine or cry for
And no Media Matters too
Imagine all the people
Living life in PEACE

Imagine techieny's a partisan hack
It isn't hard to do
Nothing of substance to write on
Nothing better to do
Imagine techieny not attacking liberals
In a thread about the Beatles

 

[iamwhatiseem]

That statement is complete BS. There first couple of albums had a lot of covers (which was common in the day), but the bulk of their material was Lennon/McCartney. Nothing was written for them. They did, however, write the Stones' first single.

Look it up.
They had a lot of songs written for them.
They churned a bunch of sound-a-like pop songs that kids ate up.
Not to say that they didn't make any good music....they certainly did...my point is their music sounded very much like alike. It was a product that the music industry could sell easily.
They were immensely lucrative for the record industry, in fact no one compares to the commercial success of the Beatles...however, their influence on future music is considerably less than many, many others.

Sorry, but that is BS. Maybe you heard it somewhere; maybe you believe it to be true; but it is not. YOU prove it to ME that a third of the Beatles' songs were written for them.

I saw it in a documentary....here is a complete song list and who wrote it.
So maybe a third is a little high...maybe a 1/4th is more accurate.

List of The Beatles songs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Yeah I know...wiki...it is all I could find strangely enough.

 

[J.E.D]

Look it up.
They had a lot of songs written for them.
They churned a bunch of sound-a-like pop songs that kids ate up.
Not to say that they didn't make any good music....they certainly did...my point is their music sounded very much like alike. It was a product that the music industry could sell easily.
They were immensely lucrative for the record industry, in fact no one compares to the commercial success of the Beatles...however, their influence on future music is considerably less than many, many others.

Sorry, but that is BS. Maybe you heard it somewhere; maybe you believe it to be true; but it is not. YOU prove it to ME that a third of the Beatles' songs were written for them.

I saw it in a documentary....here is a complete song list and who wrote it.
So maybe a third is a little high...maybe a 1/4th is more accurate.

List of The Beatles songs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Yeah I know...wiki...it is all I could find strangely enough.

I was just doing some counting from your list. It's a little more than 1/4. I see where you're confused. Those songs were not written for them; they were covers of songs by other artists. But it was only done on their very early albums, and like I said, that was the norm back in those days.

 

[ginscpy]

Maybe the best firing in history.

Best may have been a better technical drummer. Certainly better looking.

But he didn't have Ringo's goofiness.

When the Beatles played on Ed Sullivan -what stands out is Ringo.

I doubt the Beatles would have made it with Pete Best.