The Beatles are the greatest rock n' roll band of all time.

No. I don't have that one yet.


Now Playing: Nanci Griffith - "One Fair Summer Evening"

 

If you want to understand just how innovative the Beatles were, put on a pair of headphones and listen to Sgt. Peppers. They set the standard for studio recording.

Obviously the question of best comes down to personal preference because we all use different criteria to reach such conclusions. However, there can be no doubt that The Beatles have had the single greatest impact on popular music. </font>[/QUOTE]No doubt, that's one of the greatest albums, ever. But, to be fair, even they'll be the first to admit that all they were trying to do was copy "Pet Sounds".


Now Playing: Marcia Ball - "Let Me Play With Your Poodle"

 

Beatles......

Paul Mcartney is a genius. The white Stevie Wonder. Excellent musician, songwriter, lyricist. A class act all-around.

John Lennon I don't like. Told everyone to imagine "no posessions", while he was worth $805 million when he died. His lyrics are full of vague references to stuff I never understand, and he had AWFUL taste in women.

George Harrison was a great rockabilly guitar player, but was in way over his head.

Ringo Starr's success stil has me befuddled.


Little Feat 1972-'78 was the greatest collection of musicians and songwriters ever. IMNSHO

 

There are at least ten jazz musicians or groups who were better music artists than the Beatles. Probably five to ten rock artists better than the Beatles.

 

That was a general reference, meaning centuries old. 18th century and 19th century would fit into the same category.

Iran was a reference to lack of freedom. The idea that nothing modern American is good would be something you would expect over there.

It's the way they are PLAYED in many traditional Churches, that make them dirges; even if it wasn;t written that way. And the music philosophy that anything lively or rhytmic or soulful is from the devil is what drives the durge style; because that is what leads one to think that that is all that is reverent to God, or whatever. In fact; yes the WORDS to those songs are about life; but we could argue that in that case, "the words do not match the music", as is often leveled at contemporary songs!

 

"Octopuses' Garden" reminds me of the innocence of childhood, when we and our next door neighbor had fish as pets, and would often go to different pet stores around Brooklyn (before much it it became rough), looking for fish or fish tank supplies. It also reminded me a lot of Coney Island, right before it hit rock bottom, as well. It is like a relic of a much quiter time, to me; though of course the real world outside that little bubble (including or especially that, such music was coming out of) was really in turmoil.
It is a nice almost poetic song, the kind you really don't find anymore. It was genius. That new single they put out 9 years ago; "Real Love" was a throwback to it, complete with the electric guitar solo. Still; it could have a double meaning (of who knows what), as many of their songs had a primary meaning, with a veiled reference behind it (once again; Lucy in the Sky, etc). So they lose their trustworthiness, spiritually.
It is just such a shame that so much talent was mixed with such negative spirituality and lifestyle sensuality. Just like conservative Christians can look back at Classical as a cultural highpoint from God; all of this modern talent shoulf have come from a Christian context, and would would all the more have praised God. But unfortunately; the Church was too busy shunning anything modern, so it often came out of a context of rebellion against "The Church" and traditional society; a point the critics today all the more use against it.

 

I find it very sad that many Christians, especially in this day, care very little about what is behind the vast majority of these songs that they listen to. This is an area that has been taken over by the devil, and he is using "Christian" artists to do his work.

Many Christians still (as I see here) have a great regard for groups like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Queen. etc, even though the music and musicians are clearly anti-Christian. How could anyone who has been truly born-again by the blood of Jesus Christ have anything to do with the Beatles? Just one of their songs tells me that they are of Satan. "My Sweet Lord", whom many think refers to Jesus Christ, does not. It is a praise to the demonic Hindu "god", Krishna. Yet I know of Christians who listed to this, and say it is a good song! Another example is Queen, who sang "We are the Conquerors", which is a refernce to homosexuality. The list is neverending.

In short, you should ask yourself if Jesus, or Paul, or John Wesley would have listened to these bands? How can anyone have any time for these tools of the devil is beyond me. This is clearly a problem area for many Christians, and needs to be dealt with by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

Quite the point is, I'm not trying to find hidden messages. They're just there; and it's the musicians who deliberately put them there, and this group is known for doing that. This is one thing meant by the spirit of the music. I'm not talking about judging the "music" itself (meaning the style) based on hidden meanings, but "music" meaning the whole finished product (including the words and meanings), and it is not good to have these people pitching these subliminal or coded messages to us, and those around us hearing it (and many know what it means, sometimes better than us), so then I would have to agree with the "bad associations" charge. What is their intent? Even if one feels it does nothing to you; still; we know it is something contrary to God (and that's the whole product; not just a beat, so that's were I differ from the critics, though I might be sounding a bit like them now-- they have a right point, but on the wrong issue), and I myself don't want something done with such an intent contrary to God (and this out of love to Him; not superstition, fear of the devil, sanctimoniousness, etc), and that is why I gave up my entire EWF collection.

