As i thought you know very little of what was happening over here.

So you've now come out swinging and adding key words such as "garage" to the end of your sentences which completely change the thread just to try and prove your theory.

I doubt there's one person on this site that would state The Beatles were a garage band never mind had success at it.That wasn't the debate.

And as for calling people "gay" cause the don't buy into the crap your spoutin'?!?......well i never.

 
RJFait said:

Seriously? I was being really generous saying they were one of the first to achieve success at garage or psych music. They NEVER played real garage and  psych was well established before they even gave it a try. Your comment about what kids were listening to in England only reinforces my argument, because in America, they were listening to rock 'n' roll. In California and Washington State, many of them were listening to garage. To answer the original question of this whole thread, "The Beatles... why not?" -  because all the gay little Beatles fan boys are sickening and have ruined what could have been a decent band. If you could just appreciate The Beatles as just another rock 'n' roll band who you happen to prefer instead of trying to give them credit for inventing the wheel, maybe others wouldn't be so disgusted by the whole thing.
Time For Tiffin said:

"They were just ONE of the first to achieve commercial success at it"

Wow!!!.......who were the others?

As i said ya have to know what the vast majority of kids were listenin' to over here pre Beatles.
 
RJFait said:

Perhaps you've been misreading it all along. Your "That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's" is so incorrect. I've been saying the exact opposite the whole time and Rod admitted that he believes there would not have been Texas psych (the best kind) without gospel. I think that's nonsense. If the first person to beat out a rhythm with a stick hadn't done it, someone else would have. Period! And to say the Beatles were the first to do any genre is also nonsense. They were just one of the first to achieve commercial success at it.

Time For Tiffin said:

Don't back out on my account man.

Surely discission/debate/banter are what it's all about,ain't it?

I have read the thread,infact i was the first to reply to it.I simply don't agree with ya statements.

To know what The Beatles changed ya have to know what dross the vast majority of English kids were listenin' too before em......Cliff Richard,Billy Fury,Joe Brown and worse.

Record companies had artists not bands.EMI took a chance and it paid off.The Beatles went huge over here and the kids went bonkers.Every other company went lookin' for their own Beatles on the back of that success.Even Decca took on another guitar band after statin' "guitar bands had had their day"....The Rolling Stones.

Love em or hate em,take away The Beatles and ya take away most of the other bands from the era.

Take away The Beatles success in the US and ya take away The British Invasion that followed.

Take away The Beatles and ya take away the most excitin' time in pop when every 15 year old lad wanted to pick up a guitar and play in a band.

It would have been a very lonely path for Cliff Richard and Billy Fury to walk down from 63 to mid sixties psych (and i'm not sure they'd have made it) without The Stones,Kinks,Animals,Yardbirds etc.And they wouldn't have been anywhere if The Beatles hadn't done it first.

The Beatles changes EVERYTHING.

own Beatles

RJFait said:

Alright, I'm going to have to back out of this now because people are just saying stupid shit that absolutely no basis in reality. If you're not going to bother reading a thread, you really shouldn't comment on it.
Time For Tiffin said:

EH?

That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's.

They were also influenced by Buddy Holly.If he stated he was influenced by his grandad would that mean by "your logic" The Beatles were influenced by Buddy Hollys grandad!!!

DOG DIRT!!!

RJFait said:

Absolutey. Everybody said they were influenced by The Beatles (they were completey inundated with them, how could they not be). They all (including The Beatles) said Elvis influenced them. Elvis claimed gospel as his biggest influence. So by Rockin' Rod's logic, garage and/or psych music never could have happened without... gospel? (bullshit sneeze) There were enough influences bouncing all around that by removing any one of them, (even the damned Beatles) the end product would have no discernible difference. But if you took away all the numerous influence on any one band (including the damned Beatles) that one band would be very different.

Don said:

But isn't it true that all music cross pollinates? Who are my influences? Some I can name but most I cannot.

Stealing a song or an arrangement without giving credit is one thing, but the rest of this IMO is mostly sour grapes.

Don't want to have anyone influenced by your music? Play in your room with the door shut.

