DM's Beatles forums
A part of DM's Beatles site
A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9

Author Topic: The Beatles minus George  (Read 13060 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

harihead

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2339
  • Keep spreading the love
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #120 on: July 05, 2007, 02:45:59 PM »
Sort of continued from the "Sitar" thread, because this part is more relevant here:

When people complain you are rude, The Swine, consider your comment that Blue Meanie is "somebody here whose actually thinking" (by which you mean, "agrees with you"). I like Blue Meanie; I don't always agree with him, but he supports his views and doesn't launch into personal attacks (implying I don't think because I don't agree with you). I can offer my view about George's contribution (which I did earlier, and won't repeat) and then I'm pretty much done. Lots of people have different opinions.

I can see your view that you find George the most replaceable; that's fine. I see Ringo as most replaceable (and my drummer friend hates me for it). That's fine, too. I honestly believe that all of them, personalities plus abilities, is what made the Beatles great. But if we're debating "most" replaceable, some people are going to pick George. It would have ruined the Beatles experience for me personally, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Cheers.
Logged
All you've got to do is choose love.  That's how I live it now.  I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden.  I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007<br />
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

Flaming Pie in the Sky

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2023
    • Gone Troppo
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #121 on: July 05, 2007, 02:54:52 PM »
Quote from: 551
But if we're debating "most" replaceable, some people are going to pick George. It would have ruined the Beatles experience for me personally, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

My thoughts exactly.

Logged

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10658
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #122 on: July 05, 2007, 03:06:38 PM »
Being a musician myshelf I think that a drummer (even a good one like Ringo was) is the most replaceable member in a band like The Guys were ... more than the lead guitarist (another good musician -because George was one- ... and composer and singer too!!!) ... but only my opinion!  Am I going to be crucified like John? :)
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13130
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #123 on: July 05, 2007, 04:24:26 PM »
Quote from: 297
Being a musician myshelf I think that a drummer (even a good one like Ringo was) is the most replaceable member in a band like The Guys were ... more than the lead guitarist (another good musician -because George was one- ... and composer and singer too!!!) ... but only my opinion!  Am I going to be crucified like John? :)

I don't know that band, so I can't argue that.
Logged

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10658
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #124 on: July 05, 2007, 04:24:56 PM »
Quote from: 63
I don't know that band, so I can't argue that.
Sooorry for you  :-/ ...

Logged

DarkSweetLady

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1326
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #125 on: July 05, 2007, 05:00:37 PM »
Yes, but when they went to record they chose to replace the drummer and not George...
Logged

~the guiding light in all your love shines on~

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10658
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #126 on: July 05, 2007, 05:06:15 PM »
Quote from: 668
Yes, but when they went to record they chose to replace the drummer and not George...
Some pages ago sewi said more or less the same:
Quote from: 564
The Beatles minus George? They were for three days in january 1969 and it was a disaster heheheh.It would be a very diferent group because George loved his guitar more than any of the others did and he impressed John the first time he played so George was good enough for what they were doing from the begining and improved a lot through the sixties.He was needed and more with the years.The contrary happened with Ringo that was not so needed at the end.

... and, as long as they're facts, I have to agree, how not?  8)
Since the begining the drummer was a problem for The Guys (before Hamburg, first day at EMI with Sir George, 1964 tour ...) but George was already there from the very begining of the group ... and the others never decided to replace him!  ??) ;D
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13130
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #127 on: July 05, 2007, 06:09:11 PM »
Quote from: 297
Some pages ago sewi said more or less the same:


... and, as long as they're facts, I have to agree, how not?  8)
Since the begining the drummer was a problem for The Guys (before Hamburg, first day at EMI with Sir George, 1964 tour ...) but George was already there from the very begining of the group ... and the others never decided to replace him!  ??) ;D

The Guys never had any problems with drummers, as far as I know. Now, The Beatles however...
Logged

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10658
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #128 on: July 05, 2007, 06:14:19 PM »
Quote from: 63
The Guys never had any problems with drummers, as far as I know. Now, The Beatles however...
Well, you've always known more than me ...

Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13130
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #129 on: July 05, 2007, 06:18:46 PM »
Quote from: 297
Well, you've always known more than me ...

Not sure. You obviously know more about a band called The Guys. I've never heard of them. I might do a Google on them.

Logged

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10658
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #130 on: July 05, 2007, 06:20:24 PM »
Quote from: 63
Not sure. You obviously know more about a band called The Guys. I've never heard of them. I might do a Google on them.
They could be no interesting enough for you ... after all, not everything is in the internet, y'know!

