Hey Paul, let's get rid of Clarence and steal all of his good ideas!

No one could have guessed The Beatles would become so famous. At that time, there were 300 groups in Liverpool who were as good or better than The Beatles.

Behold the power of Epstein!

Allan Williams would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Number 9?

Anyone who lost out in not tagging along with The Beatles, here's a tee for you:

It's astounding that guy hasn't killed himself yet.

Jake Havechek: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

This does apply to certain wireless services, however.

Lee's_Austin: No one could have guessed The Beatles would become so famous. At that time, there were 300 groups in Liverpool who were as good or better than The Beatles.

Behold the power of Epstein!

Yep, without him, they would have been just one of the great Liverpool bar bands of the '60s and never would've gotten their shot.

"I still lose sleep over it 50 years later. No one could have guessed The Beatles would become so famous. At that time, there were 300 groups in Liverpool who were as good or better than The Beatles."

That's pretty much the music business in a nutshell. Just gotta be at the right place at the right time -- or have a relative in the business.

dutchoven69: It's astounding that guy hasn't killed himself yet.



"You and me both, mate."

Old news is really, really old. The Beatles and Williams reconciled decades ago. And Williams himself wrote about passing them over to Epstein back in 1975 in his memoir.

Let me guess: does somebody have a book out? (Checks link). Yep.

ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

AdolfOliverPanties: gunther_bumpass: ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

Nah, I get it. When the Beatles burst onto the scene, being a boy band was considered shocking. Four guys who played their own instruments and had what was then considered to be long hair? Scandalous! Compared to today's "artists," the early Beatles do seem like a teeny-bopper's dream (and they were,) boy band.

But to write them off as that is just farking ignorant. The amount of growth they went through stylistically and maturity wise cannot be understated. Like them or not, and it is fine if you don't (different strokes and all that,) they were and are the most influential and important rock and roll band ever.

No they weren't, they were crap.

weapon13: AdolfOliverPanties: gunther_bumpass: ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

Nah, I get it. When the Beatles burst onto the scene, being a boy band was considered shocking. Four guys who played their own instruments and had what was then considered to be long hair? Scandalous! Compared to today's "artists," the early Beatles do seem like a teeny-bopper's dream (and they were,) boy band.

But to write them off as that is just farking ignorant. The amount of growth they went through stylistically and maturity wise cannot be understated. Like them or not, and it is fine if you don't (different strokes and all that,) they were and are the most influential and important rock and roll band ever.

No they weren't, they were crap.

You do realize that you're just making yourself look stupid or trollish, or possibly stupidly trollish, right?

Nobody is looking at this and going "ooh, that 13 year old on the Internet has such sophisticated taste, he sees right through that band that everybody else thinks is popular". Online hipster cool is just like hipster cool IRL, only without the hip or the cool. People like you have been doing it online since usenet was young, and people like me have been pointing at laughing at you for about as long.

If Decca had signed The Beatles, their records would have been different because of no George Martin. Martin helped the band develop their sound. He let them have a lot of input in recording. Most studios in those days had producers who had to have it their way or you didn't record.

weapon13: AdolfOliverPanties: gunther_bumpass: ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

Nah, I get it. When the Beatles burst onto the scene, being a boy band was considered shocking. Four guys who played their own instruments and had what was then considered to be long hair? Scandalous! Compared to today's "artists," the early Beatles do seem like a teeny-bopper's dream (and they were,) boy band.

But to write them off as that is just farking ignorant. The amount of growth they went through stylistically and maturity wise cannot be understated. Like them or not, and it is fine if you don't (different strokes and all that,) they were and are the most influential and important rock and roll band ever.

No they weren't, they were crap.

1/10. You know how I know you're trolling?

Rwa2play: weapon13: AdolfOliverPanties: gunther_bumpass: ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

Nah, I get it. When the Beatles burst onto the scene, being a boy band was considered shocking. Four guys who played their own instruments and had what was then considered to be long hair? Scandalous! Compared to today's "artists," the early Beatles do seem like a teeny-bopper's dream (and they were,) boy band.

But to write them off as that is just farking ignorant. The amount of growth they went through stylistically and maturity wise cannot be understated. Like them or not, and it is fine if you don't (different strokes and all that,) they were and are the most influential and important rock and roll band ever.

No they weren't, they were crap.

1/10. You know how I know you're trolling?

