Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Rolling Stone)   Eurythmics will reunite for a Beatles tribute at the Grammy Awards   (rollingstone.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Eurythmics, Grammys, Beatles, John Legend, Alicia Keys, tributes, Recording Academy, Annie Lennox  
•       •       •

926 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Jan 2014 at 2:15 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-01-06 11:56:39 PM  
Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.
 
2014-01-06 11:58:40 PM  
I'm not sure I believe it.
 
2014-01-07 12:01:53 AM  
Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.
 
2014-01-07 12:07:29 AM  

JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.


Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.
 
2014-01-07 12:09:37 AM  

JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.


The Beatles.... hmmmmm The Beatles. British, right? Are they as good as Oasis?
 
2014-01-07 12:23:00 AM  

simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.



Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.
 
2014-01-07 12:32:29 AM  

SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.


I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?
 
2014-01-07 12:54:34 AM  

simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.


It will be a hard day's night before that happens
 
2014-01-07 01:00:28 AM  

mightymike82: simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.

It will be a hard day's night before that happens


Maybe they'll get a little help from their friends.
 
2014-01-07 01:04:05 AM  
I'd rather see the Beatles reunite to do a Eurythmics tribute.
 
2014-01-07 01:10:50 AM  

dameron: I'd rather see the Beatles reunite to do a Eurythmics tribute.


I don't think zombies are real.
 
2014-01-07 01:29:39 AM  

mightymike82: simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.

It will be a hard day's night before that happens


I want to hold your hand.
 
2014-01-07 01:33:48 AM  

log_jammin: mightymike82: simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.

It will be a hard day's night before that happens

I want to hold your hand.


Do you want to drive his car?
 
2014-01-07 01:39:29 AM  

simplicimus: log_jammin: mightymike82: simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.

It will be a hard day's night before that happens

I want to hold your hand.

Do you want to drive his car?


*slowly pulls out a silver hammer*
 
2014-01-07 01:42:00 AM  

log_jammin: simplicimus: log_jammin: mightymike82: simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.

It will be a hard day's night before that happens

I want to hold your hand.

Do you want to drive his car?

*slowly pulls out a silver hammer*


Heh. I'm the tax man, Maxwell.
 
2014-01-07 01:46:05 AM  

simplicimus: Heh. I'm the tax man, MaxwellFool on the Hill.


FTFY
 
2014-01-07 01:48:02 AM  

zamboni: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

The Beatles.... hmmmmm The Beatles. British, right? Are they as good as Oasis?


A little better. Not as good as Blur, though.
 
2014-01-07 01:54:17 AM  

log_jammin: simplicimus: Heh. I'm the tax man, MaxwellFool on the Hill.

FTFY


Good play on my username. Kudos.
 
2014-01-07 02:05:07 AM  

simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?




Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.
 
2014-01-07 02:16:33 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.


OK,I'll give you all of the above, except for Yellow Submarine. But put them up against Won't Get Fooled Again, Magic Bus, Behind Blue Eyes, and Who Are You. IMHO, no competition.
 
2014-01-07 02:22:08 AM  
Beetles is spelled with two "e"s.

Duh.
 
2014-01-07 02:33:17 AM  

SpdrJay: Beetles is spelled with two "e"s.

Duh.


You're thinking of the Rutles  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qf8y7v0WIE. Only 1 e.
 
2014-01-07 02:49:57 AM  

simplicimus: Darth_Lukecash: Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.

OK,I'll give you all of the above, except for Yellow Submarine. But put them up against Won't Get Fooled Again, Magic Bus, Behind Blue Eyes, and Who Are You. IMHO, no competition.


Of course there is no competition. The Beatles knew when to walk away. They are already legendary.

In fact, with the death of John Lennon, they never became jokes of their former glory like The Stones or The Who. The worse you can say of them, is they did reunite and covered two of Johns songs as an anniversary bit. But no embarrassing reunion tours Like the Who, no sad attempts reclaim the past like The Eagles. and no attempt to to stay relevant like the Stones.

