The Beatles question [Archive]

Matchbox

02-20-2009, 02:06 PM

Brian Epstien died and Paul decided he could handle their dead managers role. This threatened John's ego as he'd been considered the band leader up to that point. They recorded Sgt. Pepper which was Paul's project.
In 69 John wanted to bring Allen Klien in as their Business manager to take Epstien's place, Paul wanted Linda Eastman's father to take that position. Paul refused to sign papers with Klien.
What it boiled down to was although they were makeing albums they weren't really collaberating on the writing of the songs. They were doing solo songs with the others as backups. John had a fragile ego and felt slighted by Paul's power trips so he brought Joko in to stir up the shit.He was on the way out and was waiting for some business deals to be finished but Paul jumped the gun and announced the split up.

Penner

02-20-2009, 02:58 PM

It's quite clear that Lennon is the more irreplaceable member.

Yup.

02-20-2009, 03:04 PM

Lennon as a part of the Beatles was awesome.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-20-2009, 08:31 PM

Nothing gold can stay.

Hanso Amore

02-20-2009, 09:44 PM

Because Paul McCartney is a fucking faggot

Eat shit and die :rant:

But seriously Trips, You are better than that post.

Hanso Amore

02-20-2009, 09:44 PM

and FYI, George was the most important one.

Triple A

02-21-2009, 09:45 AM

Eat shit and die :rant:

But seriously Trips, You are better than that post.
what

Just John

02-21-2009, 03:32 PM

Everytime I hear the beatles I keep thinking I'm in some kind of nutcase dream where everything is trying to be overly pleasant and I'm never going to escape. Seriously agitates me to listen to them.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-21-2009, 10:13 PM

That's retarded. Are you only listening to Octopus' Garden or some shit?

Hanso Amore

02-21-2009, 10:34 PM

Everytime I hear the beatles I keep thinking I'm in some kind of nutcase dream where everything is trying to be overly pleasant and I'm never going to escape. Seriously agitates me to listen to them.

Obviously you havent heard any of their earlier, poppy stuff.

The beatles have many sounds. You must have just heard the acid trip albums.

Just John

02-22-2009, 08:29 AM

lol @ angry beatles fans.

No, even the pop stuff does it, I watched Yellow Submarine when I was little and I think that just fucked me up long-term.

Either way I don't see how it matters to you that I don't like The Beatles because of X Y and Z.

Hanso Amore

02-22-2009, 09:55 AM

Because it is like saying you dont like Geroge Carlin because of SHining Time Station.

You should judge on a whole body of work.

Just John

02-22-2009, 10:38 AM

Because it is like saying you dont like Geroge Carlin because of SHining Time Station.

You should judge on a whole body of work.

I've listened to enough of the Beatles to decide I don't like them. The popular stuff makes me feel like I'm in a weird trip of somekind, so I'm guessing that the psychedelic stuff isn't much better for making me feel oriented.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 03:51 PM

Just John

02-22-2009, 04:00 PM

JJ, I'm getting the impression that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Define the "popular stuff". What have you heard and what haven't you? Right now it just seems that you've heard very little and formed a half-assed opinion and you just stick by it now to save face.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds
I am the walruss
Back in the USSR
Peggy Lane
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Strawberry fields forever
Yellow Submarine
That'll be the day
I wanna hold your hand
Plus a bunch I don't know by name but recognise by ear

lol come on, I live in the UK of course I know The Beatles' popular songs. By your logic, I'm retarded because their songs remind me of the same sort of thing and produce the same imagery. That's a pretty retarded argument in itself if you ask me. Not to mention you jumped to conclusions and assumed I'd never heard popular songs from one of the most popular bands in the world. Honestly, do you even know how stupid you sound?

Bad Company

02-22-2009, 04:06 PM

Stop taking the piss :p

Just John

02-22-2009, 04:10 PM

Stop taking the piss :p

No, seriously do you not see something wrong here? It's like saying this:

'I don't like Da Vinci, the Mona Lisa is really depressing and I don't like it'
'That's retarded, Da Vinci's other works are cheerful, you're full of shit'
'No, I find his other works depressing too'

It's an opinion, just because you do not feel the same way does not mean it is inaccurate. You cannot tell me that I don't think X is Y, because it's my opinion, not a fact.

