Across the Universe (song)

[Gear]

February 4, 2008 was the 40th anaversary of the day the Beatles recorded Across the Universe. On the anaversary day astrologists in Europe beamed the song to the Northern Star. It will not reach its destination for 491 years but when it does and if someone was there to hear it and had the means to do so (which was not the reason for the transmition, instead it was more of a thank you to the Northern Star for guiding us.) they would hear it exactly as we do because it was sent as a digital signal rather than a radio wave.

491 years from now you and I will be dead as well as the two remaining Beatles and, possibly, mankind. There is no guarantee that anyone will hear the song on acount of that area of space is not a prime chance of life in the Milky Way but someone may... But that doesn't matter. To me its good to hear that we're sending out and leaving behind a good message.

[Matinee Idyll]

Or, a race of creatures immesurably superior to ours will hear that tuneless, piece of crap song and be so offended they'll come to earth and wipe out humanity.

[AngieAki]

Or, a race of creatures immesurably superior to ours will hear that tuneless, piece of crap song and be so offended they'll come to earth and wipe out humanity.
Oh aren't you just a ray of ****ing sunshine? :rolleyes:

And they can't all wipe out humanity if the world ends in 2012.

I think it is pretty silly if you ask me...

[Gear]

And what do you listen to Matinee Indyll? The Monkeys? Hannah Montana?


Actually Angie, the world wont end on 2012. Supposedly the world as we know it will. ;)




http://www.spacetoday.org/images/Hubble/HubbleBeauty/WhirlpoolGalaxyStarbirth.jpg
http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/images/galaxy_lg.gif
http://www.abm-enterprises.net/fractal-art/mandelbrot-galaxy-wallpaper.jpg

Across the Universe

[monkey]

Or, a race of creatures immesurably superior to ours will hear that tuneless, piece of crap song and be so offended they'll come to earth and wipe out humanity.

M.I. You opened a can of worms with this post.

You dissed the Beatles.

Bad move on your part.

No disrespect,....in fact, I kind of respect your moxy for dissing the Beatles.....but....on the other hand....don't diss the Beatles..........OK?

Personally I suggest that you listen to the Beatles. Start with "Meet the Beatles", and then go from there.

If you listen to all the albums, one after the other up to "Abbey Road", it should take only......oh I don't know,.......about a year of continuous music,...and then you can make a more informative statement.

[Kingsley]

Ringo will still be alive in 491 years.

Must I prepare myself for something in 2012?
In that case I would have sent "Help" to the outer space ;)

[ResidentAlien]

M.I. You opened a can of worms with this post.

You dissed the Beatles.

Bad move on your part.

No disrespect,....in fact, I kind of respect your moxy for dissing the Beatles.....but....on the other hand....don't diss the Beatles..........OK?

Personally I suggest that you listen to the Beatles. Start with "Meet the Beatles", and then go from there.

If you listen to all the albums, one after the other up to "Abbey Road", it should take only......oh I don't know,.......about a year of continuous music,...and then you can make a more informative statement.


Quoth my friend:

1) its not "Meet The Beatles" **** Capitol Records and their re-sequencing.

2) you shouldn't even start with "Please Please Me."

3) Year?!?!?!? The total recorded output of the Beatles lasts 10 hours and 37 minutes.




Ok, enough of him, now for me.



A year?! A ****ing year?! Man, the Beatles were a relatively short-lived band. They didn't even make it out of the 60s. Prolific? Hardly. Popular? Of course.

Now were we talking Frank Zappa... then I might be a bit more forgiving... I've around 60 of the man's 75 or so albums and they only total just shy of 3 days worth of music.

So... what the hell are you on about?

[metalinvader]

Zappa=Amazing.Freak out! and Over-night Sensations are amazing records.


If anyone wants a REAL band..Listen to Led Zeppelin.None of those silly lullaby lyrics that the Beatles were only capable of writing (OB LA DI OB LA DA
anyone?) and best of all...No RINGO!THe Family Guy skit about Ringo really sums him up. Interesting fact,My first concert when I was 12 was infact Ringo Starr..He brought Jack Bruce from Cream along with him.Now,Cream..There was an amazing band from the 60's.Not some silly boy band with mop top hair cuts..

[ResidentAlien]

Zappa=Amazing.Freak out! and Over-night Sensations are amazing records.


If anyone wants a REAL band..Listen to Led Zeppelin.None of those silly lullaby lyrics that the Beatels were only capable of writing (OB LA DI OB LA DA
anyone?) and best of all...No RINGO!THe Family Guy skit about Ringo really sums him up. Interesting fact,My first concert when I was 12 was infact Ringo Starr..He brought Jack Bruce from Cream along with him.Now,Cream..There was an amazing band from the 60's.Not some silly boy band with mop top hair cuts..


Meh. Beatles > Led Zeppelin.

[metalinvader]

Meh. Beatles > Led Zeppelin.


Fighting words,My friend.Fighting words.;)

I'm thankful that someone on this board recognizes the talent of Frank Zappa and that there was more to the '60s then the Beatles.My dad's a huge Zappa fan.So I grew up with his music playing all the time.

[AngieAki]

Actually Angie, the world wont end on 2012. Supposedly the world as we know it will. ;)



Well duh... :rolleyes: I still am not going to believe it until **** starts hitting the fan around December of 2012 (isn't the date like December 23rd 2012)?

[Gear]

December 21, 2012.


Yeah, the Beatles sure wrote a whole lotta 'lulaby' music. Try putting your kid to sleep with HELTER SKELTER.

