Reply With QuoteYeah let’s ditch all history, 1927 pah!!!!Originally Posted by Whisperer
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I suppose I’m not interested, it was a long time ago, it’s in the past and gone for good.
Yeah let’s ditch all history, 1927 pah!!!!
Macartney- he and his three mates were responsible for changing the world- it’s as simple as that.
based on what ivor ?
i beg to differ if we are talking music
Grow up Parker ffs
They showed that four ordinary blokes could write and perform their own songs and succeed. They created some of the best songs and albums ever recorded. They influenced and continue to influence countless bands. And we're still talking about them more than 50 years after it was all over.
You debunked history in a sweeping statement and I need to grow up???? I love history and think saying ‘it was a long time ago, it’s in the past and gone for good’ is a ridiculous thing to say.
The Beatles split up in 1970 in my book that’s a long time ago and they won’t be playing at the castle anytime soon….their gone for good. Unless you know something we don’t.
I doubt we will ever see such talent anytime soon
not doubting there talent and the works they produced some great tunes but the thread i responded to mentioned changing the world .The Beatles were a product of the previous generation and if you look at there influences the likes of cliff richard , buddy holly , elvis , bob dylan , chuck berry , beach boys , everly brothers to name a few were the real game changers in music . All forms of popular music came from gospel , blues , jazz and country music in the 1950's
In the film John is 28, Paul is 26, George is 25 and Ringo is 28. Crazy.
But they took all that (probably not that easy in those days - you couldn't just look up every band you heard of on youtube) and turned it into something else. Something that had a profound effect and influenced probably more bands than all the names you mentioned combined. I love the Beach Boys, but to put them ahead of the Beatles in terms of being influential is ridiculous. Cliff Richard was just a Elvis/Eddie Cochran imitator and his most influential "rock and roll" song (Move It) was written by someone else. Elvis never wrote a song in his life by the way. Lennon and McCartney started writing songs in their teens.
think your getting all confused NYC the influences i mentioned were from the Beatles members not me
I understand the Beatles were influenced by other artists. But they didn't just copy them. The Beatles are greater than the sum of all those parts. They changed music and therefore changed the world.
I suspect you’re not old enough to have lived through all of the years when the Beatles were active and selling records (I.e. 1962 to 1970). I’m a bit too young for my memories of their early years to be entirely reliable, but,I think it’s generally accepted that the sixties were a seminal decade - put simplistically, it was when the world went from black and white to colour in ways beyond just cinema and television.
My impression is that the first three years of the sixties were just an extension of the fifties, musically, the shot in the arm provided by rock and roll in the mid fifties had died out as it had gone mainstream with “safer” versions of some of the artists you mention dominant. That all changed in 1963 when I can recall She Loves You (one of my least favourite Beatles songs) getting to number one and it seemed like everyone, and I mean everyone, was singing it.
That was when the sixties started as far as Im concerned. The Beatles didn’t create the sense of rebellion that was a characteristic of that decade, the conditions were in place already for what that decade became, but, for me, they were the focal point of it in that they kicked open a door through which others could follow.
There are those who say the Beatles were “safe” in the way that Hollywood Elvis became safe, they were like Pat Boone, Paul Anka etc, and, certainly, Brian Epstein tried to steer them in that sort of direction while he was still alive, but he couldn’t. In my experience, it is very rare for the biggest, most famous bands and performers of an era to be able to sell huge amounts of records and be good - the ones that sell the most singles tend to be unadventurous and predictable musically, but the Beatles were the biggest band out there for a while and they were also very good and musically adventurous.
There was a time when eight hours worth of television showing the Beatles working in the studio in their latter days would have been lapped up by me, but I’m in no hurry to watch it now, so I suppose I agree with the Whisperer to some extent, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t fully understand why people are still driven to produce such work more than half of a century later - the Beatles were a phenomenon and our lives would have been different if they had not existed, their influence in so many facets of life is greater than any other musical act of my lifetime.
You've probably got to be quite deeply invested in them to watch the whole thing, and I am in that category so I'm enjoying it.
They must be the most influential pop group of all time (pop meaning popular in this case). The only other artists I can think of to rival them are individuals (Elvis, chuck berry, Michael Jackson, Hendrix, and so on).
Maybe you need to be a sociologist to say how influential they were outside of music, but from a UK point of view they were surely crucial in updating Britain's global image from Empire and Churchill into the new post-war world.
Ringo's role interests me. For most of the time, he's sat doing nothing at his drumkit while the others work on the music, which is perhaps not surprising (he plays one of his compositions on piano, and it is really bad). But I expected his role to be more of 'relationship manager' but he just keeps out of everything.
