If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   It's the 50th anniversary of 'Please Please Me', the debut album of The Beatles. Their good albums, however, are still only 45 years old   (entertainment.time.com) divider line 69
    More: Interesting, Beatles, Brian Epstein, record charts, gazes  
•       •       •

1146 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Mar 2013 at 8:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 08:11:14 AM
1962: Please Please Me
1967: Sgt. Pepper

Who says drugs have never had any positive effects?
 
2013-03-27 08:36:30 AM
The Beatles were only popular because they were handsome.
 
2013-03-27 08:42:32 AM

FirstNationalBastard: 1962: Please Please Me
1967: Sgt. Pepper

Who says drugs have never had any positive effects?


Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.
 
2013-03-27 08:46:04 AM

verbaltoxin: FirstNationalBastard: 1962: Please Please Me
1967: Sgt. Pepper

Who says drugs have never had any positive effects?

Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.



It was all dreck.  The Beatles were as talented in music as Yoko Ono is in art.

However theri PR and marketing was pure genius.
 
2013-03-27 08:57:44 AM

The Googles Do Nothing: The Beatles were only popular because they were handsome.


Don't forget rebellious song titles like Please Please Me (Orally) and I Want To Hold My Hand (In Your Vagina)
 
2013-03-27 08:57:52 AM
Track List & Song Info:

Side One
1. "I Saw Her Standing There" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Peaked at #14 US in January 1964
2. "Misery" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Originally written for singer Helen Shapiro, whose manager rejected it
3. "Anna (Go to Him)" (Arthur Alexander)
     A personal favorite of Lennon's, though he sang the title phrase as "go  with him"
4. "Chains" (Gerry Goffin-Carole King)
     Featured lead vocals by George Harrison
5. "Boys" (Luther Dixon-Wes Farrell)
     Ringo on lead vocals; originally recorded by The Shirelles in 1960
6. "Ask Me Why" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Released as a single B-side in UK January 1963
7. "Please Please Me" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Released as a single A-side in UK January 1963; peaked at #3 US in January 1964

Side Two
1. "Love Me Do" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Released as a single A-side in UK October 1962; peaked at #1 US in May 1964
2. "P.S. I Love You" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Released as a single B-side in UK October 1962; peaked at #10 US in 1964
3. "Baby It's You" (Burt Bacharach-Mack David-Barney Williams)
     Originally a hit for The Shirelles; the only Bacharach song recorded by The Beatles
4. "Do You Want to Know a Secret" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Peaked at #2 US in April 1964
5. "A Taste of Honey" (Ric Marlow-Bobby Scott)
     Based on the 1958 play and 1961 film of the same name
6. "There's a Place" (Lennon-McCartney)
     Peaked at #74 US in 1964
7. "Twist and Shout" (Phil Medley-Bert Russell)
     Recorded in one take because Lennon was losing his voice; peaked at #2 US in 1964

 // Not a bad first album.  I haven't look at this list before. Very surprised to see how many covers they did.
 
2013-03-27 09:06:57 AM

notmtwain: Track List & Song Info:


3. "Anna (Go to Him)" (Arthur Alexander)
     A personal favorite of Lennon's, though he sang the title phrase as "go  with him"



Uh... so did Arthur Alexander.
 
2013-03-27 09:07:59 AM

The Googles Do Nothing: The Beatles were only popular because they were handsome.


verbaltoxin: Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.


hasty ambush: It was all dreck.  The Beatles were as talented in music as Yoko Ono is in art.


images.instagram.com
 
2013-03-27 09:10:26 AM

FirstNationalBastard: notmtwain: Track List & Song Info:


3. "Anna (Go to Him)" (Arthur Alexander)
     A personal favorite of Lennon's, though he sang the title phrase as "go  with him"


Uh... so did Arthur Alexander.



alipuckett.com
"Hold up. What was that song?"
 
2013-03-27 09:11:26 AM

EyeballKid: FirstNationalBastard: notmtwain: Track List & Song Info:


3. "Anna (Go to Him)" (Arthur Alexander)
     A personal favorite of Lennon's, though he sang the title phrase as "go  with him"


Uh... so did Arthur Alexander.


