|
Post by nelly on Oct 19, 2024 0:28:09 GMT
The Beatles, a Boy band with guitars. Not a fan and there were much better bands in the 60's. Small Faces, The Who, Rolling Stones, The Kinks etc. They formed by themselves, although admittedly polished for the music industry by Epstein, with the haircuts and suits. But you don't go from With The Beatles to Let It Be without having any talent, ability or musicality. There were other talented bands around at the same time, but they weren't better. The Stones second single was a Beatles song, that Lennon and McCartney gave to them, they finished writing it in front of them. I just think they're overrated. I prefer Lennon's solo stuff and can't stand McCartney's. I'll never get the hype about the Beatles. It's like the Kings new clothes to me.
|
|
|
Post by houldsworthhatter on Oct 19, 2024 6:41:09 GMT
They formed by themselves, although admittedly polished for the music industry by Epstein, with the haircuts and suits. But you don't go from With The Beatles to Let It Be without having any talent, ability or musicality. There were other talented bands around at the same time, but they weren't better. The Stones second single was a Beatles song, that Lennon and McCartney gave to them, they finished writing it in front of them. I just think they're overrated. I prefer Lennon's solo stuff and can't stand McCartney's. I'll never get the hype about the Beatles. It's like the Kings new clothes to me. Early days they were like a boy band. They matured brilliantly though and from around 66 (revolver album) churned out some great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ebbs on Oct 19, 2024 6:42:46 GMT
They formed by themselves, although admittedly polished for the music industry by Epstein, with the haircuts and suits. But you don't go from With The Beatles to Let It Be without having any talent, ability or musicality. There were other talented bands around at the same time, but they weren't better. The Stones second single was a Beatles song, that Lennon and McCartney gave to them, they finished writing it in front of them. I just think they're overrated. I prefer Lennon's solo stuff and can't stand McCartney's. I'll never get the hype about the Beatles. It's like the Kings new clothes to me. 100% agree Nelly
|
|
|
Post by mattyovrio on Oct 19, 2024 7:35:07 GMT
The Beatles, a Boy band with guitars. Not a fan and there were much better bands in the 60's. Small Faces, The Who, Rolling Stones, The Kinks etc. The bands you've named were all brilliant (although I can take or leave the Stones for the most part) but the Beatles were blatantly so much more than a boy band with guitars, as evidenced by their varied discography. Listen to Bo Didley then listen to early Stones stuff - they shamelessly ripped him off
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Oct 19, 2024 7:52:57 GMT
Thing that always particularly amuses me about the 'Royals are all Germans' argument is the people making it are generally the same people who are quite offended when someone refers to a British person whose grandparents were born elsewhere as Pakistani / Jamaican / Nigerian etc.
I guess that depends if they’re making the point sincerely (about them all being German) or doing it in an ironic faux English nationalism tone. I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who considers immigrants to be as English as anyone also sincerely make the Royals are all Germans point. Could be wrong of course. Its always been for me you are the nationality of the country where you were born. Think some individuals use ancestors to either make them appear different or some political points scoring e.g. slavery. For many though its a case of if you like a group of people born in britain they are british. If you do not like em they are from the country of their ancestors. No way the racists class non whites as being british or monarcy lovers think of our royals being german, greek etc.
|
|
|
Post by Imposter on Oct 19, 2024 7:55:52 GMT
I just think they're overrated. I prefer Lennon's solo stuff and can't stand McCartney's. I'll never get the hype about the Beatles. It's like the Kings new clothes to me. Early days they were like a boy band. They matured brilliantly though and from around 66 (revolver album) churned out some great stuff. Proper early years Beatles were very rock and roll. Very early 60s, pre-1963. Early years of Hamburg, the Cavern, covers of the likes of Chuck Berry, etc...
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Oct 19, 2024 7:57:50 GMT
Funny how kids also prefer astro to grass unlike adults do. Just wonder if its the weather that caused the difference in attitudes between those countries and the UK. We are still a country though were work rate, fitness and being a trier is heralded by many fans over real skill because some lower teams have succeeded with teams like that but show their limitations in the end. I much prefer varnished floors. Astro and grass give better players more control of the ball and I'm bobbins. Varnished floors mean control is more difficult so I get a look in. Coupled with being fit from cycling from Leeds city centre to the highest point in the city twice a week I'm now quite good at football. It's taken me 44 years to achieve this feet and I'd love to go back to school days to equalise things 🙃 If you did they could call you big tim and look up to you and know how denton feels.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Oct 19, 2024 8:04:49 GMT
They formed by themselves, although admittedly polished for the music industry by Epstein, with the haircuts and suits. But you don't go from With The Beatles to Let It Be without having any talent, ability or musicality. There were other talented bands around at the same time, but they weren't better. The Stones second single was a Beatles song, that Lennon and McCartney gave to them, they finished writing it in front of them. I just think they're overrated. I prefer Lennon's solo stuff and can't stand McCartney's. I'll never get the hype about the Beatles. It's like the Kings new clothes to me. There get out of jail card for me was they were good composers of music. Hated it at the time if you said you didn,t like them and preferred others. It was either sacrelege or your knowledge of music was so low. If it was any other artists of the period it was a case of everyone to their own taste.