Rob

02-22-2009, 04:46 PM

Peggy Lane

lol come on, I live in the UK of course I know The Beatles' popular songs.

Really?

Just John

02-22-2009, 04:54 PM

Really?

The Beatles did Peggy Lane didn't they?

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 04:59 PM

Lucy in the sky with diamonds
I am the walruss
Back in the USSR
Peggy Lane
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Strawberry fields forever
Yellow Submarine
That'll be the day
I wanna hold your hand
Plus a bunch I don't know by name but recognise by ear

lol come on, I live in the UK of course I know The Beatles' popular songs. By your logic, I'm retarded because their songs remind me of the same sort of thing and produce the same imagery. That's a pretty retarded argument in itself if you ask me. Not to mention you jumped to conclusions and assumed I'd never heard popular songs from one of the most popular bands in the world. Honestly, do you even know how stupid you sound?

I Am The Walrus produces the same imagery as I Want To Hold Your Hand? The only way this could be the case is because you have some preconceived notion about the artist and you're judging based on that rather than taking each piece for it's individual merits.

Peggy Lane

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 05:05 PM

I mean seriously, the only thing many of those pieces have in common is the artist and nothing else. They are so musically different that it is absurd to pass a blanket judgment on them.

Just John

02-22-2009, 05:17 PM

I mean seriously, the only thing many of those pieces have in common is the artist and nothing else. They are so musically different that it is absurd to pass a blanket judgment on them.

Personally I do not think so. They sound very similar to me. But my point still stands; how does that make me 'retarded'? What gives you the right to call me a retard because my opinion doesn't match yours? If you were to say that for instance, Black Sabbath conjured up the image of happy smiling flowers I would think 'That's a bit of an odd imagery' and ask you what makes you connect the two together. I wouldn't however call you a retard because you connected two seemingly different things together.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 06:58 PM

1. I never called you retarded.
2. So you are honestly saying that I Want To Hold Your Hand and I Am The Walrus sound similar?

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 07:03 PM

This is what you are doing to me.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Just John

02-22-2009, 07:34 PM

That's retarded. Are you only listening to Octopus' Garden or some shit?

Firstly, I am not wrong. It is a matter of opinion, there is no wrong or right. Secondly, if arguing on the internet is actually making you lose sleep, then you should seriously sort your life out.

And yes I do think the two sound similar. It's classic Britpop that I've endured for years, of course it all sounds similar to me. But you probably see them as completely different. The same applies to Drum n Bass, you probably couldn't tell the difference between two tracks that I'd deem to be completely different subgenres, because you don't share the same interest in it that I do.

Stop being closed minded and accept the fact that some people just don't give a shit about The Beatles enough to differentiate the styles of two similar songs.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 08:01 PM

Firstly, I am not wrong. It is a matter of opinion, there is no wrong or right. Secondly, if arguing on the internet is actually making you lose sleep, then you should seriously sort your life out.

And yes I do think the two sound similar. It's classic Britpop that I've endured for years, of course it all sounds similar to me. But you probably see them as completely different. The same applies to Drum n Bass, you probably couldn't tell the difference between two tracks that I'd deem to be completely different subgenres, because you don't share the same interest in it that I do.

Stop being closed minded and accept the fact that some people just don't give a shit about The Beatles enough to differentiate the styles of two similar songs.

1. That's retarded doesn't mean you're retarded. Though I'm starting to lean in that direction.
2. It's a comic, it's a joke. Do you know what jokes are? They stop being funny when you explain them, so I'll just let you think about the complex layers for a while. Eventually the humor may dawn on you. I wish you the best of luck.

