The Smiley Smile Message Board

Meeeeeeee  ;D

Never heard of 'em. Were they an opening act for the Beach Boys or something?

I'd guess starting a thread that references the Beatles won't keep you from hearing about the Beatles (unless, having started it, you abandon the thread).

To answer the question of the thread: I am, but not in the way some people seem to be (were they superior/inferior to the Beach Boys, were they really the greatest band ever and if not, who is, etc.). I think they were the best pop band of all time. They deserve acclaim as much as any pop band deserves acclaim.

I'm sick of them just because it gets tiresome to talk about the same old bands whose output has (more or less, barring reissues) ceased. For every one nugget of music or interesting new perspective, there are a few hundred rehashes of old ideas. For example, whether we're sick of hearing about the Beatles.

On tabloids in the grocery store. On the front page of iTunes every. f*kin. week. I flipped on the TV just now, and what's on CBS? A story on the Beatles invasion.

I'm sick of hearing about em too.

A simple yes or no would suffice.. No need to be a smartass

Thanks. I'm also tall, punctual, and fully prepared to discuss the ins and outs of possessives and contractions.

Spam...? ::)

At least provide something of an actual introductory post...

Thanks for making me laugh out loud. :lol

Not tired.  Anthology was awesome.

I don't see what the big deal is you are a BB fan.  Stop comparing them.

Not anymore.  I was sick of all the hype during the BB "drought" (in the States) during the late 60's and 70's, which "in the eye of the public" pitted the two bands against one another as competitors rather than each band inspiring the work of the other, and the mutual admiration, of each other's music concepts and innovations.  By that I reference the Beatles hearing Pet Sounds, early on, and the impact that TM and Eastern philosophy had on both.

Now, knowing that it was the corporate domain that (in the States) showed preference to the Beatles, to the detriment of the Boys, and, the actual truth emerging, with the numerous joint accolades of McCartney, Ringo performing in DC post the death of Dennis, that there was a certain "meeting of the minds" as between the two groups that the corporate sphere could not prevent happening.  Great minds think alike, and spurred growth and competition in a good way, for each's personal best. 

It's a very cool place to have seen that Ed Sullivan show and reflect on what happened in between.  The Beatles actually helped lift up the States, in mourning for JFK, when they landed here in 1964.  I think JFK would have loved that.   ;)

No.

I disagree that a simple yes or no would suffice, in which case we could just accomplish the same thing with an up-or-down poll. The fun of a message board--in those rare occasions when it's fun--is reading people's opinions with some sort of context around them. A simple yes or no doesn't provide that. For example, while my answer was actually a yes--superficially your answer, though more on that in the next paragraph--the reason was not the stereotypical one found on this board. I thought it warranted a brief explanation. I'm not expecting anyone to necessarily agree, nor do I care whether they do, but maybe someone would find it interesting.

As far as whether there's need to be a smartass, that's a matter of opinion, too. The goal of that was really just to note that you contradict your own stated opinion by starting a thread on the very topic about which you're tired of reading. That's an inherent contradiction and implies maybe you actually have no trouble reading about the Beatles, as long as it's in the context you want to read about them. (You didn't say anything one way or the other, but given the thread placement on a Beach Boys message board in the "General On Topic Discussions" forum, that context may be something like a general piling on of posts like "yeah, the Beach Boys are better than the Beatles, I hate how everyone always says the Beatles are so great," etc.) I could have said the same thing without the attempt at humor, but it would then have read something more like this long-winded paragraph. Besides, a little levity never broke a message board. Then you sarcastically and misspellingly (I made up that word because it was fun to do so) said I was smart and I made Smile Brian laugh and you edited your post to recommend a simple yes or no and that's pretty much gotten us to where we are now. This post is also a bit on the smartass side, but I assure you there's no malice. Just an intelligent anus.

I do hope nobody else takes your yes-or-no advice, though. It won't suffice.

Not at all. I enjoy their music almost as much as the Beach Boys as well as the music from the "English Invasion" that followed their arrival to the U.S.

Kind of but, only in the sense that I'm sick of news about The Beatles that isn't accompanied by words like "to release Carnival of Light on (date)" or "catalog confirmed to show up on Spotify starting tomorrow". yeah, yeah, yeah important band, great pop songs, significant impact on pop culture, who knows what the music industry would be like if not for them, etc. now shadup about all-a that and let us finally get to hear any of their songs whenever we want via Spotify.  ;)

(do you think i'm going to be beyond miffed if this year passes by without a (good) deal between The Beatles catalog music and Spotify? gee.)

I have the Beatles USB and that thing is awesome. I wish the Beach Boys had something like that.

I'm sick of hearing that people are sick of hearing about the Beatles

I'd support a USB drive full of remastered mono/stereo album, remastered live albums (including lei'd in Hawaii). Shoot, make the USB drive in the shape of a surfboard and Mike Love may even bankroll this thing himself.

Relax, the BB themselves were big fans of theirs and took a lot of inspiration from what they did.

That said, never a favorite pop/rock group of mine, though I like some of their earlier stuff as well as All Things Must Pass and a couple McCartney solo records.

No, never. Always had an interest in the careers of most 60s bands and how they have panned out since their heyday, good and bad.

I took OPs original post to mean: in regards to the media love-fest of the 50th who is sick of hearing about the Beatles?

Personally, I love the Beatles. I've been listening to them nearly every day for the last few weeks. I love hearing them, I'm getting tired of hearing about them lately.

Yep.

Yeah, I'm pretty much over the Beatles.
A few years ago I used to love it. I guess not so much anymore.

Plus some of their work is highly overrated. Such as Sgt. Pepper and the White Album.

Nah, albums that define eras are not overrated.

I'm sorry, but I just don't care for those albums much. It comes down to personal taste, not general consensus.

I only like a few songs from each. The rest? Sgt. Pepper is too pop and the White Album is too weird.

But I still love Rubber Soul, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road

Nope, I love The Beatles and always will. Always glad to hear about them or to hear them.

Loving The Beach Boys doesn't stop me from also loving The Beatles.

Verily thou hast spoken.

If anyone is sick of it now, you must have missed the 1995 publicity blitz around the "Anthology" which was way more massive, and that's saying something considering the internet part of the promotion wasn't even that big in those days.

