AGOUGH%F6ACC2@SC.INTEL.COM (Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 420-2284, CH2-59) (04/02/91)
>From: fingerle@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (J. Fingerle) >Subject: ranting and raving (but not about her KaTeness) >Cc: fingerle@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL, pirrung@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL > >Whoa!!!! I just got done reading Julian Lawton's posting about the Beatles. >How sorely deluded and misinformed the poor fellow is! I'm sorry if I'm get- >ting personal, but an attack on the Beatles, to me, is nothing short of >BLASPHEMY. > >>Any single facet of the Beatles'work has easily been surpassed... > >I've read some stupid things in my time, but that comment tops them all. First,from one point of view, you might say that the achivement of the transistor is >not noteworthy to today's world, simply because the IC is orders of magnitude >beyond it. So let's dismiss the transistor. That's ridiculous. But based on >the arguement that the sophistication of post-Beatles artists somehow invalidates the contribution of the Beatles is equally ridiculous. > >But look at the other side of this. One could argue that the Beatles music has >NOT ever been surpassed. oh sure, new pop heroes come and go, sales records >continue to be set, but the Beatles are still worshipped by millions a full twenty years after they last recorded. > >Another thing, however, is that prior to the Beatles, no one had done what they >did. They blazed new ground, they opened all the Doors, they pushed all the >barriers. (Hey i accidently capitalized door-a slip betraying my affection >for that group!). Using history as an analogy again, think of what Colombus >did--he simply sailed across the ocean. Big deal. But then, NO ONE else had >dared to do it. When you boil it down, the Beatles simply wrote pop music. So >what. The point is, their way of writing had never been attempted before. It was totally unique. >> >Do you realize that prior to Sgt. Pepper, no one had ever printed the lyrics to their songs on the album before? No one had ever put out a concept album prior >to Pepper? These may seem like minor points, but no one had ever done them. >Can any of us conceive of March 1964 when the top five songs in America were >by the Beatles? Or 14 of the top 100? Do you realize that 'She Loves You' >shipped gold-the first time in history that had happened? > >You've got to realize that the Beatles did not just put the music world on it >side, they litterally blew it apart and let the pieces fall where they might. > >In conclusion, the Beatles far and away transcended pop music. They were a >catalyst to a redefinition of life. Maybe Jane Austin and Emily Bronte are >still read today, but don't tell me that their effect on literature was >any where near the Beatles effect on music. And what was their effect on >life in the last century? C'mon, you may not like the Beatles music, and you >are certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't delude yourself into thinking >the world is not how it seems because YOU don't understand it from your >vantage point. >Jimmy "When in doubt, bore it out!" >fingerle@NADC.NAVY.MIL -Harley Davidson (circa 1947) This view is often expressed by Beatles fans. I've even heard Beatles fans say that they "invented" Rock 'n' Roll. But . . . 1. Bill Haley & The Comets invented Rock 'n' Roll 2. Elvis Presley was the first superstar of Rock 'n' Roll So you might consider The Beatles as a follow-on to Elvis, The King. -andy
kanarick@BBN.COM (Craig M. Kanarick) (04/02/91)
In article <CE658DE8E000010F@sc.intel.com> AGOUGH%F6ACC2@SC.INTEL.COM ("Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 420-2284, CH2-59") writes: > >>From: fingerle@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (J. Fingerle) >>Subject: ranting and raving (but not about her KaTeness) >>Cc: fingerle@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL, pirrung@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL [ A whole bunch of pro-Beatles stuff deleted...] > >>Jimmy "When in doubt, bore it out!" >>fingerle@NADC.NAVY.MIL -Harley Davidson (circa 1947) > >This view is often expressed by Beatles fans. I've even heard Beatles fans >say that they "invented" Rock 'n' Roll. > >But . . . > >1. Bill Haley & The Comets invented Rock 'n' Roll > This doesn't hold water with me. One could easily argue that all Bill Haley's producers did was take a bunch of music that Louis Jordan wrote (also, arguably an inventor of r&r and merely changed the sax solo into a guitar solo). In any case, this doesn't take away from Jimmy's original point, which was the Beatles were inventors of great magnitude. >2. Elvis Presley was the first superstar of Rock 'n' Roll > So what. The King hardly pushed the bounds of music. He did a lot for live performances, but most of his songs are fairly formulated. As we have all seen with Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, etc, etc, superstardom is not the best indicator of talent, foresight, brilliance, or for that matter, any other quality except popularity. >So you might consider The Beatles as a follow-on to Elvis, The King. > >-andy She really is, -- cmk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Do I love you? Yes, I Craig M. Kanarick love you. All this talking, kanarick@bbn.com talking, is only bravado..." - The Blue Nile ------------------------------------------------------------------------------