3. You're only arguing your point now to save face. There is no possible way anyone, even the most musically inept could think those songs sound AT ALL similar. If you HONESTLY think that they do, then yes- I would then feel justified in calling you retarded. But I don't think you believe that. You just need to be a stubborn little bitch who stands by a point he made in haste that has no real basis in reality. It's this sort of shit that makes the majority of people on the forum dislike you. You have this rabid disregard for logic because you want to look right. You don't look right. You look like a jackass. Now you're trying to say "it's an opinion, I can't be wrong". It's not an opinion. Whether you like something or not, call that an opinion. But whether or not two things that can easily be compared on hundreds of different levels can be considered similar, that is something that can be clearly discerned. It is not an opinion. A is different than B. That's all there is to it.

Just John

02-22-2009, 08:59 PM

1. That's retarded doesn't mean you're retarded. Though I'm starting to lean in that direction.
2. It's a comic, it's a joke. Do you know what jokes are? They stop being funny when you explain them, so I'll just let you think about the complex layers for a while. Eventually the humor may dawn on you. I wish you the best of luck.

3. You're only arguing your point now to save face. There is no possible way anyone, even the most musically inept could think those songs sound AT ALL similar. If you HONESTLY think that they do, then yes- I would then feel justified in calling you retarded. But I don't think you believe that. You just need to be a stubborn little bitch who stands by a point he made in haste that has no real basis in reality. It's this sort of shit that makes the majority of people on the forum dislike you. You have this rabid disregard for logic because you want to look right. You don't look right. You look like a jackass. Now you're trying to say "it's an opinion, I can't be wrong". It's not an opinion. Whether you like something or not, call that an opinion. But whether or not two things that can easily be compared on hundreds of different levels can be considered similar, that is something that can be clearly discerned. It is not an opinion. A is different than B. That's all there is to it.

Fine, let's roll with your 'logic' for a while. Despite the fact you revel in misology. So it is not an opinion, in that case, I am right and you are wrong. They sound similar. If you honestly think you can base someones retardation on the basis that they believe that two songs sound similar, then clearly you have no idea what being retarded actually is.

retarded

adjective
1. relatively slow in mental or emotional or physical development

I fail to see how this issue constitutes retardation. Learn what you are talking about before you try and argue a point.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 09:00 PM

So, you don't understand common usage of a term?

Just John

02-22-2009, 09:05 PM

So, you don't understand common usage of a term?

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the usage seeing as you fail to use it in the correct context.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 09:10 PM

So, you don't understand common usage of a term? I suppose you only use "gay" to mean "happy" as well?

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 09:12 PM

Anyway, it's clear that you've realized you're wrong since you've resorted to arguing over semantics.

Just John

02-22-2009, 09:14 PM

So, you don't understand common usage of a term? I suppose you only use "gay" to mean "happy" as well?

No, but if you're going to call me retarded out of intended context then that can only mean that you're using it as an insult, and therefore I'll assume that you've lost the argument because you can no longer support your claims and thus have moved onto throwing insults like a child.

Just John

02-22-2009, 09:17 PM

Anyway, it's clear that you've realized you're wrong since you've resorted to arguing over semantics.

Of course not, I only argue the points that you bring up. So if I'm arguing over semantics, it's your fault for incorrectly phrasing things in the first place. While I will not do it now, tomorrow I will compare the two songs and analyze them in their similarities and show evidence as to why seem very much alike to me.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-22-2009, 09:20 PM

While I will not do it now, tomorrow I will compare the two songs and analyze them in their similarities and show evidence as to why seem very much alike to me.

Then we can continue this conversation at that point.

Just John

02-22-2009, 09:26 PM

Then we can continue this conversation at that point.

Indeed.

Just John

02-23-2009, 07:34 PM

Similarities between I am the Walrus and I wanna hold your hand. (I'm going to be brief here because I had things to do today and was going to leave it, but I didn't want to keep you waiting)

-Same era and same genre: Let's not forget that there wasn't the diversity in music there is now as there was in the 60s. You had The Stones, The Kinks and The Beatles. None of these bands are anything new to me in the slightest and I've heard them regularly since I was as young as I can remember. It's only natural that after a while you hear the same vocalist and it just goes in one ear and out of the other. Look at modern pop music now, I couldn't tell the difference between the pussycat dolls, atomic kitten, the spice girls etc. It all sounds the same to me because I've heard it so often that I tune it out.