Not me. You young'uns will never understand that moment of AWE when you buy a 'just released' Beatle LP. Bring it home, examine the cover art and/or liner notes, and then...have your mind BLOWN when the needle hits the record.

For me, it was the White Album. G.C. Murphy, Thanksgiving weekend, 1968.

I then took the album over to my friend's house (who was MUCH older...he was 12). We listened to it, discussed the lyrics, and debated their meaning. It was deep man, in '68.  :afro

I'm sick to death of hearing about The Beatles from people who have no idea what they are talking about.  First and foremost the fact that this whole fifty years of Beatlemania thing is kicking off this year instead of last year is a complete and total farce.  Beatlemania was running wild in the UK and throughout Europe for at least a good solid six months before 2-9-64 and probably a bit longer than that.  It seems that as the years roll along and more specifically my years as a Beatles fan begin to accumulate in number, the number of authors and writers that I actually find to be even remotely credible in writing about The Beatles seem to get smaller and smaller.

The late Neil Aspinall was right when he mentioned that "everyone and their uncle has told (written) The Beatles story".  It's just redundant now and unfortunately a lot of it now is starting to be second and third hand accounts from people who weren't even alive in the sixties to experience it.  Now I understand that it's more than possible for people who didn't live through a particular event or time period to still write decent copy about it but when it comes to The Beatles, those folks are few and far between.

That's true. Time is the enemy in all these things. You can't fully appreciate the band without appreciating the impact in its' day. To those born after the fact, it's like imaging yourself living in another era.

Good post. The Beach Boys had their 50th in 2012. In actuality, Ideally, The Beatles should have had their 50th the same year (or the year before). Not sure I'd say this 50th acknowledgement of The Beatles coming to America is an all balls out celebration, but I'm glad the media is giving it attention. It's really when they came to America and played their first gig on Ed Sullivan is when it happened for most Americans, not before then. Just like The Beach Boys played their first gig in the Los Angeles area in 1961. Even though there are only two Beatles left, I'm not sure what kind of celebration the UK could have had anyway, but I don't recall a lot happening the last two years to mark the Beatles beginnings in Liverpool, Hamburg, or London.

The 50th Anniversary of the death of JFK was an American milestone. Yes, the world was affected, but JFK was ours, so we remembered the occasion. Just like we remembered the Beatles on February 9, 1964 to help us forget those 4 dark days in the U.S. about 3 months before.

You know, all of this 50th anniversary talk has really made me wonder if they would have reunited if all four of them had still been alive. Even though they kind of seemed destined to never reunite, I don't see how they could not do something for something like a 50th anniversary. Could you imagine a Beatles/Beach Boys 50th anniversary tour? :o Yes, I know the math is off a little, but just try to picture it.

I remember this like it was yesterday. HUGE promotion by Capitol Records. Three volumes of the Beatles Anthology Series in 1995. What a resurgence for old fans and a new generation of fans. Played it over and over at home and in the car. It's when my 12 year old daughter and I really connected on a music level, especially with the Beatles. While other kids from her piano lessons group (15) were playing little ditzy classical pieces at the recitals that solicited polite applause, my daughter was playing and singing Beatle songs and bringing the house down with loud applause and standing O's. And the Beatles convention in San Francisco where she bought some collectibles including a pair of John Lennon glasses (which she actually wore) listened to guest speakers who were there, and watched some great musicians cover the songs. Those were real good times for my family - The Beatles (and Beach Boys) music was and still is a permanent fixture for life.

Imagine an anniversary tour with Paul, Ringo, and Pete. The three remaining Beatles.
With Julian, Sean, Dhani and James joining them as well!

Obviously, none of this is never going to happen, just as Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, David, Blondie and Ricky will never get back together. But we can always Imagine...

Saw Sean sitting next to his Mom the other night at the Grammy's and he looked like the spittin' image of his old man, circa 1969.

I love the Beatles. I don't hear too many people talk about them at all so it doesn't bother me at all. If they ever come up in conversation it's just fine.

Yeah, isn't that scary? Dhani looks just like his dad circa 1965. Maybe even more so than Sean looking like John.

Jay, check out Dhani on the Tribute for George Harrison video. His looks and mannerisms remind me a lot of his Dad.

Man, I have great memories of this time period. Both my parents and I gathered around in the living room to watch the series when it aired on tv. I was about nine, and was allowed to stay up later than usual until the episode(s) ended. But then I had to go to bed immediately after. Two of those episodes had the world wide debut of brand new "Beatles songs", which were counted down second by second. Now, I ask you, can you really expect anyone to be able to be able to fall asleep after something like that?!?  :ahh :ahh :ahh

He even has George's "fang tooth"!  :o  ;D

Yep!  And along with the CD sets and the TV Special series, then you could buy the video on VHS and DVD. Good stuff. Some of the music was bootlegged prior, but there were plenty of new revelations too.

If you are chalking up the hoopla over this anniversary to the Baby Boomers reliving their collective childhood -- well, you're right, up to a point. But a new nationwide survey for TheStreet by GfK has found that a clear majority of respondents of all age groups feel that the Beatles remain relevant even for those born after 1980 -- the year John Lennon was killed.

Pre-fame, Lennon pushed his bandmates to keep their spirits up, telling them repeatedly that the band was going to the very top of pop charts, "the toppermost of the poppermost." So successful were they that 50 years later, they are still there, at the very top. 

According to the Recording Industry Association of America, which certifies Gold and Platinum records on request from labels, the Beatles have sold 177 million complete albums in the U.S. alone over 50-plus years, making them the top act in history, in terms of album sales, to be certified Gold or Platinum. Nielsen SoundScan says that since it started tracking sales in 1991, the Beatles have sold more than 65 million albums, second only to Garth Brooks (with 69 million). The collection of No. 1 hits, The Beatles 1, is the top-selling album for the last decade. Additionally, the band sold 15 million digital songs. Many Web sites estimate Beatles global all-time sales but those figures vary wildly depending on the source. The Web site StatisticBrain puts album sales alone at over 2 billion -- yes, that's "billion" with a "b".

Any way you look at it, that's a lot of selling. There are many out there who certainly won't pass up the opportunity to generate additional revenue from these upcoming 50th anniversaries.

