Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fairness to myself, I turned 3 in 1960 so I was a little young to fully "participate" in the 60's. But I do remember Huntley and Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, Ed Sullivan, various Gemini and Apollo launches, and of course the original Star Trek. Also the advent of UHF TV tuners and the delights of pulling in all of 5 or 6 stations to watch. And of course, people being scandalized by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc.
What I don't recall is anyone claiming the Beatles were Satanists. Rock n' Roll generally, of course, was "of the devil" or at the very least "worldly". But Satanic? Must be that Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist must have upped everyone's fantasy game but I don't recall that being a Thing back during the Beatle's early rise.
While I appeared to have been in the minority back in the day, I never personally 'got' the Beatles. To this day ...I still don't 'get' the Beatles. And, that's okay ...to each his own. I DO know that they were part of a clever publicity campaign designed to mesmerize the masses - even before any superior musical abilities attributed to them had been considered or established. Millions of people were caught up in the euphoria (as intended) of 'Beatlemania' and would have willingly grovelled and worshiped the so-called 'Fab 4'. The Beatles - or at least the hype-machine that marketed them - ushered in a new era. The Beatles became a religion. They recognized this and even mocked their gullible followers publicly ...as well they might.
The Beatles were a band. They wrote songs. They sang their songs. They were no more than this, either back in the day or now. Many proficient bands, song writers and singers had come before them but without the hype surrounding the Beatles that was taken to the extreme. It's been said that little the Beatles possessed or delivered musically early on in their career could possibly have justified the unbelievable impact they initially had on so many. When John Lennon stated that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ .,..he was correct. He wasn't saying anything that was not true. The Beatles WERE more popular than Jesus Christ! And, this had little to do with their actual music, per se, but was rather the results of mass hypnosis. It's said that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. This is NOT the case with human beings, however, who will drink until they burst given the right set of circumstances or influences.
Whether the Beatles were satanic in some way, I haven't got a clue. Nor do I care ...I don't even know how someone CAN be satanic, musically speaking. However, what the Beatles phenomenon did teach us - or should have taught us - is how easy it is for religious beliefs to be thrust upon those who are looking for 'something' that appears to be missing from their lives. I'm not immune to this ...I'm still looking for that same 'something' in my life. But, it was not, and is not, the Beatles.
Yeah, I'll tell you something
I think you'll understand
When I say that something
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
or ...
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah ... ad infinitum
Sure, the Beatles had some good songs, but I actually found the earlier lyrics by Jimmy Clanton or Ray Peterson to be better than the highly repetitive chorus of many of the more popular Beatles' songs.
Their music was transformative as it was true rock n' roll music -- not the "doo-wop" music that was heavy on voice and light on instrumentation. Their lyrics, on the other hand, quite often left a lot to be desired -- and they sang about the same old stuff: love, romance, and relationships. Not exactly transformative in that department. Singing about drugs wasn't exactly new, either -- the Sixties was filled with that, everyone singing about their favorite drugs in code-speak (Mr. Candyman, Mr. Bojangles, Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds (L.S.D.) and continued into the late 70's with songs like Snowblind by Styx.
I don't have anything against the Beatles, and when you compare them with today's truly god-awful music, they seem damn near mythical, but I know, too, that when you're a fan of music, it becomes almost like a religion. Fanatics abound.
Oddly enough, as the Beatles' matured, their popularity fell off ... which says a lot about the American mindset. Gotta keep everything idiot-simple or people switch off their brains and find something else to do.
It is true that the Beatles began with a tried and true formula... love songs. But they were fresh and real love songs. The American formula love songs were trite and plastic. I was a teen during the early sixties, and I hated most pop music because it was so plastic-formula silly. I was a rabid Beatles fan from the moment they were on the Ed Sullivan show however. Their whole sound was new and fresh. It's what we had been waiting for. And it broke open the whole era of rock and roll, which is all about excitement and vitality. Not canned schlock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Oddly enough, as the Beatles' matured, their popularity fell off ... which says a lot about the American mindset. Gotta keep everything idiot-simple or people switch off their brains and find something else to do.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it has nothing to do with the truth. I was there. The Beatles were the top of the mount. Every group aspired to be the Beatles, and the Beatles went out on top. What IS true is that many other talented groups were able to break through, riding on the coattails of the Beatles. In 1964, which was a great year for classic pop music, the Beatles were head and shoulders above everything else. By 1970 there were many other very worthy contenders. We have never experienced that sort of distance in pop culture popularity again. Michael Jackson for a while, perhaps.