Ringo was smart enough to just stick drumming after a certain point, and just being a celebrity. John and George died at tragically, when they still had something to say, but probably not much more. And poor Paul, would have just disappeared on his farm, but he's got divorce bills.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Who, but their musical range was limited. All they could do was rock songs. Beatles covered a whole bunch of genres. From Beach music "Back in the U.S.S.R", Show tunes, "Maxwell Silvers Hammer" to Indian "Within, Without You"

Hell, I can throw in Helter Skelter as the grandfather of thrash metal. Yellow Submarine not only is a memorable song, it's one that was written for children and is actually a part of many kids musical education.

They were studio innovators and transformed albums.
 
2014-01-07 02:50:11 AM  
The Beetles tributes - the only thing that gives boomers wood anymore

Link
 
2014-01-07 02:54:04 AM  

fusillade762: I'm not sure I believe it.


Would subby lie to you?
 
2014-01-07 02:59:57 AM  
Lennox did pretty good in a tribute to Freddie Mercury

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCP2-Bfhy04
 
2014-01-07 03:08:37 AM  
TFA: The Night That Changed America will tape at the Los Angeles Convention Center on January 27th, the day after the 56th Annual Grammy Awards, and will be broadcast on CBS on February 9th - exactly 50 years after the Beatles made their historic Ed Sullivan appearance.

I remember watching that show. God damn am I that old?
 
2014-01-07 03:15:02 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: In fact, with the death of John Lennon, they never became jokes of their former glory like The Stones or The Who.


True, The Stones and The Who have been touring too long. How many final tours can a group have?
But the Stones added an edge to rock that the Beatles never could. And the Who? They added an anger that the Beatles never had, No doubt The Beatles were pioneers. And great in their own right. I just think their music doesn't holds up well. Post Beatles Lennon (minus Yoko) was pure genius. Post Beatles McCartney? The less said, the better.
 
2014-01-07 03:18:19 AM  

Closed_Minded_Bastage: TFA: The Night That Changed America will tape at the Los Angeles Convention Center on January 27th, the day after the 56th Annual Grammy Awards, and will be broadcast on CBS on February 9th - exactly 50 years after the Beatles made their historic Ed Sullivan appearance.

I remember watching that show. God damn am I that old?


You and me both. I'm trying to remember the name of the AM DJ in NYC that promoted them before they came to the States.
/There was no FM at the time.
 
2014-01-07 03:20:43 AM  

simplicimus: Closed_Minded_Bastage: TFA: The Night That Changed America will tape at the Los Angeles Convention Center on January 27th, the day after the 56th Annual Grammy Awards, and will be broadcast on CBS on February 9th - exactly 50 years after the Beatles made their historic Ed Sullivan appearance.

I remember watching that show. God damn am I that old?

You and me both. I'm trying to remember the name of the AM DJ in NYC that promoted them before they came to the States.
/There was no FM at the time.


Nevermind. It was Cousin Brucie.
 
2014-01-07 03:27:43 AM  

simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?


Eleanor Rigby is just amazing as a story
Come Together (Aerosmith did a great cover)
Strawberry Fields Forever (I buried Paul)]
A Day in the Life (another great story)
I Wanna Hold Your Hand (young love)
 
2014-01-07 03:37:30 AM  
Harry_Seldon: simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?

Eleanor Rigby is just amazing as a story
Come Together (Aerosmith did a great cover)
Strawberry Fields Forever (I buried Paul)]
A Day in the Life (another great story)
I Wanna Hold Your Hand (young love)

De gustibus non est disputandum. Or YMMV. I find these songs eminently forgettable.
 
2014-01-07 03:46:49 AM  
I'll have to wait to see if this is in fact real.  Tomorrow never knows.
 
2014-01-07 04:23:14 AM  

harleyquinnical: I'll have to wait to see if this is in fact real.  Tomorrow never knows.


Yeah. Aren't they a soap opera, like Fleetwood Mac and ABBA?
 
2014-01-07 05:53:06 AM  

simplicimus: Harry_Seldon: simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?

Eleanor Rigby is just amazing as a story
Come Together (Aerosmith did a great cover)
Strawberry Fields Forever (I buried Paul)]
A Day in the Life (another great story)
I Wanna Hold Your Hand (young love)

De gustibus non est disputandum. Or YMMV. I find these songs eminently forgettable.