Nobody said they were the only good band of the 60's but they were probably the best and definently one of the best in history. Not just because of there music but because of how they influenced a generation.

[metalinvader]

Yeah, the Beatles sure wrote a whole lotta 'lulaby' music. Try putting your kid to sleep with HELTER SKELTER.

I said lyrically,Not musically.Though,Helter Skelter isn't known for it's groundbreaking lyrics,Just it's use of HEAVY distortion...Blisters on my fingers or not...

[Gear]

I said lyrically,Not musically.Though,Helter Skelter isn't known for it's groundbreaking lyrics,Just it's use of HEAVY distortion...Blisters on my fingers or not...


Even lyricaly they were noty for the 60's; "And from the first time that she really done me. Oh she done me. She done me good."

Oh WH-HY Dont we do it in the ROAD?!

[metalinvader]

Towards the end yeah,But it wasn't just the Beatles,The whole Rock/Music scene had changed then.People had,Thankfuly,Started to think outside of the box.

If you want lulaby lyrics simply look at the 'boy band years' of the Beatles.From "Please,Please Me" to "A Hard Days Night" Their lyrics were simple and pretty dull and were meant as silly pop songs.Even in alot of the later work lulaby lyrics showed up..
Now,I don't hate the Beatles at all.I love the White Album to be honest.I just think there are a whole lot of better bands from that era.

[Kingsley]

If you want lulaby lyrics simply look at the 'boy band years' of the Beatles.From "Please,Please Me" to "A Hard Days Night" Their lyrics were simple and pretty dull and were meant as silly pop songs.
Yeah, but after that, almost every song they did was a world on its own.
Probably there were better bands at that time, but the Beatles managed to put so many musical elements together in a "popular" way that you could take them as a reference for every band after them, even if they aren't.

[Moedred]

Oh WH-HY Dont we do it in the ROAD?!
Almost as romantic as "I'm gonna love her till the cows come home".

Big fan. I hope Apple and Apple can "come together" and sell some itunes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer).

[monkey]

[QUOTE=ResidentAlien]
the Beatles were a relatively short-lived band. They didn't even make it out of the 60s. Prolific? Hardly. QUOTE]

Prolific? Hardly.

Huh?????

OK.

Lennon/McCartney is perhaps the most prolific songwriting team of the 20th century.

The Beatles were THE most influential Rock and Roll band EVER.

Speaking as a huge fan of Frank Zappa I think you got it wrong about the Beatles ResidentAlien.

As one who experienced the sixties, and Beatlemania first hand, I'll excuse you, since you weren't there.

[Tennessee Smith]

FYI today is the anniversary of The Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show.... And as far as Ringo lasting 491 years... that should be Keith Richards instead. Heck, he's got enough drugs in his system he doesn't even need to be embalmed. He's the one that'll last with the cockroaches after any nuclear holocaust.

[ResidentAlien]

[QUOTE=ResidentAlien]
the Beatles were a relatively short-lived band. They didn't even make it out of the 60s. Prolific? Hardly. QUOTE]

Prolific? Hardly.

Huh?????

OK.

Lennon/McCartney is perhaps the most prolific songwriting team of the 20th century.

The Beatles were THE most influential Rock and Roll band EVER.

Speaking as a huge fan of Frank Zappa I think you got it wrong about the Beatles ResidentAlien.

As one who experienced the sixties, and Beatlemania first hand, I'll excuse you, since you weren't there.



I never said I didn't like The Beatles. And I made no faulty assertions. 10 and a half hours of musical output is hardly prolific. Were they popular and important? Sure, I won't deny either. But prolific isn't a word I'd use to describe them.

[monkey]

But prolific isn't a word I'd use to describe them.

Who wrote more songs than Lennon McCartney?

Just curious.

[ResidentAlien]

Who wrote more songs than Lennon McCartney?

Just curious.


You're "just curious" because you want to try and discredit me as a Beatles fan.

Well I'll save you the trouble. I am NOT a Beatles fan. Though we could get in a Pink Floyd discussion here and now that'd make your head spin.

Point is, it doesn't matter how much of the Beatles I listen to--not a lot, honestly. But that doesn't change the fact that their output is relatively slim compared to other bands from then, now or whenever else.

Hell, tell me how it is that Frank's still releasing new albums 15 years after his death. THAT is prolific.

Mike Patton is prolific. The Beatles... were not. Not as a band. Did other members go on to lots of output divorced of the band? Sure. Hell, Ringo even had a stint with Zappa for awhile. But The Beatles were not prolific.

[monkey]

You know what?

Nevermind.

You're right ResidentAlien.

Lennon and McCartney were "hardly prolific" in their songwriting.

You are absolutely correct.

Sorry.

[monkey]

Mike Patton puts the Beatles to shame.

They don't even belong in his league.

By the way.......who is Mike Patton?

Sorry to be sarcastic Resident, but really, to say that Lennon McCartney and the beatles were not prolific in their songwriting is a bit silly. Either you are disingenuous, or you are truly misinformed.

I am not the worlds greatest Beatles fan or anything, but really, to know anything about the history or rock and roll music, and to not acknowledge to prolific and significant output of Lennon McCartney and the Beatles.......defies logic.

Please don't take this personally. I love Zappa, but I just don't get where you are coming from with your denial of the influence of the Beatles.

[Tennessee Smith]

You're "just curious" because you want to try and discredit me as a Beatles fan.