-don

Seriously? I was being really generous saying they were one of the first to achieve success at garage or psych music. They NEVER played real garage and  psych was well established before they even gave it a try. Your comment about what kids were listening to in England only reinforces my argument, because in America, they were listening to rock 'n' roll. In California and Washington State, many of them were listening to garage. To answer the original question of this whole thread, "The Beatles... why not?" -  because all the gay little Beatles fan boys are sickening and have ruined what could have been a decent band. If you could just appreciate The Beatles as just another rock 'n' roll band who you happen to prefer instead of trying to give them credit for inventing the wheel, maybe others wouldn't be so disgusted by the whole thing.
Time For Tiffin said:

"They were just ONE of the first to achieve commercial success at it"

Wow!!!.......who were the others?

As i said ya have to know what the vast majority of kids were listenin' to over here pre Beatles.
 
RJFait said:

Perhaps you've been misreading it all along. Your "That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's" is so incorrect. I've been saying the exact opposite the whole time and Rod admitted that he believes there would not have been Texas psych (the best kind) without gospel. I think that's nonsense. If the first person to beat out a rhythm with a stick hadn't done it, someone else would have. Period! And to say the Beatles were the first to do any genre is also nonsense. They were just one of the first to achieve commercial success at it.

Time For Tiffin said:

Don't back out on my account man.

Surely discission/debate/banter are what it's all about,ain't it?

I have read the thread,infact i was the first to reply to it.I simply don't agree with ya statements.

To know what The Beatles changed ya have to know what dross the vast majority of English kids were listenin' too before em......Cliff Richard,Billy Fury,Joe Brown and worse.

Record companies had artists not bands.EMI took a chance and it paid off.The Beatles went huge over here and the kids went bonkers.Every other company went lookin' for their own Beatles on the back of that success.Even Decca took on another guitar band after statin' "guitar bands had had their day"....The Rolling Stones.

Love em or hate em,take away The Beatles and ya take away most of the other bands from the era.

Take away The Beatles success in the US and ya take away The British Invasion that followed.

Take away The Beatles and ya take away the most excitin' time in pop when every 15 year old lad wanted to pick up a guitar and play in a band.

It would have been a very lonely path for Cliff Richard and Billy Fury to walk down from 63 to mid sixties psych (and i'm not sure they'd have made it) without The Stones,Kinks,Animals,Yardbirds etc.And they wouldn't have been anywhere if The Beatles hadn't done it first.

The Beatles changes EVERYTHING.

own Beatles

RJFait said:

Alright, I'm going to have to back out of this now because people are just saying stupid shit that absolutely no basis in reality. If you're not going to bother reading a thread, you really shouldn't comment on it.
Time For Tiffin said:

EH?

That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's.

They were also influenced by Buddy Holly.If he stated he was influenced by his grandad would that mean by "your logic" The Beatles were influenced by Buddy Hollys grandad!!!

DOG DIRT!!!

RJFait said:

Absolutey. Everybody said they were influenced by The Beatles (they were completey inundated with them, how could they not be). They all (including The Beatles) said Elvis influenced them. Elvis claimed gospel as his biggest influence. So by Rockin' Rod's logic, garage and/or psych music never could have happened without... gospel? (bullshit sneeze) There were enough influences bouncing all around that by removing any one of them, (even the damned Beatles) the end product would have no discernible difference. But if you took away all the numerous influence on any one band (including the damned Beatles) that one band would be very different.

Don said:

But isn't it true that all music cross pollinates? Who are my influences? Some I can name but most I cannot.

Stealing a song or an arrangement without giving credit is one thing, but the rest of this IMO is mostly sour grapes.

Don't want to have anyone influenced by your music? Play in your room with the door shut.

-don

Yes, in a way I am saying anything could have existed with something else. That's exactly why I don't draw a connection. It's too arbitrary and denies every other influence. Rock and roll had to happen and would have happened no matter what. The same with punk. Draw all your lines and make your graphs and reduce rock 'n' roll to a scientific formula if it makes you feel better, but the music came from the heart. Restless hearts create restless music, with or without The Beatles. 