Last month, Universal Music Group, a subsidiary of Vivendi (VIV_), released The Beatles: U.S. Albums, a CD box set of the American versions of the Beatles recordings, with the early ones released on the Capitol Records label. That dropped Jan. 21, just in time for the Grammys and the tribute broadcast. The track order and mixes for U.S. issues of the early Beatles albums was slightly different from those released in the U.K. In this set of remastered recordings, the orders match the original U.S. pressings, but any original differences in the mix are lost.

The collection of BBC recordings, mentioned above, On Air: Live at the BBC, Vol. 2,  was released in 2013, the 50th anniversary of the Beatles rise to stardom in Britain.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12315203/1/the-beatles-part-3-give-me-money-thats-what-i-want.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

I still remember the day when my mom went out somewhere, and my dad and I took the chance to listen to volume 3 of the Anthology cd. This weird, plodding, slow beat came on, and Paul started with "When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the ride, and I know as I get there I never get high", and my dad and I looked at each other at the exact same time.  ;D  That's one of the best memories I have about my dad and I.  :)

Amen to that!

In my opinion they would have and the reason that is most often cited is the original plan for the ending of the "Anthology" was not the FAAB/RL "Threetles" sessions that we ended up getting but a full scale reunion concert featuring all four Beatles.  On November 28, 1980 in a legal deposition taken as part of a lawsuit on the part of Apple against the New York stage show "Beatlemania", John Lennon stated that he and the other three Beatles did plan to stage a reunion concert which would be filmed and included as the finale of a Beatles made autobiographical documentary entitled "The Long And Winding Road".  

According to Neil Aspinall, "The Long And Winding Road" had been in production since the early seventies but was hampered by the lack of footage that was available to Apple at the time.  Aspinall once described his earliest cuts of the documentary as featuring "little more than footage of planes landing and taking off".  Some of this early footage is believed to have been used in a 1976 promo film for "Back In The USSR" used to promote the "Rock & Roll Music" LP.  Still, Aspinall continued to tinker with the film throughout the decade and allegedly would from time to time show it to the former Beatles.  Given John's deposition it would seem by 1980 that the project was starting to gain serious legs as it not only had endorsement of all of The Beatles but was seemingly getting to the point where The Beatles would become active participants in some form in it's production.

Unfortunately all plans for the documentary went into cold storage for around a decade following the events of 12-8-80 and the ensuing legal tangles that Paul, George, Ringo & Yoko would find themselves in throughout the decade of the eighties.  Once the lawsuits were settled however, the project finally did get off the ground in the early nineties and was eventually retitled, realized and released as "The Beatles: Anthology".  

Now what is truly bizarre is to my knowledge despite the fact that this deposition has been public knowledge since the lawsuit between Apple and the production company behind "Beatlemania" was settled in 1986, not once during the media campaign for "Anthology" nor since has reporter ever asked Paul, George, Ringo or Yoko about the statements John Lennon made in his 1980 deposition in regards to the original plans for the "Anthology" project.  

So whenever anyone inevitably asks the infamous question ("Would have The Beatles ever gotten back together"/"If John Lennon had lived would've The Beatles gotten back together") the first thing that strikes me is that mere days prior to his death, John Lennon may have given us the closest we'll ever get to an answer to that question and those statements have been part of the public record since 1986.  Yet nobody ever seems to bring this up for reasons that to this day remain a complete mystery to me.

Yeah. He looks like his dad at Live Peace in Toronto.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/flaming-lips-and-sean-lennon-visit-lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds-20140207 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/flaming-lips-and-sean-lennon-visit-lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds-20140207)

... is a good two years late, maybe three depending on how you define it. But, as someone said in another post, nothing ever happens outside of the USA.

Not me, as long as they keep the Fab Four limelighted it give me more opportunity to share the greatest Rock Band of all Time.

THE BEACH BOYS (echo added)

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles? They were the leading act of the 1960's, their music inspired Brian Wilson to write Pet Sounds, plus their influence can be heard in numerous other Beach Boys songs. You have to give credit where credit is due, and thanks to The Beatles, their music pushed Brian Wilson and the rest of The Beach Boys to record better and better music.

:) Mark

I know so little about the Beatles that I wondered why everybody has talking about them lately.

I know they influenced the Beach Boys, and obviously music and pop culture generally, but I don't particularly care for them.  I guess their early stuff was ok, but I personally don't find them "revolutionary" enough to care.  Beatles, meh.

I was when I was at school in the UK, where everyone seemed obsessed with them.  I preferred the likes of The Rivieras and The Rockin' Rebels. (This was in '63, many months before the onset of the British Invasion.) 

Still, time being the great leveller or healer or something, I'm not stdohatb now. :=)

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

Not at all sick of hearing about Beatles.  Amazing how good Paul and Ringo look on the grammy tribute.  Liked Jeff Lynne's performances, and Stevie Wonder did a great rearrangement of his original cover of We Can Work It Out.  Not so enamored of some of the other performers' takes on the Beatles.

For the US, the Beatles were unknown until January 64 when I Want to Hold Your Hand exploded, and their success enabled the rest of the British invasion, which was a huge musical and cultural shift for the US charts and youth culture.  So I think a 50th anniversary tribute is definitely in order.  I still remember the first time I heard the song, over the radio in a pizza parlour, before their appearance on Sullivan.

For me they were inspiring, challenging, healing, a prime influence on me learning and playing music, and basically a group of friends who I could go to whenever I needed a boost, or a smile, or a good cry in the hard times. I still can't get through playing or hearing a song like Here Comes The Sun without choking up a bit, but that's really personal and not for public disclosure.

I'll never get tired of hearing them or about them. How could someone get tired of a close and dear friend who has been there for you through good times and bad?  :)

+1

I really rarely hear about the Beatles these days.

End of the day, if you don't like hearing about anything, turn off the source. Simple!

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

 It's an interesting question. It feels safe to say the majority of people living in the world today have heard of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson too. I could be wrong.

 Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

A similarity that I find between the Beatles and the Beach Boys is the variety and diverseness of songs and music that both groups have in their respective catalogues. Styles, themes, arrangements, whatever.   

I think the majority of people living today have heard of The Beatles and probably have even heard a song or two.  Whether or not the vast majority of people living in the world today are Beatles fans is another matter entirely.  But have they heard of them?  There is no debate.  The Beatles are the definition of a household word.