Because you're a barely literate hippiedrone who's been listening to the same seven inane records for the past 50 years? Grow up and try something new ya farkin shut-in. The Beatles are at best, irritating elevator music that, yes, one can't help being influenced by because every third retard on the planet keeps playing them over and over in some vain attempt to project the image of being a sophisticated connoisseur of 1960's bubblegum pop music. Ob la dee, ob la fark you, idiot. You have been sold crap for half a century, and you keep lining up to buy it again and again and again. But by all means, keep doing so. Sir McCrapney needs the money.

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that your 1960 equivalent would be hanging around Liverpool listening to the top hits of 1910 while complaining about the horrible hooligan bands with long hair and black leather jackets? John Lennon himself would have kicked your myopic ass.


Most important rock and roll band ever? That is the biggest load of unsubstantiated hyperbolic bullshirt I've ever heard.

gunther_bumpass: Rwa2play: weapon13: AdolfOliverPanties: gunther_bumpass: ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

Nah, I get it. When the Beatles burst onto the scene, being a boy band was considered shocking. Four guys who played their own instruments and had what was then considered to be long hair? Scandalous! Compared to today's "artists," the early Beatles do seem like a teeny-bopper's dream (and they were,) boy band.

But to write them off as that is just farking ignorant. The amount of growth they went through stylistically and maturity wise cannot be understated. Like them or not, and it is fine if you don't (different strokes and all that,) they were and are the most influential and important rock and roll band ever.

No they weren't, they were crap.

1/10. You know how I know you're trolling?

Because you're a barely literate hippiedrone who's been listening to the same seven inane records for the past 50 years? Grow up and try something new ya farkin shut-in. The Beatles are at best, irritating elevator music that, yes, one can't help being influenced by because every third retard on the planet keeps playing them over and over in some vain attempt to project the image of being a sophisticated connoisseur of 1960's bubblegum pop music. Ob la dee, ob la fark you, idiot. You have been sold crap for half a century, and you keep lining up to buy it again and again and again. But by all means, keep doing so. Sir McCrapney needs the money.

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that your 1960 equivalent would be hanging around Liverpool listening to the top hits of 1910 while complaining about the horrible hooligan bands with long hair and black leather jackets? John Lennon himself would have kicked your myopic ass.


Most important rock and roll band ever? That is the biggest load of unsubstantiated hyperbolic bullshirt I've ever heard.

Okay now tell us. Where on this doll did the Beatles touched you?

gunther_bumpass: Rwa2play: weapon13: AdolfOliverPanties: gunther_bumpass: ArkAngel: The Beatles suck. There. It needed to be said

Here, here.

Now let's wait for the beatleidiots to shriek 'troll' and recoil in horror
as they're exposed to differing opinions regarding the world's first
boy band.

Nah, I get it. When the Beatles burst onto the scene, being a boy band was considered shocking. Four guys who played their own instruments and had what was then considered to be long hair? Scandalous! Compared to today's "artists," the early Beatles do seem like a teeny-bopper's dream (and they were,) boy band.

But to write them off as that is just farking ignorant. The amount of growth they went through stylistically and maturity wise cannot be understated. Like them or not, and it is fine if you don't (different strokes and all that,) they were and are the most influential and important rock and roll band ever.

No they weren't, they were crap.

1/10. You know how I know you're trolling?

Because you're a barely literate hippiedrone who's been listening to the same seven inane records for the past 50 years? Grow up and try something new ya farkin shut-in. The Beatles are at best, irritating elevator music that, yes, one can't help being influenced by because every third retard on the planet keeps playing them over and over in some vain attempt to project the image of being a sophisticated connoisseur of 1960's bubblegum pop music. Ob la dee, ob la fark you, idiot. You have been sold crap for half a century, and you keep lining up to buy it again and again and again. But by all means, keep doing so. Sir McCrapney needs the money.

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that your 1960 equivalent would be hanging around Liverpool listening to the top hits of 1910 while complaining about the horrible hooligan bands with long hair and black leather jackets? John Lennon himself would have kicked your myopic ass.


Most important rock and roll band ever? That is the biggest load of unsubstantiated hyperbolic bullshirt I've ever heard.

Fun fact: It is actually possible to like the Beatles (or appreciate their place in the history of popular music, even if you don't like them) without necessarily disparaging all music since then. At least, it is if you have a mental age above that of a six year old.

Did you ever stop to consider that your 2011 equivalent would be hanging around your basement listening to the hottest local bands of last week while complaining about the horrible composers of the 18th century with long hair and cutaway coats? What has Mozart done lately, anyway?