Now something like Puff the Magic Dragon; did the writers admit this was a veiled reference? Otr could it be modern cynical listeners who always like tt find those sort of things. They are saying the same things about Scooby Doo (esp. Shaggy) and there was even such an insinuation in the first live movie when the two of them were in the van alone (smoke turned out to be from cooking; but the some Pass the Dutchie was playing). People's idea is that in real life those kinds would have been doing sex and drugs and all that stuff, but the point is, it was not real life.
Still; even a simple marijuana reference is not as bad as all the religious and worse drug references in many songs. The Beatles and others simply took it over the top, to the point, that they are just untrustworthy to me. It is just too much for my conscience.

With Queen, it is known that the group is about hmosexuality. I always wondered if "We are the Champions" was supposed to be some sort of anthem of victory for the lifestyle. Even though they do seem to have been gaining much ground in society these last few decades, with people dropping from AIDS left and right; I wonder how they think they are champions. Who are the "losers"? Heterosexuals or something?

 

The story about Puff the Magic Dragon being some sort of marijuana reference is just an old urban legend. Click here to read more.

Yes, Queen was fronted by a blatant and promiscuous homosexual man, but this is the first I've heard that "We are the Champions" was a homosexual anthem.

There was a big hit in the 80s called "Relax" that was pro-homosexual, but I wonder how many people even knew that after hearing it a thousand times.

 

Just so you guys know;
I am not some "old fuddy-duddy" seeing evil in everything not in our hymnals.

I am of the generation which lived the whole '60's and '70's thing. I hated the Beatles. They were nothing but a four headed monster created by the mass media for the purpose of "normalizing" rebellion.

Now, in my day, bands like;
Yes
Moody Blues
Steely Dan
Blue Cheer
Jefferson Airplane
Ten Years After
Quicksilver Messenger Service
Chicago
Seals and Croft
Loggins and Messina
Fleetwood Mac
Santana
Robin Trower
Alan Parsons Project
The Band
Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
America
Bread
Carpenters
and others who escape my foggy memory, had much, much, much more musical "talent" than the bubble gum Beatles. It is unfortunate that they served the world, the flesh, and the devil rather than serving God with their music.

Still, everyone of them (the bands I listed and more) were anti-christ in spirit and are not what a Christian should listen to.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Well I apologize Jim if I really gigged you
too hard , it is nice to know that you like
something and now you have clairfied what you
like and what you diffinitely DON'T LIKE!

Perhaps we can knitpick some hymnns and have
you go totally crazy in defending them.


Perhaps what bothers you about the beatles since
you use the term "hate" which is a strong term
is that politically they cramped your style or
offended you in some way that totally turned you
off to them ...which you can own and opine all
you want at least we know you are not back from
the past through the miracle of time travel.


Your list is quite impressive...I was a major
Moody Blues collector and all the others I must
have had at least one or two albums each.

"Living on the riverside takin it all in my
stride...livin on the riverside ..takin life
like a big long ride..you stay on your side and
i'll stay on mine..you take what you want and
i'll take the sunshine." America

 

Aslan said, "Perhaps what bothers you about the beatles since
you use the term "hate" which is a strong term
is that politically they cramped your style or
offended you in some way that totally turned you
off to them ...which you can own and opine all
you want at least we know you are not back from
the past through the miracle of time travel. "

Nope. They didn't "cramp my style". Nope. they didn't "offend" me in some way. (I didn't even know them. )
They just plain **** (word for how you drink through a straw.)
I saw them long ago for what they were. Nothing more than a media creation. And when "Frankenstein's Monster" got too big for the media, they turned on 'em. Which was/IS typical of the mass media.
Meanwhile "back at the ranch" many other bands who were true musicians were pounding out the tunes. And the mass media never really batted an eye at them. That is until the kids listening to them became the writers and editors themselves. Then it was all about, "Oh isn't so and so great?"
But by then "so and so" was a washed out druggie or dead or was a loser somewhere and most of the rest of the band faded into obscurity.
Oh but WAIT! "So and so" has been to rehab. Now he is really great ain't he? Isn't it cool that he can still pump out the tunes? But he is 60 years old! So what? He can still belt 'em out!

Baa Baa Baa, Baa Baa buh ran.

Bah humbug. A christian should seek higher things than that.

(Repeat after me one thousand times...hey jude! na na na na na na...hey jude! na na na na na na...!)

In HIS service;
Jim

 

To clarify; the Beatles in their heyday (the earlier 60's) were a run-of-the-mill pop fad (like New Kids on the Block in the late 80's, or J-Lo, Britney, Christina Aguilera, etc. today. I think their talen developed in the late 60's; in the Strawberry Lane era; or the stuff prduced under the Apple Corps. BAsically 67-70. This was when they had grown up and took over more creative control (paralleling "Little Stevie Wonder" who sung old Motown standards the first decade; but then grew up and became a creative genius in the 70's). But unfortunately; this was the period when they got into the false religion (and with the Beatles), the drugs and hippie lifestyle and total weirdness.