The Beatles - Info needed!

[sleeping stone]

Hi all!

Look I'm a zero when it's about Beatles so here are my questions about them:

(Specific mention: I am talking about BACK in their days, nowadays these questions are not even to be raised of course)

- Were they seen as "the nice boys" of rock n'roll?

- Were they rather a pop band than a rock band?

- Is it true that they could only come up with ideas of songs and then this man I don't recall the name would tell them how to actually make "great songs"?

- Were they actually as drug addicts as people say this wouldnot interfere their carreer? Or they even would deny it?

I don't have clue on them and what I read doesn't convince me since they're always portrayed as "idiots" simply because they looked like "nice boys". This is why it does not convince me at all.

I read that the king himself, aka Elvis, said that he saw them as THE threat to his own carreer. Then, simply the numbers, they would sell a lot. So what to think?

If you feel bothered by my ignorance and don't want to reply I will understand, but maybe some of you have a book to recommend or specific internet link?

If some want to lead a parrallel with the Stones, it's Ok, it could bring alot, both in terms of musically and reception of the public speaking.

Peace

[ffrankwhite]

they were seen, primarily as the nice boys of rock n roll but that changed. they didnt begin nice, in their leathered out Hamburg days of debauchery but once they got famous that wasnt exactly publicised by NEMS and Brian Epstein (manager).

they were seen as a pop band. in those days, in popular culture, no one really differentiated between pop and rock. pop being short for popular, rock n roll can come into that with no problems.

no, no one told them how to make their songs great, they were great all by themselves.

they never denied taking drugs. they didnt outright publicise it either though. the whole thing ecploded though when an interviewer asked Paul Mccartney if he'd ever taken LSD and he admitted to it and the interviewer said well dont you think you're being a bad influence to your legions of fans and Paul said, no, you are, you asked me a question and i answered honestly, would you rather i would have lied? you are the one thats going to broadcast this and print this, you're responsible. ironic really because Paul was the least drug orientated. none of them were ever full blown addicts by any stretch of the imagination but John Lennon did take to doing LSD on a daily basis (but thats not an addictive drug) and smoking very impure heroin for a while. also, Ringo Starr was an alcoholic. Lennon was known to drink excessively when he did drink.

they were far from idiots. John Lennon is both a writer of books, conceptual artist, musician, songwriter, painter, you name it. and excellent in all fields too. the well reknowned Times Literary paper of england praised his book "A Spaniard In The Works". songwriting wise he was an absolute unparralled genius. if you read up on them, all of them, they were anything but idiots.

yes, rumor has it Elvis was none too fond of them although they did meet and jam once.

the beatles were always going to be better than the stones. the stones never really harbored any dellusions about being anything other than a blues based rock band. the beatles could play a million different styles and excelled at it throughout their career

[sleeping stone]

they were seen, primarily as the nice boys of rock n roll but that changed. they didnt begin nice, in their leathered out Hamburg days of debauchery but once they got famous that wasnt exactly publicised by NEMS and Brian Epstein (manager).

they were seen as a pop band. in those days, in popular culture, no one really differentiated between pop and rock. pop being short for popular, rock n roll can come into that with no problems.

no, no one told them how to make their songs great, they were great all by themselves.

they never denied taking drugs. they didnt outright publicise it either though. the whole thing ecploded though when an interviewer asked Paul Mccartney if he'd ever taken LSD and he admitted to it and the interviewer said well dont you think you're being a bad influence to your legions of fans and Paul said, no, you are, you asked me a question and i answered honestly, would you rather i would have lied? you are the one thats going to broadcast this and print this, you're responsible. ironic really because Paul was the least drug orientated. none of them were ever full blown addicts by any stretch of the imagination but John Lennon did take to doing LSD on a daily basis (but thats not an addictive drug) and smoking very impure heroin for a while. also, Ringo Starr was an alcoholic. Lennon was known to drink excessively when he did drink.

they were far from idiots. John Lennon is both a writer of books, conceptual artist, musician, songwriter, painter, you name it. and excellent in all fields too. the well reknowned Times Literary paper of england praised his book "A Spaniard In The Works". songwriting wise he was an absolute unparralled genius. if you read up on them, all of them, they were anything but idiots.

yes, rumor has it Elvis was none too fond of them although they did meet and jam once.

the beatles were always going to be better than the stones. the stones never really harbored any dellusions about being anything other than a blues based rock band. the beatles could play a million different styles and excelled at it throughout their career

Thank, I take it for granted, you seem to know a lot!

But, then, when critics say that there were always double meaning through their texts and that they were actually talking about durgs, sex and whatever (I don't recall but it was negative), i-e, meaning the beatles were intentionally misleading "their legions" (to use your word), is it also BS?

