• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

Paul McCartney releases new single in anticipation of new album Egypt River, set to be released 9/7

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Ya gotta come with something that makes at least a modicum of sense before you'll get one from me. Your drivel got the response it earned. Elvis, better than the Beatles? Good lord! Hell, Elvis couldn't even write a song or play an instrument. The Beatles were a completely self-contained rock band, a cultural phenomenon of the times. Wrote, played and sang their own music. Te growth from Meet The Beatles to Abbey Road was simly phenomenal. Complete changes in style and manner and they made it work; whatever they touched turned to gold.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I don't think its fair to diss Elvis because most of the Beatles were heavily influenced by him. You likely would not have the Beatles without Elvis.

Plus, Elvis was in a much different continuum musically and socially than the Beatles. Elvis was still largely considered "jungle music" by mainstream media where as the Beatles were able to work in a more accepted musical genre
 

YankeeRebel

Well-Known Member
15,474
8,590
533
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,800.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Ya gotta come with something that makes at least a modicum of sense before you'll get one from me. Your drivel got the response it earned. Elvis, better than the Beatles? Good lord! Hell, Elvis couldn't even write a song or play an instrument. The Beatles were a completely self-contained rock band, a cultural phenomenon of the times. Wrote, played and sang their own music. Te growth from Meet The Beatles to Abbey Road was simly phenomenal. Complete changes in style and manner and they made it work; whatever they touched turned to gold.

Elvis is no different than the assembly line "stars" of today. I'd compare him to Brittany Spears.
Dude are you really this dumb? You stated Entertainer and the Beatles cannot touch Elvis when it came to entertainment. Read the other responses and get back with me.
 

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Agreed. The synergy of those 4 together was astonishing especially when compared to what they put out as solo acts.
I think that is what makes groups/bands so appealing to us. It is a team, where talents, strengths, and influences are blended to make something magical. What fascinates me is the inner workings that we don't usually see. There is often a lot of struggling and clashing of egos, yet they produce a fantastic work of art.


I remember reading a quote from Paul McCartney when he said the best time for him as a Beatle was right before they made it big. It was still fun and exciting. Afterwards it became about business.
 

Montalban

Well-Known Member
30,251
4,926
293
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 925.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I don't think its fair to diss Elvis because most of the Beatles were heavily influenced by him. You likely would not have the Beatles without Elvis.

Plus, Elvis was in a much different continuum musically and socially than the Beatles. Elvis was still largely considered "jungle music" by mainstream media where as the Beatles were able to work in a more accepted musical genre
True. But he was a made for "TV" star. Someone else played the music, someone else wrote the songs, Elvis just had a look and I don't think he was an especially good singer. The Beatles were far more than a Rock Group they were a cultural phenomenon. They were good and they knew it. I remember John Lennon once saying after they were told to cut Hey Jude down to 3 minutes or the radio wouldn't play it. He said "They will if its us". They created FM rock for everyone else who didn't have a canned three minute song.
 

Montalban

Well-Known Member
30,251
4,926
293
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 925.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Dude are you really this dumb? You stated Entertainer and the Beatles cannot touch Elvis when it came to entertainment. Read the other responses and get back with me.
LOL! Ever heard of Beatle Mania? Pick up a book once in a while. Never before and never again will there be something like that again or even approaching that level.
 

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think for most of us, we seek music for one of two reasons:

1) We are looking for a reason, i.e. you want something with a social conscious (Beatles)
2) Pure entertainment, i.e. the stereotypical rock and roll attitude (Rolling Stone)
 

Montalban

Well-Known Member
30,251
4,926
293
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 925.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think that is what makes groups/bands so appealing to us. It is a team, where talents, strengths, and influences are blended to make something magical. What fascinates me is the inner workings that we don't usually see. There is often a lot of struggling and clashing of egos, yet they produce a fantastic work of art.


I remember reading a quote from Paul McCartney when he said the best time for him as a Beatle was right before they made it big. It was still fun and exciting. Afterwards it became about business.
The Eagles were like that at one time. Then came the egos. As for McCartney's comment you referenced, once it becomes a business, all the fun gets sucked out of it.
 

YankeeRebel

Well-Known Member
15,474
8,590
533
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,800.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The Beatles IMO are one of the most over hyped bands of all time. As it was pointed out, anything pre Dylan meeting was pretty much bullshit. Did people like it? Yeah because they had nothing else at the time, again right place, right time. Post Dylan meeting I like of their stuff.

In the end they failed as a band because they could not work well together. Paul wanted to fill the world with silly love songs, and they are pretty damn silly, might as well listen to The Carpenters. Lennon was such a narcissistic other couldn't stand him. Harrison IMO was the most talented of them all and Ringo was along for the ride.

I get people wanting to defend them I just think people fail to acknowledge that most of what they spew about the Beatles comes right from the Beatles hype machine.
 