You're really not adding anything intelligent to this thread. Just so you know. . . .
 
2014-01-07 06:21:04 AM  

Atomic Spunk: fusillade762: I'm not sure I believe it.

Would subby lie to you?


There it is. I set up a softball.
 
2014-01-07 07:36:18 AM  
The only Beatles song I really can't stand is "Got to Get You Into My Life".  I think it's the horns.  "Hey Jude" can get a little annoying, too, especially if it's one of Paul McCartney's live versions that go on for half an hour.
 
2014-01-07 07:36:56 AM  
....Enough of this.  I'm going back to the USSR.
 
2014-01-07 07:47:28 AM  
Something that's actually entertaining at the grammys... that's hard to believe.
 
2014-01-07 08:29:46 AM  
Scrambled eggs...
 
2014-01-07 08:35:54 AM  
Every music thread, ever.


[band you favor] sucks.
[band I favor] is superior in all ways.


/discovered rock and roll by listening to Beatles albums
 
2014-01-07 08:47:31 AM  
Oh fark no. I saw that dumbass smash a guitar on stage. Yes, Dave Stuart went all Pete Townsend, with that horrible wildebeast woman croaking out some shiatty 80's pop in the background.
 
2014-01-07 08:57:32 AM  
simplicimus, you are completely, totally wrong. The Who was good, but nowhere near the Beatles. The Stones just outright suck, and always have.
 
2014-01-07 09:07:53 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.


No, it's not.  Much of their early work is bubble gum crap.  No different nor better than NKOTB of the Backstreet Boys.  Much of their later stuff is indeed incredible, but not their entire catalog, not by a long shot.
 
2014-01-07 09:14:02 AM  

Madbassist1: simplicimus, you are completely, totally wrong. The Who was good, but nowhere near the Beatles. The Stones just outright suck, and always have.


Slight correction: the Stones without Mick Taylor suck.

/their PR, however, is the best in the business
 
2014-01-07 10:17:31 AM  

SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.


This; anything pre-"Revolver" is has aged badly (with a couple of exceptions).  From "Revolver" on, it's pretty good.
 
2014-01-07 10:18:56 AM  

simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?


Really?  Doesn't Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, Abbey Road come to mind?
 
2014-01-07 10:20:03 AM  

simplicimus: log_jammin: simplicimus: log_jammin: mightymike82: simplicimus: Well, I hope it's something that gives us sweet dreams.

It will be a hard day's night before that happens

I want to hold your hand.

Do you want to drive his car?

*slowly pulls out a silver hammer*

Heh. I'm the tax man, Maxwell.


At least you're not the fool on the hill.

/However, I...am the Walrus
//Koo Koo Ka Choo
 
2014-01-07 10:22:34 AM  

simplicimus: De gustibus non est disputandum. Or YMMV. I find these songs eminently forgettable.


Are you contrarian by nature or just an outright troll?  I'd at least give you credit for being a contrarian
 
2014-01-07 10:23:18 AM  

simplicimus: Darth_Lukecash: In fact, with the death of John Lennon, they never became jokes of their former glory like The Stones or The Who.

True, The Stones and The Who have been touring too long. How many final tours can a group have?
But the Stones added an edge to rock that the Beatles never could. And the Who? They added an anger that the Beatles never had, No doubt The Beatles were pioneers. And great in their own right. I just think their music doesn't holds up well. Post Beatles Lennon (minus Yoko) was pure genius. Post Beatles McCartney? The less said, the better.


...forget it, you're a troll.
 
2014-01-07 10:39:27 AM  
Well, my buttocks are certainly all aflutter.
 
2014-01-07 10:42:49 AM  

simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?


Pretty much all of Revolver, much of Pepper and the White Album, Let it Be and of course, Abby Road.
 
2014-01-07 10:44:37 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: simplicimus: Darth_Lukecash: Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.

OK,I'll give you all of the above, except for Yellow Submarine. But put them up against Won't Get Fooled Again, Magic Bus, Behind Blue Eyes, and Who Are You. IMHO, no competition.

