|
Post by hoffa_nagila on May 27, 2019 14:33:37 GMT
I prefer AYNIL
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on May 27, 2019 14:57:46 GMT
The other day I was writing a work email on my phone and it autocorrected "post" to "poat". I caught it before I hit send, but it made me laugh.
|
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on May 27, 2019 15:39:15 GMT
AYBCS? I had to look what it was because I don’t speak in that language. That drives me nuts about the SHiTEs. I wish they would all FOAD. Same here.
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,579
|
Post by daved on May 30, 2019 13:33:11 GMT
Upcoming Yesterday movie: Can someone tell me a movie that was necessary? Christ can these guys enjoy anything?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 10:59:07 GMT
Upcoming Yesterday movie: Can someone tell me a movie that was necessary? Christ can these guys enjoy anything? Maybe it is just me but if I see a movie, album, book, whatever, that seems unnecessary to me I just avoid it. SH.tv reminds me of s friend I used to have. She was negative about everything, even down to a shade of thread I used to reattach a button once. Once we went out separate ways I realized how being around that really affected me. Hoofyville is the same way. They all are clamoring there because who else wants them!
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,579
|
Post by daved on May 31, 2019 12:18:10 GMT
So it was okay for The Rutles to take the piss out of their fab four but some Indian guy pretends to write Beatles songs and they lose their shit. Hmmmmmm.....
|
|
|
Post by audiobile on May 31, 2019 15:22:20 GMT
Well, see, Saint George endorsed the Rutles so it's OK.
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on May 31, 2019 18:01:24 GMT
So it was okay for The Rutles to take the piss out of their fab four but some Indian guy pretends to write Beatles songs and they lose their shit. Hmmmmmm..... Monty Python and the assorted off-shoots are kinda like the Beatles: genuinely entertaining and yet anyone who claims to be a fan is almost certainly a twat.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Jun 4, 2019 18:18:52 GMT
Tours that ignore the new albumEvery so often a major artist will go on tour within a few months before or after releasing a new album, but then they play nothing, or very little, from that new album. The most glaring example of this is the Beatles, who released Revolver in early August 1966, and toured several countries in June-August of that year, but didn't play a note from the album. (Their final shows did include four songs from Yesterday and Today, but that was largely a compilation of leftover 1965 recordings and the cuts they performed live had been on the market elsewhere for six months or more.)Queen also comes to mind. They released A Night at the Opera, arguably their masterpiece, in November 1975. A month later, they performed a presumably high-profile Christmas show, mostly sticking to their earlier set list except for an incomplete "Bohemian Rhapsody." I'm not counting "God Save the Queen" because that was played on tape at the concert, rather than performed live. Other examples of tours that included fewer than two songs from the new album that the tour ostensibly promoted? I don't think there's an active thread on this subject, apologies if I missed it. It's hard to think of good search terms that would bring relevant threads to the surface. Beatles summer '66: Rock and Roll Music She's a Woman If I Needed Someone Day Tripper Baby's in Black I Feel Fine Yesterday I Wanna Be Your Man Nowhere Man Paperback Writer Long Tall Sally ...Nothing from "Revolver." However, there were FOUR songs from the album Yesterday & Today which was less than 2 months old! Kinda new-ish. Definitely, not ignored. Beatles '66 American Tour. Completely ignored Revovler. Much to the consternation of his hardcore fans, Paul McCartney has been playing just 3 songs from "Egypt Station" on his current tour -- and not the tunes most of us consider the strongest from the album.