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
True. But he was a made for "TV" star. Someone else played the music, someone else wrote the songs, Elvis just had a look and I don't think he was an especially good singer. The Beatles were far more than a Rock Group they were a cultural phenomenon. They were good and they knew it. I remember John Lennon once saying after they were told to cut Hey Jude down to 3 minutes or the radio wouldn't play it. He said "They will if its us". They created FM rock for everyone else who didn't have a canned three minute song.
Yes, I agree. But I look at Elvis as helping to pave the way for that. As a pure artist was he better than anyone of the Beatles? Likely not. But for the Beatles to be open to do what they did, they needed artists like Elvis
 

Montalban

Well-Known Member
30,251
4,926
293
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 925.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think for most of us, we seek music for one of two reasons:

1) We are looking for a reason, i.e. you want something with a social conscious (Beatles)
2) Pure entertainment, i.e. the stereotypical rock and roll attitude (Rolling Stone)
It always used to crack me up when people would say are you a Beatles fan or Rolling Stones fan? Seemed youcouldn't be both. I was a fan of both. I don't compare the Stones to the Beatles but the Stones were a very good rock band.
 

Montalban

Well-Known Member
30,251
4,926
293
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 925.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yes, I agree. But I look at Elvis as helping to pave the way for that. As a pure artist was he better than anyone of the Beatles? Likely not. But for the Beatles to be open to do what they did, they needed artists like Elvis
I will certainly give him that.....along with a bunch of others like Chuck Berry for instance.
 

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The Eagles were like that at one time. Then came the egos. As for McCartney's comment you referenced, once it becomes a business, all the fun gets sucked out of it.
It does, or at least that seems to be the case (because I can't speak from personal experience). You put out an epic album or song and all people want, and expect is for your to top it. That's gotta be extremely difficult.
 

YankeeRebel

Well-Known Member
15,474
8,590
533
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,800.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
LOL! Ever heard of Beatle Mania? Pick up a book once in a while. Never before and never again will there be something like that again or even approaching that level.

Yeah we all know about Beatlemania a bunch of panty soaked girls screaming while the dudes really wanted to go the Stones concert. Hey you like them I get it, just stop kidding they were 1, The best entertainers ever, 2 The Best band ever.
 

YankeeRebel

Well-Known Member
15,474
8,590
533
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,800.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The Beatles IMO are one of the most over hyped bands of all time. As it was pointed out, anything pre Dylan meeting was pretty much bullshit. Did people like it? Yeah because they had nothing else at the time, again right place, right time. Post Dylan meeting I like of their stuff.

In the end they failed as a band because they could not work well together. Paul wanted to fill the world with silly love songs, and they are pretty damn silly, might as well listen to The Carpenters. Lennon was such a narcissistic other couldn't stand him. Harrison IMO was the most talented of them all and Ringo was along for the ride.

I get people wanting to defend them I just think people fail to acknowledge that most of what they spew about the Beatles comes right from the Beatles hype machine.

And yet another defeatist reply, thanks for playing. It was fun while it lasted.
 

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
It always used to crack me up when people would say are you a Beatles fan or Rolling Stones fan? Seemed youcouldn't be both. I was a fan of both. I don't compare the Stones to the Beatles but the Stones were a very good rock band.
Personally, I prefer the Stones over the Beatles as a music fan. I think I have stated an appreciation for the Beatles as artists. Its just a musical preference for me
 

beardown07

Upstanding Member
69,654
19,387
1,033
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Location
Pinacoladaberg
Hoopla Cash
$ 4,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yeah we all know about Beatlemania a bunch of panty soaked girls screaming while the dudes really wanted to go the Stones concert. Hey you like them I get it, just stop kidding they were 1, The best entertainers ever, 2 The Best band ever.


On a tangent, I always get a kick out of the idea that the Stones were the bad boys and the Beatles the mop-topped pop sensations.

The Beatles were from one of the toughest towns ever, while the Stones were fucking art school grads from silver spoons en sech
 

YankeeRebel

Well-Known Member
15,474
8,590
533
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,800.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Personally, I prefer the Stones over the Beatles as a music fan. I think I have stated an appreciation for the Beatles as artists. Its just a musical preference for me

I prefer The Who over both of them to be honest.
 

PEOPLESCHICKEN

Dysfunctional Member
16,597
2,282
173
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
Camino Espinoza
Hoopla Cash
$ 1.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yeah we all know about Beatlemania a bunch of panty soaked girls screaming while the dudes really wanted to go the Stones concert. Hey you like them I get it, just stop kidding they were 1, The best entertainers ever, 2 The Best band ever.
Sooooo screaming girls with soaked panties is bad why????????:scratch:
 

YankeeRebel

Well-Known Member
15,474
8,590
533
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,800.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
On a tangent, I always get a kick out of the idea that the Stones were the bad boys and the Beatles the mop-topped pop sensations.

The Beatles were from one of the toughest towns ever, while the Stones were fucking art school grads from silver spoons en sech

Not sure that applies in anyway but okay.
 
Top