Ha! The were somehow not burnouts and junkies because they were successful? Give me a break.
They were successful burnouts and junkies (who are still people, too), but were no threat to a damn thing.
Dup! post.
Is there a point here?
Well, since you don’t seem to be willing to defend your side, I suppose not.
Well, really, if you want clarification.
The only real threat the Beatles presented to the world was that they were going to sell a lot of records. Seriously, a lot of records. They didn’t set out to do, or accomplish a whole lot else. Since they were a rock band, this is the result you would expect. Their drug use, or reference to same in their work, was not particularly unique among musicians of the 20th century.
The belief that somehow they have a greater weight than that at the end of the day is really just the other side of this guy’s fossilized beliefs, which weren’t based in reality when they were new.
that guy sounds like mrs maynard in the 4th grade … she belonged to some non demionital church that basically believed every urban legend about rock and music ever uttered as fact …
I mean when my Pentecostal minister grandfather said most of what she spouted ot us impressionable children was flat out bs or strange should tell ya something
Defend what side? You talking to me? I don’t have a belief system about this. You do apparently. Have fun bloviating.
Meh, you said you thought they were threatening. I guess you don’t think that.
They “felt” threatening to a lot of people, probably more than you think. I think you’re being a little reductionist there. Weren’t they trying to deport John Lennon for years? Were you there or it this all received wisdom?
They weren’t another rock band. They were the most successful musicians ever. They got into peoples heads of all ages, and they changed their own and other industries as well. There was no “rock band” industry before the beatles made it so that you could recount your “wisdom” on the matter. We might be talking about the “crooners” or “folk groups” of the 60s if not for them.
My only point is that their art was powerful enough to galvanize a lot of people; and feel threatening to others. Was it rational? Not really my concern.
I was going to say before the edit window expired: There was no plan for the beatles success, and no expectation of what happened. So in that you are simply wrong in your analysis.
Their drug use was very public and their success was very unique among musicians of the 20th century. Ergo you are simplifying too much.
She never listened to Liszt or Paganini, who were considered “Lucifer in the flesh”? And she never played a waltz, a dance in which couples actually touched each other?
Ya know, this is exactly what I was talking about. You think that they were a force other than a “Rock Band”. That’s ascribing a hell of a lot of importance to them. I don’t think that having an argument with you is going to disabuse you of this notion any more than arguing with the man in the OP will disabuse him of his.
So, I’ll stop. Believe what you will.
Didn’t you just pick a fight with me and say this: “Well, since you don’t seem to be willing to defend your side, I suppose not.”
They were the most successful musicians in history, did drugs, were known as cultural avatars and were seen as threatening by some defenders of the status quo who wanted to deport them. What’s the argument about? Those are all history.
So all they had to do was be a good rock band and success would happen automatically because that’s what rock bands are for? Not in 1963. Not in Liverpool.
For the Kinks and Herman’s Hermits it was relatively the case, but not the fab 4 because they opened the doors.
Let me guess: you have a hard on for the beatles, they’re overrated, they’re just OK, they’re wimpy because mccartney blah blah.
Dude, were you listening at the time or did you get all your information from reading threads? Talk about tired.
You’re the one who tried to avoid defending it.
I’ll reiterate: You can think they’re special and unique in history for some reason other than their popularity at the time. I will no longer try to disabuse you of that notion. I do not deny the quality of their work. but I do not think that that the uproar about them will be discernible to history from the uproar about Elvis, or Madonna, or Liszt.
Wow. I completely disagree with that statement.
The Beatles will be talked about 200 hundred years from now. It’s been 60 years already, and they’re still extremely popular. Hell, they may still be popular 500 years from now or even into infinity (and beyond!).
You challenged me totally out of context and proportion with what I said and the OP.
I got it: you didn’t hear it in context at the time, have no idea about what it meant then, but think you know from your special insight how it will look in other centuries because, well, things always work out in your image. In other words complete ignorance.
You haven’t rebutted one point about the beatles effect on the establishment in their time. You just pick arguments so you can rehash your tired ahistorical tirade.
I do not disagree that they may be talked about in the future, especially by musicians. Liszt has been around yet longer than they have, and he’s still popular. However, the issues he stirred up aren’t very controversial now. Elvis also predates them, and is still popular, with a level of controversy between that of Liszt and the Beatles. Most of the people aggravated by either are dead. Madonna, much to my chagrin. Is still popular and talked about. The issues highlighted by her career and popularity are still being argued about today. Talked about and popular don’t really have much to do with a band’s threat to western society, which is what the thread is about. The perceived threat always seems greater by the proponents and opponents. The rest of society moves on, and doesn’t notice it.
That’s my point. They’re just a band. To pretend that the socio-political landscape would have been significantly different if they hadn’t existed is silly. They were shaped by their time as much as they shaped it. Some other entity would have filled their socio-political void. To believe otherwise is to participate in hero worship. We all do, but it’s wise to realize when we do it.
Wrong.
The Beatles didn’t just change the musical landscape, they also changed fashion and culture. The Beatle haircut gained such prominence that it became the cool look for even adults. Long hair didn’t exist as a cultural norm until The Beatles made it popular.
They changed the musical landscape and the cultural landscape. They weren’t just a band, and no, no one would have filled the void had they not been there. Western culture is different today because of The Beatles.
The pompadour wasn’t popular until Elvis, and most other musical fads have a fashion associated with them. Even if humans didn’t have long hair before the Beatles, hairstyles don’t threaten society either. Believing that they might is putting yourself on the same side as the OP’s subject.
In my day we made music by banging on logs with sticks the way Og intended. Now the kids hollow out the sticks and blow into them to make the horrid racket they call music. Kids today, they don’t appreciate how it was in our day, they’re so spoiled now they think pointy sticks grow on trees.