One such example that just popped into my head was that in the late eighties, Paul McCartney did a call in radio show exclusively for The Soviet Union and found that the Russians were just as familiar with The Beatles and their music as was the rest of the world despite the fact that up until that point no Beatle had performed a concert in USSR and their records allegedly weren't as heavily promoted in that area of the world as they were in most others. 

A tribute is definitely in order but it should've begun last year or the year before.  For goodness sake by February of 1964, the band had already released two LPs, five singles and I believe a number of EPs as well (although these contained no unique material).  

Also to be fair and as most of us know, The Beatles should've broke the US market long before they did and George Martin was rightfully disgusted as he explains in "Anthology" how Capitol Records not only tried but managed to stymie The Beatles' expansion (and eventually ensuing popularity) in The United States by refusing to carry their records on their label.  Their excuse that The Beatles/Martin/Parlophone didn't understand how to make American records is pure bollocks as well.  Their records just didn't sound in line with the majority of that manufactured sh*t that the US record labels were churning out circa 1960-1962 and calling "rock and roll".  The Beatles sound really wasn't at all far removed from their American rock and roll, rhythm and blues influences all of whom had already proved successful on the US charts a few years before.  

Furthermore The Beach Boys' third LP "Surfer Girl" was released in September of 1963 and you can't say that record is galaxies away from The Beatles' first two albums.  Each band had their unique sound but songs from both bands could easily be played side by side on the radio without issue.  

JohnMill, I'm not intending this to be sarcastic or anything of the sort, but it wasn't just that they weren't as heavily promoted, but under the USSR and communist rule, the Beatles and their records were banned, and it was illegal to own or play them out in the open in some areas, a crime which could actually lead to being jailed. Imagine, Beatles records being against the law - the joys of communist rule. Not to mention the fact that they operated all the radio stations, so the only way you'd get anything like the Beatles was from distant broadcasts or illegal stations.

There was a fascinating documentary about McCartney and band performing in the USSR, sometime in the last 8-10 years or so, perhaps on PBS in the US, and this topic was explored. The music of the Beatles was in fact outlawed, but just like the old jokes about American designer jeans being sold underground in the USSR, Beatles records were like a secret society.

They were so in demand among Russian teenagers and 20-somethings, yet almost totally unavailable, that these enterprising Beatles fans when they did get hold of an album would make copies of the album by imprinting the vinyl record and its grooves into used x-ray film material - it was able to capture the ins and outs of the grooves enough to hold the impression and reproduce the music enough to be listenable, although the quality was obviously poor.

But in light of not having any records, this was how they exchanged Beatles music, all done underground and under the radar of the law, the KGB, whatever the heck you want to call that police state and all the countries it ruled over.

That always stuck with me, how the love of the Beatles' music and what it represented to those kids as they expressed in that film led them to go to such lengths just to hear ersatz, illegal copies of the vinyl pressed into X-ray film material.

Incredible too that this is just in the past 50 years that these countries and governments saw Beatles records as such a threat that they were against the law to own, and how unbelievable it is in light of almost all of us being able to simply walk into a record shop since we were kids and buy whatever we wanted to spend the money to buy.

Well I was aware they were banned in the USSR and I apologize if I didn't make that clear.  As you stated some copies obviously slipped in which resulted in copies and copies and so on and so forth.  Incidentally the USSR wasn't the only place where The Beatles records were not readily available to the general public.  As I recall many of their records were banned for years in South Africa.

I have always loved The Beatles but I find they have been overdone the past few years.   Paul has toured constantly and to a degree so has Ringo.    I would have LOVED to see Paul on tour in the 80's when he was still youthful and his voice was still in perfect pitch but alas he did VERY few shows for that entire decade. 
Ringo is Ringo and that about sums him up as a performer.   
Surprisingly the Ex-Beatle to surprise me in recent years is Pete Best who released his album Haymon's Green in 2009 and in my opinion it is the best album by any former member of that group since Harrison's Cloud Nine in 1987.    Love Paul but in my eyes Tug of War was his last really good album of new material. 

Just excellent - GF2002! I never heard that x-ray film "subversive technique" to get the music. The music was a huge threat because of what it represented. The whole "free speech and association" was what was feared most.  The greater the repression, the more "creativity" blooms.  And, how unfortunate that Lennon was gone, when the "Iron Curtain" was beginning to crumble, starting in Poland with Walesa...

I am sick of Ringo flashing the double peace sign.  >:D

Guess not too many here are sick of hearing about the Beatles!  Nice thread!!

I was holding off buying the new box set, but after reading this, I think I'll break down and get it.  This is what should have been Vol. 3 of the box sets; Vol. 1 and 2 being the Mono and Stereo boxed remasters from '09.  Pretty cool having the U.S. releases (complete with a miniature butcher cover!)

http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2014/01/26/the-u-s-albums-box-set-a-final-word-on-mixes-used/

I read on the Hoffman forums that the packaging is superb but not to expect the albums as they originally sounded when issued in the sixties.  They used the 2009 Mono and Stereo remasters for these and occasionally inserted the rare mixes that were unique to the US pressings where appropriate.  According to the Hoffman forums, most but not all of the rare US mixes are included in this box set but if you are a completest you actually still need those old "Capitol Albums" boxsets that came out around five or six years ago.  Unlike this new US Albums box set, those boxes DO accurately represent the original US catalog right down to the original mixes including I believe the duophonic mixes that Capitol was so fond of during that era.

Yeah, I guess we won't be hearing any Dave Dexter mixes on this new set!  :-D

But according to the aforementioned article, they adhered to the original U.S. mixes as much as possible, and when they didn't, there were good reasons not to.

They should make a movie about Dave Dexter.... :lol

Excellent way to put it, Moon Dawg.  I think this describes, almost to a "T" -- how I feel.

My beef with The Beatles has always been based around the hype they've received.  I always felt like it was clever marketing.  Of course, how one gets marketed has nothing to do with the quality of their work.  For fans of the Simpsons, I've always likened it to the "Gabo" episode.  Where day in and day out, everyone gets bombarded with "Gabo is coming!"  No one knows what "Gabo" is... but their interest is piqued.  And finally, when "Gabo" arrives, naturally, it's a sensation.

But it doesn't quite end there for me.  Personally, their work doesn't have the impact and staying power that matches their impact and legacy.  And their impact and legacy is huge -- no doubt.  That's not my point.  I'm not denying their impact and legacy.  My point is their work doesn't match it, to me.  Just my personal taste and preferences.  It doesn't resonate in my soul to the same degree it "changed the face of rock."