[alipuckett.com image 268x330]
"Hold up. What was that song?"


One of the best farking episodes of the whole run.
 
2013-03-27 09:13:34 AM

notmtwain: Track List & Song Info:


Huh, I thought there'd be more I'd recognize. I did remember them doing a ton of covers in the early years, though.

I should re-check my smartphone stations, I could use some 'I Saw Her Standing There' and 'Twist And Shout' to start off this morning.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:46 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: The Googles Do Nothing: The Beatles were only popular because they were handsome.

verbaltoxin: Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.

hasty ambush: It was all dreck.  The Beatles were as talented in music as Yoko Ono is in art.

[images.instagram.com image 306x306]


Sorry, can't see your dumb Instagram-hosted meme pic from here. Care to put your poor rebuttal into your own words?
 
2013-03-27 09:15:40 AM

verbaltoxin: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: The Googles Do Nothing: The Beatles were only popular because they were handsome.

verbaltoxin: Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.

hasty ambush: It was all dreck.  The Beatles were as talented in music as Yoko Ono is in art.

[images.instagram.com image 306x306]

Sorry, can't see your dumb Instagram-hosted meme pic from here. Care to put your poor rebuttal into your own words?


Hipster Ariel.
 
2013-03-27 09:16:40 AM

FirstNationalBastard: verbaltoxin: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: The Googles Do Nothing: The Beatles were only popular because they were handsome.

verbaltoxin: Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.

hasty ambush: It was all dreck.  The Beatles were as talented in music as Yoko Ono is in art.

[images.instagram.com image 306x306]

Sorry, can't see your dumb Instagram-hosted meme pic from here. Care to put your poor rebuttal into your own words?

Hipster Ariel.


Ah yes, Fark's standard comeback to everything. And if everyone uses it, surely that means it's witty and not at all played out or stupid.

What next, ha-ha guy?
 
2013-03-27 09:18:15 AM
50 years ago the road was paved for NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.


Thanks Beatles!
 
2013-03-27 09:22:12 AM
Meh, looks like not enough crotchety old farkers have had their coffee. I'll try trolling elsewhere.
 
2013-03-27 09:23:34 AM
Every once in a while I like to watch Hard Day's Night.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:28 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: 50 years ago the road was paved for NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.


Thanks Beatles!


At least we have this guy:


upload.wikimedia.org

www.lsdimension.com


doubtfulsounds.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-27 09:44:54 AM

verbaltoxin: I'll try trolling elsewhere.


Or...you could grow up and try not living your life like someone sitting in their mom's basement wearing 3 day old underwear and has fat greasy fingers that smell like pepperoni Hot Pockets.
 
2013-03-27 09:49:43 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: 50 years ago the road was paved for NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.


Thanks Beatles!


Yeah, because we all know how NKOTB, BSB, N'SYNC (and The Jonas Brothers, and 98 Degrees, and One Direction) got their start playing 8 hours a night, 6 nights a week, in front of a bunch of drunken sailors and whores.
 
2013-03-27 10:03:34 AM
"Please Please Me" is a fine album, and includes what is arguably the greatest cover ever (Twist and Shout).
 
2013-03-27 10:10:41 AM
hasty ambush:
iat was all dreck.  The Beatles were as talented in music as Yoko Ono is in art.

However theri PR and marketing was pure genius.


Not sure if trolling or just stupid.

But just in case..

I get that Beatle music isn't to everyone's taste, but it's just plain stupid claim they weren't talented.
 
2013-03-27 10:11:01 AM
ready...

www.reactiongifs.com
 
2013-03-27 10:13:28 AM

puckrock2000: DoBeDoBeDo: 50 years ago the road was paved for NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.


Thanks Beatles!

Yeah, because we all know how NKOTB, BSB, N'SYNC (and The Jonas Brothers, and 98 Degrees, and One Direction) got their start playing 8 hours a night, 6 nights a week, in front of a bunch of drunken sailors and whores.