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

You're basically saying that anything could have existed without something else but you're not making any of the connections.  You start with the caveman but you don't mention HOW we get to Texas psyche from there.  How can you take away Gospel (which eventually leads to blues, jazz, and soul) from what alot of Southern Americans based alot of their music on to start with?  If they only went by the church music that was brought over from Europe, psyche in Texas would sound more like Procul Harum.  You mention the backbone ("if someone wasn't beating a stick first, someone else would have done it eventually") but you don't the mention the meat that eventually surrounds it. 

Certainly, the Beatles would not exist without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, and Little Richard.  But none of those original rock and rollers would exist either if not for Gospel.  Rock and Roll would exist if Elvis had solely based his repertoir on Dean Martin and Mario Lanza records, instead of Big Boy Crudup and Wynonie Harris, who again, wouldn't exist if Gospel didn't exist?  You call bullshit on all this but you're not backing up your own claims.

RJFait said:

Perhaps you've been misreading it all along. Your "That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's" is so incorrect. I've been saying the exact opposite the whole time and Rod admitted that he believes there would not have been Texas psych (the best kind) without gospel. I think that's nonsense. If the first person to beat out a rhythm with a stick hadn't done it, someone else would have. Period! And to say the Beatles were the first to do any genre is also nonsense. They were just one of the first to achieve commercial success at it.

Time For Tiffin said:

Don't back out on my account man.

Surely discission/debate/banter are what it's all about,ain't it?

I have read the thread,infact i was the first to reply to it.I simply don't agree with ya statements.

To know what The Beatles changed ya have to know what dross the vast majority of English kids were listenin' too before em......Cliff Richard,Billy Fury,Joe Brown and worse.

Record companies had artists not bands.EMI took a chance and it paid off.The Beatles went huge over here and the kids went bonkers.Every other company went lookin' for their own Beatles on the back of that success.Even Decca took on another guitar band after statin' "guitar bands had had their day"....The Rolling Stones.

Love em or hate em,take away The Beatles and ya take away most of the other bands from the era.

Take away The Beatles success in the US and ya take away The British Invasion that followed.

Take away The Beatles and ya take away the most excitin' time in pop when every 15 year old lad wanted to pick up a guitar and play in a band.

It would have been a very lonely path for Cliff Richard and Billy Fury to walk down from 63 to mid sixties psych (and i'm not sure they'd have made it) without The Stones,Kinks,Animals,Yardbirds etc.And they wouldn't have been anywhere if The Beatles hadn't done it first.

The Beatles changes EVERYTHING.

own Beatles

RJFait said:

Alright, I'm going to have to back out of this now because people are just saying stupid shit that absolutely no basis in reality. If you're not going to bother reading a thread, you really shouldn't comment on it.
Time For Tiffin said:

EH?

That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's.

They were also influenced by Buddy Holly.If he stated he was influenced by his grandad would that mean by "your logic" The Beatles were influenced by Buddy Hollys grandad!!!

DOG DIRT!!!

RJFait said:

Absolutey. Everybody said they were influenced by The Beatles (they were completey inundated with them, how could they not be). They all (including The Beatles) said Elvis influenced them. Elvis claimed gospel as his biggest influence. So by Rockin' Rod's logic, garage and/or psych music never could have happened without... gospel? (bullshit sneeze) There were enough influences bouncing all around that by removing any one of them, (even the damned Beatles) the end product would have no discernible difference. But if you took away all the numerous influence on any one band (including the damned Beatles) that one band would be very different.

Don said:

But isn't it true that all music cross pollinates? Who are my influences? Some I can name but most I cannot.

Stealing a song or an arrangement without giving credit is one thing, but the rest of this IMO is mostly sour grapes.

Don't want to have anyone influenced by your music? Play in your room with the door shut.

-don

The Beatles were the spark that launched the golden age of garage rock like Elvis sparked the rockabilly explosion. I don't buy the money/hype argument, if they hadn't been great songwriters with an exciting new sound it wouldn't have worked.

I'm going to take exception to that one statement. Certainly Gospel did have a big impact on the development of blues, folk, soul and rock, but if Gospel never existed, if people never incorporated music into their church services and praise rituals, or if African slaves had never accepted the white man's faith, there was already enough indigenous Black music to evolve and branch into other forms. Work songs probably predate Gospel in America, and African songs and rhythms certainly do.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

 ...none of those original rock and rollers would exist either if not for Gospel. 

