Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What was so different about the beatles?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Heisenberg.
    Registered Users Posts: 7,541 ✭✭✭Heisenberg.


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #33
    Bubs101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Bubs101


    But songs like Love me Do are utterly crap. I like some of the later beatles songs but most of their early stuff is pop trash and is only held in such a high regard because their later stuff is so good. The equivalent would be if Busted had written something like Definitely Maybe and then What's the Story after their poppy crap and then, 40 years later What I go to School for was revered as a classic


  • Options
    #34
    Stompbox
    Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭Stompbox


    What I Go To School For is a classic ;)


  • Options
    #35
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    Bubs101 wrote: »
    But songs like Love me Do are utterly crap. I like some of the later beatles songs but most of their early stuff is pop trash and is only held in such a high regard because their later stuff is so good. The equivalent would be if Busted had written something like Definitely Maybe and then What's the Story after their poppy crap and then, 40 years later What I go to School for was revered as a classic

    Their 1st three singles Love Me Do,Please Please Me,From Me To You weren't great.From She Loves You onwards the Beatles were insurmountable.

    When i think of Pop Trash i think of The Cheeky Girls or Mr Blobby...I don't it's applicable with The Beatles.Their tunes were always really well crafted even if they were a little cheesy.


  • Options
    #36
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    most of the music was written for them

    first band that were more or less "put together"


    just another take that really


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Sweet wrote: »
    What I Go To School For is a classic ;)

    My son thinks so to but he's moved on a bit since it charted ;)
    Glassheart wrote: »
    Their 1st three singles Love Me Do,Please Please Me,From Me To You weren't great.From She Loves You onwards the Beatles were insurmountable.

    When i think of Pop Trash i think of The Cheeky Girls or Mr Blobby...I don't it's applicable with The Beatles.Their tunes were always really well crafted even if they were a little cheesy.

    When i first heard ' From me to you ' i heard bluebeat ,aka ska / early reggae .The Beatles were no different to any other band it that they used and took from other musical influences around them and can be found on most of their early and late stuff


  • Options
    #38
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>So you're saying white people invented r n' b

    I never said that.
    ZakAttak wrote: »
    and that there was no discrimination against black people in america during the 50s and 60s- you've got a great grasp of history there.

    I never said that either.

    Wow. Your straw-man argument really came apart there. I do believe that's game, set AND match to me. This really pisses me off about self-proclaimed music aficionados like yourself; if you don't know anything about a topic, then don't post on it, you come across as wholly ignorant.


  • Options
    #39
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Wow. Your straw-man argument really came apart there. I do believe that's game, set AND match to me.

    ==>Anyone who feels a need to proclaim themselves the winner of an argument obviously hasn't got a good argument in the first place.


  • Options
    #40
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Personally i think Rock n Roll got really interesting when the Brits got their hands on it...[/quote]

    ==>It got interesting because the British media were far more liberal and open-minded than the americans. Thats why Hendrix had to go to England to start his career properly. All of this stuff was happening in America, but many of the bands were not given any coverage because of either their ethnic background or because their music was deemed to be a 'bad influence'.

    This also happend with early metal, punk and dance music.


  • Options
    #41
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Even mowtown acts like the supremes had to sit in all black bus's, cafes and cinemas before they became famous and excepted into white american 'popular ' society


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    Personally i think Rock n Roll got really interesting when the Brits got their hands on it...

    ==>It got interesting because the British media were far more liberal and open-minded than the americans. Thats why Hendrix had to go to England to start his career properly. All of this stuff was happening in America, but many of the bands were not given any coverage because of either their ethnic background or because their music was deemed to be a 'bad influence'.

    This also happend with early metal, punk and dance music.[/quote]

    I wasn't really thinking about anything other than the music itself.

    The Beatles,The Who,The Kinks...They all had a vastly different take on Rock n' Roll than the people they listened to as teenagers even in the infancy of their careers.

    I take your point about black artists being elbowed aside for their white equivalent but i think your argument is more applicable to Elvis and The Rolling Stones.The Stones in particular always were and still are slaves to African American music.And look how rich those fu(kers are...


  • Options
    #43
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>Anyone who feels a need to proclaim themselves the winner of an argument obviously hasn't got a good argument in the first place.

    Have you even read the tripe you've posted? Go back and read what you've written, then come back and talk to me about a 'good' argument. I don't know why you've such a chip on your shoulder, or why you've decided to draw the most tenuous - and that's being kind - links between the success of the Beatles and U.S race matters. You're posts have become increasingly less relevant to the point of offense.

    Oh, and Hendrix was brought to the U.S by Chas Chandler (British) to work with Michael Jeffrey (Aslo British) with the sole purpose of forming a new band (the JH Experience, Reading and Mitchell were both British)


  • Options
    #44
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    latchyco wrote: »
    Even mowtown acts like the supremes had to sit in all black bus's, cafes and cinemas before they became famous and excepted into white american 'popular ' society

    Actually the Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2nd, 1964 - the Supremes first umber one, "Where Did Our Love Go" was released on Jun 17th, 1964; they - and countless other black acts - were famous before segregation was outlawed.


  • Options
    #45
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Actually the Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2nd, 1964 - the Supremes first umber one, "Where Did Our Love Go" was released on Jun 17th, 1964; they - and countless other black acts - were famous before segregation was outlawed.

