Who's sick to death of hearing about the beatles....!?

[Pretty Funky]

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

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

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

[rab2591]

so true

[chrs_mrgn]

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

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.

[Myk Luhv]

It's always funny seeing people's reactions to Piero Scaruffi's essay on The Beatles...

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

[Jay]

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

[guitarfool2002]

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...

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?

[filledeplage]

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...

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! 

[pixletwin]

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.

[Generation42]

@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.

[guitarfool2002]

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! 

[Sheriff John Stone]

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...

[guitarfool2002]

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...

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...

[Gregg]

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.

[JohnMill]

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.

[SloopJohnnyB]

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/

[KittyKat]

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.

[Gabo]

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.

[JohnMill]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.  

[JohnMill]

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.

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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. 

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.

[rogerlancelot]

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:
 

[JohnMill]

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:
 

Lots to cover here.  First it's Wilburys (no "ies")   - 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.

[SMiLE-addict]

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/

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

[rogerlancelot]

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.