Well I'll save you the trouble. I am NOT a Beatles fan. Though we could get in a Pink Floyd discussion here and now that'd make your head spin.

Point is, it doesn't matter how much of the Beatles I listen to--not a lot, honestly. But that doesn't change the fact that their output is relatively slim compared to other bands from then, now or whenever else.

Hell, tell me how it is that Frank's still releasing new albums 15 years after his death. THAT is prolific.

Mike Patton is prolific. The Beatles... were not. Not as a band. Did other members go on to lots of output divorced of the band? Sure. Hell, Ringo even had a stint with Zappa for awhile. But The Beatles were not prolific.
?!?!?! They turned out 2.5 records a year and most of their "singles" weren't even on their actual albums. They released them just as singles. I have to completely disagree with you because not only were they prolific, in that 8 year time span, they also amassed more #1's for that length if time than any other artist. Sure Frank put out a lot of music, sure he's been more "prolific" in that area of releasing music but where are his hits and how much of his music is even listenable? And NO, I'm not saying hits equate to being prolific in terms of actual tunes put out. But they were the most prolific in meeting the masses with number 1 hits. The had Beatlemania, name one other band that has been so ingrained in the pop cultural pantheon.

[ResidentAlien]

?!?!?! They turned out 2.5 records a year and most of their "singles" weren't even on their actual albums. They released them just as singles. I have to completely disagree with you because not only were they prolific, in that 8 year time span, they also amassed more #1's for that length if time than any other artist. Sure Frank put out a lot of music, sure he's been more "prolific" in that area of releasing music but where are his hits and how much of his music is even listenable? And NO, I'm not saying hits equate to being prolific in terms of actual tunes put out. But they were the most prolific in meeting the masses with number 1 hits. The had Beatlemania, name one other band that has been so ingrained in the pop cultural pantheon.


I never said they weren't popular.

[ResidentAlien]

Mike Patton puts the Beatles to shame.

They don't even belong in his league.

By the way.......who is Mike Patton?

Sorry to be sarcastic Resident, but really, to say that Lennon McCartney and the beatles were not prolific in their songwriting is a bit silly. Either you are disingenuous, or you are truly misinformed.

I am not the worlds greatest Beatles fan or anything, but really, to know anything about the history or rock and roll music, and to not acknowledge to prolific and significant output of Lennon McCartney and the Beatles.......defies logic.

Please don't take this personally. I love Zappa, but I just don't get where you are coming from with your denial of the influence of the Beatles.


Why do people equate popularity with quality?



pro·lif·ic /prəˈlɪfɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-lif-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. producing offspring, young, fruit, etc., abundantly; highly fruitful: a prolific pear tree.
2. producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
3. profusely productive or fruitful (often fol. by in or of): a bequest prolific of litigations.
4. characterized by abundant production: a prolific year for tomatoes.



10.5 hours of music is not extremely productive.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_patton#Discography



Mike Patton on the other hand puts out or otherwise contributes on 2-3 albums a year. He has been doing so for nearly 20 years. Is his music popular? Hardly. Is he prolific? By the very definition.

Does his lack of popularity make him any less valid? No. Would you like his music... no, I don't think you would so before you go on a Youtube spree trying to figure this out, let me just say, don't come back with some cheap insult like "he only makes noise." That'd be the height of ignorance and is far too easy an insult; I've heard that one directed at Patton far too often.

[Tennessee Smith]

I'd take quality over quantity any day. Prince has been called one of the most prolific artists because his studio in Michigan has hundreds of unreleased songs. But there's a reason the songs haven't been released, they're probably not any good. Just because someone can write a song everday of their life doesn't make prolific a stature of grandure in my opinion. It's when they write an abundance of music that is good that matters; once again in my opinion.

[ResidentAlien]

I'd take quality over quantity any day. Prince has been called one of the most prolific artists because his studio in Michigan has hundreds of unreleased songs. But there's a reason the songs haven't been released, they're probably not any good. Just because someone can write a song everday of their life doesn't make prolific a stature of grandure in my opinion. It's when they write an abundance of music that is good that matters; once again in my opinion.

Prolific output doesn't negate an artist's worth. Frank and Patton are certainly on par, if not better musicians than The Beatles. Hell, both are known for their genre-hopping styles, something that the Beatles also did to a lesser degree... There's influence between the artists.


My point was to prove out the utter absurdity of Monkey's "1 year" statement. I think I've done that.

[Tennessee Smith]

Prolific output doesn't negate an artist's worth. Frank and Patton are certainly on par, if not better musicians than The Beatles. Hell, both are known for their genre-hopping styles, something that the Beatles also did to a lesser degree... There's influence between the artists.


My point was to prove out the utter absurdity of Monkey's "1 year" statement. I think I've done that.


I gotcha.:hat:

[Matinee Idyll]

monkey, I didn't diss The Beatles. I dissed that song, because it's a crap song. Stupid bicycle horn melody, daft universalism lyrical sentiment. Hallucinogens didn't do John any favours.

I love the Beatles. They're not even the best British group of the 60's though - The Kinks had the edge there, easily. I prefer The Zombies too...

And Zappa and the Mothers are incredible - if you haven't heard 'Absolutely Free', you haven't lived.

[Gear]

I agree with Tennesse Smith and Monkey. Quality is better than quanity. The Beatles were only world famous for eight years and didn't match the output, or in some artists cases 'shoveout', of albums (like Kiss for instance) but the music that they gave to us was fanominal.
27 number 1s, greatly influenced an entire generation (and continue to on others), contributed pieces that are still considered masterpieces (A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Elenor Rigby, ect.) and changed the world of music forever.