Thank you for telling us main difference
 
2013-03-27 10:15:21 AM
shiatting on the Beatles in every Beatles thread is sooooooooo edgy and original...
 
2013-03-27 10:38:05 AM

FirstNationalBastard: 1962: Please Please Me
1967: Sgt. Pepper

Who says drugs have never had any positive effects?


I see what you're getting at, but the Beatles started taking drugs well before the Please Please Me album. They just hadn't yet experienced hallucinogens at that point.
 
2013-03-27 10:51:18 AM

puckrock2000: DoBeDoBeDo: 50 years ago the road was paved for NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.


Thanks Beatles!

Yeah, because we all know how NKOTB, BSB, N'SYNC (and The Jonas Brothers, and 98 Degrees, and One Direction) got their start playing 8 hours a night, 6 nights a week, in front of a bunch of drunken sailors and whores.


In Germany, hooked on speed.
 
2013-03-27 10:51:48 AM

verbaltoxin: Meh, looks like not enough crotchety old farkers have had their coffee. I'll try trolling elsewhere.


Hey, I thought it was funny.  And pretty accurate.
 
2013-03-27 10:56:01 AM

Shenanigans!: FirstNationalBastard: 1962: Please Please Me
1967: Sgt. Pepper

Who says drugs have never had any positive effects?

I see what you're getting at, but the Beatles started taking drugs well before the Please Please Me album. They just hadn't yet experienced hallucinogens at that point.


I could be wrong but I don't think they got into whacky tobbacky until '64-65?  Like Lee's_Austin said, it was more uppers to keep up with their schedule.  The weed was an escape from the Beatlemania mania.

Again, I could be wrong and might be mis-remembering a few details.
 
2013-03-27 10:57:31 AM
Oops.  Not saying marijuana is a hallucinogen but that it put them in a different mindset which then led the way towards LSD.
 
2013-03-27 10:57:53 AM
Abbey Road was rubbish.
 
2013-03-27 11:11:39 AM
the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.
 
2013-03-27 11:13:05 AM

notmtwain: Very surprised to see how many covers they did.




I'm more surprised to see how much original material was on their debut album.
 
2013-03-27 11:16:36 AM

frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.




Rubber Soul
 
2013-03-27 11:25:54 AM

verbaltoxin: FirstNationalBastard: 1962: Please Please Me
1967: Sgt. Pepper

Who says drugs have never had any positive effects?

Let's really get this fire started.

1962-1967: Pure ear crack only fossilized baby boomers still like.
1967-1970: Overrated dreck that only fossilized baby boomers still like.


I love you 'bro...but you're full of sh*t.
 
2013-03-27 11:27:04 AM

puckrock2000: DoBeDoBeDo: 50 years ago the road was paved for NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.


Thanks Beatles!

Yeah, because we all know how NKOTB, BSB, N'SYNC (and The Jonas Brothers, and 98 Degrees, and One Direction) got their start playing 8 hours a night, 6 nights a week, in front of a bunch of drunken sailors and whores.


This.
 
2013-03-27 11:28:11 AM

GibbyTheMole: shiatting on the Beatles in every Beatles thread is sooooooooo edgy and original...


Twenty years from now, they'll be doing this for Green Day.
 
2013-03-27 11:29:46 AM

frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.


This would be akin to stating that everything you need to hear from Led Zepp is contained in "Mothership."

You'd still be full of crap however.
 
2013-03-27 11:36:56 AM

Spartapuss: frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.

Rubber Soul


and Revolver.  Great back to back albums.
 
2013-03-27 11:43:25 AM

Rwa2play: frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.

This would be akin to stating that everything you need to hear from Led Zepp is contained in "Mothership."

You'd still be full of crap however.


led zeppelin are a far greater band IMHO, but honestly grab that 3 or 4 disc set with the multilcolored zeppelins on the cover and you in fact DO have pretty much all you need.  Compared to the ONE disc that you need from the Beatles.  (You realize I am talking casual music fans here and not the die-hard right?  Casual music fans NEED some Beatles and Zepp in their collection, but you REALLY don't need everything.)

