EGN 121 Posted February 18, 2013 So, this curse... How can we make it extend to every dumb fucker who ever mistook a Beatles album for music and bought one? Utter tripe. That McCartney is alive and rich while Oscar Wilde died penniless is proof that we live in an unjust world. The Beatles are important but music is a matter of taste. You might look down your nose at all the 12 year old girls spending their money downloading songs by Justin Bieber, 1D, the Wanted or any of the othe manufactured choirs but what makes your purchases more important than their's. I'd suggest the fact that they bought the album based on the fact that a) their friends bought it, yah someone on radio 1 said it was good, yah or c) Harry Styles is well fit, yah and I bought any music I own because a) I liked it, I liked it or c) I liked it means I am more entitled to an opinion on music than they are. Their opinion on 'fashion' or 'trends' may carry more weight than mine, but i'm a mug who wears what is comfortable and what I consider looks good, not what some half-Asian ex-fatty tells me will make me feel super and i extend that ethos to my musical purchases. I buy for the music, not the cachet that comes with owning the 'in' album of the minute/day/week and I have never, ever bought an album just because it was cool or because everyone else was doing it, which is the only explanation for Beatlemania. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,530 Posted February 18, 2013 So, this curse... How can we make it extend to every dumb fucker who ever mistook a Beatles album for music and bought one? Utter tripe. That McCartney is alive and rich while Oscar Wilde died penniless is proof that we live in an unjust world. The Beatles are important but music is a matter of taste. You might look down your nose at all the 12 year old girls spending their money downloading songs by Justin Bieber, 1D, the Wanted or any of the othe manufactured choirs but what makes your purchases more important than their's. I'd suggest the fact that they bought the album based on the fact that a) their friends bought it, yah someone on radio 1 said it was good, yah or c) Harry Styles is well fit, yah and I bought any music I own because a) I liked it, I liked it or c) I liked it means I am more entitled to an opinion on music than they are. Their opinion on 'fashion' or 'trends' may carry more weight than mine, but i'm a mug who wears what is comfortable and what I consider looks good, not what some half-Asian ex-fatty tells me will make me feel super and i extend that ethos to my musical purchases. I buy for the music, not the cachet that comes with owning the 'in' album of the minute/day/week and I have never, ever bought an album just because it was cool or because everyone else was doing it, which is the only explanation for Beatlemania. So anything other than the music you own, the people just buy it because they're swayed by what others say? I buy music because I either personally know the musician and enjoy their music. I already have seen or heard the band/musician in the past and like seeing how their music grows over the years. There are some bands that I've enjoyed their music in the past and will admit there have been times over the years where they've churned out some real crap (but that's just my opinion). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charon 4,943 Posted February 18, 2013 I'd suggest the fact that they bought the album based on the fact that a) their friends bought it, yah someone on radio 1 said it was good, yah or c) Harry Styles is well fit, yah and I bought any music I own because a) I liked it, I liked it or c) I liked it means I am more entitled to an opinion on music than they are. Their opinion on 'fashion' or 'trends' may carry more weight than mine, but i'm a mug who wears what is comfortable and what I consider looks good, not what some half-Asian ex-fatty tells me will make me feel super and i extend that ethos to my musical purchases. I buy for the music, not the cachet that comes with owning the 'in' album of the minute/day/week and I have never, ever bought an album just because it was cool or because everyone else was doing it, which is the only explanation for Beatlemania. Kudos for dropping in the word ''cachet'' into a reply 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EGN 121 Posted February 18, 2013 @Phantom: Not at all, i'm sure that some people (and i suspect TMIB is among them) thoroughly enjoyed the Beatles music, 'got' the message and took time to appreciate the subtle nuances of Mr Lennon and Mr McCartney's songwriting. I personally don't 'get it'. The problem is that people fete the Beatles as 'the most influential band of eVar', whereas I'd argue their popularity is based on marketing and mass-hysteria rather than musical merit. I personally think Nick Cave is the most talented singer and songwriter i have ever heard and were i to be stuck with one album for ever and ever, his greatest hits would be it. I am able, however, to see past my own fanaticism and understand that he will never be the most popular, the most influential or the best selling purely because he is fucking weird and his music has limited appeal outside those of us cursed with dark thoughts and a lack of faith in humanity. Based on their early musical output, The Beatles should have been the same, an aquired taste appreciated by the few , but the fact that they were four young scousers willing to whore themselves for fame and their 'marketability' meant people who didn't even like, nor could possibly understand, the music were buying it by the bucketload in order to 'fit in' with what society was telling them was cool. They weren't the best musicians in their own clothes and if you want great songwriting from that period you could have chucked a dart in a Camden pub and hit better lyricists than Lennon and McCartney but somehow they were outselling far more traditionally appealing bands and became a meat grinder of crap pop 'product' for consumption by the masses. I think Crowleyism best sums up my musical appreciation theory 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'. If you like it, buy it regardless of popularity but if you don't, you're a twat if you do. The Beatles were cursed by too many twats. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,530 Posted February 18, 2013 @Phantom: Not at all, i'm sure that some people (and i suspect TMIB is among them) thoroughly enjoyed the Beatles music, 'got' the message and took time to appreciate the subtle nuances of Mr Lennon and Mr McCartney's songwriting. I personally don't 'get it'. The problem is that people fete the Beatles as 'the most influential band of eVar', whereas I'd argue their popularity is based on marketing and mass-hysteria rather than musical merit. I personally think Nick Cave is the most talented singer and songwriter i have ever heard and were i to be stuck with one album for ever and ever, his greatest hits would be it. I am able, however, to see past my own fanaticism and understand that he will never be the most popular, the most influential or the best selling purely because he is fucking weird and his music has limited appeal outside those of us cursed with dark thoughts and a lack of faith in humanity. Based on their early musical output, The Beatles should have been the same, an aquired taste appreciated by the few , but the fact that they were four young scousers willing to whore themselves for fame and their 'marketability' meant people who didn't even like, nor could possibly understand, the music were buying it by the bucketload in order to 'fit in' with what society was telling them was cool. They weren't the best musicians in their own clothes and if you want great songwriting from that period you could have chucked a dart in a Camden pub and hit better lyricists than Lennon and McCartney but somehow they were outselling far more traditionally appealing bands and became a meat grinder of crap pop 'product' for consumption by the masses. I think Crowleyism best sums up my musical appreciation theory 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'. If you like it, buy it regardless of popularity but if you don't, you're a twat if you do. The Beatles were cursed by too many twats. Like with many bands that have made it big, they were in the right place at the right time. There are several bands out there that can fill stadiums and I think to myself "How the hell does this crap sell"? For the first possibly 4-5 years, The Beatles were what you could call bubble-gum pop.band but then they managed to break away from that and write more imaginative songs. maybe the drugs helped form that, but that's what they did. I like Nick Cave too. I enjoy his lyrics and his style and I believe I'm missing just one or two of his albums to complete my collection. I've even gone to a couple of his concerts and one at the Royal Festival Hall is on my top 20 concerts that I've been to. Partly because it was a good concert and also that he managed to get Kylie Minouge up on stage to sing Murder Ballads and then afterwards had her recite the lyrics to Better The Devil You Know. This debate about who is good and who isn't reminds me of a conversation Leonard Cohen had with his manager as he was being driven to his first performance. Cohen said to his manager "I don't know what I'm doing here, I can't even sing". His manager turned to him and said "None of you guys can sing. If I want to hear a singer, I go to the opera". 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Flag 84 Posted February 18, 2013 I've found that to fully appreciate how influential Elvis, The Beatles and Dylan were, you have to put yourself in the position of looking at their music in the context of the time, based on what else was around Elvis wasn't the first rock 'n' roll singer but he was the full package and very different from the others at the time The Beatles did bog standard pop tunes at first but the key thing is they were writing most of their own stuff - and this writing gradually developed as they matured, particularly from Rubber Soul onwards. They were massively influential on what came after Then there's Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone is one of the most important songs ever because no one had attempted a 6 minute song, nothing out there was quite so negative lyrically, and of course he has quite an unconventional voice; all 3 of these things can be found as a running theme through most rock music since I agree that to a certain extent it's all white people congratulating white people for doing stuff that white people like - all these music magazines and websites like Rolling Stone and Pitchfork are run by white middle class men and generally focus on white middle class men. That's rock music for you. It's just a classic example of the white Westerner's belief in his superiority. But I don't really want to get into the rockism and popism debates, though - it's pointless. It's just arguing over which discourse is the best Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted February 18, 2013 @Phantom: Not at all, i'm sure that some people (and i suspect TMIB is among them) thoroughly enjoyed the Beatles music, 'got' the message and took time to appreciate the subtle nuances of Mr Lennon and Mr