I don't feel the impact.  It doesn't move me the way Brian's work does.  And no where near Elvis.  The Beatles often sound light.  Cute.  Like kid music as a result.  It's great and catchy and flawless and cool.  And they are one of my favorites.  But after a few spins, I think I'm good.  For long awhile.  But again, that's personal taste and not the topic of the thread.




And yes... I can understand why Beatles fans would be sick of people who are sick of the Beatles.  But we are also sick of it.  It's a sick loop.   :lol

I'm sick to death of hearing that Sgt Pepper is overrated.

At the end of my day yesterday I went to watch a show on Netflix, I turned on my Apple TV box, and a Beatles App 'magically' appeared next to all of my other apps. When it comes to this latest marketing campaign, it seems it's not as simple as turning off the source ;D

Sgt. Pepper is my least favorite Beatles album.   Of all the psychedelia released that year Pink Floyd's The Piper At The Gates of Dawn floors Sgt. Pepper in all but sales.   The White album would be very very good with some songs chopped out of it.  A single disc White Album would be great.

Serves you right for using 'Apple' then doesn't it! ;)

so true :lol

I don't think it's overrated. When you average all the people who say its overrated and all the people who say it's the best thing they ever did... I would consider it perfectly rated.

It's always funny seeing people's reactions to Piero Scaruffi's essay on The Beatles (http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html)...

Did he just say that The Beatles emulated The Beach Boys for most of their career?  :brow

There is a disconnect, I'll chalk it up to a generational or age kind of thing, at play when it goes beyond personal opinions and individual taste with The Beatles and the impact they had in the 1960's and instead veers into suggesting it "wasn't all that", or was over-hyped.

If the suggestion is that the Beatles were not the single most influential band of their era, especially the years 1963 in the UK and 1964 in the US, I'll say flat out that is an opinion based on misunderstanding and is ultimately naive.

The reasons why and how and all that could fill a large book, but let's just say if there has been a single musical artist who had as much of an impact on music, the music business, popular culture, fashion, and even the length of one's hair which was considered "acceptable" in the 1960's and beyond, I've yet to see it.

Someone fill me in if I'm wrong, and name that artist from the past 50 years. Lady Gaga? Jay Z? Madonna? The closest would be Michael Jackson, and based mainly on the strength of one album Thriller. Or was it his "Bad" album, I'm not sure... ;D

And if someone suggests that reports of that impact on popular culture from 73 million TV viewers watching Ed Sullivan in Feb. 1964, or the way Sgt. Pepper as an album was blowing everyone's mind in the summer of 1967, were overblown or overhyped, perhaps hearing more reports from that time from people who experienced it would be in order.

Again, consider the difference between expressing an opinion about what you think of the music versus suggesting its place in popular culture and as an influence is somehow lesser than reported based on that personal opinion and bias.

Have people forgotten? Or is it a case of chasing a hip ethos where diminishing the popular becomes more important than acknowledging the way it really was at the time, in order to promote an underdog? Promoting the underdog might be the undercurrent of all this, where we can say "yeah, Sgt. Pepper is all hype and no substance" with a straight face.

Remember too that there are thousands of musicians that never make it out of their small town areas or garages/basements who might be considered "better" or more skilled than the popular names...and that fact also suggests they may be "better" musically or technically but if only one town or region knows of them and they play local gigs every week for a few hundred people, are they in any way worth noting in the same realm of influence as The Beatles, or Brian Wilson, or any other big-name act?

This seems pretty much on the money, except Dennis' hair in the early 1960's was a "mop top," and before the Invasion.  The four of them made the hair-style catch momentum. (Maybe they copied Dennis?) That said, in a certain way the Beatles were a "game changer." It was an opportunity for the US to have an outlet to come out of the depression from the JFK assassination.  But it seemed to cut two ways. 

On one hand, the mood of the country improved as it had a new "focus" but the government seemed to use this as a way to divide youth from parents and use music as a scapegoat and on the other hand, create a perception that "bad influences" were arriving in the US.  Looking back, perhaps it was used as a smokescreen/diversion, to cover up the inquiry into the assassination of JFK. 

They were a game changer.  When they spoke, people did listen.  And as "outsiders" they had plenty to say about and against the war in Vietnam.  But, because they had the "ear" of an emerging generation of 60's activists, became a force to be reckoned with. And with the other musicians' influence, the anti-war movement took off.

The replay of the Grammy show was on last night.  Just as amazing as the first night.  They impressed me as humble guys, from humble beginnings, who overcame huge challenges to get where they were going, and who appear grateful for the blessings that came their way, and almost overwhelmed by the collective influence they exerted on their industry. 

And, Yoko is a mighty spry lady for 80! I had no idea she was 80!  ;)

The Beatles were exceptional because their talent and their fame gave them a type of gravitas that is rarely ever awarded on celebrities. People who won't acknowledge that are just being willfully ignorant; often in the guise of attempting to appear hip.

@guitarfool2002 - Hear! Hear!

Sick of hearing about the Beatles, the greatness of their music and contributions?  Me?

Never.  Not even for a moment.


Don't get me wrong, I love the Beach Boys, and I understand Beach Boys fans on a Beach Boys forum wanting to celebrate the sublime music and cultural impact of their own that the 'Boys made.  There's not a thing in the world wrong with that, and I share in the celebration with you.  The Beach Boys and their fans have no reason to feel any sense of inferiority when it comes to The Beatles, or any other artist.  But honestly, sometimes some people spout things which just sound like sour grapes to me.  I mean, I don't recall any fans in the Beatlefan community bemoaning Brian Wilson's well-deserved awards and accolades over the past fifteen years, or so, and any who may have would have been wrong in doing so.

You know, the two bands share in many of the same wondrous phenomena.  For example, The Beatles broke up in Sept. '69 (don't believe that April 1970 jazz), a full six+ years before I was even born.  They are by no means a product on my generation, yet I (and many my age) have loved them all my life, and like no other artist I've ever experienced.  Now my young daughter is catching the bug, too.  That's something very rare and special in and of itself, but as everyone here knows, The Beach Boys themselves can claim a similar kind of continued relevance.