|
|
|
Post by houldsworthhatter on Oct 19, 2024 9:40:16 GMT
Early days they were like a boy band. They matured brilliantly though and from around 66 (revolver album) churned out some great stuff. Proper early years Beatles were very rock and roll. Very early 60s, pre-1963. Early years of Hamburg, the Cavern, covers of the likes of Chuck Berry, etc... Yeh I know. Was a huge fan since being a young lad and they did the rock n roll scene covering all that. Once they made it and released albums is what I was referring to although I didn’t make it clear.
|
|
|
Post by nelly on Oct 19, 2024 10:20:24 GMT
Proper early years Beatles were very rock and roll. Very early 60s, pre-1963. Early years of Hamburg, the Cavern, covers of the likes of Chuck Berry, etc... Yeh I know. Was a huge fan since being a young lad and they did the rock n roll scene covering all that. Once they made it and released albums is what I was referring to although I didn’t make it clear. Jimi Hendrix, now that's Rock 'n' Roll. He played Stockport too. 🎸
|
|
|
Post by houldsworthhatter on Oct 19, 2024 10:55:24 GMT
Yeh I know. Was a huge fan since being a young lad and they did the rock n roll scene covering all that. Once they made it and released albums is what I was referring to although I didn’t make it clear. Jimi Hendrix, now that's Rock 'n' Roll. He played Stockport too. 🎸 I love Hendrix as a fellow guitar player - nowhere near that level though!! 🤣
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Oct 19, 2024 11:06:16 GMT
I thought and hoped so as I know you know your music. I absolutely hate this Social Media trope...usually propagated by arseholes who know sod all about drumming and even less about the Beatles. The Beatles, a Boy band with guitars. Not a fan and there were much better bands in the 60's. Small Faces, The Who, Rolling Stones, The Kinks etc. They were a boy band in the sense of being a band formed of boys. But in terms of the modern idea of boy bands (which are not usually actually "bands" at all, they're just groups - which are entirely different) they just weren't. They formed in the traditional manner of "real" bands, that is a group of mates meeting to piss about with instruments, realising they actually could gig, and getting out and doing so. I'm not actually in that huge camp of people that would look to ostracise you for your view on this because musical tastes vary, it's allowed to like different things (I myself like some stuff that many would consider absolutely awful). But you're painting them incorrectly here. And by the way, I'm not a hugely blinkered fan of theirs either. They produced some utter bilge (in my opinion). They patently weren't a "boy band (see above) with guitars" though in any sense. They used literally hundreds of different instruments through their recording career. Lennon himself could play bass, banjo, piano and organ (amongst others - he could even play drums to a high standard, although the trope mentioned above is not of course true) to a high level as well as sing. McCartney's widely regarded one of the most gifted and wide ranging musicians on the planet (doesn't mean you can't not like his songs of course - but the cat can play literally everything). Harrison (and Lennon in particular) introduced instruments into modern recording which in some instances had rarely ever even been used in the Western world. Ringo was original, metronomically perfect, and the concrete in the band. He played live gigs in front of thousands of screaming people often with flimsy equipment and unmiked drums so unbeknown to most he played f*cking HARD and when they were gigging he held the music together (far more professional live than t'other three who tended to get carried away). They pretty much invented/popularised multi track recording and musical experimentation (at least to levels not seen previously - tape loops, reverse recording, innovation of arrangement, abstract and unusual lyricism and so forth). And they also went on to foment social discourse and cultural engagement. They were extremely influential in the psychedelic rock movement and were one of a group of musicians to spearhead the use of electronic synths and tools into their music so if you're a fan of any of those 80s electronic bands for example then you need to doff your cap to them (and others such as the Monkeys) for "inventing" it in essence. I could go further, but it's hard to change minds or force rethink when it comes to music so I won't. But I'd strongly urge you to move away from some of their earliest music and listen to some of their truly amazing stuff, from their middle or late string of albums. Some of it's as good as has ever been recorded. And this is from the hand of a once sceptic like you currently are. I hated them as a kid. Until my friends at college said "we're going to form a band and it's going to be a Beatles tribute band, do you fancy playing drums". Literally changed the course of my life.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Oct 19, 2024 11:11:41 GMT
They formed by themselves, although admittedly polished for the music industry by Epstein, with the haircuts and suits. But you don't go from With The Beatles to Let It Be without having any talent, ability or musicality. There were other talented bands around at the same time, but they weren't better. The Stones second single was a Beatles song, that Lennon and McCartney gave to them, they finished writing it in front of them. I just think they're overrated. I prefer Lennon's solo stuff and can't stand McCartney's. I'll never get the hype about the Beatles. It's like the Kings new clothes to me. Every single band ever, in the history of music, is over-rated by its own fans. It's just the way it is. But they were extraordinarily good musos. I don't really understand how, when presented by evidence, that can be disputed.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Oct 19, 2024 11:23:34 GMT
Yeh I know. Was a huge fan since being a young lad and they did the rock n roll scene covering all that. Once they made it and released albums is what I was referring to although I didn’t make it clear. Jimi Hendrix, now that's Rock 'n' Roll. He played Stockport too. 🎸 Best friends with the Beatles. He thought they were awesome (and they he). He used to cover Sarge Pepper as an acknowledgement of their influence on him.
|
|
|
Post by Imposter on Oct 19, 2024 11:23:45 GMT
Yeh I know. Was a huge fan since being a young lad and they did the rock n roll scene covering all that. Once they made it and released albums is what I was referring to although I didn’t make it clear. Jimi Hendrix, now that's Rock 'n' Roll. He played Stockport too. 🎸 On his own? I assume he lost?
|
|