You're forgetting that my original statement. I said that it conjured up the same imagery.

Maybe in America The Beatles are still some kind of exotic import, but over here there is only so many times you can hear a Liverpudlian vocalist without thinking 'Oh The Beatles' and promptly losing all interest. They may seem like individual pieces of musical art to you, but in England, we hear it all the time and simply don't give a toss.

So once again I direct you to my original post:

Everytime I hear the beatles I keep thinking I'm in some kind of nutcase dream where everything is trying to be overly pleasant and I'm never going to escape. Seriously agitates me to listen to them.

What exactly is wrong with this statement? It just seems to me like you can't stand the idea that someone might think differently about The Beatles and therefore jumped to conclusions and assumed I must obviously be listening to something totally different :roll:

So once again I will ask you; what is wrong with my original post now that you realise that I have listened to a variety of their work and it still conjures up the same imagery?

Boondock Saint

02-23-2009, 07:39 PM

lol Peggy Lane

Just John

02-23-2009, 07:43 PM

lol Peggy Lane

OH I've just realised I mean PENNY Lane. Not sure where I got PEGGY from. Maybe from Twiggy, also being associated with the 60s and all.

RottingFreak

02-23-2009, 08:13 PM

They may seem like individual pieces of musical art to you, but in England, we hear it all the time and simply don't give a toss.

It must suck for England to have you speaking for all of them.

Just John

02-23-2009, 08:22 PM

It must suck for England to have you speaking for all of them.

I didn't say I was speaking for everybody, I do think I'm speaking for the majority though. Many of us are not fans. I will try to find sales figures as of 2008 to prove this.

Bad Company

02-23-2009, 08:55 PM

Can we please let this die.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-23-2009, 10:42 PM

Similarities between I am the Walrus and I wanna hold your hand. (I'm going to be brief here because I had things to do today and was going to leave it, but I didn't want to keep you waiting)

-Same era and same genre: Let's not forget that there wasn't the diversity in music there is now as there was in the 60s. You had The Stones, The Kinks and The Beatles. None of these bands are anything new to me in the slightest and I've heard them regularly since I was as young as I can remember. It's only natural that after a while you hear the same vocalist and it just goes in one ear and out of the other. Look at modern pop music now, I couldn't tell the difference between the pussycat dolls, atomic kitten, the spice girls etc. It all sounds the same to me because I've heard it so often that I tune it out.

You're forgetting that my original statement. I said that it conjured up the same imagery.

Maybe in America The Beatles are still some kind of exotic import, but over here there is only so many times you can hear a Liverpudlian vocalist without thinking 'Oh The Beatles' and promptly losing all interest. They may seem like individual pieces of musical art to you, but in England, we hear it all the time and simply don't give a toss.

So once again I direct you to my original post:

What exactly is wrong with this statement? It just seems to me like you can't stand the idea that someone might think differently about The Beatles and therefore jumped to conclusions and assumed I must obviously be listening to something totally different :roll:

So once again I will ask you; what is wrong with my original post now that you realise that I have listened to a variety of their work and it still conjures up the same imagery?

Era and genre? Those are not musically significant. You did not name one real similarity. You're basically saying you don't like the songs simply because of who performed them.

I don't care if you don't like them, that's fine. But your reasons are nonsense.

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-23-2009, 10:44 PM

Can we please let this die.

Certainly. Just head on over to any other page on the internet and we'll be happy to disregard our entire conversation.

Matchbox

02-24-2009, 12:27 AM

Similarities between I am the Walrus and I wanna hold your hand. (I'm going to be brief here because I had things to do today and was going to leave it, but I didn't want to keep you waiting)

-Same era and same genre: Let's not forget that there wasn't the diversity in music there is now as there was in the 60s. You had The Stones, The Kinks and The Beatles. None of these bands are anything new to me in the slightest and I've heard them regularly since I was as young as I can remember. It's only natural that after a while you hear the same vocalist and it just goes in one ear and out of the other. Look at modern pop music now, I couldn't tell the difference between the pussycat dolls, atomic kitten, the spice girls etc. It all sounds the same to me because I've heard it so often that I tune it out.

