Beatlemania

[cadaverdog]

It is not my intent to piss people off with this observation but
no doubt some will be offended.
I believe the "establishment"successfully rammed the Beatles
right down the unsuspecting public's throat.
The popular music right before the Beatles hit it big was the early version of rock that some considered "colored"music.
Then comes the Beatles , after replacing Pete Best (who was kind of a beatnik) what's left.
Four white boys wearing suits , wanting to harmlessly hold hands.
Their hair was a little shaggy but they were otherwise harmless.They did eventually use their popularity to push the envelope and evolve into something a little edgier.
They weren't fakes , they were a real band , but their material
was acceptible to the powers of the day. Where the "colored" music
was frowned upon.
I think it sort of backfired though because after the Beatles came
the British invasion .
Just one view.

[Panamark]

Dude...

Let the music speak for itself.

I rest my case.

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by Panamark
Dude...

Let the music speak for itself.

I rest my case.

It was the early sixties.
I'm sure you've heard that older people of the day considered
rock and roll to be "colored" music.
And since racism and segregation was still acceptible practices of
the day , they damn sure weren't going to stand for their kids
listening to "colored"music.
Would it suprise you if you found out the reason the Beatles
got such attention and airplay was due to the influence of
powerful people who felt it was more acceptable for their kids
to listen to harmless music played by white boys wearing suits.
There was nothing new or advanced about the Beatles.
Elvis Presley played edgier harder music than the Beatles started
out playing.
The Beatles did evolve and did contribute to early rock , no doubt.
Without them there would probably not have been a british invasion.
It is only my opinion that this is why the Beatles got such huge
publicity when they were basically unknown.

[LoungeMachine]

Get a Life.

Jesus Christ......

[LoungeMachine]

Re: Beatlemania

Originally posted by cadaverdog
It is not my intent to piss people off with this observation but
no doubt some will be offended.
.

Offended?

No.

Baffled at your ineptness? sure.

Originally posted by cadaverdog


I believe the "establishment"successfully rammed the Beatles
right down the unsuspecting public's throat.

If by the "establishment" you mean Murray the K, Brian Epstein, and Ed Sullivan, yeah, then sure.

Originally posted by cadaverdog


The popular music right before the Beatles hit it big was the early version of rock that some considered "colored"music.
Then comes the Beatles , after replacing Pete Best (who was kind of a beatnik) what's left.

WTF does this have to do with anything? Or are you seriously so lame as to drop Pete Best's name in hopes of appearing like you know what the fuck you're even talking about? Wow, you read a beatles biography. There's only 2,000 of them in print. Did you know Pete Best was a baker?

Originally posted by cadaverdog


Four white boys wearing suits , wanting to harmlessly hold hands.
Their hair was a little shaggy but they were otherwise harmless.They did eventually use their popularity to push the envelope and evolve into something a little edgier.
They weren't fakes , they were a real band , but their material
was acceptible to the powers of the day. Where the "colored" music
was frowned upon.
I think it sort of backfired though because after the Beatles came
the British invasion .

Is there a point here? The non sequitors are running into each other.

Originally posted by cadaverdog
Just one view.

A view of what, exactly?


That Beatlemania
was rammed down the throats of innocent youth, that they stole their music from the "coloreds"?

What the fuck is this thread even about, really?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Panamark
Dude...

Let the music speak for itself.

I rest my case.

I don't know, mate.

It may be time to burn all of our Beatles memorabilia.

I guess we were all duped.

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


What the fuck is this thread even about, really?

It's about someone giving their opinion and some one
else who instead of just voicing their disagreement
starts strutting around like a fucking peacock playing to the
crowd.
I'm sure others read this and said Bullshit and left it at that.
But not you , you know everything and want everyone to know
it.
Why was Pete Best replaced?
Ed Sullivan the same guy that told bands to change objectionable
lyrics wouldn't have anything to do with helping promote
a band that better fit his moral standards.
I didn't say the Beatles stole anything.
My point was some people considered the music of Elvis ,
Jerry Lee Lewis , and others to be colored music unfit for
white people to be listening to.
And the black artist like Chuck Berry and Little Richard
not only played colored music but were actually colored
people too.
Denying that racism could have been a factor to the Beatles
being heavily promoted during the early sixties is like denying
racism was not an acceptible practice of the day.