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Jun 7, 2019 18:48:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Boozin' Susan on Jun 7, 2019 20:44:46 GMT
Here’s pretty much that entire thread. (The inane prattling going on in it made my head hurt...) I came across an undergound music magazine today from 1967 with a list of the 10 best albums of that year. Among the groups mentioned were the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd but surprisingly the Beatles and their Sgt.Pepper wasn't mentioned... :eek: It made me wonder what the status of the Beatles was in the late 60s amongst the more serious and hardcore hippies. Were the Beatles seen as commercial and therefor not "hip" enough by purists? The biggest band in the world at the time? No. Not underground. With underground I mean seen as hip and groovy. Yes, that's another reason they were so extraordinary. They were seen as hip and groovy in the late 60s, but were also very much mainstream. The Beatles were more mainstream than those others you listed, they ruled the charts. However, when the White Album came about they shifted into the 'heavy' category a bit more. I doubt that they were ever considered 'underground'. Underground music comprises musical genres beyond mainstream culture. Any song that is not being legally commercialized is considered underground. Underground music may tend to express common ideas, such as high regard for sincerity and intimacy, freedom of creative expression as opposed to the highly formulaic composition of commercial music, and appreciation of artistic individuality as opposed to conformity to current mainstream trends. So no. Not underground. They weren't considered underground. But John was certainly doing his best to bring the weird factor. :cool: They were both underground and mainstream...that's one of the things that made them such a great band. The Savile Row studio was in the basement, so technically they were under ground for a short time. It's fascinating how people on this board want the Beatles to be all things, simultaneously. No, there's simply no way that you can be the biggest act of the Sixties (and one of the biggest acts of all time) and also be considered part of the underground. But the Beatles were considered hip, because the music they released was of a very high quality. I was in third grade elementary in '69, and every kid in my school knew and loved the Beatles. I had been aware of them since the Sullivan broadcast (I was 3 y.o. then but the screaming girls were impossible not to notice) and my Mom who was in her twenties then bought Sgt. Pepper in '67, when I was six. It was like that in those days - everyone my age had an older brother, sister, cousin, and/or young parents who embraced the Beatles as family-fare, despite the obviously drug-influenced Sgt.Pepper/ Magical Mystery/Yellow Submarine. They were so lovable- especially Ringo!- no one could resist their charms except for maybe a few very old, very curmudgeonly folk. There was even a cartoon version for the kiddies! It'd be pretty damn hard to embrace them as hip, groovy, or "underground" in that sense if one was a rebellious teenager in the late 60s. I suppose that is why the rebels embraced bands like Blue Cheer, Cream, Savoy Brown, and a plethora of truly underground garage-psych outfits like Calico Wall, Brain Train, Haymarket Riot, The Moving Sidewalks, Thirteenth Floor Elevators, et al. (This angelo73 dude might be one to watch. He insists on using a different font than everyone else, and writes everything like you see here.) They were so underground, they made G.G. Allin look like Walter Mondale. But was that really the case at the time? There is an interesting thread here on SHF about the popularity of the Beatles in 1966 and it seems that Beatlemania by that time was slowly fading, unlike what we read in books. History is being rewritten all the time. Maybe whoever composed the list was a Rolling Stones fan .. I'd say of course not but the presence of the Stones has me at least curious about the article and the context. Where did it run? And were the Velvet Underground on the list? I don't have the list here but there were a bunch of obscure bands mentioned as well. It was from a Dutch music magazine. I still remember the passage in Tom Wolf's The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test where Kesey and his cohorts had wired up the woods they were living in with speakers all over the place, and listened to the psychedelic Beatles. I think in the States they were considered gods in the late sixties. Things were a bit different in the UK where they tended to be assessed a little more realistically. All in all, they were always considered pretty "hip" for a mainstream band. They played in the Cavern so maybe? my bad... early 60s Their goal was to be the toppermost of the poppermost. So they never even thought of themselves to be part of the underground. But they were always considered cool by the underground because they were so great and because they influenced everyone who was part of the underground. Not a chance, but perhaps some of their bootlegs might be considered that way. Not rewritten. Beatlemania fading only means the fans had become more mature, not that their popularity was declining. Screaming 12 year olds had been a fad. You must consider that in the 60's everything was happening at an accelerated rate. Albums had begun to replace singles, underground radio had appeared, drugs were everywhere... of course the madness of Beatlemania could not last in such an environment. The OPs suggestion that underground print media would preclude discussion of the mainstream is flawed. There is no alternative status without recognition of the mainstream. Yeah, them underground Rolling Stones. One article by one “underground” writer in 1967 is a flimsy premise for this question. Lennon was seen as part of the "underground" while still in The Beatles in the late 60s. It's possible the most radical people were just using him, but he was part of that scene in the late 60s early 70s. He was somewhat part of the artistic underground in 1968-69 via Yoko as far as visual arts went. But it wasn't until the tail end of '69 that his political activities also associated him with the political underground - far from the same thing. In either case, the OP's question had to do with Beatles music. yeah they weren't exactly The Fugs. Yes, good point. This is a bit off topic, but a bit relevant, too. :agree: There was some speculation that Paul was under ground. Underground? The most popular band of all time and the biggest sellers ever? Another interesting point, the Beatles song Revolution was an example of John's underground influence bubbling up and coming out in the form of a song.
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Jun 7, 2019 23:43:22 GMT
Please kill me, I've had enough.
|
|
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Jun 19, 2019 23:27:54 GMT
If you had to choose watching "How I won The War", "The Magic Christian", "The Concert For George" and "Wings over America" back to back or instant death, which would you choose?
|
|
|
Post by Boozin' Susan on Jun 19, 2019 23:36:16 GMT
If you had to choose watching "How I won The War", "The Magic Christian", "The Concert For George" and "Wings over America" back to back or instant death, which would you choose? If you include “Give My Regards To Broad Street”, the decision gets a lot easier...
|
|
|
Post by Brick Wall on Jun 19, 2019 23:42:55 GMT
If it wasn't for the cremation, Winston Ono and the Quiet Beetle would be very underground.
|
|