The Beatles question

[Cooler Tom Schuler]

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

[Just John]

Originally Posted by Cooler Tom Schuler 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]

Originally Posted by Just John 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]

Originally Posted by Cooler Tom Schuler Then we can continue this conversation at that point.

Indeed.

[Just John]

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:

Originally Posted by Just John 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

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?

[RottingFreak]

Originally Posted by Just John 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]

Originally Posted by RottingFreak 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.

[Cooler Tom Schuler]

Originally Posted by Just John 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 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.

[Matchbox]

Originally Posted by Just John 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 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.