[Panamark]

C'dog

Black music is and was popular in England.
(Before and after the Beatles)
The English didnt have the same divisions as
the US in respect to this.

The Beatles music was just so damn good, fresh
and catchy practically every single they released
soldout of the stores the moment they were
stocked.

This was not a conspiracy, this was the massive momemtum
and word of mouth that was out there from the bands
vigorous live playing in London and Berlin...

That enormous success eventually transpired to the
USA, and I know its hard to accept, THE REST OF THE
WORLD..

We had a very similar thing happen in Australia in the
70's with ABBA. Yes it was mass hysteria, massive record
sales, chicks fainting etc etc.. They sold a shitload of
records because the greater public fell in love with them
and their music..

No amount of Radio station manipulation can stop the
power of a genuine public surge like that.

Ok, and what about the sex pistols ??
Radio stations didn't play their music and they
still went Number one ???

You are forgetting that the hugely popular
Motown era happened during the Beatles career too..

Sorry C'Dog, I dont go for this one...

[Panamark]

One last point, why in this day and age of Black influenced
music dominating the charts, do the Beatles still sell millions
every year ??

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by Panamark
C'dog

Black music is and was popular in England.
(Before and after the Beatles)
The English didnt have the same divisions as
the US in respect to this.

The Beatles music was just so damn good, fresh
and catchy practically every single they released
soldout of the stores the moment they were
stocked.

This was not a conspiracy, this was the massive momemtum
and word of mouth that was out there from the bands
vigorous live playing in London and Berlin...

That enormous success eventually transpired to the
USA, and I know its hard to accept, THE REST OF THE
WORLD..

We had a very similar thing happen in Australia in the
70's with ABBA. Yes it was mass hysteria, massive record
sales, chicks fainting etc etc.. They sold a shitload of
records because the greater public fell in love with them
and their music..

No amount of Radio station manipulation can stop the
power of a genuine public surge like that.

Ok, and what about the sex pistols ??
Radio stations didn't play their music and they
still went Number one ???

You are forgetting that the hugely popular
Motown era happened during the Beatles career too..

Sorry C'Dog, I dont go for this one...

Cool
It was just a theory .
But I was refering to the huge publicity they got here before
Americans knew who they were.
It just seems like they went from unknown to number one
awfully fast.

[ThrillsNSpills]

It probably seems that way because when Capitol got them in 64 after a couple of years of being on small labels like veejay and swan, a bunch of stuff was released in a relatively short period of time, repackaged and sometimes mixed in fake stereo.
Epstein was trying for years to break them here.

[cadaverdog]

I'm still trying to comprehend how the country that gave
us Bon Scott and AC/DC had a time when ABBA was all
the rage.
Yuck.

[Panamark]

Originally posted by cadaverdog
I'm still trying to comprehend how the country that gave
us Bon Scott and AC/DC had a time when ABBA was all
the rage.
Yuck.

Yeah, and ABBA like the Beatles went on to earn billions.
At one point they were a bigger corporation than Volvo,
the number one company in Sweden.

Its easy to dismiss ABBA (as on first listen it sounds
really poppy). But if you actually listen to a lot of
their tracks they have the Phil Spectre wall of sound
type production, and quite complexed individual
pieces of music and melody.

One of those bands you can look at and go, not my
type of thing, but I can appreciate their genuine musicianship.
Benny and Bjorn were churning out hits like Lennon/McCartney
for about 6 years.

[FightonUSC]

This might be one of the dumbest posts ever! Basically in 1963 rock was being controlled by their record companies to really tame it up: Elvis was in the army, Buddy Holly was dead and Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 yr old cousin. Parents were pressuring and the record companies were listening ala Neil Sedaka. Capitol Records was pressured by their European division to promote in America The Beatles and they resisted. However, bootlet copies of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" made it to East Coast radio stations from sailors coming over from England. The response floored the powers at Capitol Records and by the time they decided to finally promote The Beatles the song was alreay #1...with little help from their own record company! Beatlemania initially was not manufactured it was born and grew. All the recordings they did were in the span of 8 years! In 1995 they became the first group to ever have 3 #1 albums in one year! They are the Beethovens, the Mozarts of modern day. You stand corrected!

[Matt White]

Silly, silly thread