What I read was that Elvis met this jam session completly afraid of them, like they would come and tell him how has been he was. But then, after the jam, he liked them very much....true or false will never know!

[ffrankwhite]

they were seen, primarily as the nice boys of rock n roll but that changed. they didnt begin nice, in their leathered out Hamburg days of debauchery but once they got famous that wasnt exactly publicised by NEMS and Brian Epstein (manager).

they were seen as a pop band. in those days, in popular culture, no one really differentiated between pop and rock. pop being short for popular, rock n roll can come into that with no problems.

no, no one told them how to make their songs great, they were great all by themselves.

they never denied taking drugs. they didnt outright publicise it either though. the whole thing ecploded though when an interviewer asked Paul Mccartney if he'd ever taken LSD and he admitted to it and the interviewer said well dont you think you're being a bad influence to your legions of fans and Paul said, no, you are, you asked me a question and i answered honestly, would you rather i would have lied? you are the one thats going to broadcast this and print this, you're responsible. ironic really because Paul was the least drug orientated. none of them were ever full blown addicts by any stretch of the imagination but John Lennon did take to doing LSD on a daily basis (but thats not an addictive drug) and smoking very impure heroin for a while. also, Ringo Starr was an alcoholic. Lennon was known to drink excessively when he did drink.

they were far from idiots. John Lennon is both a writer of books, conceptual artist, musician, songwriter, painter, you name it. and excellent in all fields too. the well reknowned Times Literary paper of england praised his book "A Spaniard In The Works". songwriting wise he was an absolute unparralled genius. if you read up on them, all of them, they were anything but idiots.

yes, rumor has it Elvis was none too fond of them although they did meet and jam once.

the beatles were always going to be better than the stones. the stones never really harbored any dellusions about being anything other than a blues based rock band. the beatles could play a million different styles and excelled at it throughout their career

Thank, I take it for granted, you seem to know a lot!

But, then, when critics say that there were always double meaning through their texts and that they were actually talking about durgs, sex and whatever (I don't recall but it was negative), i-e, meaning the beatles were intentionally misleading "their legions" (to use your word), is it also BS?

What I read was that Elvis met this jam session completly afraid of them, like they would come and tell him how has been he was. But then, after the jam, he liked them very much....true or false will never know!

in terms of the decieving, what actually happened was people started reading into their lyrics and finding things in them that werent there. example, the first letters of every word of the song lucy in the sky with diamonds spells LSD. this was totally unintentional on john lennons part, lucky in the sky with diamonds was based on a drawing that his song made in school and he took it to john and john asked what it was and he said thats lucy in the sky with diamonds dad and john took the idea of that and made a song. now these fan theories were SOOOO rife in the beatles that it got to a point where it was ridiculous. all they were doing was making abstract songs and people were making entire conspiracies theories to them, some so ridiculous as to suggest that Paul Mccartney had been long dead and they'd put a lookalike in his place. so, in response to all this silliness, John made a song called Glass Onion which referrenced lyrics in lots of their songs and was basically about nothing, like a lot of their songs were , just word association exercises that fit musically but then, its art, its down to your interpretation and not necessarily ot specifically to do with the artists intentions. but yeah, this one song, glass onion was purposely made to just make people think about stuff that wasnt there but they were doing it anyway, that was the point of the song, to kind of ridicule the situation. heres the lyrics...

I told you about strawberry fields,

You know the place where nothing is real.

Well here's another place you can go,

Where everything flows.

Looking through the bent backed tulips,

To see how the other half live.

Looking through a glass onion.

I told you about the walrus and me-man,

You know that we're as close as can be-man.

Well here's another clue for you all,

The walrus was Paul.

Standing on the cast iron shore-yeah,

Lady Madonna trying to make ends meet-yeah.

Looking through a glass onion.

Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.

Looking through a glass onion.

I told you about the fool on the hill,

I tell you man he living there still.

Well here's another place you can be,

Listen to me.

Fixing a hole in the ocean,

Trying to make a dove-tail joint-yeah.

Looking through a glass onion.

now that song references:

strawberry fields

i am the walrus

lady madonna

the fool on the hill

fixing a hole

which are all previous beatle songs. but no, they didnt make any other songs that were designed to just to mislead their legions or to lead anywhere. they were just four guys who made some really good music really

[sleeping stone]

Great! I like it better this way. It did sound strange that this guy could be some kind of mentally disturbed people to the extend of frauding with their own songs...

Fine, that's OK. Hey! I like the reply with the glass onion thing.! I didn't know it.

Thank you very much!

