Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nimrod]

I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I just think you're giving a wrong impression.

For the sake of a peaceful forum I will accept that you are right Zipp and I am wrong.

I will argue no more 

[zipp]

For the sake of a peaceful forum I will accept that you are right Zipp and I am wrong.

I will argue no more 

OK.

I have however checked Wiki for their sources concerning Abbey Road's "mixed reviews". They say it's in a book called Can't Buy Me Love by Jonathan Gould. Mister Gould is an American born and raised in New York. I don't know what he knows about the UK. I haven't got his book.

Here's an amusing comment from someone who has read his book :

"In spite of the fact that it wasn't about the individual Beatles, I will say that by the time I finished the book, I liked John Lennon a lot less than I had when I started it. I don't know that any of them particularly come out covered in glory, but his flaws certainly show large in the book."

I don't think this will be a book for Mister Mustard's bookshelf!

[Mr Mustard]

...it's in the downstairs toilet and proves handy on the rare occasions I realise we've run out of loo roll.

[Moogmodule]

Abbey Road has the distinction for me of being the only Beatle album I can remember hearing on release. It’s a pity as a six year old I wasn’t into reading album reviews  so I could give a first hand assessment of Wiki’s statement.

[zipp]

...it's in the downstairs toilet and proves handy on the rare occasions I realise we've run out of loo roll.

A good way of saving paper, Mister Mustard.

[Loco Mo]

This thread is quite long but I want to add a few thoughts.

I recall that the Beatles started losing their "early first" fans after John's remark about Christ.  Also, they lost fans as they matured.  I can't remember which album but I read commentary at the time that the Beatles musical transitions cost them fans.  It's almost as if the better they got, the fewer fans who remained for that development.

I also think John was the only "interesting" Beatle.  The others seem boring as human beings.  What is there to say about them biographically that's worth listening to or reading?  Without John in the group, there'd have been nothing to talk about other than the songs.  And then there'd probably be no Beatlemania at all without John.

Another thing about the Beatles popularity:  It was bound to wane.  It seemed to me that artists of the time were only relevant for a limited span of years.  This was based on the growing up of their initial fans and also the Beatles getting older as well.  As they aged, the latest generation would be seeking its own age music groups to listen to.  They wouldn't want the Beatles.  It's like you had to be within the Beatles age group to be their fans.  I'm guessing maybe by a ten-year spread or so - younger but not older.  So for you as a young fan, your idols couldn't be much older than you or they'd be unacceptable to you.

Well, hopefully this thread is not going to expand to another 10 pages.  It takes me forever to read and I can't read very fast!!!!   (Yet I really enjoy the reading - but it tires me out.)

Thanks everyone for all your excellent thoughts and for the time you take to compose and type them.  Peace.

[Loco Mo]

One more thought:

I've always had a feeling that the reason the Beatles broke up was because Paul was out-writing John.  I don't think John could keep up with Paul's musical output anymore.  I also think John suffered a musical decline when he started experimenting with LSD, alcohol and other substances.  I think he was more living life in general than Paul who was actually really focused on making music.

So maybe in a sense, Paul broke up the Beatles - but not intentionally.  It's just that the delicate balance of the group was disrupted.  You couldn't have one Beatle outperforming the others without upsetting that balance.

Too, I think a lot of fans wanted more Paul songs - pretty, sweet, melodic, tuneful, simple, positive, feel-good style.

They probably didn't like Taxman, Rain, I'm a loser, Norwegian Wood, He said she said, Tomorrow never knows, etc.  Those songs were too deep for them.  I'm not saying fans didn't like them but Paul's simplicity was probably more appealing in a universal sense to fans who liked to hum and sing along to Beatles songs.

So the Beatles disbanded and would have done so even without Yoko, I think.

[zipp]

I recall that the Beatles started losing their "early first" fans after John's remark about Christ.  Also, they lost fans as they matured.  I can't remember which album but I read commentary at the time that the Beatles musical transitions cost them fans.  It's almost as if the better they got, the fewer fans who remained for that development. ...
Another thing about the Beatles popularity:  It was bound to wane.  It seemed to me that artists of the time were only relevant for a limited span of years.  This was based on the growing up of their initial fans and also the Beatles getting older as well.  As they aged, the latest generation would be seeking its own age music groups to listen to.  They wouldn't want the Beatles.  It's like you had to be within the Beatles age group to be their fans.  I'm guessing maybe by a ten-year spread or so - younger but not older. 

Quite a lot to disagree with in your last two posts Loco Mo.

Let's start here. The Beatles lost fans throughout their career but constantly made more new ones. They lost fans when they went from Liverpool to London, when they spent too much time in the USA, when they stopped touring in the UK, when they stopped writing simple love songs, when they stopped appearing live on TV, when they spent months recording their albums etc. etc. And yet they maintained their musical and financial dominance.

The whole point about the Beatles fame is that they never stood still and nevertheless managed to increase their fan base.

People said the Beatles were "bound to wane " in 1963 saying their phenomenal success couldn't last. By 1969 people had accepted that the Beatles could seemingly go on forever ... or for as long as they wished for themselves.