Of course there is no competition. The Beatles knew when to walk away. They are already legendary.

In fact, with the death of John Lennon, they never became jokes of their former glory like The Stones or The Who. The worse you can say of them, is they did reunite and covered two of Johns songs as an anniversary bit. But no embarrassing reunion tours Like the Who, no sad attempts reclaim the past like The Eagles. and no attempt to to stay relevant like the Stones.

Ringo was smart enough to just stick drumming after a certain point, and just being a celebrity. John and George died at tragically, when they still had something to say, but probably not much more. And poor Paul, would have just disappeared on his farm, but he's got divorce bills.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Who, but their musical range was limited. All they could do was rock songs. Beatles covered a whole bunch of genres. From Beach music "Back in the U.S.S.R", Show tunes, "Maxwell Silvers Hammer" to Indian "Within, Without You"

Hell, I can throw in Helter Skelter as the grandfather of thrash metal. Yellow Submarine not only is a memorable song, it's one that was written for children and is actually a part of many kids musical education.

They were studio innovators and transformed albums.


Perfectly well said and now favorited
 
2014-01-07 11:26:42 AM  

simplicimus: Post Beatles Lennon (minus Yoko) was pure genius. Post Beatles McCartney? The less said, the better.


Let me suggest you listen again.  Another Day, Uncle Alpert, all of Band On The Run... yes, "Say Say Say" and "Ebony and Ivory" are regrettable, but even Silly Love Songs has a kickass bassline.

Lennon's solo stuff -- and I believe him to be a genius -- lacked diversity, IMHO.  One of the many things that made the Beatles the best was the way Lennon and Macca's style fit together like PB and J;  both musically AND lyrically:  "It's Getting Better All The Time... (it couldn't get much worse...)

Madbassist1: The Stones just outright suck, and always have.


See, I used to love them so much, but now, when I watch old concert footage... wow... no band was cooler but nearly all could play better.  Mick Jagger is a HORRIBLE singer (but great frontman)

OldManDownDRoad: Slight correction: the Stones without Mick Taylor suck.


Definitely gotta agree with this, he really was the whole band during their best years when Keef was totally on the nod.
 
2014-01-07 11:28:03 AM  
Should have had Tame Impala do the Beatles tribute.
 
2014-01-07 11:30:00 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: simplicimus: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

I'll give you Revolution, thrown in Norwegian Wood, and maybe Hey Jude. What else is memorable?

Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.


The best catalog of all time.
 
2014-01-07 11:40:43 AM  
For those who always throw out the "they were nothing but a boy band" argument....read a bit about their very early days in the Hamburg and Liverpool clubs. They rocked hard, wore leather, ate, drank, and smoked on stage, popped preludin to get through their marathon sessions in Hamburg, and yelled insults at their audience ("fookin' Krauts!"). Lennon also appeared on stage sans trousers with a toilet seat around his neck. They were punk before punk existed. They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.
 
2014-01-07 11:43:54 AM  

Hawk24: They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.


Are you calling them sell-outs?
 
2014-01-07 11:46:02 AM  

LewDux: Hawk24: They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.

Are you calling them sell-outs?


Nope.
 
2014-01-07 11:46:42 AM  
I can't wait for the Eurythmics to get back together for a tribute to the Beatles and Billy Batts from "Goodfellas".  I would love to hear them sing "While My Shinebox Gently Weeps".
 
2014-01-07 11:51:47 AM  

Hawk24: LewDux: Hawk24: They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.

Are you calling them sell-outs?

Nope.


Well, you accused them of doing lots of things for a recording contract. Imagine if Lemmy cleaned up his act for money
 
2014-01-07 11:53:19 AM  
My favorite not-overplayed Beatles tune: Hey Bulldog
 
2014-01-07 11:56:36 AM  

Hawk24: For those who always throw out the "they were nothing but a boy band" argument....read a bit about their very early days in the Hamburg and Liverpool clubs. They rocked hard, wore leather, ate, drank, and smoked on stage, popped preludin to get through their marathon sessions in Hamburg, and yelled insults at their audience ("fookin' Krauts!"). Lennon also appeared on stage sans trousers with a toilet seat around his neck. They were punk before punk existed. They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.


