DM's Beatles forums
A part of DM's Beatles site
Meet people from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?  (Read 10972 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5121
What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« on: August 29, 2005, 06:37:39 PM »
..
Logged
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7934
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2005, 07:41:44 PM »
I don't think they were really entertainers compared to their other skills. At least they weren't "entertainers" in the sense that people like Madonna and Cher are.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

lennonlemon

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1635
  • I Believe in Beatles
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2005, 07:47:43 PM »
They were brilliant moneymakers.
Logged
All You Need is Love  :K) :K) :K)

number14

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1699
  • I like the beatles a lot
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2005, 08:00:17 PM »
Songwriting
Logged


Paul McCartney :)

Ydoll Gwyn

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 978
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2005, 08:25:02 PM »
Two were brilliant songwriters, one improved dramatically over the years, one was hopeless. So it can't be that.

The Beatles played very well together, but by no stretch could you call them "brilliant musicians".

Entertainers? I don't know about the band before they hit the big time, but I always thought their stage banter, and performance flow were very amateurish in Beatlemania years. I still think Paul and Ringo are stilted and self-conscious on stage.

So what were they, first and foremost? I think they will be seen, in hindsight, as a group, to have been brilliant innovators.
Logged

joan was quizzical

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 305
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2005, 10:20:38 PM »
I'm on the same page with Ydoll, I think, but I'd maybe go further and say that three were brilliant songwriters. I think it was that brilliant songwriting (even if from only two or three) that made them what they were, so that's what I voted for anyways.

Speaking of amateurish performance etiquette, what is up with Lennon and the whole spastic-retard impersonation on stage?! Is anyone else bothered by that?

~ missy

Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5543
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2005, 06:59:43 AM »
Quote from: joan_was_quizzical
Speaking of amateurish performance etiquette, what is up with Lennon and the whole spastic-retard impersonation on stage?! Is anyone else bothered by that?

~ missy


Yes. There was a thread a while ago, but the general consensus was that John was Ok on stage. I disagree with Ydoll, I think Paul is a born showman and really carried the Band stagewise. John. I think, is ther one who looks self-conscious and awkward.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Ydoll Gwyn

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 978
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2005, 07:11:47 AM »
With Paul, I have in mind stuff he's been doing for years, such as "How are ya? Eh?" (he did this in Fab days), and trying to get audience participation ("Na na na naaa .... and now everyone on the left! Now on the right!"), and pretending to forget lyrics. Gauche!

I agree that John was self-conscious & awkward. His Fab days spastic thing was pretty awful. I always wonder why he wasn't called on it.

Listen to John and Paul's stage talk on Hollywood Bowl - it's amateur night stuff.

And Ringo these days with his perennial "What's my name" - forget it!
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5543
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2005, 07:20:52 AM »
^ I guess in the days of the Black and White Minstrel Show, On the Buses and Love Thy Neighbour, taking the p*ss out of minority groups was considered OK. Ooh er Mrs Slocum, how's your p*ssy?
Logged
don't follow leaders

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5121
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2005, 10:19:10 AM »
Quote from: Ydoll_Gwyn
So what were they, first and foremost? I think they will be seen, in hindsight, as a group, to have been brilliant innovators.

OK... I've gotta admit, that's probably the best answer...
Logged

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5121
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2005, 10:22:54 AM »
Quote from: Ydoll_Gwyn
Entertainers? I don't know about the band before they hit the big time, but I always thought their stage banter, and performance flow were very amateurish in Beatlemania years. I still think Paul and Ringo are stilted and self-conscious on stage.

When the Beatles appeared on a stage, every audience that saw them went completely nuts. Therefore they were among the greatest entertainers there ever were (even if they weren't brilliant entertainers in the traditional sense) since very few people have ever had that effect on any audience.
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5543
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2005, 11:29:48 AM »
Quote from: Biscuit_Power

When the Beatles appeared on a stage, every audience that saw them went completely nuts. .

Except the French. Probably too busy surrendering or something.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Tamara

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2005, 11:31:45 AM »
Quote from: kevin_b

Except the French. Probably to busy surrendering or something.

And the Japanese also.
Logged

Indica

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3129
  • Getting into the Herbal Jazz
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2005, 11:40:51 AM »
Personally, I love the amateurish feel of their early shows.
It's typically northern, and characteristically working class.
 The 'flow' of their set went against the methodical and often drab style of enteriantment  people were used to ... it shook it up alittle.


Lennon's Spastic impressions are just another grain of individualism which make The Beatles...well... The Beatles.
Logged
Whats the matter lads? Blue Meanies?

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5543
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2005, 11:57:13 AM »
the only contempory act I can compare them to is The Shadows, with their cheezy grins and naff dance steps. The Beatles look revolutionary after that.
Logged
don't follow leaders

pommyg

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
    • Beatles Archive
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2005, 02:01:16 PM »
Quote from: Mairi
I don't think they were really entertainers compared to their other skills. At least they weren't "entertainers" in the sense that people like Madonna and Cher are.

I think they were the entertainers of their day who wrote some great and unique songs too.


Logged

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7934
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2005, 05:51:41 PM »
I don't know. I just think "entertainers" has certain ring to it that makes it sound like the music was secondary to their showmanship, which of course it was not.

I've got to admit, though... when you watch a concert with all those screaming girls, it is quite an experience.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

lennonlemon

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1635
  • I Believe in Beatles
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2005, 09:14:14 PM »
But if you had to choose only one, would you choose their records or tapes of their live performances?
Logged
All You Need is Love  :K) :K) :K)

Ydoll Gwyn

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 978
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2005, 09:34:44 PM »
Quote from: lennonlemon
But if you had to choose only one, would you choose their records or tapes of their live performances?

Of course you'd choose the records. Their live performances in Beatlemania years were fairly ordinary, as the band repeatedly said.

Nice point, LL.
Logged

Ydoll Gwyn

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 978
Re: What were the Beatles, first and foremost?
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2005, 09:37:46 PM »
Quote from: kevin_b
^ I guess in the days of the Black and White Minstrel Show, On the Buses and Love Thy Neighbour, taking the p*ss out of minority groups was considered OK. Ooh er Mrs Slocum, how's your p*ssy?

Looks like it still is, kev & Tam:

Quote from: kevin_b
Except the French. Probably too busy surrendering or something.

Quote from: Tamara
And the Japanese also.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.17 seconds with 84 queries.