to think the way the Beatles revolutionised music has been largely forgotton?

[VicarsGoingForGoldInKungFu]

i was as guilty as the next man of slating Macca at the opening of the olympics....but then, DH made some "awwwwwww" noises and started to dig out his Beatles collection,( then his Wings collection, but i forgave him and we are still married).....and then that got me googling and i ended up with Dangermouses The Grey Album.....which got me to listening to The White Album......

and then i got googling a bit more and i think that people forget how they completely revolutionised the music scene, how they started, and how they ended up making some really really excellent music. The White Album is brill. id never really listened to DH beatles albums before tbh.....

and i feel a bit guilty now. Macca did deserve to be at the olympics.....just because he is now 70, and wobbles a bit, doesnt and shouldnt erase the musical history that he and his band mates gave us. He shouldnt be cast aside. (and honestly - if you re watch, the backing track started too early and he only wobbled at the start....he got going and was on tune!)

Now we have simon cowell who tells us what we will buy.....all those other bands that people cited as worthy of playing the opening ceromony......they are only here because the Beatles changed things. They did it first, i just think things have moved on so much and so fast that people forget. I am not a raging Beatles fan, but i acknowledge what they did.

so, it is with hands in pockets and staring at the floor that i say "soz macca". I have travelled the boards and i have said this on many of the nay sayer threads....but we should just stop a mo and go give the White album a listen.....

The Beatles were fans of Cliff and The Shadows, Marty Wilde, Adam Faith.

The point I've been making is they were a crappy , poppy band to start with too. Nothing earth shattering at all about them. They didn't burst on the scene doing Taxman.

The Beatles HATED Cliff Richard! They loved Little Richard and Chuck Berry.

Everyone had their heroes that's true.

but even their early stuff was a breath of fresh air compared to cliff richard

from the guiness book of british hit albums

beat that i say, all those macca descenters! they are the most successful british act of all time.

I totally appreciate the role they played at the time.

I don't think sales are a good measure. Look at 1d and the likes. It's easy to sell lots when there's a lot of hype!

and here is what was in the charts getting to no 1 in 1962 prior to the beatles.....

www.number-ones.co.uk/1962-number-ones.html

The Spice Girls are also the most successful girl group of all time

and then a year later....

and then, interestingly,

just one year later - 1964 and what a difference!

i put that down to the beatles. if you look at 1962, 63 and then 64 its not hard to see what they did.

#I remember youuuuuuuuuu...

Love Me Do, She Loves You, I Wanna Hold Your Hand are crap.
gavel

Ummmm, the charts are just full of rubbish liverpool bands. Cilla?

thats what im on about.....look at 1964.....

thats what hte beatles did.

goes to bed!

I put that down to the times!

And that cliff and the shadows are nothing if not consistent!

coco!!! the kinks! the animals!! the stones!!!

there is one from cilla.....now just go back and have al ook at 1962.....Wendy Richards was in the charts ffs!! you know....pauline from eastenders!!

nope. thats not fluke. thats what the Beatles did. thats how they influenced and changed what was getting into the charts.

In fact going by the charts and your logic you could just as easily credit cliff with the revolt!

The Searchers, The Tremelos, Peter and Gordan. I'm not convinced. The Stones and The Kinks didn't need The Beatles.

they led "the british invasion" into America.

"their enormous popularity first emerged as "Beatlemania", but as their songwriting grew in sophistication, they came to be perceived by many fans and cultural observers as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the era's sociocultural revolutions"

yes its from Wiki, but they were part of that "eras sociocultrual revolutions".....thats what im on about.....

I love that Honeycombs song.

It's not fluke. Music was changing, tastes were changing, the whole times were a'changing man!

The Beatles were there but it wasn't their sole presence that caused it.

I do love them, but I don't think they deserve the credit for everything since then.

Part of, exactly. Solely responsible, no.

are people really saying the beatles did not influence music or change it in any way shape or form? really???

you watch what happens when they last one dies.....you mark my words and you watch what gets written and cited and said in the many documentaries and news columns that follow.

they did what they did. i find it sad to deny them of their achievments, and even sadder to hear what gets said about Mcartney.....

its like Elvis. yes he got fat and old, yes he got past his best, but nothing can take away his achievments either.

you watch what happens when the mcartney and ringo die.

Of course the influenced and changed music I don't think anyone has said otherwise. They just didn't do it alone, or by accident and were a bit shit to start with!

If they didn't do it someone else would have.
Just because they were good (not that I like them enough to have any of their music) doesn't mean macca should get to sing now, same goes for the rest of the old codgers who don't know when to retire gracefully because they are now crap.

Of course people will be sad, why wouldn't they?

Poor ringo always gets forgotten about. I heard someone call Paul the last surviving Beatle.

And none of what has passed excuses Paul now. Lots of living leg ends age with dignity.

Or die young enough.