That said, there's no vast conspiracy by the Western World to hold The Beatles up and shower them with accolades for which they are undeserving.  The attention is by no means unwarranted.  There's a reason The Beatles are celebrated in the manner they are, by the number of people they are.  AllMusic puts it succinctly enough: "[The Beatles] were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did."  And that doesn't even begin to touch upon the cultural impact the band left on virtually every member of it's entire generation.

Besides, folks, all too soon, the surviving members of both groups will be gone from this earth, and these type of celebrations will largely be a thing of the past.  I say we share in the reverie and love while we all still can.

It would get me rambling too long to go into details but the last three posts, I'll just say "spot on!". It's a topic with so many elements, so many facets, and I just wanted to say I agree with these last three in the thread and am adding a +1 to them.

Re: The haircuts. I can almost guarantee that the haircuts had little or nothing to do with Dennis Wilson, from most of the more accurate histories John and Paul first got the style when they took off hitchhiking after a relative of John's had given him 100 pounds as a gift for his 21st birthday. They made it to Paris, and ran into a friend from Hamburg, Jurgen Vollmer, who was in that circle of art students and artists who latched onto Stu Sutcliffe when the band was serving that residency playing in the Hamburg clubs.

So John and Paul on that holiday cut loose and decided to go all out artsy in their look, and style, and everything else - wearing capes, bowler hats, bellbottom pants (flares as they called 'em), and blowing through John's gift money living it up in Paris. And part of that look came when they asked Jurgen to style their hair to look like his, which incidentally was similar to the way Astrid, and later Stu Sutcliffe, would be photographed in Hamburg. It was a look that was part of that clique.

And when John and Paul returned home, the haircuts caused a stir because they looked so different than the greaser/duck's ass styles they had been wearing as rockers. Even Jurgen himself apparently said before cutting their hair that he preferred them to look like greasers/rockers but John and Paul were set on getting a new look.

And as that shorter style began to grow out, there was the Beatle haircut.

Not saying it wasn't being worn by surfers and other assorted rebellious types before 1964, but with the Beatle cut there is a direct link to their Hamburg days and the year 1961, prior to the Beach Boys being a presence on the scene.

With Dennis I'm guessing it was just an effect from hanging with the surfers and beach bums, which is ironic because people still try so hard to copy that laid-back style which basically came from people who didn't give a damn about style or how they looked!  ;D

Another day off from work because of a foot of snow in Pennsylvania! And, this will qualify as the most boring post of 2014 - so far...

With this 50th Anniversary thing and The Ed Sullivan Show performances, it got me to reminiscing. I was just a young kid when The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, but I remember seeing one or two of them. And, do you know what was the overwhelming topic of discussion at that time, and I mean overwhelming? The length of their hair! That's what the kids were talking about, and, in a way, laughing at. But not in a derogatory way, in a "can you believe that" kind of way. And, as a young kid attending Catholic elementary school, you knew there was no way you were ever grow your hair like that, but, you wouldn't do it anyway because it was too DRASTIC. It was a fascination. I mean, kids in my neighborhood didn't look that. And, we hadn't even seen The Rolling Stones yet.

I also remember a bunch of us kids buying these long, white pieces of cardboard, and cutting out these images of guitars and playing "cardboard guitar" to Beatles' 45's on the record player. And, everybody wanted to imitate Paul. But, remember, you had to play "cardboard guitar" left-handed; we thought that was cool, too. And, although "Hofner bass" meant nothing to a little kid, you paid special attention to that unique shape when cutting out the cardboard shape.

Finally, our favorite song was "She Loves You", and everybody took their best shot at shaking their head (with our crew cuts) and yelling "woooooo" or whatever they sang when they shook their heads.

Again, as a kid experiencing The Beatles at that time, it was just as much their image that attracted you as the music, But, oh, it wasn't long before that touched you, and, man, did that touch you... :-D

Me too! Damned snow and ice...

This post is NOT boring, in fact it is and should be considered one of the most relevant and important of the entire thread, if not every Beatle thread we've had! Those people who may try to dismiss or lessen the Beatles' place in history and in popular culture need to read and hear this.

*This* is what it was like in 1964, culturally, historically, musically, in fashion-style, and touching on all kinds of moral and societal issues - it was a cultural phenomenon to see young guys sporting long hair, playing their own instruments live and writing their own songs, and doing so on their own terms, not having been "groomed" by some star-making machine but coming up from working hard at their craft.

I'm second-generation fanbase, I dove head-first into the Beatles in the mid 1980's, but I can say with confidence that the *only* comparable example I've seen in my life of such a cultural earthquake coming from a musician or musical act was when Michael Jackson did that Moonwalk on TV and in the next few weeks at school every kid was trying to learn and copy it, along with his dance moves we'd be seeing all over TV. Nothing like the Beatles, though...

A couple days ago I ran across this interview Larry King did with Julian Lennon last year.

http://rt.com/shows/larry-king-now/lennon-schwarzenegger-756/

A few minutes into the interview, Larry King asks him about the Beatles and what they had musically that set them apart from everyone else. After commenting on what a great question that is, Julian provides a very thoughtful answer about how the Beatles seemed to pull all these things out of the ether and doing things that nobody else was doing, etc........ except........wait for it........ the Beach Boys.

So everyone can relax. Even John Lennon's son recognizes the unique musical contributions both groups made back in the day. I knew Sean was a big fan but I had never heard Julian single the BBs out as equal musical innovators with the Beatles.

A lot of musicians recognize the unique quality of the Beach Boys.  I don't think there is even much of a debate on that point.  I have read quotes from multiple musicians that grew up in the sixties and listening to the bands that dominated the radio during that era and The Beach Boys are more oftentimes than not singled out for their unique sound which was unlike anything else on the radio at that point. 

For me the debate really ended when Sir George Martin made mentioned that nobody creatively challenged The Beatles in the studio more than "Brian Wilson and his Beach Boys" (I believe that was the way Martin termed it).  George Harrison also makes reference to this briefly in "Anthology" when he mentions that The Beatles around 1966 started to change their sound a bit to compete with The Beach Boys citing "Paperback Writer" as an example.  As most Beatles fans know, The Beatles rarely if ever altered their sound to suit trends or to mimic another popular musical act of the day but in the case of The Beach Boys, yeah they changed their sound a bit.

CBS promoted the heck out of the Grammy Tribute to the Beatles this past week. Anyone watch this? I only saw a few segments. I need to catch the rest on DVR. It wasn't bad. David Letterman had Paul and Ringo back at the Ed Sullivan theater.