Let me check whether I'm impressed yet with your brilliant musical insights and your courage to speak out against the mindless conformity of the masses... Nope. Still pointing and laughing.

czetie:
Let me check whether I'm impressed yet with your brilliant musical insights and your courage to speak out against the mindless conformity of the masses... Nope. Still pointing and laughing.

It hurts me deeply that a brainwashed fool is laughing. And pointing.

Also, 'maxwell's silver hammer' is hardly Mozart.

In reply to that other child - I can't stand Zappa, but at least he was actually
trying to do something different. I hate it, but he was trying. Throughout the
beatles' entire career there were contemporary blues, rock, and soul
musicians who could out play, out write, and out sing them. The only thing
the beatles had was marketing. It's in evidence in this thread- dare to
express an opinion about them that is anything short of groveling veneration
and you're shouted down as a hipster or a troll. Face the facts - the Beatles were
plucked nearly at random from a sea of like bands and were aggressively
marketed to teen girls based solely upon image. You can like the music, I don't care.
It's catchy - there are some good arrangements, some nice guitar (props to George,
the only Beatle worth giving a damn about). But don't tell me that they were the best
band that ever existed. To do so only paints you as an unwavering, nostalgic fool who seeks comfort by surrounding themselves with other like-minded, bleating consumers.

In any case, they are a 50-year-old pop band that was immensely popular with teens,
little girls, and the overgrown, brainwashed children of the baby boom generation.

I'll stop complaining about the beatles when you stop shoving them in my head at
every money-making opportunity. Stop shiatting in my ears!

gunther_bumpass: czetie:
Let me check whether I'm impressed yet with your brilliant musical insights and your courage to speak out against the mindless conformity of the masses... Nope. Still pointing and laughing.

It hurts me deeply that a brainwashed fool is laughing. And pointing.

Also, 'maxwell's silver hammer' is hardly Mozart.

In reply to that other child - I can't stand Zappa, but at least he was actually
trying to do something different. I hate it, but he was trying. Throughout the
beatles' entire career there were contemporary blues, rock, and soul
musicians who could out play, out write, and out sing them. The only thing
the beatles had was marketing. It's in evidence in this thread- dare to
express an opinion about them that is anything short of groveling veneration
and you're shouted down as a hipster or a troll. Face the facts - the Beatles were
plucked nearly at random from a sea of like bands and were aggressively
marketed to teen girls based solely upon image. You can like the music, I don't care.
It's catchy - there are some good arrangements, some nice guitar (props to George,
the only Beatle worth giving a damn about). But don't tell me that they were the best
band that ever existed. To do so only paints you as an unwavering, nostalgic fool who seeks comfort by surrounding themselves with other like-minded, bleating consumers.

In any case, they are a 50-year-old pop band that was immensely popular with teens,
little girls, and the overgrown, brainwashed children of the baby boom generation.

I'll stop complaining about the beatles when you stop shoving them in my head at
every money-making opportunity. Stop shiatting in my ears!



Sounds like someone is spoiling for a fight, good.



I can feel your anger. It gives you focus, makes you stronger.

Sure seems awfully troll ee in here...5 bucks says gunther is pete best.

Ooba Tooba: Sure seems awfully troll ee in here...5 bucks says gunther is pete best.

Better yet, Mark David Chapman.

Freschel: Ooba Tooba: Sure seems awfully troll ee in here...5 bucks says gunther is pete best.

Better yet, Mark David Chapman.

Pfft. That failure? 25% is hardly what I'd call a job well done.

Once again - offer dissenting opinion, get called a troll.
It's pop music you children. People are allowed not to like it.

I used to like it, then I grew up and left the house. Someday, you'll do the same.

gunther_bumpass: Freschel: Ooba Tooba: Sure seems awfully troll ee in here...5 bucks says gunther is pete best.

Better yet, Mark David Chapman.

Pfft. That failure? 25% is hardly what I'd call a job well done.

Once again - offer dissenting opinion, get called a troll.
It's pop music you children. People are allowed not to like it.

I used to like it, then I grew up and left the house. Someday, you'll do the same.

It's not dissenting opinion when you get all rabid frothy in the mouth and call people names. I respect that you don't like the Beatles but when you call us idiots for liking them then all bets are off.

BTW you sound like that little girl in that Cheerios commercial. You know the one that said "That's for babies". Know what I grew up and left the house, but I still like pop music. Also nobody here is saying that you are not allowed to hate pop. If you don't like pop that's fine with me.

BTW you'll need to buy a magazine rack, 'cause you have issues.