I'd like to note that my dad came in as I was typing this (about the part where I was mentioning contributing pieces) and he thought the arguement was rediculous.
"First of all, they had been around since the fifties and would have been around longer had they not broken up in 1970 and they all had successful carerres until one was murdered and another died of cancer." He said.

I'm sorry. I didn't start this thread with any intentions of starting a debate. But back to the main topic which was that I thought it was beutiful gift to space.

[Gear]

Thank you for moving this to OD. :)

[monkey]

My point was to prove out the utter absurdity of Monkey's "1 year" statement. I think I've done that.

Congratulations RA. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

But have you ever heard of hyperbole?

hyperbole Definition: hy·per·bole (hī pʉr′bə lē), noun, exaggeration for effect and not meant to be taken literally (Ex: He's as strong as an ox.)

[ResidentAlien]

Congratulations RA. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

But have you ever heard of hyperbole?

hyperbole Definition: hy·per·bole (hī pʉr′bə lē), noun, exaggeration for effect and not meant to be taken literally (Ex: He's as strong as an ox.)

Of course I've heard of Hyperbole. Though hyperbole is exaggeration for emphasis; the size of their catalog is so small that it made little sense to emphasis it as anything but.

[monkey]

Of course I've heard of Hyperbole. Though hyperbole is exaggeration for emphasis; the size of their catalog is so small that it made little sense to emphasis it as anything but.

I'm just curious as to your age RA. Because if this were a Monty Python sketch I would have to say "Right! That's it then! This is too silly! Off you go!"

You obviously have not too much knowledge of the Beatles, or of their influence on modern music.

They produced 26 studio albums. They have sold 113.5 million copies. They are probably the single most influential musical group in the history of rock and roll music.

To say the size of their catalog is small is.....well, just plain silly!

Now mind you this is coming from a huge fan of Mr. Zappa. So I do not disrespect you or your musical tastes. (I must confess though that I don't know who this Mike Patton guy is, but I don't disrespect him either).

But seriously man, watch some 'History of Rock and Roll' episodes or something on the History Channel to learn something about the Beatles before you disregard them so easily.

[ResidentAlien]

My age is in my profile... unless the math is too difficult for you.

And I've a cursory enough knowledge of The Beatles. You needn't "educate" me. Thanks much, though.

As for the history of Rock... there I'm a bit better schooled. But thanks anyway.

[monkey]

My age is in my profile... unless the math is too difficult for you.

So you're 40. Then you should know better about the Beatles.

[monkey]

monkey, I didn't diss The Beatles. I dissed that song, because it's a crap song. Stupid bicycle horn melody, daft universalism lyrical sentiment. Hallucinogens didn't do John any favours.

I love the Beatles. They're not even the best British group of the 60's though - The Kinks had the edge there, easily. I prefer The Zombies too...

And Zappa and the Mothers are incredible - if you haven't heard 'Absolutely Free', you haven't lived.

Good observations MI.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Beatles Crusader or anything. Actually I prefer the later sixties early seventies Rock music. My favorite band of all time is probably Deep Purple.

The Kinks kicked ass in the sixities!

[ResidentAlien]

So you're 40. Then you should know better about the Beatles.


Do you sense this blank stare on my face?

Since when does 2008 - 1988 = 40? Did the universe just implode and turn black to white and in to out? I'm speechless.

[metalinvader]

My favorite band of all time is probably Deep Purple.



Very nice!:hat:

Deep Purple,Now there is a band! Ian Gillan has such an incredible voice.
Monkey,Do you like the Black Sabbath album "Born again'' that Gillan sang on?

[monkey]

Very nice!:hat:

Deep Purple,Now there is a band! Ian Gillan has such an incredible voice.
Monkey,Do you like the Black Sabbath album "Born again'' that Gillan sang on?

I think Gillan had the best voice ever in the history of Hard Rock music.

I always thought that musically Deep Purple was the best Rock band of the seventies.

I don't have the album "Born Again". But I have heard some of Gillan during his brief tenure with Black Sabbath. Good stuff. Didn't they do a song called "Zero the Hero"?

[monkey]

Do you sense this blank stare on my face?

Since when does 2008 - 1988 = 40? Did the universe just implode and turn black to white and in to out? I'm speechless.

It's 21st century math. The old rules don't apply. 60 is the new 40.....and 40 is the new 20.

[metalinvader]

I think Gillan had the best voice ever in the history of Hard Rock music.

I always thought that musically Deep Purple was the best Rock band of the seventies.

I don't have the album "Born Again". But I have heard some of Gillan during his brief tenure with Black Sabbath. Good stuff. Didn't they do a song called "Zero the Hero"?


"Zero the Hero",Damn good song from a damn good album.I strongly urge you to buy,steal or download the Born Again album.

Did you hear his current album "Gillian's Inn"? It's pretty good.

[Attila the Professor]

I'm just curious as to your age RA. Because if this were a Monty Python sketch I would have to say "Right! That's it then! This is too silly! Off you go!"

You obviously have not too much knowledge of the Beatles, or of their influence on modern music.

They produced 26 studio albums. They have sold 113.5 million copies. They are probably the single most influential musical group in the history of rock and roll music.

To say the size of their catalog is small is.....well, just plain silly!

By what list do the Beatles have 26 studio albums? Isn't it half that?

I'm a fan of the Beatles, but Resident Alien is quite right; in terms of quantity, the Beatles are superseded by many. Influence has nothing to do with it.