Having a record 73 million viewers watch the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show didn't hurt their popularity.  ::)

http://www.edsullivan.com/artists/the-beatles/

I don't think the early Beatles had long hair compared to the pompadoured guys such as Elvis. If Elvis didn't pile his hair up and grease it in place, it would have been longer than Beatle hair.

Yeah but it didn't look long. Guys were wearing their hair like that for decades.

I've never been a huge fan of "Beatlemania".  I'm a fan of The Beatles but "Beatlemania" to me is another matter entirely.  It's just people of all age ranges going mad and not being able to express themselves with any degree of coherence and I've always found it unfortunate that the object of all of this "Beatlemania" was even by 1964, the greatest musical outfit in the world.  

To me there has always been very little appealing about "Beatlemania".  Pop music yet wasn't being given it's due in the mainstream as being a viable art form and the Beatlemaniacs as they were certainly weren't making a case for it to ever be taken seriously either because they were all crazed lunatics.  George Harrison was one hundred percent on the money when he made comments in regards to "Beatlemania" such as: "Everybody was out of line, even the cops were out of line", "They (meaning the world) used us as an excuse to go mad and then blamed it all on us", "Because we were at the eye of the storm...The Beatles were the sanest ones of the lot" and that is is one hundred percent true.

The reason being because coming out of "Beatlemania", it's only the Beatles reputations that came out of that unscathed.  Fifty years later they are being spoken of as the greatest band in the history of music.  But all of the "Beatlemaniacs" as well as all of the paranoid and petty proselytizers and naysayers back then just look completely and utterly ridiculous.  I mean it was just madness and people overreacting to polarizing degrees, at times to unhealthy levels.  So yes, "Beatlemania" undoubtedly was a phenomenon but in the grand scheme of things, I really don't look at it as a great moment socially speaking in the history of the United States or even the world at large.  It was just insanity that happened to be filmed, marketed and promoted at the highest level.

You have to separate "Beatlemania" from everything else and see it for what it is and was - It was out of the band's control, always was and always will be. Can any band even today control how their fans will react, how people will try to market and sell it outside their inner circle, or anything of the sort? Even the most tightly controlled marketing and PR campaigns cannot guarantee reactions or results.

As far as the notion of Beatlemania, I think the band knew it and just closed ranks as they usually did, and let the storm swirl around them without doing much to discourage or encourage it because they had no control of it anyway. And leave it to Bob Dylan, in 1964, to hit the nail on the head...when he was partying with the band in New York, 1964, and getting them stoned and silly, the story is that Dylan began answering the phone calls to the Beatles' hotel suite by saying things like "Hello, this is Beatlemania speaking."

That just about sums it up.  ;D

Which is pretty much what I've done.  To me it's just a bunch of silliness really.  For me, it's only real value is it captures a moment in "our" history whether you choose to ascribe "our" meaning US history or the history of society in general and their reaction to a phenomenon.  As I mentioned it was incredibly well documented and subsequently well preserved and it's makes for an interesting time capsule I suppose.  But aside from that to me it's exactly how I described it in my OP.

Your post was clear, I was just using "you" as a general term, not a direct one as in you=JohnMill.  ;D

I'm with you on most hype surrounding most bands up to the present, and try not to let reactions and hype affect how I perceive the music. In some cases, though, it's tough.

I might be more against the whole "Beatlemania" thing if I felt that the band members at any time had any involvement in stirring it up. To their credit, they kind of let things fall and focused on what they needed to do, and I think that's why they were able to continually top themselves musically and write/record better and better songs as all of this craziness was going on.

Consider how and when they wrote the Hard Day's Night album, and later how they finished off most of what would become Rubber Soul in about two weeks, and it's almost mind-boggling. Same goes for Brian Wilson's musical output from 63-66, just amazing for the quality and quantity of his work.

I still believe the Beach Boys were given a (quite lucky) chance to be bigger than everybody in the mid 70's but they made the unfortunate choice of going the 15 Big Ones route instead. Shame. 2012 was as close to that sort of momentum they have seen since and they messed that one up too. Great job.

I think the Beatles were much better than the Plastic Ono Band or Wings or Traveling Wilburies but I'm also a man who has legitimately purchased (and often enjoyed) Ringo Starr albums/cds since the 70's. Hard for me to be subjective maybe but I still had such mixed feelings watching the Grammy special on CBS. I mean I enjoyed watching all the close Beatles family & friends (that are still with us) enjoying themselves up in the front but some (or most if not all) of those bands and singers sounded awful. I think Eric Idle's short Rutle bit and some of the bio / wandering around the old Sullivan theater was of any interest to me.

But if it turns some young people on to old music then it cannot possibly be a bad thing. I'm sure there are a lot of us who were Beatles fans before we fell in love with the Beach Boys. The Beatles themselves have always admired the Beach Boys and lot of fans of "Pepper" and/or "Piper" find themselves discovering the BB and the SMiLe mythology and can't stop digging. But really, why why why did they ever submit to the label and release MIU album in 1978 for f***'s sake? Having just listened to it again last night I seriously have to question many of the decisions these guys (Brian & Mike mostly) have made. I had also listened to Adult/Child and although I enjoy most of it personally I can't believe that they were seriously considering submitting and releasing it along with a new Christmas album featuring that horrible 1969 rendition of "Seasons In The Sun". Damn them. That is straight textbook out-of-step.

Smiley:
 ;D

Lots to cover here.  First it's Wilburys (no "ies")  ;D - I'll get back to them in a bit.

I think it's been well documented that at least in the opinions of the diehards, The Beach Boys have made a lot of errors in judgment as so far as how they are perceived by the general public.  They were rightfully offended by being cast aside as "surfing Doris Days" in the late sixties and yet readily embraced that image during the era of "15 Big Ones" and have never really strayed from it since.  In a way that isn't necessarily a bad thing as the music of The Beach Boys captured The United States particularly the American teenager during a specific era perhaps better than any other group has done before or since although a slight nod could be given to Kurt Cobain and Nirvana as to capturing the apathy that many teenagers were feeling in the early nineties having been the generation of both the latch key kid and broken family.