McCartney's songwriting. I personally don't 'get it'. The problem is that people fete the Beatles as 'the most influential band of eVar', whereas I'd argue their popularity is based on marketing and mass-hysteria rather than musical merit. I personally think Nick Cave is the most talented singer and songwriter i have ever heard and were i to be stuck with one album for ever and ever, his greatest hits would be it. I am able, however, to see past my own fanaticism and understand that he will never be the most popular, the most influential or the best selling purely because he is fucking weird and his music has limited appeal outside those of us cursed with dark thoughts and a lack of faith in humanity. Based on their early musical output, The Beatles should have been the same, an aquired taste appreciated by the few , but the fact that they were four young scousers willing to whore themselves for fame and their 'marketability' meant people who didn't even like, nor could possibly understand, the music were buying it by the bucketload in order to 'fit in' with what society was telling them was cool. They weren't the best musicians in their own clothes and if you want great songwriting from that period you could have chucked a dart in a Camden pub and hit better lyricists than Lennon and McCartney but somehow they were outselling far more traditionally appealing bands and became a meat grinder of crap pop 'product' for consumption by the masses. I think Crowleyism best sums up my musical appreciation theory 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'. If you like it, buy it regardless of popularity but if you don't, you're a twat if you do. The Beatles were cursed by too many twats. I think you are getting the 1960s mixed up with the 1990s, which is an understandable mistake seeing as it was a replay of it in many respects. It's that bit I don't get. I could be wrong, but I get the funny feeling you are under 30 years old. Who were these "traditionally appealing" bands in 1963/4? Trad jazz? Skiffle? Balladeers like Sinatra? Elvis? The Beatles were no doubt overrated but their impact on music for good or ill was pervasive. To dismiss that is to cut off your nose to spite your face. The Beatles were an influence on Glam Rock for instance (listen to Roxy Music's opener from their debut album and it's a rip off of 'Daytripper' from 1965. Bowie pretty much stole McCartney's DESH style music on stuff like "Changes") who were in turn an influence on Nick Cave. The very notion of a band or artist using the album format, complete with "concept" (such as cover art, themes and contemporary reference) was one the Beatles were at the forefront of in the 1960s, with albums such as 'Revolver' and 'Sgt. Pepper'. Don't sound much like 1 Direction to me. They were indeed the "boyband" of their day, but that was then, a very different pop landscape. This argument smacks of the kind of naive, elitist tight-arseness I long abandoned as I've got older... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218 Posted February 18, 2013 The couldnt carry a tune in a bucket, they couldnt write songs, they were mega shit live, they influenced nobody and more than one generation didnt give a shit. Bubblegum pop.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,530 Posted February 18, 2013 "People don't talk about an orchestra and say, 'Oh. Are ya still playing that fucking old Beethoven stuff?' Why should they say the same to us?" Lee Brilleaux Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lard Bazaar 3,799 Posted February 18, 2013 I rip the piss out of my 15 year old for liking One Direction, but actually, seeing her so piss-pantingly excited at going to see them in a few weeks time fills me with joy. Judge me if you will, but she feels the same about that as I used to feel going to see Guns N Roses at Wembley when I was a teenager, and how I feel nowadays going to see the Foo Fighters or Robbie Williams (yes, laugh, I don't care). I fucking love it, and scream and shout and sing my head off for a couple of hours, and if she can feel the same excitement about a bunch of floppy haired pillocks, then who am I to argue? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,530 Posted February 18, 2013 I rip the piss out of my 15 year old for liking One Direction, but actually, seeing her so piss-pantingly excited at going to see them in a few weeks time fills me with joy. Judge me if you will, but she feels the same about that as I used to feel going to see Guns N Roses at Wembley when I was a teenager, and how I feel nowadays going to see the Foo Fighters or Robbie Williams (yes, laugh, I don't care). I fucking love it, and scream and shout and sing my head off for a couple of hours, and if she can feel the same excitement about a bunch of floppy haired pillocks, then who am I to argue? David Cameron seems to like 1D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted February 18, 2013 I rip the piss out of my 15 year old for liking One Direction, but actually, seeing her so piss-pantingly excited at going to see them in a few weeks time fills me with joy. Judge me if you will, but she feels the same about that as I used to feel going to see Guns N Roses at Wembley when I was a teenager, and how I feel nowadays going to see the Foo Fighters or Robbie Williams (yes, laugh, I don't care). I fucking love it, and scream and shout and sing my head off for a couple of hours, and if she can feel the same excitement about a bunch of floppy haired pillocks, then who am I to argue? Er, isn't she a bit...old for that sort of thing. 11/12/13 yeah but 15? Rock music must be really shit at the moment if they're not turning heads anymore. Same goes for Hip Hop... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted February 18, 2013 I rip the piss out of my 15 year old for liking One Direction, but actually, seeing her so piss-pantingly excited at going to see them in a few weeks time fills me with joy. Judge me if you will, but she feels the same about that as I used to feel going to see Guns N Roses at Wembley when I was a teenager, and how I feel nowadays going to see the Foo Fighters or Robbie Williams (yes, laugh, I don't care). I fucking love it, and scream and shout and sing my head off for a couple of hours, and if she can feel the same excitement about a bunch of floppy haired pillocks, then who am I to argue? David Cameron seems to like 1D Tony Blair already did that (Comic Relief cameo)... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