Wow, they were crazy.  That totally changes the fact that many of their huge early hits are simplistic, stupid songs.
 
2014-01-07 12:01:26 PM  

mjbok: Hawk24: For those who always throw out the "they were nothing but a boy band" argument....read a bit about their very early days in the Hamburg and Liverpool clubs. They rocked hard, wore leather, ate, drank, and smoked on stage, popped preludin to get through their marathon sessions in Hamburg, and yelled insults at their audience ("fookin' Krauts!"). Lennon also appeared on stage sans trousers with a toilet seat around his neck. They were punk before punk existed. They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.

Wow, they were crazy.  That totally changes the fact that many of their huge early hits are simplistic, stupid songs.


That would be opinion, not fact. And that wasn't the argument/statement to begin with...i was discussing image, not music.
 
2014-01-07 12:03:04 PM  

LewDux: Hawk24: LewDux: Hawk24: They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.

Are you calling them sell-outs?

Nope.

Well, you accused them of doing lots of things for a recording contract. Imagine if Lemmy cleaned up his act for money


I'm not accusing...they did...it's fact. But "sell out" is a loaded term that implies judgement.
 
2014-01-07 12:06:37 PM  

Hawk24: That would be opinion, not fact. And that wasn't the argument/statement to begin with...i was discussing image, not music.


Point taken about them being stupid, but the songs are simplistic, that is a fact.  You can break it down by the number of notes, number of lyrics, etc if you want to go down that route.  I look at it partially as if I can play guitar, drums, bass for a song, it's pretty FSM-damned simple.

The boy band argument (from my perspective) had nothing to do with image, it had to do with their songs.  Their later songs had depth, meaning, etc (once again an opinion), whereas nearly all of their early works were completely devoid of that.
 
2014-01-07 12:10:54 PM  
Comparing The Beatles to The Who is kinda apples to oranges.

I dont think Beatles albums are as good as Who albums. I mean The Who have a couple of near perfect albums. There is also no comparison to live performances.

Popularity is a different matter.
 
2014-01-07 12:16:52 PM  

mjbok: Hawk24: That would be opinion, not fact. And that wasn't the argument/statement to begin with...i was discussing image, not music.

Point taken about them being stupid, but the songs are simplistic, that is a fact.  You can break it down by the number of notes, number of lyrics, etc if you want to go down that route.  I look at it partially as if I can play guitar, drums, bass for a song, it's pretty FSM-damned simple.

The boy band argument (from my perspective) had nothing to do with image, it had to do with their songs.  Their later songs had depth, meaning, etc (once again an opinion), whereas nearly all of their early works were completely devoid of that.


Simplistic songs are the best songs. See "every hit pop/rock/punk song ever"
 
2014-01-07 12:28:01 PM  

mjbok: Hawk24: That would be opinion, not fact. And that wasn't the argument/statement to begin with...i was discussing image, not music.

Point taken about them being stupid, but the songs are simplistic, that is a fact.  You can break it down by the number of notes, number of lyrics, etc if you want to go down that route.  I look at it partially as if I can play guitar, drums, bass for a song, it's pretty FSM-damned simple.

The boy band argument (from my perspective) had nothing to do with image, it had to do with their songs.  Their later songs had depth, meaning, etc (once again an opinion), whereas nearly all of their early works were completely devoid of that.


If you want to apply the 'boy band' tag because they wrote and sang simple love songs, that's fine. But there were some pretty good reasons for that being the case: remember we're talking about the early 60s here....the "60s" as we came to know (and stereotype) them hadn't happened yet and the world wasn't quite ready for the deep/trippy stuff that came later. The simple stuff is what was popular at the time and sold well (check out all of their competition...everyone was singing about the same things). And they were also still kids at the time...there aren't a whole lot of 20 year olds who are capable of writing about much more than that (especially in that era). But as they grew, their music grew, and that is one of the things that places them far above so many of their contemporaries IMHO. They never stood still and once they found their footing, were never content to do the same thing twice.
 