Anyhow the issue that a lot of the diehards take when it comes to the "surfing Doris Days" image that this band has cultivated very well for itself since the mid seventies is that fact that it pigeonholes the group unfairly and at times obscures to the general public how remarkably innovative The Beach Boys truly were for their time and what a fine musical outfit they were.  So yeah The Beach Boys get bashed about a bit by the diehards and for some of their decisions deservedly so.  

The Beatles also get a fair share of bashing from their diehard fanbase although they have never done anything remotely on the level that The Beach Boys have in terms of damaging their public persona.  The thing The Beatles get most bashed for is attempting to trot every last cent of their catalog, constantly finding new and unique ways to package those twelve or thirteen records worth of material.  Some may say that is a creative endeavor while others criticize it as a myopic marketing strategy.  Whatever the case, it continues to sell which is the ultimate bottom line.  It is interesting though as I recently picked up a copy of Paul McCartney's "Rock Show" DVD and in the liner notes he mentions in regards to his catalog that he is "making art, not running a boutique".  You can't exactly say the same thing for how The Beatles are marketed however with repackages of familiar material alongside printing their name and likeness on every available marketable medium being the order of the day for at least the past decade if not before.  Some fans get wrecked about that seeing it as a bit of crass commercialism but once again there is a market for that sort of stuff and to be fair, it's not exactly the easiest thing to market a band that hasn't released new product in forty plus years.  The extreme commercial properties of The Beatles' catalog gives them an edge in this category over their contemporaries but still not the easiest thing to do...finding new ways to market the same thirteen albums.

I really like Wings and The Traveling Wilburys as well.  I won't let my subjectivity though say that the music of either band was BETTER than The Beatles because in examining the body of work available, the whole was greater than the sum of it's parts when it came to The Beatles.  That being said, personally I feel that both Wings and the Wilburys seem to fit where I am in my life now versus The Beatles so they both get a lot more spins these days than the famous thirteen records.  Wings was just a flat out GREAT band and unfortunately they have suffered somewhat in how the general public views them as mainly just a vehicle for Paul McCartney.  Diehard Wings fans however know differently and feel quite rightfully that Wings was a Hall of Fame caliber band in it's own right and not a "poor man's Beatles" or a group of musicians who rode Macca's coattails for a decade.  I've often wondered if Linda McCartney hadn't passed, whether or not Macca would've eventually reunited the final Wings lineup that featured alongside Macca and Lady Mac, Denny Laine, Laurence Juber and Steve Holly.  Macca is said to be working with Laine on a forthcoming Wings autobiography so perhaps that is something...

In short, I think The Traveling Wilburys were the closest the world will ever come to having a group that was spiritually in the same vein as The Beatles.  Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty and Roy Orbison were able to bring about along with George Harrison and Bob Dylan something that no other Beatles associated project had ever done before or since and that bring together a group of musicians together with the similar spirit, humor and affection that The Beatles with one another for most of their career.  Dylan was sort of the "lone ranger" of the group, preferring to maintain his privacy rather than participate publicly in the "Wilbury Lunacy" but it's quite evident that the others especially George Harrison reveled in the Wilburys projects.  Again I often wonder if Orbison hadn't passed, where the group would have gone.  As Jeff Lynne once stated all of the Wilburys were keenly aware that they had assembled an incredible band that would be capable of making great record after great record but then just as suddenly had the rug swept out from underneath them when Roy died.  I do think though that if only for a short period of time The Traveling Wilburys allowed George Harrison to once again connect with the spirit of The Beatles even if the guys whom he shared the experience with the second time around weren't John, Paul and Ringo.

Julian is almost the perfect combination of John and Paul, in looks and mannerisms.

John, sorry about my misspelling of Wilburys. I'm a fan of all of their solo careers as well which is what I meant by the Ringo reference.

Per marketing the Beach Boys: please no more surf boards with your copy of TSS (which is by far the most lovingly made box set that I own). Per marketing the Beatles: stop it already and just give us all the complete multitracks and be done with it. And no more white pens.

Really? Did you hear Jeff Lynne, Joe Walsh, and Dhani Harrison perform "Something"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op7Q3VAn3os

I think all of the Wilburys material is due for a revisit and a re-release. It's quality music, well-played and well-recorded that has a great vibe to it. I think people who missed it the first time around would be pleasantly surprised at how well it holds up over the years. "Tweeter And The Monkey Man" is one of the better sounding Dylan tunes of the past 30 years.

I seriously think the Wilburys worked because there was nobody in that band who was starstruck in that company of musicians. The only one I'd think any of them might defer to in terms of acting like a fan as much as a contemporary would be Roy, because each of them loved Roy's music from the time he was still cutting records on the Sun label, rockabilly tunes like Ooby Dooby and others. But I don't think any of them felt like they were in a pressure situation, I think they just came together out of the sheer joy of making music with each other. And the guy who admits to being awestruck at times was Jeff Lynne, yet his production chops may have been the thing he had over the others. So it worked.

Wings, I think, could have had more of a wide-ranging legacy if not for the fact that they really were not all that consistent in their output. I don't mean musically, but rather in a branding sense. Look at the 70's output from Paul, and where there were classic songs that struck a chord with listeners it could have come from a Paul and Linda album, a Wings album, or something in between where even the Wings lineup was never really a constant thing. Was "Wings" that people bought on "Band On The Run" the same Wings who did the live tour and album? When someone hears "Another Day", do they think it's a Wings song? Paul, Denny Seiwell, and Linda are on it, but it's not Wings. Yet that same lineup with the other Denny was Wings. Or was to be Wings. Then there was McCartney 2, was that Wings like Back To The Egg? or was it a Paul and Linda affair like the first album called McCartney?

It just seemed like the brand was never really established, other than McCartney being the focal point. Maybe it's just me...maybe I'm amazed...I don't know.  :)

Yes and that was by far the best performance of the night bar "Hey Jude" (which was shortened for broadcast by the way). Most of the rest was sad but again like I say if it turns on some young people to older music (time tested) then there can be nothing wrong with it. It just was uncomfortable for me personally at times and I had to leave the room. And isn't this a strange world where Peter Frampton looks like he could be Ringo's father?

The Beatles will fade quite a bit, overtime.  Long after us, mind you.  I can't convince everyone how right I am, so natural forces will take over and finish the job it started.

Share a preview?  Absolutely.  You ready?  Ok... their music will not measures up to their impact.  It was based on accessories.


But what have I ever been right about....