[ResidentAlien]

By what list do the Beatles have 26 studio albums? Isn't it half that?

I'm a fan of the Beatles, but Resident Alien is quite right; in terms of quantity, the Beatles are superseded by many. Influence has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, The Beatles only have 13 studio albums... and tons of remixes, a few EPs, etc...

[monkey]

Yeah, The Beatles only have 13 studio albums... and tons of remixes, a few EPs, etc...

Horsecrap!!!

I don't know where you're getting your information from. but frankly, you're full of (see above).

Frankly I'm tired of this whole thing.

OK, OK, OK You guys are Right.

I'm sorry, I'm wrong. The beatles were an insignificant little band that produced very little music.

Yup.

Whatever.

This reminds me of the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union where people were simply erased from history by deleting them from the history books, and historical photos, etc.

How's this? The Beatles never existed. OK? Long live Frank Patton.......or whatever the F*** his name is.

Later.

[Attila the Professor]

Nobody - nobody - is claiming that the Beatles are neither significant nor brilliant. They are both, and influential to boot.

The point of contention is about the claim that they are astonishingly prolific in their output. They did release quite a few albums in a short time and they were of very high quality, but you would have to count the very similar UK and US releases as individual albums to get 26 as a number.

Also, monkey, the constant political commentary and accusations are something we might want to do without.

[monkey]

Also, monkey, the constant political commentary and accusations are something we might want to do without.

Political commentary???? and accusations???

Pardon Atilla, but what the *** are you talking about???

Some quotes please....???

[monkey]

Political commentary???? and accusations???

Pardon Atilla, but what the *** are you talking about???

Some quotes please....???

OK, whoops, I see. I criticized Stalin?

Is that it?

[monkey]

Frankly I don't give a F*** about the Beatles OK. John is dead, George is dead, Ringo is playing train conductor, and Paul is trying to divorce from a one legged whore.

What I object to is young punks who don't know from SH** trying to disrespect their elders.

If you don't know, then don't comment. If you say that the Beatles produced a 'very small' amount of music, then I'm sorry.......you are an idiot.

Show of hands???? Population of planet Earth Western Civilization? OK, it's confirmed. You are an idiot.

Case closed.

If you persist in this line, then you are just trying to disrespect for the sake of disrespecting.

[Attila the Professor]

OK, whoops, I see. I criticized Stalin?

Is that it?

No, you criticized people here by analogy with Stalin, and that's uncalled for. Accusations of idiocy - and whether you're speaking of me is entirely immaterial - are also ill-advised.

[ResidentAlien]

Frankly I don't give a F*** about the Beatles OK. John is dead, George is dead, Ringo is playing train conductor, and Paul is trying to divorce from a one legged whore.

What I object to is young punks who don't know from SH** trying to disrespect their elders.

If you don't know, then don't comment. If you say that the Beatles produced a 'very small' amount of music, then I'm sorry.......you are an idiot.

Show of hands???? Population of planet Earth Western Civilization? OK, it's confirmed. You are an idiot.

Case closed.

If you persist in this line, then you are just trying to disrespect for the sake of disrespecting.

With age does not come respect. You got to earn that. Though skin does become tougher as we age... which makes we question your age. A little defensive, are we?

[monkey]

You guys are right.

I am wrong.

Apologies.

Monkey

[herr gruber]

Right, time for a comment from someone who knows what they're fooking talking about. The Beatles pinnacled in 1966 with the Revolver album, an album so ahead of it's time it hasn't even been made yet. With this album, The Beatles had progressed popular music to a point to which the only thing the rest of the music industry could do was imitate. Listen to 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. That song obliterates the mind even now, god only knows what audiences in 1966 were making of it. There has never been anything like the Beatles before or after. The level of talent simply boggles the mind. Lennon and McCartney are FREAKS!!!!! Sgt. Pepper was a re-invention of pop, a re-invention that was required as they had pushed conventional pop to it's limits already.
As for Across The Universe, this song is a beautiful piece. Aliens on the planet Hexxari 6 will be crying and hugging each other with their eight arms.
To diss The Beatles is to diss the beauty of the human mind. Nothing else comes close. How many airports are named after Frank Zappa? The legacy of the Beatles is not surpassable.

[Matinee Idyll]

Nothing else comes close.

Heard of this guy? He was doing it all before The Fabs - with alot more heart too.

http://www.smileysmile.net/uncanny/media/users/djm/brian-wilson.jpg

And there is no way in hell Sgt. Pepper was required - what'd it result in, a bunch of increasingly pompous 'high-on-production-values-but-low-on-decent-songwriting' wanky concept albums? Yeah - great stuff.

They peaked with 'A Hard Days Night'.

[herr gruber]

Heard of this guy? He was doing it all before The Fabs.

http://www.coutant.org/wilson.jpg

And there is no way in hell Sgt. Pepper was required - what'd it result in, a bunch of increasingly pompous 'high-on-production-values-but-low-on-decent-songwriting' wanky concept albums? Yeah - great stuff.

Concept albums that followed the trend set by the Beatles. I couldn't agree with you more. The Beatles did it and flew like doves. Everyone else did it and flew like cannonballs. Case proven.

[monkey]

Thanks Herr Gruber for a shaft of light in the darkness.

But truly the darkness is overwhelming and all encompassing.

It's truly no use. This younger generation, unlike other younger generations before them, disdains those who have come before them.

I'm not sure whether to condemn, or commend them.