/love led zepp, but they have about as much garbage to good ratio as any band.
 
2013-03-27 11:47:01 AM

Cargo: Oops.  Not saying marijuana is a hallucinogen but that it put them in a different mindset which then led the way towards LSD.


Gateway drug!
 
2013-03-27 11:50:05 AM

frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.


2/10
 
2013-03-27 11:55:05 AM

Hawk24: frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.

2/10


which would be funny if I were actually trolling.  I actually believe that the Beatles were very talented, changed music for the better, and are severely overrated and that their "best" album (The Beatles, AKA the white album) is mostly garbage.
 
2013-03-27 12:25:52 PM
Not a fan of the White Album although Dear Prudence and Glass Onion are two of my favorite Beatles songs. But for albums Beatles for Sale & Rubber Soul are classics. Undisputed, come at me bro if you disagree.  There's a reason Lennon and McCartney are worshiped. The could craft a popular song. Even bad boys like Kurt Cobain basically wrote catchy pop songs and learned how from studying Beatles music.
 
2013-03-27 12:28:14 PM
The Beatles were a working bar band that developed a following that grew. They were marketed like any other group at the time.
They covered songs that were popular at the time. And did it very well.
Their strenght in each album they put out was
that they did'nt stick to the same formula so each was different. Which is why people argue about which one is best today.
Check out their anthology DVD. Learn more.
 
2013-03-27 12:31:05 PM

Broken Logic: Spartapuss: frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.

Rubber Soul

and Revolver.  Great back to back albums.


I'd add Abbey Road if we're talking about coherant song collections.  I'd also agree that the White Album could have been cut down to one record.
 
2013-03-27 12:33:03 PM
frepnog:  and that their "best" album (The Beatles, AKA the white album) is mostly garbage.

It's not nearly their best album. Hell, it's barely a Beatle record given the tensions within the group at that time. The best Beatle records are Rubber Soul/Revolver, which could have been a double LP.  I do agree with you, however, that casual fans really don't need all of the records.

BTW, it's cool that you recognized the talent and impact they had on popular music.
 
2013-03-27 12:38:01 PM
Had the Kinks appeared on TV in tight pants to sexually repressed Boomer tweener girls first, Ray Davies would have been fatally shot in 1980.
 
2013-03-27 12:38:20 PM

swaxhog: Not a fan of the White Album although Dear Prudence and Glass Onion are two of my favorite Beatles songs. But for albums Beatles for Sale & Rubber Soul are classics. Undisputed, come at me bro if you disagree.  There's a reason Lennon and McCartney are worshiped. The could craft a popular song. Even bad boys like Kurt Cobain basically wrote catchy pop songs and learned how from studying Beatles music.


Ooooooooohhhh...(ilikewherethisthreadisgoing.jpg)
 
2013-03-27 12:40:07 PM

frepnog: Hawk24: frepnog: the Beatles have no good albums.  They were a singles band at a time when bands WERE singles bands.  That is why they don't have even one coherently voiced album that sounds as if the songs go together (barring maybe Sgt Pepper, a highly overrated album that dated poorly, like a very special episode of 3's Company).  It is also why their top selling albums tend to be the "hits" collections (barring the White album, an album much like MJ's Thriller - mostly crap but marketed as a slice of genius (and spurred to even greater sales because of Helter Skelter and the Manson connection).

I respect the Beatles for what they accomplished.  They had amazing talent.  They also produced a metric shiat-ton of crap.  The only Beatles album you need is "1".  It contains everything worthwhile.

2/10

which would be funny if I were actually trolling.  I actually believe that the Beatles were very talented, changed music for the better, and are severely overrated and that their "best" album (The Beatles, AKA the white album) is mostly garbage.


Uh, Abbey Road was their best album.  Revolver comes a very close second and you can make an argument that Revolver's better.

/One word: TAXMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN~!
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report