2014-01-07 01:16:13 PM  

Hawk24: If you want to apply the 'boy band' tag because they wrote and sang simple love songs, that's fine. But there were some pretty good reasons for that being the case: remember we're talking about the early 60s here....the "60s" as we came to know (and stereotype) them hadn't happened yet and the world wasn't quite ready for the deep/trippy stuff that came later. The simple stuff is what was popular at the time and sold well (check out all of their competition...everyone was singing about the same things). And they were also still kids at the time...there aren't a whole lot of 20 year olds who are capable of writing about much more than that (especially in that era). But as they grew, their music grew, and that is one of the things that places them far above so many of their contemporaries IMHO. They never stood still and once they found their footing, were never content to do the same thing twice.


And while The Who and the Stones kept making music and diluting their legacy (for lack of a better term), the legacies of both The Beatles and Led Zeppelin's have been set in stone.
 
2014-01-07 01:23:16 PM  

mjbok: Their later songs had depth, meaning, etc (once again an opinion), whereas nearly all of their early works were completely devoid of that.


Look at the dates on those records.  What else at that time was different?
 
2014-01-07 01:31:52 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Darth_Lukecash: simplicimus: Darth_Lukecash: Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.

OK,I'll give you all of the above, except for Yellow Submarine. But put them up against Won't Get Fooled Again, Magic Bus, Behind Blue Eyes, and Who Are You. IMHO, no competition.

Of course there is no competition. The Beatles knew when to walk away. They are already legendary.

In fact, with the death of John Lennon, they never became jokes of their former glory like The Stones or The Who. The worse you can say of them, is they did reunite and covered two of Johns songs as an anniversary bit. But no embarrassing reunion tours Like the Who, no sad attempts reclaim the past like The Eagles. and no attempt to to stay relevant like the Stones.

Ringo was smart enough to just stick drumming after a certain point, and just being a celebrity. John and George died at tragically, when they still had something to say, but probably not much more. And poor Paul, would have just disappeared on his farm, but he's got divorce bills.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Who, but their musical range was limited. All they could do was rock songs. Beatles covered a whole bunch of genres. From Beach music "Back in the U.S.S.R", Show tunes, "Maxwell Silvers Hammer" to Indian "Within, Without You"

Hell, I can throw in Helter Skelter as the grandfather of thrash metal. Yellow Submarine not only is a memorable song, it's one that was written for children and is actually a part of many kids musical education.

They were studio innovators and transformed albums.

Perfectly well said and now favorited


In addition to inventing the middle 8
 
2014-01-07 02:21:06 PM  
This thrills me beyond words....

Annie Lennox is my goddess.

I would sacrifice myself to hear her sing to me.
 
2014-01-07 02:33:07 PM  

happydude45: Waxing_Chewbacca: Darth_Lukecash: simplicimus: Darth_Lukecash: Taxman, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yellow Submarine, Here Comes The Sun, Yesterday

Actually, there entire catalogue is awesome.

OK,I'll give you all of the above, except for Yellow Submarine. But put them up against Won't Get Fooled Again, Magic Bus, Behind Blue Eyes, and Who Are You. IMHO, no competition.

Of course there is no competition. The Beatles knew when to walk away. They are already legendary.

In fact, with the death of John Lennon, they never became jokes of their former glory like The Stones or The Who. The worse you can say of them, is they did reunite and covered two of Johns songs as an anniversary bit. But no embarrassing reunion tours Like the Who, no sad attempts reclaim the past like The Eagles. and no attempt to to stay relevant like the Stones.

Ringo was smart enough to just stick drumming after a certain point, and just being a celebrity. John and George died at tragically, when they still had something to say, but probably not much more. And poor Paul, would have just disappeared on his farm, but he's got divorce bills.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Who, but their musical range was limited. All they could do was rock songs. Beatles covered a whole bunch of genres. From Beach music "Back in the U.S.S.R", Show tunes, "Maxwell Silvers Hammer" to Indian "Within, Without You"

Hell, I can throw in Helter Skelter as the grandfather of thrash metal. Yellow Submarine not only is a memorable song, it's one that was written for children and is actually a part of many kids musical education.

