If People Really Knew About The Beatles...

Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:32 pm » by **Lucidlemondrop**

teloc wrote:
harbin wrote:http://rtone.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/why-the-beatles-were-bad/

Why The Beatles Were Bad

WHEN I was growing up one thing was patently obvious: young people were either this or that. Not a bit of this and some of that. It was black and white with no Grey.

It was whether you were a fan of ‘The Beatles’ or a fan of ‘The Rolling Stones’. It was that simple.

[Picture of the Rolling Stones tongue logo]The end of the 1950s ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’ era, had a shift, such that if you were a ‘rocker’, you generally liked ‘The Rolling Stones’, and if you were a ‘mod’ you liked ‘The Beatles’. Prepubescent, good, and white girls were usually in with ‘The Beatles’, gathering around ‘Dansette’ record players and ‘Radiograms’ to listen to the new ‘Pop’ music on ’45s’, while boys liked ‘The Rolling Stones’.

Sure, that is an over-simplification, for example, boys seemed to either like football or music, and the division between ‘The Beatles’ and ‘The Rolling Stones’ was not merely about gender, but about attitude, clothes and youth identity and culture.

[Picture of the fonz]As a family, we were ‘cool’ (like ‘The Fonz’) — we were more ‘The Rolling Stones’ than ‘The Beatles’. And I am comfortable with that, in fact I am glad for that.

To this day I think ‘The Beatles’ are an over-rated pop group. They were in existence from what, 63 to 70 — 7 or 8 years? And they went from ‘She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah’ to ‘Revolution No.9′. It was a mess.

[Picture of the Beatles -yellow submarine]I HATE ‘Oblidioblidah’ almost as much as I HATE ‘Yellow Submarine’.
Oh! How could anyone rate this group? They were awful, they had zero ‘street cred’ and they were merely the first to be exploited. If there is one thing that can be said about ‘The Beatles’ is that they were manufactured through-and-through. Because of ‘The Beatles’ we have the record business, the teen-pop marketing machine, the fashion tie-in, the posed magazine photograph, and the cheeky interview.

The crowds of screaming teenage girls invented by Sinatra’s people and groomed by the Presley camp, were simply moved on to the next thing — and this tradition continues yet.

On the other hand, ‘The Rolling Stones’ have continued — they still tour, they still sell lots of recordings, and they stuck to what was honest and truthful — themselves and their music.

‘The Beatles’ tried to be ‘cool’ and failed. They refused to accept their gongs from the Queen (what happened to those ideals, SIR Paul Mccartney??). Mccartney formed ‘Wings’ with his sad-looking wife, and launched with the worst and most childish gibberish ever imposed on the public. Lennon was even less talented, and his child-like endeavours were even less-well received than Mccartney’s. Ringo Starr did children’s TV voice overs and Harrison had a decent enough career away from the others.

[Picture of the Beatles -strip]

From their solo careers, it is patently obvious that ‘The Beatles’ were a creation. Whatever talent they may have had musically was early, manipulated and short-lived.

Probably the most amazing time in the history of music is the mid 1970s — when people could record on cassette tape from cheap radios and music centres, when synthesisers appeared, when types of music merged, when Progressive Rock was invented along with Punk, when the music business felt threatened by illegal taping, bootlegs, and the independents.

‘The Rolling Stones’ went onto even greater success, they exploited the laser shows, the big stadium gigs, the new instruments and recording techniques. The solo careers fitted the expectations and qualified ‘The Rolling Stones’ as a band of talent. Compare that with the same period for the solo careers of each ‘Beatle’! ‘C Moon’? ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb’? ‘Hi Hi Hi’???

[Picture of the Beatles] [Picture of the Beatles cartoon]

Like so many manufactured pop bands, ‘The Beatles’ were short-lived and essentially cheap-throw-aways. They were cartoons, they were hairstyles, their songs should have been thrown away too; they are pop and therefore worthless.

[Picture of the Beatles being taught by George Martin]George Martin was very talented musically and he managed to take whatever was chanced upon and make something of it. He has milked that cash cow long and hard ever since — and is a crashing bore as a result. It is a great pity he cannot take the credit he is due. On the other hand I wish he would just leave it all alone to fade away as it really should.

I am not advocating ‘The Rolling Stones’, but I am trying to correct the rewriting of history: people seem to have forgotten the ‘Stones vs Beatles’ thing. People seem to have forgotten that ‘The Beatles’ were not cool.

Sorry world, but ‘The Beatles’ were made out to be more popular than they really were. They milked the media machine dry. They had no competition (unlike the world today). Their fanbase was preteen girls.

[Picture of Hendrix] [Picture of clapton of cream] [Picture of led zeppelin]

We were cool; we didn’t like ‘The Beatles’ in our neighbourhood. Boys went on to like Led Zeppelin, Cream and Jimi Hendrix — album bands, and girls filled the vacuum left by ‘The Beatles’ with ‘The Bay City Rollers’ a couple of years later.

Pop acts like ‘Sweet’, Alvin Stardust, David Essex, Gilbert O’Sullivan, Leo Sayer, ‘Bony-M’, Gary Glitter, The Osmonds, The Jackson Five, David Cassidy and ‘Abba’ took over the pop scene.