I only know, with the wisdom of the powerless wizened old man, that they are misguided.

"Go forth yee misguided and ignorant youth...........may the gods bless you and smile upon you."

I am finished.

[Matinee Idyll]

Concept albums that followed the trend set by the Beatles. I couldn't agree with you more. The Beatles did it and flew like doves. Everyone else did it and flew like cannonballs. Case proven.

Heh - so that explains why S.F Sorrow kicks the living **** out of Pepper? Hell, even Satanic Majesties Requests owns Pepper. One of the weakest, flimsiest albums in The Fabs output.

[herr gruber]

Heh - so that explains why S.F Sorrow kicks the living **** out of Pepper? Hell, even Satanic Majesties Requests owns Pepper. One of the weakest, flimsiest albums in The Fabs output.

I agree with you about Pepper. It is one of their weaker efforts but a weak Beatles effort is STILL unsurpassable. There can be nothing to touch it. Iconic is too weak a term. Every album the Beatles produced from 1965 onwards was completely different from it's predecessor in terms of style. It's as if artistically they were experiencing a re-birth annually. Mindblowing.

[Attila the Professor]

Good God, monkey, I go on about the decline of the West more than anyone I know; it's not about age. The only thing that anyone other than Matinee Idyll is arguing that even resembles an argument against the Beatles is that the number of their output is not as great as their influence would suggest. Their quality is still through the roof.

[monkey]

Good God, monkey, I go on about the decline of the West more than anyone I know; it's not about age. The only thing that anyone other than Matinee Idyll is arguing that even resembles an argument against the Beatles is that the number of their output is not as great as their influence would suggest. Their quality is still through the roof.

I'm sorry Attila, it just seems that this seemingly disrespect of the Beatles, and their contribution to modern music, is age/generation related.

It seems as if there are young punks, who have never done anything in their lives, who have probably never been anywhere in this wide world, are disrespecting those icons of past generations who have indeed influenced THEIR generation, apparently to a much larger degree than they themselves can even understand.

By the way.......young PUNK (not you Attila) ........ I CAN do the math. Can you understand where YOU came from?

[ReggieSnake]

Quality is quality: The Beatles were great musicians. IMO one could argue that some of their melodies are rather simple, but one could not argue that they didn't have a huge impact on popular music. I certainly enjoy it.

[ResidentAlien]

Monkey, I really find it hard to believe that you believe the stuff you're spouting. I mean, how smug.

Because I'm young I don't respect the past? Because I'm young, I don't understand art?

I dare say I'm more diverse in my artistic sensibilities than yourself. And let's not forget that the same accusations were leveled against "your generation." "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll," remember that slogan? That's your generation's motto, or so they said.

Fact is, nothing's changed. Commercial music is still ****. Commercial film is still ****.

But I never, ever said I dislike The Beatles; you just want to believe I did.... for what? I don't know.

[monkey]

Monkey, I really find it hard to believe that you believe the stuff you're spouting. I mean, how smug.

Because I'm young I don't respect the past? Because I'm young, I don't understand art?

Perhaps you do RA. Perhaps you understand Art to a higher degree than has ever been understood before.

Or maybe you think so, because you are young.

I'm not smug.

I'm old.

Disdain me at your peril.

You will have to deal with this world longer than I.

Good luck.

[ResidentAlien]

Perhaps you do RA. Perhaps you understand Art to a higher degree than has ever been understood before.

Or maybe you think so, because you are young.

I'm not smug.

I'm old.

Disdain me at your peril.

You will have to deal with this world longer than I.

Good luck.


Yes, your age releases you from responsibility for your smug superiority.

Monkey, you're full of ****.

[monkey]

Yes, your age releases you from responsibility for your smug superiority.
Monkey, you're full of ****.

Here you have truly displayed your character Resident Alien.

I won't verbally retaliate.

Have a nice day.

[Matinee Idyll]

I resent The Fabs status as sacred cows - it does their music no favours at all. Most of the 'innovations' the music press pin on The Beatles should infact be credited to other artists - but nope, if The Beatles did something, they must have done it first (and best).

Honestly, go off and listen to some of The Fabs British contemporaries in the mid 60's like The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Small Faces, The Yardbirds, The Zombies, The Pretty Things, Dave Clark 5, The Moody Blues, etc. Suddenly The Beatle pedastal gets knocked down quite a few knotches.

The Zombies made two albums, and I still favour them over The Beatles. Quality over quantity, y'know? Rod and Chris' unique melodies and emotive songwriting easily best the output of Lennon and McCartney.

Not to mention what was going on in pop music in the States - Smokey Robinson blows McCartney out of the water when sweet pop is called for.

The arrogance that accompanies The Beatles, the blind belief that everything they did must be gold and nobody else did anything worth a damn is enough to really turn me off The Fabs.

[herr gruber]

I resent The Fabs status as sacred cows - it does their music no favours at all. Most of the 'innovations' the music press pin on The Beatles should infact be credited to other artists - but nope, if The Beatles did something, they must have done it first (and best).

Honestly, go off and listen to some of The Fabs British contemporaries in the mid 60's like The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Small Faces, The Yardbirds, The Zombies, The Pretty Things, Dave Clark 5, The Moody Blues, etc. Suddenly The Beatle pedastal gets knocked down quite a few knotches.

The Zombies made two albums, and I still favour them over The Beatles. Quality over quantity, y'know? Rod and Chris' unique melodies and emotive songwriting easily best the output of Lennon and McCartney.