You're forgetting that my original statement. I said that it conjured up the same imagery.

Maybe in America The Beatles are still some kind of exotic import, but over here there is only so many times you can hear a Liverpudlian vocalist without thinking 'Oh The Beatles' and promptly losing all interest. They may seem like individual pieces of musical art to you, but in England, we hear it all the time and simply don't give a toss.

So once again I direct you to my original post:

What exactly is wrong with this statement? It just seems to me like you can't stand the idea that someone might think differently about The Beatles and therefore jumped to conclusions and assumed I must obviously be listening to something totally different :roll:

So once again I will ask you; what is wrong with my original post now that you realise that I have listened to a variety of their work and it still conjures up the same imagery?
May I take over?
Apparently you are comparing "I want to hold your hand and I Am the Walrus (Both Sic)

Let's compare and contrast
1) I Want To Hold Your Hand, 1963, an adolescent love song written by Lennon and McCartney, extremely innocent and naieve. It appealed to the young croud that adolized the Beatles in the beginning.
2)I Am the Walrus, 1967, a wordplay epic by Lennon influenced by LSD and the works of Lewis Carrol. IT was orchestral and revolutionary in it's use of multi tracking.
There is no comparison between the two works. Other than the fact that the two songs feature the same people there is no similarity.

Bad Company

02-24-2009, 01:52 AM

Certainly. Just head on over to any other page on the internet and we'll be happy to disregard our entire conversation.
I can't, it's like watching a car crash. Except your argument is a Mack truck.

Just John

02-24-2009, 02:56 PM

Era and genre? Those are not musically significant. You did not name one real similarity. You're basically saying you don't like the songs simply because of who performed them.

I don't care if you don't like them, that's fine. But your reasons are nonsense.

The ERA and GENRE are not musically significant? Are you fucking mental? I can't think of a way that the genre CAN'T be musically significant. And Era is most certainly significant.

Also, once again you are misinterpreting the original post and blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Remember that you are the one who started this argument, and you've basically ruined the thread. I had no idea someone was going to reply to my comment, I thought it was pretty offhand personally.

"You're basically saying you don't like the songs simply because of who performed them."

I never said anything like this. Do not put words into my mouth. You're also forgetting that while I'm sick of hearing The Beatles, it's not like I can't appreciate what they did for music. Much in the same way that Mozart was an excellent composer with music that was very mathematically precise, however it's definitely not to my taste.

May I take over?
Apparently you are comparing "I want to hold your hand and I Am the Walrus (Both Sic)

Let's compare and contrast
1) I Want To Hold Your Hand, 1963, an adolescent love song written by Lennon and McCartney, extremely innocent and naieve. It appealed to the young croud that adolized the Beatles in the beginning.
2)I Am the Walrus, 1967, a wordplay epic by Lennon influenced by LSD and the works of Lewis Carrol. IT was orchestral and revolutionary in it's use of multi tracking.
There is no comparison between the two works. Other than the fact that the two songs feature the same people there is no similarity.

The genre is pop, the era is the same and it comes from the same band. That is most certainly similar enough, especially when you consider the sheer weight of records The Beatles have produced as it is, it's only natural that one who is not a fan of their work will have a tendency to forget the smaller details and instead just see the bigger picture. In fact that is very acceptable.

I can't, it's like watching a car crash. Except your argument is a Mack truck.

I thought you were better than that Bad Company. Firstly, while I'm not asking you to agree with me, you've delivered nothing to the debate and thrown in a careless (and inaccurate) remark. Are you really so blind as to not be able to see things from another viewpoint?

ron the dial

02-24-2009, 04:14 PM

Jeritron

02-24-2009, 04:20 PM

lol

Just John

02-24-2009, 04:57 PM

lol just john you just don't get it

also lol at hearing the beatles so much because you are british. where do you think they became a worlwide phenomenon? the us? yeah pretty sure we've heard them just as much as you, bud.