time 8,571 Posted February 19, 2013 I rip the piss out of my 15 year old for liking One Direction, but actually, seeing her so piss-pantingly excited at going to see them in a few weeks time fills me with joy. Judge me if you will, but she feels the same about that as I used to feel going to see Guns N Roses at Wembley when I was a teenager, and how I feel nowadays going to see the Foo Fighters or Robbie Williams (yes, laugh, I don't care). I fucking love it, and scream and shout and sing my head off for a couple of hours, and if she can feel the same excitement about a bunch of floppy haired pillocks, then who am I to argue? David Cameron seems to like 1D Tony Blair already did that (Comic Relief cameo)... Neil Kinnock did it ages before (I know, he wasn't PM, but Mrs T would never have done it). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulitzer95 12,423 Posted August 21, 2013 BBC North West Tonight reporting on Twitter that the man who brought The Beatles to the States, Sid Bernstein has died aged 95. And so we wait... EDIT: Link - http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/tributes-paid-man-who-brought-5763654 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2013 It's also worth noting some Beatle associates like Yoko Ono and Sir George Martin have maintained remarkable good health into their seventies and eighties. Yoko will be one of those that are in there 90's but she will be long and forgotten by then. George Martin though, should get his time in the sun sooner or later. Wasn´t it Ed Sullivan who brought The Beatles to the USA?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2013 BBC North West Tonight reporting on Twitter that the man who brought The Beatles to the States, Sid Bernstein has died aged 95. And so we wait... EDIT: Link - http://www.liverpool...brought-5763654 Wasn´t it Ed Sullivan who brought The Beatles to the USA?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the_engineer 1,414 Posted August 21, 2013 BBC North West Tonight reporting on Twitter that the man who brought The Beatles to the States, Sid Bernstein has died aged 95. And so we wait... EDIT: Link - http://www.liverpool...brought-5763654 Wasn´t it Ed Sullivan who brought The Beatles to the USA?? Wasn't it Ed Sullivan who brought The Beatles to the USA?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
time 8,571 Posted August 21, 2013 BBC North West Tonight reporting on Twitter that the man who brought The Beatles to the States, Sid Bernstein has died aged 95. And so we wait... EDIT: Link - http://www.liverpool...brought-5763654 Wasn´t it Ed Sullivan who brought The Beatles to the USA?? Wasn't it Ed Sullivan who brought The Beatles to the USA?? No, it was pan am. 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted August 21, 2013 The death of Sid Bernstein,the man who made the Beatles famous as well as The Rolling Stones and many other artists, is now being widely reported across the net http://edition.cnn.c...obit/?hpt=us_c2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichardFeynman 16 Posted August 27, 2013 The death of Sid Bernstein,the man who made the Beatles famous as well as The Rolling Stones and many other artists, is now being widely reported across the net http://edition.cnn.c...obit/?hpt=us_c2 The title of this thread is "Beatles death curse", this implies that this thread is about Beatles or people associated with the Beatles who die early/tragic/unexpected deaths, not people associated with the Beatles who died natural deaths at the age of 95. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,509 Posted August 30, 2013 The death of Sid Bernstein,the man who made the Beatles famous as well as The Rolling Stones and many other artists, is now being widely reported across the net http://edition.cnn.c...obit/?hpt=us_c2 The title of this thread is "Beatles death curse", this implies that this thread is about Beatles or people associated with the Beatles who die early/tragic/unexpected deaths, not people associated with the Beatles who died natural deaths at the age of 95. Well considering that the remaining band members can now be thought of as old men then this thread has probably run its course. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TAFKAG 70 Posted September 16, 2013 Jackie Lomax, singer/songwriter/guitarist who never quite escaped from the Beatles' orbit, dead at 69. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,616 Posted July 22, 2014 Tree planted in memory of George Harrison killed by...beetles. Can't help thinking Monty Python loving George would have appreciated the irony! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28417341 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Just been announced that John Lennons wife has died Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
