Are there any real reasons to dislike the FAB FOUR ? And I think about

REAL reasons ... not reasons in that way like " I-want-to-be-a-ultra-cool-hipster-

and-I -only-listen-to-sixties-bands-nobody-knows-because-I'm-so-special ".

I guess the BEATLES are ( next to the WHO and the KINKS ) the most 

cool, stylish and awesome band ever. They played in the same league

as ELVIS ... and ELVIS is GOD you know. 

What do you think about ? 

I just found this too and was going to post it...

Fritz said:

Here's why not:

HOW THE BEATLES DESTROYED ROCK'N'ROLL

Great read.

Here's why not:

HOW THE BEATLES DESTROYED ROCK'N'ROLL

Great read.

You may be right. In fact, you probably are. I never actually said The Beatles weren't great. Honestly, I think they did some great stuff. I just get really tired of people trying to give them credit for creating sounds that they didn't create. Did they help open some doors? Sure. There were hundreds of bands already beating on those doors that would have gotten them open one way or another. Let's give rock and roll itself a little credit here.

G. Wood said:

Those were different times, before the industry learned how to shove shit down people's throats.
 
RJFait said:

I want to believe that, but... rap music, Lady Ga-Ga, The boys and girls coming out of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, almost every #1 hit before and after The Beatles, all make me think talent is the one thing 'musicians' don't need to be considered great. I'm in no way saying The Beatles weren't talented, but that's never been enough for any other band ever.

Dana V. Hatch said:

if they hadn't been great songwriters with an exciting new sound it wouldn't have worked.

Those were different times, before the industry learned how to shove shit down people's throats.
 
RJFait said:

I want to believe that, but... rap music, Lady Ga-Ga, The boys and girls coming out of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, almost every #1 hit before and after The Beatles, all make me think talent is the one thing 'musicians' don't need to be considered great. I'm in no way saying The Beatles weren't talented, but that's never been enough for any other band ever.

Dana V. Hatch said:

if they hadn't been great songwriters with an exciting new sound it wouldn't have worked.

I want to believe that, but... rap music, Lady Ga-Ga, The boys and girls coming out of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, almost every #1 hit before and after The Beatles, all make me think talent is the one thing 'musicians' don't need to be considered great. I'm in no way saying The Beatles weren't talented, but that's never been enough for any other band ever.

Dana V. Hatch said:

if they hadn't been great songwriters with an exciting new sound it wouldn't have worked.

And that's the thing.  While the Beatles weren't the first to bring fancy chord progressions into rock music,  I think they certainly played a big part into bringing into the forefront.  I think a lot of sixties bands would have been happy just continuing with 1-4-5 (or 1-3-4) progressions but how long would that have lasted?  Sophisticated music would have happened but I don't think it would have been rock.
 
Dana V. Hatch said:

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.

Yeah...I don't know.  Hopefully,  a lot of the early guys would have been buying r and b singles without having to hear black music in churches and that influence but it seems the style of church music that these guys were singing was imitated from the black churches that were nearby and not church music like that of old world Europe.  The work songs were evolving into spirituals but you're right....who's to say that works songs wouldn't have evolved into something else.
 
G. Wood said:

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. 

Love the Fab Four,nuthin' but love!

You are right, Tiffin, the 'gay' remark was uncalled for. Please read ALL of this before replying. The problem is that the branch of the topic you chimed in on had nothing to do with England and everything to do with garage/psych. I didn't just throw those in last second. There was a claim made that garage/psych would not be if it weren't for The Beatles. I called bullshit. That's when Rockin' Rod started making ridiculous statements about The Beatles inventing genres that they barely even played and even went as far as to say psych wouldn't exist without gospel. Those are fan boy statements. YOU (maybe accidentally or inadvertently, by not reading what you were replying to) claimed to agree with them. I, once again, maintain the same claims that I've ended damned near every reply with, GARAGE AND PSYCH (all caps so you see it this time) AND rock and roll in general, especially here in the United States of America (where it was already chuggin' along) would have happened WITH or WITHOUT THE BEATLES!!!

Time For Tiffin said:

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

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

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

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

Glad to see that I wasn't quoted in the the "stupid shit." Just for the record, I thought everything that was said was worth considering, even if I didn't agree with some of it.

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

I think the statement referring to me had more to do with psychedelic music not existing without Gospel.  The kind of psychedelia that Pink Floyd did could very well exist without Gospel music but I don't think anything out of Texas WOULD.  Take away Soul music and you really don't have a Thirteenth Floor Elevators getting together and creating what they did.  Pretty much, I think all sorts of Church music has to exist including that of the middle ages even for the Swinging London psych scene.

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

Yep, and also, I Like It Like That.
 
matthew rosedon said:

As recorded by Gerry & the Pacemakers?

G. Wood said:

I like it.

Don said:

"Yeah, but do you like it?"  :D

-don

As recorded by Gerry & the Pacemakers?

G. Wood said:

I like it.

Don said:

"Yeah, but do you like it?"  :D

-don

I like it.

Don said:

"Yeah, but do you like it?"  :D

-don