Girls and the preteens were the ones buying pop — they listened to (and recorded) the BBC pop chart every week. Teen Boys refused to have anything to do with pop music — they NEVER watched ‘Top of The Pops’ — they watched ‘The Old Grey Whistle Test’ and ‘The Tube’.

Now you know why ‘The Beatles’ were bad — they had little talent individually and musically, they were pretentious and fake and created all that is pretentious and fake in the pop world. Time to step out, stop believing the bullshit and hype, stop following the revisionism, let the truth be told! ‘The Beatles’ were bad!

this is a typical talking monkey story..

trying to convince himself so hard that his intellect must f rule over his heart...

sad...

the beatles rocked da house..

at least our house!

Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:09 am » by **Harbin**

Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:45 am » by **Harbin**

It’s more than forty years since the Beatles stopped recording together (their final album, Let It Be, was completed in April 1970) but the world is still celebrating the Fab Four. We’ve heard all we ever want to hear about John’s funny little poems, Paul’s cheeky grin, George’s mysticism and Ringo’s seventeenth comeback. What the world needs now is someone to put the whole thing in perspective, slot the Beatles into their place in musical history and explain what would have happened if the lovable moptops had never met in the first place.
Would there have been all that taking-themselves-seriously that went on in bands in the late-sixties/early seventies? Would punk rock have been needed? Would Dylan still be strumming an acoustic guitar? Would the Rolling Stones have given up and gone into teaching? In short, would the world not be a better place?
So here’s the indictment against J,P,G & R:
• They were musically overrated to a ludicrous degree. Having grown famous by ripping off (note for note) little-known American performers from Barrett Strong to the Do-nays, they hooked up with a classically-trained producer (George Martin) who gave them string-quartet arrangements. They ended up sounding like everyone from Wagner to Ravi Shankar by way of George Formby, but they advanced the cause of music not a crotchet.
• They encouraged the delusion that the world needs to hear and take very seriously the opinions of pop-singers about everything from American foreign policy to vegetarianism.
• Their much-vaunted sense of humour, evolved to cope with the drunken heckling of Hamburg matelots, did not include a sense of the ludicrous. They dressed like pillocks and spouted pretentious rubbish.
• They influenced both fans and fellow-musicians to take drugs. This would not (arguably) have been such a bad thing had they not also suggested that taking drugs makes for better music and more appreciative listening. The result was some of the worst music ever committed to vinyl.
• They conceived the idea that musicians must ‘progress’ from one record to the next (hence ‘progressive rock’). The only dimension along which progress was in practice achieved was that of gargantuan pretension. The Beatles started the process that ended up with Rick Wakeman performing King Arthur And The Knights Of The Round Table On Ice. They took rock performance out of the club or concert-hall and into the stadium, where dopy fans paid fortunes to peer at inaudible performers from a quarter of a mile away. By becoming individually rather than collectively famous, they created the conditions for the supergroups (and then they broke up and joined in the nonsense themselves). Bloated egos clashed to the edification of no-one.
• Nor let us forget the Monkees, Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, Yoko Ono, the collarless jacket and those endless overpriced anthologies cluttering up the record shops.

http://kinacerecords.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/the-beatles-were-a-bad-thing/

Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:58 am » by **Debunkerace**

Even though they were and are all Freemasons, I love the The Beatles! :love:

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:00 am » by **Serendipity**

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:13 am » by **Harbin**

serendipity wrote:

You might consider hating the Beatles as well. This thread is to demonstrate how the Beatles were NOT what they appeared. Outside of the actual music, which I have been schooled about on previous pages, the idea of the Beatles, the Beatles meme, is actually a mental trap.
This trap, as powerful as religion for many, has caused unquantifiable damage, dumbing down damage, to the general public.

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:25 am » by **Serendipity**

harbin wrote:
serendipity wrote:

You might consider hating the Beatles as well. This thread is to demonstrate how the Beatles were NOT what they appeared. Outside of the actual music, which I have been schooled about on previous pages, the idea of the Beatles, the Beatles meme, is actually a mental trap.
This trap, as powerful as religion for many, has caused unquantifiable damage, dumbing down damage, to the general public.

Right. And the ptb had him assassinated to protect the good ole wholesome American mindset! I guess speaking out for peace and non-conformity was the big agenda then, huh? The Beatles were an instant phenomena due to the cultural atmosphere of the time and were swept away by the whole thing and for the majority of their short career were manipulated by promoters and labels. John left the Beatles to pursue more politically expressive avenues for his talent, and it was all leftist, non-conformist, anti-government, people empowering stuff and it made a HUGE beautiful impact on the collective consciousness of 3 generations. A positive one!

P.S. don't go quoting "Imagine" to make the point of NWO either. It is myopic and specious.

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:51 am » by **Harbin**

I'd prefer to stay within the context of "The Beatles" and not examine the individual members after the band broke up. As you brought up John, I will offer this:

The above picture is well known and anyone looking at it can take any meaning they want from it. It is a meme generator. I've hated this picture before I understood why I hated it. Why is this picture so "John in the '70's" ? You can give me your ideas on it, that's fine, but I don't like the very fact that I have seen it and spent time out of my short life thinking on it.

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:58 am » by **Doogle**

Led Zeppelin. Now they are some dodgy fucks. Went out of their way to buy Aleister Crowley's house. True, look it up.

Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:58 am » by **Harbin**

Upload to Disclose.tv