Not to mention what was going on in pop music in the States - Smokey Robinson blows McCartney out of the water when sweet pop is called for.

The arrogance that accompanies The Beatles, the blind belief that everything they did must be gold and nobody else did anything worth a damn is enough to really turn me off The Fabs.


So, basically you're saying that alien ears will be offended by 'Across The Universe'.
Alien Emperor: This is sub-standard.
Alien 2: Target Earth. Target Earth.
Alien Emperor: This could have been avoided if they'd sent us '' Blah, Blah, Blah'' by The Zombies.
Alien 2: Or one of the Dave Clark Five albums.
Alien Emperor: Or The Monkees. We are, after all, Planet Average of the Hexxari 6 system. The Beatles are beyond our comprehension. Target Earth.

[monkey]

Apologies to everyone here on this thread, and especially to ResidentAlien for some of my posts here last night.

I didn't mean to get personal RA. I went off a little bit and I shouldn't have.

I forgot my medication (actually it was a bit too much medication....that was the problem).

I do that from time to time. Sometimes my fingers type faster than my limited brain can think.

You probably think I'm an A-hole, and you're probably right.

Sorry about that. I will try to keep more civil in the future. I hope we can continue to have conversations here.

[Gear]

The arrogance that accompanies The Beatles, the blind belief that everything they did must be gold and nobody else did anything worth a damn is enough to really turn me off The Fabs.


You dont get it. Nobody ever said that no one else did anything worth while and that the Beatles were the only good thing to happen to Earth.

Les Paul, Elvis Presly, Budy Holly, ect. all changed the world forever and were the inspirations for the Fabs. In fact, if it hadn't been for blues in the first place rock 'n roll as we know it wouldn't exsist, maybe even not at all.

The artists above are all recignized for their contributions to the world, so are the Beatles.

The Beatles simply contributed more advanced things than other bands. Sure, the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Who, ect. did some good music but their music was nothing like the Beatles were producing. Every song the four Liverpool men wrote created a 'minieture solar system', especialy their work after Rubber Soul (actualy further back then that).

Most bands of the sixties were trying to imitate the Beatles and yes the Beatles imitated Elvis and Budd Holly and even mimicked other bands of the time but they did it in new and unique ways.

The Rolling Stones did some good music but it wasn't as creative and advanced as the Beatles.

[metalinvader]

Every song the four Liverpool men wrote created a 'minieture solar system',


In all fairness,That's a biased term that anyone could say about their favorite band.

[Attila the Professor]

You probably think I'm an A-hole, and you're probably right.

Anyone who admits this as often as I do is okay in my book.

And as we are dealing with matters of taste here, gents, let's recall that argument is not going to get anyone that far.

[ResidentAlien]

Apologies to everyone here on this thread, and especially to ResidentAlien for some of my posts here last night.

I didn't mean to get personal RA. I went off a little bit and I shouldn't have.

I forgot my medication (actually it was a bit too much medication....that was the problem).

I do that from time to time. Sometimes my fingers type faster than my limited brain can think.

You probably think I'm an A-hole, and you're probably right.

Sorry about that. I will try to keep more civil in the future. I hope we can continue to have conversations here.


That's fine.

Just was trying to keep it all civilized--I lose my temper too at times. Didn't mean too. Sorry about that.

[barranca]

Humility suits you, you should try it more often..............

[ResidentAlien]

Humility suits you, you should try it more often..............


You first.

[barranca]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!.......................

[ResidentAlien]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!.......................


Are you planning to drag this topic off-track too?

[barranca]

No, just you!

[ResidentAlien]

No, just you!

Brilliant. Well have fun "driving me off track."

How you must cry at night...

[barranca]

It won't be me weeping...like I said I'm VERY patient.
Bye for now!:gun: :dead:

( go on; be glib DareYa!! )

[Attila the Professor]

Humility suits you, you should try it more often..............

Coming into a conversation that had been running contentiously, was recently resolved peacefully all around, and specifically seeking to lure one member into what is not even an argument, but merely a fight, and thereby take the entire thread off-topic? You are not even close to winning any points, barranca.

[barranca]

Like I care, he gets away with murder on here and the mods sit around and do NIL. Your as complicit as he in your way. I thought it might be interesting to see how he responded to a 'little pressure'. Did he complain to you? I've noticed before, despite his barbed tirades he 'tends' to be 'supported'. If no one else will do anything I will, while I can............

In my way I'm doing no worse than him. Perhaps he'll watch his 'mouth' a little more.

[Attila the Professor]

Like I care, he gets away with murder on here and the mods sit around and do NIL. Your as complicit as he in your way. I thought it might be interesting to see how he responded to a 'little pressure'. Did he complain to you? I've noticed before, despite his barbed tirades he 'tends' to be 'supported'. If no one else will do anything I will, while I can............

No, barranca, he hasn't reported anything, and frankly it's immaterial whether he did or not. Nobody's made you a mod, nobody's told you that you need to put a "little pressure" on anybody. ResidentAlien may express himself strongly sometimes in a way that can, understandably, offend sometimes, but I can not recall a single instance in which he has taken a thread off-topic. Barbs, yes, tirades, no.

If you have any further difficulties, barranca, please let's deal with them privately and not take this thread any further off-topic.

[Matinee Idyll]

The Beatles simply contributed more advanced things than other bands. Sure, the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Who, ect. did some good music but their music was nothing like the Beatles were producing.

Did Rolling Stone magazine tell you this? Or perhaps it was Mojo? NME?