Incidentally, their fame was inter-generational. They were lauded by young and old alike.They were kind of adopted by a lot of older people who saw them as a breath of fresh air.

So, you see, once again I'm refusing this schtick about the inevitability of the break-up of the Beatles. John broke them up with the help of Yoko and Klein. But there was nothing inevitable about that.

[Loco Mo]

Thanks, zipp!  Your points are well taken.  I was really just expressing thoughts (not my own but ones I remember hearing or reading about long ago).

I know that the Beatles seemed to cross generations but how do I express this?  It seemed like fans were starting to like a lot of other bands in addition to the Beatles.  It's as if the Beatles couldn't have an exclusive set of fans any more.  Fans continued to like them but the universe of bands was growing exponentially - with many of them copying the Beatles style of music, themes, experimentation, etc., IMO.

For the Beatles to stay together, weren't they going to become just one of many bands in the process?  They weren't going to be able to outshine everyone else anymore.  I mean creative people were coming out of the woodwork back then (and still are).

I also want to say that maybe Yoko really did break up the Beatles.  Why?  Well, I don't think that any other woman would have caused so much dissension.  If John had left Cynthia for someone other than Yoko, it might not have been as bad.  I think Yoko was unique out of the thousands upon millions of women John could have chosen from.

So maybe, without Yoko, the Beatles would have lasted longer (like into the seventies).  Maybe John would have stayed with Cynthia but continued to have affairs with other women but never really get serious with any of them.

Let me ask this question:  Were there any other women John valued enough to leave Cynthia for?  There must have been others, I think.  But Yoko topped them all.  She won the trophy!!

What if Paul had been as lackadaisical as John about the band?  Maybe the band would have continued erratically and sporadically and no one would have been particularly upset about it.

Now, if John had been as motivated as Paul and Ringo, they probably would never have split up!!  Of course, I don't know about George.  He might have just walked away, who knows?

Thanks again, zipp.  I may express ideas but I'm not fanatical about any of them.  I'm easily challenged (and informed).  Peace.

[zipp]

I know that the Beatles seemed to cross generations but how do I express this?  It seemed like fans were starting to like a lot of other bands in addition to the Beatles.  It's as if the Beatles couldn't have an exclusive set of fans any more.  Fans continued to like them but the universe of bands was growing exponentially - with many of them copying the Beatles style of music, themes, experimentation, etc., IMO.

For the Beatles to stay together, weren't they going to become just one of many bands in the process?  They weren't going to be able to outshine everyone else anymore.  I mean creative people were coming out of the woodwork back then (and still are).

The Beatles were copied from the start. The Mersey sound, the hair style, goofy films, concerts in stadia, video clips, concept albums, cover songs making number one, double A sides, own record label, paperazzi, orchestras and technical innovation.

This was a constant in the sixties. But the Beatles did it better than anyone else.

[nimrod]

Im still totally convinced that John would never have quit the Beatles without Yoko.
He wouldve been too scared to do that.

Paul was slowly taking over the band due to his drive and ambition and John & Yoko didnt like it, but John wouldve accepted it if he didnt have Yoko.

[KelMar]

Incidentally, their fame was inter-generational. They were lauded by young and old alike.They were kind of adopted by a lot of older people who saw them as a breath of fresh air.

My parents were in their 40’s when the Beatles came to the US and they both liked their music, especially Mom. She was glued to her TV years later when Anthology was on, and called me after the first one to make sure I watched it. That was actually 23 years ago today. On ABeatleC. 

https://youtu.be/7nOptupxvl4

[Loco Mo]

I was trying to make a point here and I think I've failed.  I can't even remember what the point was.

Perhaps it was that the Beatles split because they had completed their mission.  That is, we all have a purpose and once we fulfill it, well then Porky Pig steps in an announces "that's all folks!"  In this case, Paul was Porky!

Maybe the Beatles were here to "change the world" and once they set that process in motion, they left.  Maybe it's part of a Cosmic design or plan.

[Moogmodule]

My parents were in their 40’s when the Beatles came to the US and they both liked their music, especially Mom. She was glued to her TV years later when Anthology was on, and called me after the first one to make sure I watched it. That was actually 23 years ago today. On ABeatleC. 

When I was younger my parents were pretty Beatle ambivalent, also being in their 40s when they arrived. As they got older though they mellowed and were quite complementary (although my mother always swore Paul sang flat). When anthology came out Dad actually rang me to get my impression of the new songs. Funnily enough at that point I was going through a heavy opera phase and had not really been listening to any pop/rock music for a couple of years. So at least temporarily the tables turned.

[Hello Goodbye]

https://youtu.be/azq8ud8oiLY

[blmeanie]

Perhaps it was that the Beatles split because they had completed their mission.  That is, we all have a purpose and once we fulfill it, well then Porky Pig steps in an announces "that's all folks!"  In this case, Paul was Porky!

The required follow up question to this is -if Paul was Porky, what did "that's all folks!" say to us played backwards???

[KelMar]

The required follow up question to this is -if Paul was Porky, what did "that's all folks!" say to us played backwards???