You're basically saying that anything could have existed without something else but you're not making any of the connections.  You start with the caveman but you don't mention HOW we get to Texas psyche from there.  How can you take away Gospel (which eventually leads to blues, jazz, and soul) from what alot of Southern Americans based alot of their music on to start with?  If they only went by the church music that was brought over from Europe, psyche in Texas would sound more like Procul Harum.  You mention the backbone ("if someone wasn't beating a stick first, someone else would have done it eventually") but you don't the mention the meat that eventually surrounds it. 

Certainly, the Beatles would not exist without Elvis, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, and Little Richard.  But none of those original rock and rollers would exist either if not for Gospel.  Rock and Roll would exist if Elvis had solely based his repertoir on Dean Martin and Mario Lanza records, instead of Big Boy Crudup and Wynonie Harris, who again, wouldn't exist if Gospel didn't exist?  You call bullshit on all this but you're not backing up your own claims.

RJFait said:

Perhaps you've been misreading it all along. Your "That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's" is so incorrect. I've been saying the exact opposite the whole time and Rod admitted that he believes there would not have been Texas psych (the best kind) without gospel. I think that's nonsense. If the first person to beat out a rhythm with a stick hadn't done it, someone else would have. Period! And to say the Beatles were the first to do any genre is also nonsense. They were just one of the first to achieve commercial success at it.

Time For Tiffin said:

Don't back out on my account man.

Surely discission/debate/banter are what it's all about,ain't it?

I have read the thread,infact i was the first to reply to it.I simply don't agree with ya statements.

To know what The Beatles changed ya have to know what dross the vast majority of English kids were listenin' too before em......Cliff Richard,Billy Fury,Joe Brown and worse.

Record companies had artists not bands.EMI took a chance and it paid off.The Beatles went huge over here and the kids went bonkers.Every other company went lookin' for their own Beatles on the back of that success.Even Decca took on another guitar band after statin' "guitar bands had had their day"....The Rolling Stones.

Love em or hate em,take away The Beatles and ya take away most of the other bands from the era.

Take away The Beatles success in the US and ya take away The British Invasion that followed.

Take away The Beatles and ya take away the most excitin' time in pop when every 15 year old lad wanted to pick up a guitar and play in a band.

It would have been a very lonely path for Cliff Richard and Billy Fury to walk down from 63 to mid sixties psych (and i'm not sure they'd have made it) without The Stones,Kinks,Animals,Yardbirds etc.And they wouldn't have been anywhere if The Beatles hadn't done it first.

The Beatles changes EVERYTHING.

own Beatles

RJFait said:

Alright, I'm going to have to back out of this now because people are just saying stupid shit that absolutely no basis in reality. If you're not going to bother reading a thread, you really shouldn't comment on it.
Time For Tiffin said:

EH?

That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's.

They were also influenced by Buddy Holly.If he stated he was influenced by his grandad would that mean by "your logic" The Beatles were influenced by Buddy Hollys grandad!!!

DOG DIRT!!!

RJFait said:

Absolutey. Everybody said they were influenced by The Beatles (they were completey inundated with them, how could they not be). They all (including The Beatles) said Elvis influenced them. Elvis claimed gospel as his biggest influence. So by Rockin' Rod's logic, garage and/or psych music never could have happened without... gospel? (bullshit sneeze) There were enough influences bouncing all around that by removing any one of them, (even the damned Beatles) the end product would have no discernible difference. But if you took away all the numerous influence on any one band (including the damned Beatles) that one band would be very different.

Don said:

But isn't it true that all music cross pollinates? Who are my influences? Some I can name but most I cannot.

Stealing a song or an arrangement without giving credit is one thing, but the rest of this IMO is mostly sour grapes.

Don't want to have anyone influenced by your music? Play in your room with the door shut.

-don

"They were just ONE of the first to achieve commercial success at it"

Wow!!!.......who were the others?

As i said ya have to know what the vast majority of kids were listenin' to over here pre Beatles.
 