[ffrankwhite]

Great! I like it better this way. It did sound strange that this guy could be some kind of mentally disturbed people to the extend of frauding with their own songs...

Fine, that's OK. Hey! I like the reply with the glass onion thing.! I didn't know it.

Thank you very much!

if you look in the right places though, you can find theories blaming musicians for all manner of evil cryptic stuff but it is usually the words of blind zealots looking for others to blame to reinforce their belief in whatever their faith might be. check the link below:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...evils_music.htm

preposterous really isnt it?

[sleeping stone]

if you look in the right places though, you can find theories blaming musicians for all manner of evil cryptic stuff but it is usually the words of blind zealots looking for others to blame to reinforce their belief in whatever their faith might be. check the link below:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...evils_music.htm

preposterous really isnt it?

and I only read the title of each!

This deliberate way of confusing faith in god with correct religious behaviour, I kind of dislike it.

I'm not meaning you here, rather the people who point at others like in this webpage.

Poor Marilin Manson, didn't he say himself he did that just to complete the whole thing and not because he is into it.? They could leave him alone now!

and Ozz.........

[ffrankwhite]

if you look in the right places though, you can find theories blaming musicians for all manner of evil cryptic stuff but it is usually the words of blind zealots looking for others to blame to reinforce their belief in whatever their faith might be. check the link below:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...evils_music.htm

preposterous really isnt it?

and I only read the title of each!

This deliberate way of confusing faith in god with correct religious behaviour, I kind of dislike it.

I'm not meaning you here, rather the people who point at others like in this webpage.

Poor Marilin Manson, didn't he say himself he did that just to complete the whole thing and not because he is into it.? They could leave him alone now!

and Ozz.........

whats awful about is people base their beliefs of life on things like this, written by people like that. its a more lasting evil than you might imagine.

[LCG]

if you look in the right places though, you can find theories blaming musicians for all manner of evil cryptic stuff but it is usually the words of blind zealots looking for others to blame to reinforce their belief in whatever their faith might be. check the link below:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...evils_music.htm

preposterous really isnt it?

That site's hilarious!

[luciusfunk]

That site even attacks Christian musicians.

[Bucketslash]

Believe it or not, the stones and the beatles weren't rivals to eachother to the point where the stones would hold back thier single if the beatles were nearly gonna release thiers and vice versa

on the other hand the beach boys and bob dylan were friendly competition to the beatles. Brian Wilson is the man who took on the beatesd during thier most artistic phase. 1 vs. 4

[gnrrulz]

I think Lenon credited Dylan's influence a lot when they moved away from being a pop band to a serious artistic force. He even joked around about how norwegian wood sounded like something he wrote. (and if you want to credit the drugs well... legend has it Dylan introduced them to that too. )

[sleeping stone]

Hey ! you're all great for bringing me this knowledge!

Quoting Bucketslash:

Believe it or not, the stones and the beatles weren't rivals to eachother to the point where the stones would hold back thier single if the beatles were nearly gonna release thiers and vice versa

that's gold!

luciusfunk

Posted Today, 09:42 AM

That site even attacks Christian musicians.

That's why I said: make deliberatly the confusion between faith in God and correct religious behavious.

[ffrankwhite]

I think Lenon credited Dylan's influence a lot when they moved away from being a pop band to a serious artistic force. He even joked around about how norwegian wood sounded like something he wrote. (and if you want to credit the drugs well... legend has it Dylan introduced them to that too. )

yeah, well at least he did introduce them to pot. a dentist friend of theirs introduced them to acid and they were into ups bennies and speed etc since their hamburg days. but yeah, Dylan sure was musical influence. when he heard nowhere man he was like "oh, i get it, you dont wanna be cute anymore". You've Got To Hide Your Love Away is considered Dylan-influenced and Rocky Raccoon is actually a sly poke at dylan songs on Paulie's part.

[JeanGenie]

(Read the sad testimony about Freddie's reckless life of sodomy, fornication, illegal drugs and materialism. He died in London in his $4,000,000 home in 1991. He carried none of his wealth beyond the grave. He had such a beautiful voice, but used his talents for the devil. How sad! How tragic! Where is Freddie Mercury now? Hell!)

whoever runs this site has got a serious problem. disturbing.

[luciusfunk]

(Read the sad testimony about Freddie's reckless life of sodomy, fornication, illegal drugs and materialism. He died in London in his $4,000,000 home in 1991. He carried none of his wealth beyond the grave. He had such a beautiful voice, but used his talents for the devil. How sad! How tragic! Where is Freddie Mercury now? Hell!)

whoever runs this site has got a serious problem. disturbing.

Agreed.