Just don't get what? You obviously have nothing to say you stupid piece of shit, otherwise you would have given a logical argument, so think before you open your mouth next time, fag.

I don't recall saying 'I have listened to The Beatles more because I am British'. So clearly you have no base to your points here. Stick to casual forum where you can talk about 'GETTIN HIGH LOLZ' you fucking failure.

ron the dial

02-24-2009, 05:03 PM

RottingFreak

02-24-2009, 05:04 PM

lol

Summarization of the whole thread right there.

Just John

02-24-2009, 05:07 PM

lol because i talk about that all of the time

the fact that you are so dumb that you stand by your assessment that those two songs sound anything alike reminds me that i shouldn't have said anything in the first place. you are a joke.

and don't get too bent out of shape, guy!

LOL

This:

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v342/215/46/48700071/n48700071_31087201_737.jpg

Is telling me I am a joke. Pot? Kettle? Black?

ron the dial

02-24-2009, 05:07 PM

lol come on, I live in the UK of course I know The Beatles' popular songs.
Maybe in America The Beatles are still some kind of exotic import, but over here there is only so many times you can hear a Liverpudlian vocalist without thinking 'Oh The Beatles' and promptly losing all interest. They may seem like individual pieces of musical art to you, but in England, we hear it all the time and simply don't give a toss.

ron the dial

02-24-2009, 05:08 PM

that picture is most definitely a representation of any and all moments in my life and not just a drunken good time :y:

way to make the argument about something that is isn't

Just John

02-24-2009, 05:16 PM

I don't recall actually SAYING that I had listened to them more though. Maybe you should actually read before you post, if you can read that is, because clearly you cannot type.

that picture is most definitely a representation of any and all moments in my life and not just a drunken good time :y:

way to make the argument about something that is isn't

DERP DERP I HAVE TO DRINK, SMOKE AND SHOW A PICTURE OF A FEMALE ALL IN THE SAME THREAD TO PROVE MY MANLINESS. I'M SO COOL.

loopydate

02-24-2009, 05:17 PM

OH I've just realised I mean PENNY Lane. Not sure where I got PEGGY from.

Probably the same place you got

That'll be the day

Buddy Holly. Not The Beatles.

ron the dial

02-24-2009, 05:17 PM

lol you got me dude i have been reduced to rubble

Just John

02-24-2009, 05:22 PM

Probably the same place you got

Buddy Holly. Not The Beatles.

But The Beatles covered it.

And Weapon-X, there is nothing to reduce to rubble. By the looks of things you did that to yourself years ago. Go and fail elsewhere.

Just John

02-24-2009, 05:32 PM

Picture's gone now :/

ron the dial

02-24-2009, 05:35 PM

you are very clever, just john!

Hanso Amore

02-24-2009, 05:36 PM

Man, Just John, just tap out and give up.

Hanso Amore

02-24-2009, 05:37 PM

"we hear it all the time in England, Im sure We know"

" I dont speak for All English people"

Then dont use we

Just John

02-24-2009, 06:40 PM

Man, Just John, just tap out and give up.

Seriously though, what am I supposed to give up over? I genuinely don't understand what was wrong with the first comment in the thread. So without dodging the question with some kind of cop-out answer (Such as: "If you really don't get it then you are just stupid") tell me straight, what was wrong with the original comment?

Cooler Tom Schuler

02-25-2009, 02:11 AM

You're original comment sounds like an absurd generalization of a large variety of widely differing music. Though I will admit my original assessment of "retarded" was quite premature and uncalled for, I stand by the spirit of my comment.

Anyway, I've grown weary of arguing about this. If you're unwilling to make any concessions to your platform (concessions that are obviously necessary at this point), you never will. You've decided what you think, and your willed ignorance is too strong to allow any enlightenment.

That being said, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.