They were studio innovators and transformed albums.

Perfectly well said and now favorited

In addition to inventing the middle 8


I believe anyone trashing The Beatles has no idea what they are talking about.  They are viewing them through the distorted lens of history.   Their harmonic complexities and chord changes were unheard of in rock and roll.   And they rocked hard. Their music exploded out of the speakers for 2 minutes of pure heaven.   Lennon/McCartney's songwriting influence is still heard in pretty much every pop/rock tune since 1964.  Are all their songs great?  No.  Are the stones and the Who good bands?  Yes.

You don't have to like their music but they are the late 20th century equivalent of Mozart/Beethoven.
 
2014-01-07 02:37:59 PM  

Rwa2play: simplicimus: De gustibus non est disputandum. Or YMMV. I find these songs eminently forgettable.

Are you contrarian by nature or just an outright troll?  I'd at least give you credit for being a contrarian


I stated my opinion. Not trolling. I acknowledged that other people have different tastes in music. Not a contrarian. I didn't know in advance that some people really like the Beatles. If I say I think Beethoven is better than Bach, but both are better than Mozart, am I trolling?
 
2014-01-07 02:50:27 PM  

:-)> :-)> :-)> :-)>
We're Only in It for the Harmonic Complexities

 
2014-01-07 03:10:51 PM  

Prairie Phoenix: Lennox did pretty good in a tribute to Freddie Mercury

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCP2-Bfhy04


She did, indeed. That's got me wondering now, does her make-up foreshadow a cover of Rocky Raccoon?

But seriously... as great as that was (and it's an all-time favorite of mine), I do hope she reins it back a bit for Beatles songs. I'm trying to think of selections that would lend themselves to such a performance and I'm at a bit of a loss. I'm sure Dave Stewart will do something interesting with whatever material they use.
 
2014-01-07 03:21:45 PM  

jonathan_L: My favorite not-overplayed Beatles tune: Hey Bulldog


Great tune
 
2014-01-07 06:02:31 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: You don't have to like their music but they are the late 20th century equivalent of Mozart/Beethoven.


Their last studio album was released in 1970.  Hardly late 20th century.

They existed as a band for less than a decade and from first to last release was 8 years.  There first stuff was bubble gum pop.  Yes, much like many of their contemporaries, and like much of what was popular, that doesn't change the fact it was bubble-gum pop.  You could probably toss out half of their discography and not lose any great (not counting popularity) songs.  Look at what Dylan was doing at the same time.
 
2014-01-07 06:25:10 PM  

simplicimus: I find these songs eminently forgettable.


You are wrong.
 
2014-01-07 07:26:28 PM  

Rwa2play: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

This; anything pre-"Revolver" is has aged badly (with a couple of exceptions).  From "Revolver" on, it's pretty good.


It seems I see this in every Beatles thread on any forum. The notion that "Revolver" is where they started to get away from the bubblegum. I couldn't disagree more. Revolver is one of my favorite Beatles albums, but IMO they lost their outdated "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" bubblegum sound with Rubber Soul. Sure, there's the "Beep Beep and Beep Beep Yeah" in drive my car, but short of that, that album is as awesome today as then. I remember hearing the song "Girl" about 5 years ago and thinking it must be Peppers or something. Some of that album sounds closer to the 70's beatles then revolver. To me "Girl" sounds like a "Peppers" tune, "think for yourself" sounds like it could've been on the White album, And "In my life,  "Norwegian Wood" and "Nowhere Man" is as good as anything on Revolver. The Bubblegum burning started with Rubber Soul.
 
2014-01-07 09:07:36 PM  

derpy: simplicimus: I find these songs eminently forgettable.

You are wrong.


Apparently, judging from this thread.
 
2014-01-07 10:01:56 PM  

mjbok: Hawk24: For those who always throw out the "they were nothing but a boy band" argument....read a bit about their very early days in the Hamburg and Liverpool clubs. They rocked hard, wore leather, ate, drank, and smoked on stage, popped preludin to get through their marathon sessions in Hamburg, and yelled insults at their audience ("fookin' Krauts!"). Lennon also appeared on stage sans trousers with a toilet seat around his neck. They were punk before punk existed. They only cleaned up their act (at Brian Epstein's insistence) because, at that time, it was the only way for them to break big into the show biz/recording industry (which they desperately wanted to do) and come away with a recording contract.