    Yeah , and reading mary wilsons authobigraphy 'dreamgirls ' , it seems the supremes suffered there fair share of humiliation and racial abuse on tour before any hits ,specialy in the deep south .


  • Options
    #46
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Oh, and Hendrix was brought to the U.S by Chas Chandler (British) to work with Michael Jeffrey (Aslo British) with the sole purpose of forming a new band (the JH Experience, Reading and Mitchell were both British)[/quote]

    ==>I never said that didn't happen.


  • Options
    #47
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    latchyco wrote: »
    Yeah , and reading mary wilsons authobigraphy 'dreamgirls ' , it seems the supremes suffered there fair share of humiliation and racial abuse on tour before any hits ,specialy in the deep south .

    That's terrible and all but what's that got to do with The Beatles?!!


  • Options
    #48
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Actually the Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2nd, 1964 - the Supremes first umber one, "Where Did Our Love Go" was released on Jun 17th, 1964; they - and countless other black acts - were famous before segregation was outlawed.

    ==>Yeah, because the minute that act was signed racism dissapeared didn't it?


  • Options
    #49
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Glassheart wrote: »
    That's terrible and all but what's that got to do with The Beatles?!!

    ==>That there were other great artists around but they were being ignored because they didn't fit the right 'image'.


  • Options
    #50
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Glassheart wrote: »
    That's terrible and all but what's that got to do with The Beatles?!!

    Actually if you look back through thread the reference to rascisim civil rights and soul music was mentioned .I am just adding to it but there is a conection of sorts between the beatles and the supremes and it was neither (from reports ) were keen on each other when they met

    ( Mary wilson authobiography is my source of info ) :)


  • Options
    #51
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Glassheart wrote: »
    That's terrible and all but what's that got to do with The Beatles?!!

    Nothing, like most of the posts in this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    Oh, and Hendrix was brought to the U.S by Chas Chandler (British) to work with Michael Jeffrey (Aslo British) with the sole purpose of forming a new band (the JH Experience, Reading and Mitchell were both British)

    ==>I never said that didn't happen.[/QUOTE]

    No, you said he was brought there because the fact that he was black prevented US success. Which is, again, completely unfounded.


  • Options
    #53
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    latchyco wrote: »
    Yeah , and reading mary wilsons authobigraphy 'dreamgirls ' , it seems the supremes suffered there fair share of humiliation and racial abuse on tour before any hits ,specialy in the deep south .

    But did it hamper their success as an act? We'll never know, we can't prove this one way or another. Disturbing as the US civil rights abuses were, black musicians attained a level of success in America in their own time, contrary to the speculative posts that other users are trying to pass off as fact.


  • Options
    #54
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>Yeah, because the minute that act was signed racism dissapeared didn't it?

    Nobody said it did. Seriously, please stop attributing false statements to me, it's offensive for you to intimate that I cannot appreciate the plight faced by black Americans in the past.


  • Options
    #55
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>That there were other great artists around but they were being ignored because they didn't fit the right 'image'.

    But they weren't ignored.The Supremes were one of the biggest selling acts of the 60's and the Motown Empire was enormous.
    As soon as Hendrix went back to America he became a star.

    I don't understand why we are discussing this on a Beatles thread because these racial barriers -at least from a cultural point of view - were broken down during the 60's.


  • Options
    #56
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Glassheart wrote: »
    But they weren't ignored.The Supremes were one of the biggest selling acts of the 60's and the Motown Empire was enormous.
    As soon as Hendrix went back to America he became a star.

    I don't understand why we are discussing this on a Beatles thread because these racial barriers -at least from a cultural point of view - were broken down during the 60's.

    You're absolutely correct. Motown was one of America's most successful bsuiness enterprises. John Lee Hooker, Fats Domino, Smokey Robinson, Jackie Wilson, all achieved success in spite of social segregation.


  • Options
    #57
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    TelePaul wrote: »
    But did it hamper their success as an act? We'll never know, we can't prove this one way or another. Disturbing as the US civil rights abuses were, black musicians attained a level of success in America in their own time, contrary to the speculative posts that other users are trying to pass off as fact.

    Yes indeed i have no doubt, and there was no stopping all the great black acts to come out of mowtown and the motor city of that period, post civil rights law and actually quite a few were expoited and ripped off by there own black managers and held to bad record deals .


  • Options
    #58
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    latchyco wrote: »
    Yes indeed i have no doubt, and there was no stopping all the great black acts to come out of mowtown and the motor city of that period, post civil rights law and actually quite a few were expoited and ripped off by there own black managers and held to bad record deals .

    Sorry, you have no doubt as to what?


  • Options
    #59
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>It got interesting because the British media were far more liberal and open-minded than the americans. Thats why Hendrix had to go to England to start his career properly. All of this stuff was happening in America, but many of the bands were not given any coverage because of either their ethnic background or because their music was deemed to be a 'bad influence'.

    This also happend with punk

    That's why the Ramones pre-date the clash by two years? Come ON!!! Punk was widely loathed as anti-establishment by authorities on both sides of the pond.


  • Options
    #60
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Sorry, you have no doubt as to what?

    to the privious post between you and other poster re cival rights as in
    Disturbing as the US civil rights abuses were, black musicians attained a level of success in America in their own time, contrary to the speculative posts that other users are trying to pass off as fact.

    i agree with you


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    latchyco wrote: »
    to the privious post between you and other poster re cival rights

    Cool cool. The Mowtown industry really was amazing.


Advertisement