By the time the Beatles disbanded however there were many other groups that were providing the same some of fresh energy and excitement that young people crave. These groups were riding the Beatles coat tails. The Stones and early Clapton for example were worthy competitors. The Beatles popularity did not diminish. It's just that they had elevated the entire pop music genre around them.
And if many of us have remained loyal in our reverence of the Beatles fifty years later, it is because they took us away from "Venus in Blue Jeans," and gave us music we could actually relate to. I am a big fan of the Stones and the Who. The Beatles broke popular music wide open and showed the way to the great groups that followed their lead.
Ultimately, yes, the Beatles were just a musical group. John Lennon said as much. There are two reasons why the Beatles are still widely revered. The first is, the Beatles spoke to the baby boomer generation. And second, they were really REALLY good.
Although the whole Egg Man and koo-koo, ka-choo-thing is kinda weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
A lot of their music was fueled by drug use.
Lennon actually wrote I Am The Walrus as a bit of a joke. After Sgt Pepper came out, a lot of people were trying to read things into Beatles' lyrics that weren't really there (such as the LSD - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds episode), so basically he stuck tongue in cheek and said, 'This will really give them something to think about.'
I once dated a guy who told me he didn't listen to rock and roll and that The Rolling Stones were Satanic. He talked a lot about religion, yet he was an 'errand' man for the Mafia and did little nuisance 'jobs' for them. I understood it as he did some type of violence for the Mafia. I dated him one time...
It is true that the Beatles began with a tried and true formula... love songs. But they were fresh and real love songs. The American formula love songs were trite and plastic. I was a teen during the early sixties, and I hated most pop music because it was so plastic-formula silly. I was a rabid Beatles fan from the moment they were on the Ed Sullivan show however. Their whole sound was new and fresh. It's what we had been waiting for. And it broke open the whole era of rock and roll, which is all about excitement and vitality. Not canned schlock.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it has nothing to do with the truth. I was there. The Beatles were the top of the mount. Every group aspired to be the Beatles, and the Beatles went out on top. What IS true is that many other talented groups were able to break through, riding on the coattails of the Beatles. In 1964, which was a great year for classic pop music, the Beatles were head and shoulders above everything else. By 1970 there were many other very worthy contenders. We have never experienced that sort of distance in pop culture popularity again. Michael Jackson for a while, perhaps.
By the time the Beatles disbanded however there were many other groups that were providing the same some of fresh energy and excitement that young people crave. These groups were riding the Beatles coat tails. The Stones and early Clapton for example were worthy competitors. The Beatles popularity did not diminish. It's just that they had elevated the entire pop music genre around them.
And if many of us have remained loyal in our reverence of the Beatles fifty years later, it is because they took us away from "Venus in Blue Jeans," and gave us music we could actually relate to. I am a big fan of the Stones and the Who. The Beatles broke popular music wide open and showed the way to the great groups that followed their lead.
Ultimately, yes, the Beatles were just a musical group. John Lennon said as much. There are two reasons why the Beatles are still widely revered. The first is, the Beatles spoke to the baby boomer generation. And second, they were really REALLY good.
I was a big fan of the early Beatles but fairly quickly became a bigger fan of the Yardbirds, the Stones, Buffalo Springfield, Zep, Van Morrison et al. The Beatles (arguably) peaked with Dr. Pepper's.
I was a big fan of the early Beatles but fairly quickly became a bigger fan of the Yardbirds, the Stones, Buffalo Springfield, Zep, Van Morrison et al. The Beatles (arguably) peaked with Dr. Pepper's.
Yes. Well I was Letting Go of the pop and rock world, and while the stones kept together and going in a way that deserved some respect, the other endless string of 'Greatest thing since the Beatles' ..Bay city Rollers...T. Rex...and a procession of ten a penny nine day wonders, last being some girl band whose name I can't even think of....I was leaving it all behind and getting into Mahler and Bartok.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