You're saying The Beatles were better having heard how much music by the other acts I've mentioned? A few radio hits? Am I to assume you've heard Aftermath, The Village Green Presevation Society, Sell Out? Get a clue, then come back and argue.

The Beatles produced some of the best music of the decade, but they were not the be-all-end-all of of the 60's. Far from it.

What confuses me most is people claiming The Beatles are the greatest, without having heard anything else! Stinks of status quo ignorance.

[ResidentAlien]

Did Rolling Stone magazine tell you this? Or perhaps it was Mojo? NME?

You're saying The Beatles were better having heard how much music by the other acts I've mentioned? A few radio hits? Am I to assume you've heard Aftermath, The Village Green Presevation Society, Sell Out? Get a clue, then come back and argue.

The Beatles produced some of the best music of the decade, but they were not the be-all-end-all of of the 60's. Far from it.

What confuses me most is people claiming The Beatles are the greatest, without having heard anything else! Stinks of status quo ignorance.


Amen. I like The Beatles well-enough. But I like no Beatles album as much as I like Pet Sounds. And there'd likely not be psych-Beatles were it not for Pet Sounds. Pet Sounds --> Sgt Pepper --> Piper at the Gates of Dawn and so forth. Very clear evolution, I think.

...sadly I now associate Pet Sounds with a bad time in my life. Kinda hard for me to listen to it any longer. But I digress...

[Matinee Idyll]

Ahh, The Beach Boys are brilliant. Beach Boys Today! is the truly revolutionary album of '65, not Rubber Soul. Make sure you check that album out if you haven't, RA. Just as good as Pet Sounds.

I consider them the most soulful white group ever to have existed (by soulful, I don't mean just trying to emulate black soul music).

God, those harmonies. :hat:

Piper at the Gates of Dawn is far too left-field to have had a large influence from Pepper - it's from another dimension entirely.

[ResidentAlien]

Ahh, The Beach Boys are brilliant. Beach Boys Today! is the truly revolutionary album of '65, not Rubber Soul. Make sure you check that album out if you haven't, RA. Just as good as Pet Sounds.

I consider them the most soulful white group ever to have existed (by soulful, I don't mean just trying to emulate black soul music).

God, those harmonies. :hat:

Piper at the Gates of Dawn is far too left-field to have had a large influence from Pepper - it's from another dimension entirely.


Thanks! I'll check it out. Suggestions are always welcome.

Man, I got into Beach Boys a few years ago after continuously declining my friend's persistent insistence that I needed to hear Pet Sounds. I was naive and just as bullheaded as I am now (:rolleyes: )... and well... glad I finally gave in.

My pal and I've been debating the Pepper --> Piper evolution. Well known fact that Pepper and Piper were being recorded simultaneously at Abbey Road. In fact, as the story goes, The Beatles came on down and listened to The Floyd and declared that they had some stiff competition; they were floored. My argument though is that A. Pepper began recording 2 months before Piper. B. The Beatles had already released a few Pepper singles by the time Piper began to record.

Of course, The Floyd had some singles too...


Obviously, though, they took influence from one another in subsequent releases. I don't think anyone would argue that.

[Matinee Idyll]

Thanks! I'll check it out. Suggestions are always welcome.

Man, I got into Beach Boys a few years ago after continuously declining my friend's persistent insistence that I needed to hear Pet Sounds. I was naive and just as bullheaded as I am now (:rolleyes: )... and well... glad I finally gave in.

Kiss Me Baby, from Today! In my Top 5 Beach Boys cuts - exquisite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdi3p97XAg8

Obviously, though, they took influence from one another in subsequent releases. I don't think anyone would argue that.

I would agree that when Roger and Wright took over the writing in the group, they brought a McCartney/Lennon inspired melodicism to the sound, but with Syd, he was writing from what was in his own head.

'S.F Sorrow' by The Pretty Things, recorded at Abbey Road at the same time as Pepper and Piper, surpasses both of them! 'Oddesey and Oracle' by The Zombies is also an Abbey Road recording from the Pepper-era and better than any album The Beatles ever released.

[ResidentAlien]

Kiss Me Baby, from Today! In my Top 5 Beach Boys cuts - exquisite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdi3p97XAg8



I would agree that when Roger and Wright took over the writing in the group, they brought a McCartney/Lennon inspired melodicism to the sound, but with Syd, he was writing from what was in his own head.

'S.F Sorrow' by The Pretty Things, recorded at Abbey Road at the same time as Pepper and Piper, surpasses both of them! 'Oddesey and Oracle' by The Zombies is also an Abbey Road recording from the Pepper-era and better than any album The Beatles ever released.


I love Odyssey and Oracle but haven't heard SF Sorrow. I'll have to track it down...

[Gear]

Did Rolling Stone magazine tell you this? Or perhaps it was Mojo? NME?

You're saying The Beatles were better having heard how much music by the other acts I've mentioned? A few radio hits? Am I to assume you've heard Aftermath, The Village Green Presevation Society, Sell Out? Get a clue, then come back and argue.

The Beatles produced some of the best music of the decade, but they were not the be-all-end-all of of the 60's. Far from it.

What confuses me most is people claiming The Beatles are the greatest, without having heard anything else! Stinks of status quo ignorance.

I'd like you to know that I did not say that from only hearing 'radio hits'. Good music is good music. I dont just listen to the Beatles music ya know. However, even compared to my other favorite bands (including modern ones) the Beatles still eccede them in many catagories. They aren't the only good band out there simply the most *blank* (adgitive to be added).

*pardon my bad spelling