After George leaves and John and Paul say they'll go to visit him in Liverpool, Ringo says he was going to visit him anyway. So perhaps that's a clue that Ringo was being Ringo away from the cameras.
They did…nothing has even come close has it?
I’ve never seen anything like this on film before. Paul really has nothing at the 30 second mark—but 45 seconds later he’s got the makings of a hit single. pic.twitter.com/kvGOp1yuZs
— Ted Gioia (@tedgioia) November 28, 2021
And the Soul Of '58 - I am The Red Walrus
Exactly. Why did George leave the group. 2 weeks ago, we all thought it had something to do with the bust-up with McCartney. Turns out he was whinging a bit, some justified because his songs were being ignored, some not. Paul working closely with John on Two of Us upset him, he flounced.
John Lennon was, we are constantly told by people who don't know a lot, THE main guy in the Beatles. McCartney, him of the Frog Chorus, was supposedly hanging onto him. This documentary proves otherwise. Lennon was addicted to Heroin at this time. McCartney is working on 2/3 songs some days, and not just fillers. The Long and Winding Road, Get Back,Two of Us, Let it Be. Three would become number 1s. Two of Us is one of their most underrated songs. He was also shaping "Don't Let me Down". Judging by the documentary, I think you could easily make that Lennon song a 30-70 split in Lennon's favour. Also interesting that Lennon - the hard rocker - wants the lyrics to be corny. So, McCartney wasn't always the corny one as the NME (under the influence of pro-Lennon journalists) portrayed. Remember, NME gave Ram a very good review, but this was pulled and a negative review was set up instead.
McCartney holding back tears after saying "Then there were two" as Harrison left, and Lennon hadn't shown up. The guy was under huge pressure, and was showing huge productivity as his way to hold the band together. "I'm scared to be the boss". Harrison is already talking about doing solo stuff, Lennon's head is elsewhere.
Complaints about McCartney spending lots of time on his own songs seem founded, but I think his songs had a bit more complexity - certainly Let it Be, and he plainly had more songs than the others to work on.
Harrison having a number of really good songs, Old Brown Shoe written in a day.
Nostalgia, very interesting to see how often they refer to the past. Comparing Beatles '65 with Beatles '66 is like decades have passed. That is how much they changed music, and in a short time. They already view songs like "Help!" as an oldie. It was only 3 years old. Artistically, they were moving ahead. Full steam. But, an "unplugged" type album after the variety of the White Album and the extravagance of Pepper seemed to be the wrong choice.
Unable to write music, they could communicate what was needed. Lennon and McCartney still had a working relationship, but Lennon was veering in directions that McCartney would not consider - especially some substances.
The documentary is worth watching for the birth of "Get Back". It takes McCartney minutes. It's worth it for the rooftop concert which, in my opinion, is one of their best ever performances as a group.
If Starr was able to go abroad, if they had more time, and if they did a live show somewhere then, in my opinion, there was a chance that they would have stuck at it a bit longer. It is clear they are fed up of just producing albums and are feeling a bit constrained. "What's the end product" McCartney comments. "It's not just for the money now".
And "On the Road to Marrakech" (Jealous Guy) had really nice lyrics too.
It's history, but it hasn't gone. Their influence can be heard to this day.
If they hadn't changed music, then point me to a song that sounds like "Tomorrow Never Knows" that was released or recorded before it? Or Sergeant Pepper. Or Eleanor Rigby. Or Strawberry Fields. Or....
They clearly changed and defined music for decades to come.
One of the main highlights for me. The birth of another great song, but we've only seen that once, here. Harrison and Starr had seen it for the past 7 years. Jagger was inspired to write music when he saw Lennon and McCartney work on some lyrics for "I Wanna Be Your Man". Until this point, songs were penned by people who didn't perform.
Very nice post. McCartney always gets Frog Chorus and so on chucked at him, but the truth is that he created a body of musical work better than any other British songwriter and arguably any other 20th century songwriter globally. Seeing him develop Get Back in less than the time it takes to finish a cup of tea is astounding.
He was also the one into the avant garde scene, not Lennon. I think Lennon was the main guy in the early days, perhaps even up to 1965, but when they went stratospheric with creativity, it was McCartney leading the way, not Lennon.
I don't know about the ins and outs over the longer course of their relationship but she'd had a miscarriage after carrying a baby for 6 months about a month before the recording of the footage in this documentary so maybe she was there because she needed the support from John, and the rest of the band understood that
Posting Permissions