RJFait said:

Perhaps you've been misreading it all along. Your "That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's" is so incorrect. I've been saying the exact opposite the whole time and Rod admitted that he believes there would not have been Texas psych (the best kind) without gospel. I think that's nonsense. If the first person to beat out a rhythm with a stick hadn't done it, someone else would have. Period! And to say the Beatles were the first to do any genre is also nonsense. They were just one of the first to achieve commercial success at it.

Time For Tiffin said:

Don't back out on my account man.

Surely discission/debate/banter are what it's all about,ain't it?

I have read the thread,infact i was the first to reply to it.I simply don't agree with ya statements.

To know what The Beatles changed ya have to know what dross the vast majority of English kids were listenin' too before em......Cliff Richard,Billy Fury,Joe Brown and worse.

Record companies had artists not bands.EMI took a chance and it paid off.The Beatles went huge over here and the kids went bonkers.Every other company went lookin' for their own Beatles on the back of that success.Even Decca took on another guitar band after statin' "guitar bands had had their day"....The Rolling Stones.

Love em or hate em,take away The Beatles and ya take away most of the other bands from the era.

Take away The Beatles success in the US and ya take away The British Invasion that followed.

Take away The Beatles and ya take away the most excitin' time in pop when every 15 year old lad wanted to pick up a guitar and play in a band.

It would have been a very lonely path for Cliff Richard and Billy Fury to walk down from 63 to mid sixties psych (and i'm not sure they'd have made it) without The Stones,Kinks,Animals,Yardbirds etc.And they wouldn't have been anywhere if The Beatles hadn't done it first.

The Beatles changes EVERYTHING.

own Beatles

RJFait said:

Alright, I'm going to have to back out of this now because people are just saying stupid shit that absolutely no basis in reality. If you're not going to bother reading a thread, you really shouldn't comment on it.
Time For Tiffin said:

EH?

That's your logic not Rockin' Rod's.

They were also influenced by Buddy Holly.If he stated he was influenced by his grandad would that mean by "your logic" The Beatles were influenced by Buddy Hollys grandad!!!

DOG DIRT!!!

RJFait said:

Absolutey. Everybody said they were influenced by The Beatles (they were completey inundated with them, how could they not be). They all (including The Beatles) said Elvis influenced them. Elvis claimed gospel as his biggest influence. So by Rockin' Rod's logic, garage and/or psych music never could have happened without... gospel? (bullshit sneeze) There were enough influences bouncing all around that by removing any one of them, (even the damned Beatles) the end product would have no discernible difference. But if you took away all the numerous influence on any one band (including the damned Beatles) that one band would be very different.

Don said:

But isn't it true that all music cross pollinates? Who are my influences? Some I can name but most I cannot.

Stealing a song or an arrangement without giving credit is one thing, but the rest of this IMO is mostly sour grapes.

Don't want to have anyone influenced by your music? Play in your room with the door shut.

-don

bandcamp.com is incredibly handy for online downloads. anyone who downloads off of the site can download the songs in whatever file format they want, from mp3 to flac..

just you can't upload mp3s to the site.. because an mp3 converted to flac just isn't kosher

also, you get 200 free download codes when you make the page, and you can get 500 for $15 or 1000 for $20

A new episode of Old School Zeroes is up and ready for your ears! Check it out!

If it hadn't been for Blue Cheer tributes, I might have never known there was such a thing as 'stoner metal'. "Blue Explosion" is one of my favorite groupings of post 1984 bands.

John Battles said:

 I have'nt been happy with a lot of 'em , but , that's just me. I DON'T recommend "Sonic Cathedral" , Roky fans.  I liked about 5 songs on "Where The Pyramid Meets The Eye". The fact that ZZ TOP did the best cut (OK , it's fact to me, but , a lot of people have agreed .)speaks volumes , tho' , of  course ,they cut their teeth on The Elevators when they played in The Moving Sidewalks and American Blues.... I thought KISS did the best track on "We're a Happy Family" , and I have'nt liked them since Carter was President.

The Sam The Sham comp on Norton is very good . Lotta variety , little , if any , filler and a Drew Friedman cover !

"Groin Thunder" is pretty good. I would have replaced the Dwarves' "Strange Movies" with T.Tex Edwards and Lithium Xmas' version , which came out at the same time.

The Waste Kings' "Feels Like a Woman" would have been an asset , too.