Wow, they were crazy.  That totally changes the fact that many of their huge early hits are simplistic, stupid songs.


So true. But I submit that there is a difference between a good pop song and a successful one, and I think the Beatles made a lot of good pop songs in those early days. Not all of them were good, but for every "Love Me Do" there was a "Hard Day's Night", which in my opinion is about as close to a perfect pop song as you can get.
 
2014-01-08 12:22:49 AM  
Who am I to disagree with this...
 
2014-01-08 12:48:52 AM  

FloridaFarkTag: Who am I to disagree with this...


Not me. I pick up my guitar and play,just like yesterday.
 
2014-01-08 12:12:19 PM  

simplicimus: If I say I think Beethoven is better than Bach, but both are better than Mozart, am I trolling?


2/10 too obvious.
 
2014-01-08 12:15:45 PM  
sweet dreams are made of this
 
2014-01-08 01:41:51 PM  
mjbok:

They existed as a band for less than a decade and from first to last release was 8 years.  There first stuff was bubble gum pop.  Yes, much like many of their contemporaries, and like much of what was popular, that doesn't change the fact it was bubble-gum pop.  You could probably toss out half of their discography and not lose any great (not counting popularity) songs.  Look at what Dylan was doing at the same time.


This whitewashes a ton of gems away and ignores the rock n roll that the Bealtes sort of reintroduced to America.

Think of "I Saw Her Standing There" or "Ask Me Why." which were on their very first album. It blew the doors off in 1963 when billboard was topped with songs from Paul and Paula, The Four Seasons, Jan and Dean. Those songs are still pretty much far from being bubblegum pop today. Except for a few songs most of their early category is more rock n roll than pop.

By the time the album "A Hard Day's Night" came out they were already stretching the boundaries of songwriting with tunes like "I Should Have Known Better" and "You Can't Do That".

To dismiss anything pre-Revolver is kind of short sighted and to call it bubblegum pop is disingenuous.
 
2014-01-08 02:21:45 PM  

Rwa2play: SilentStrider: simplicimus: JerseyTim: Oh, thank god they're doing a Beatles tribute. They're so unheralded.

Totally in my own opinion, Beatles songs in general have not aged as well as songs from The Who and The Rolling Stones.


Early stuff maybe. Once you get up to around Revolver or so it sounds just as good today. A song like Revolution sounds good no matter when it was done.

This; anything pre-"Revolver" is has aged badly (with a couple of exceptions).  From "Revolver" on, it's pretty good.


What you really need to do is put the very early stuff in context with what else was being released at the time.  I mean pre-British Invasion, before everybody else jumped on the Mop Top bandwagon.

Before The Beatles, you basically had Elvis in the army and about to begin his acting career, so you couldn't count on him to release anything that wasn't Col. Parker profit-approved.  You had some surf music, Motown, doo-wop and a whole lot of sanitized-for-your-protection whited-down R&B.

When The Beatles hit, they brought an exuberance to a time when Rock-n-Roll was about to end its run as a fad.  Along with Motown, The Beatles pretty much saved R&R. So, maybe the stuff sounds a little dated now, but no more dated than, say, "Barbara Ann" or "Sherry" does.  As someone who used to gravitate almost exclusively towards their later catalog, I'm really rediscovering some old gems.  My current favorite is "Baby's in Black", or any early song that showcases John and Paul's harmonies.  Those high notes that Paul hits are a thing of beauty.

/Fun fact:  "Baby's in Black" was written for Astrid Kircherr after Stu Sutcliffe died.
 
2014-01-08 02:29:15 PM  

simplicimus: Post Beatles McCartney? The less said, the better.


I wonder how many McCartney haters have actually taken the time to listen to all his post-Beatles material?  Or are we just going by the same 3 Wings songs Clear Channel tells us we like?


/Electric Arguments is an aurgasm
//Seriously
 
Displayed 90 of 90 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report