Logged

DarkSweetLady

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1326
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #131 on: July 05, 2007, 09:53:52 PM »
I think that no Beatle could be replaced because they each have such a different and unique personalities....
Logged

~the guiding light in all your love shines on~

The Swine

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #132 on: July 12, 2007, 01:17:14 PM »
Quote from: 297
Well, if you want to believe that she was the new Yoko Ono even before the original one, OK for me ...

from the beatles unseen archives by tim hill and marie clayton (from the archives of the daily mail):

But The Beatles themselves were still searching for the Meaning of Life and - having already decided that they were not the answer - had begun to give up drugs. It was at this point that they were introduced tot the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi during his visit to London, by George's wife, Patti.
Logged
THE INTERNET IS NOT A PLACE FOR 13 YEAR OLDS

Flaming Pie in the Sky

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2023
    • Gone Troppo
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2007, 01:21:15 PM »
^ I've got that book  8)
Logged

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10658
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #134 on: July 12, 2007, 01:22:53 PM »
Have you read all the previous posts to see the context? We were tallking about more things (music and trip to India, for example ... Patti?) than just meditation (which was not so important for the group, I think) And I already told Bobber ... see the sequence here:
Quote from: 297
Quote from: 185
I would need evidence to convince me that George's Indian stuff did anything more than start a brief fad for a bit of easterm mysticism in pop/rock music.
Hats off that it did show the world that you can put anything on a pop record BUT they may come with the qualification that you have to be The Beatles to have the luxury get away with it.
It was a cool thing to do - I just don't think that in the bigger picture of rock it's that important
It was another novelty for the world ... and the trips to India another one ... if the group was always trying new things George showed them a new thing to try ... important or not, they thought it was important enough to try ... I think that it was needed ... and George too ...
Quote from: 297
Quote from: 63
  In fact, the meditation thing was presented to them by Patti Boyd. Trips to India had been made before. It became a public thing because the Beatles did it.
Exactly, and they did all that because of George... By the way, I was tallking about Indian music too not only meditation ...
Quote from: 63
No, because of Patti.
Quote from: 297
Well, if you want to believe that she was the new Yoko Ono even before the original one, OK for me ...

Anyway, it's obvious to me that it was George who wanted to do those things and that the other three did them too because of George and not because of Patti ... was Patti who conviced the other three to do them?


And thanks for the info. So George was needed even for having married Patti, you see! The most important member of the group!!!  ;D
Logged

The Swine

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2007, 02:29:45 PM »
(sleep2)
Logged
THE INTERNET IS NOT A PLACE FOR 13 YEAR OLDS

Flaming Pie in the Sky

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2023
    • Gone Troppo
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #136 on: July 12, 2007, 02:41:38 PM »
Quote from: 748
(sleep2)

(hammer2)
Logged

Beatlemaniac64

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 604
  • ~Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeeeeaaaah~
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #137 on: August 01, 2007, 03:29:18 AM »
If not for George, there probably would be no Beatles. And if there still was, they would be very different. I don't think it was all a coincidence, I think that God made every little thing happen the way he planned it to. Just think, the four guys who were meant to be together were all born in Liverpool close by each other. If not for God planning that out, one would have been born in Liverpool and then the other three on the other side of the world for all we know.

Both George and Ringo contributed massively to the Beatles. George has that special sound that sounds like nobody else when he plays that guitar. And Ringo just has a wonderful feel for the drums that makes every song special. I don't believe in any of that stuff about the Beatles just needing Lennon/McCartney to be. Yeah, they were the biggest part of it all, but it wouldn't be the same without George and Ringo. No one else could fill the part musically and the personality of George and Ringo. All four were great musicians, all four had charming personalities, and all four were meant for each other. To sum it up, thank you God for giving us the Beatles!
Logged

harihead

  • Words Of Love
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2339
  • Keep spreading the love
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #138 on: August 01, 2007, 04:13:05 AM »
Nice post, Beatlemaniac64! I agree. :)
Logged
All you've got to do is choose love.  That's how I live it now.  I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden.  I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007<br />

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5422
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #139 on: August 01, 2007, 08:22:39 AM »
Quote from: 793
If not for George, there probably would be no Beatles. And if there still was, they would be very different. I don't think it was all a coincidence, I think that God made every little thing happen the way he planned it to. Just think, the four guys who were meant to be together were all born in Liverpool close by each other. If not for God planning that out, one would have been born in Liverpool and then the other three on the other side of the world for all we know.

God planned The Beatles, and the proof is all four lived nearby????
Surely there are X number of very talented musicians spread around the world. Simple law of averages dictates that eventually two  end up living next to and meeting each other. Then all you need is George and Ringo. Inevitable rather than supernatural.
And when did God get involved in music management? Isn't Simon Cowell enough? I bet the starving africans are p*ssed that he's fiddling around organising beat combos for rich westerners instead of dealing with plagues and famines.
Logged
don't follow leaders
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.363 seconds with 26 queries.