 I thought Gary Glitter doing "The Raver" would've been choice. It's practically the blueprint for the "Glitter " sound.  We've already talked about all that other stuff regarding him.

The now - rare Blue Cheer Tribute CD is also very good , Stoner bands that don't suck and Psych bands that seldom noodle cover songs from pretty much every facet of Dickie and The Cheer's career , and do some really interesting things , for the most part.

Faithful Todd Rudgren

 I have'nt been happy with a lot of 'em , but , that's just me. I DON'T recommend "Sonic Cathedral" , Roky fans.  I liked about 5 songs on "Where The Pyramid Meets The Eye". The fact that ZZ TOP did the best cut (OK , it's fact to me, but , a lot of people have agreed .)speaks volumes , tho' , of  course ,they cut their teeth on The Elevators when they played in The Moving Sidewalks and American Blues.... I thought KISS did the best track on "We're a Happy Family" , and I have'nt liked them since Carter was President.

The Sam The Sham comp on Norton is very good . Lotta variety , little , if any , filler and a Drew Friedman cover !

"Groin Thunder" is pretty good. I would have replaced the Dwarves' "Strange Movies" with T.Tex Edwards and Lithium Xmas' version , which came out at the same time.

The Waste Kings' "Feels Like a Woman" would have been an asset , too.

 I thought Gary Glitter doing "The Raver" would've been choice. It's practically the blueprint for the "Glitter " sound.  We've already talked about all that other stuff regarding him.

The now - rare Blue Cheer Tribute CD is also very good , Stoner bands that don't suck and Psych bands that seldom noodle cover songs from pretty much every facet of Dickie and The Cheer's career , and do some really interesting things , for the most part.

I'm In Love With That Song - Replacements tribute by Australian bands

We'll Inherit the Earth: Tribute to Replacements

We're a Happy Family: A Tribute to Ramones

Trash Is Neat: Cramps Tribute (2-CDs and downloadable!) 

one of my faves... the styles vary enough to keep it interesting.

Hard To Beat - Twenty-One Stooges killers

It's a great tribute album of the Stooges by Aussie bands!

Here Ain’t the Sonics The Sonics

Groin Thunder The Troggs

The Both albums are great!

Not The Singer But The Songs : An Alex Chilton Tribute

I think it's not perfect, but it includes some great covers!

Song Ramones The Same

It's not a great tribute album, I think, but it includes an amazing cover of "Mental Hell" by Sator!

I got a copy of Big Beat '64 from the video beat and was blown away that every band performing was raising the bar for the next band. The Beatles came out and seriously showed why the were there batting clean-up. So yeah, it's be the Beatles. The savage young Beatles especially.

It depends what I'm in the mood for.

RIGHT ON!!

DEEZEN said:

Some like the Beatles, some like the Stones, but we all love the Kinks!

Love Rudimentary Peni. Other than the Pope Adrian album, I don't think Peni have even 10 songs that break the 2 minute mark. 

Hi Class Joes said:

Rudimentary Peni: not even remotely Garage or 60's inspired but a fond memory of my youth.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTM6PCmuLQA&feature=player_detai...

I'm glad I took the time to check if anyone had posted Angry Samoans "Stupid Jerk". I guess I'm stuck with posting this one instead.


Communist Radio!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSE_tKlmRXU

Lou Reed as Auden in Get Crazy

Hey Winston you should also check out Softube's spring reverb,  i think they do a pretty great sounding plug in and I use it most of the time.

 What's funny , tho' I'm centuries past caring about Madness , I read that they DID have a following among members The National Front , not at their own solicitation , of course.

Reportedly , they took an apolitical stance regarding their prescence at gigs. I'm sure they were pressured to say or do something ,as Rock Against Racism was in full gear. They were in a unique , somewhat unlikeable , position , being the only Two - Tone band with no Black members. That was frowned upon , somewhat. But , "The Naziest sound around !" , that's very funny !

WELL , WE SURVIVED IT .Though , I really only went to see Roky , who did a tremendous set , and The Mentally  Ill , last Thursday , well , the mix was terrible , yes , these things matter , even in "Punk Rock". They sounded fantastic a few months back at the Ultra Lounge.

I'd say it was a success , all around , tho'.