If they had been Americans?

[marcus]

If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
been as successful?

Marc

http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=10353196

[Fattuchus]

IMO, yes. Maybe more successful.

If they were from the US, they may have had a more sophisticated
manager. Brian was a good manager, but naive.

When the Beatles toured the US, certain elements in the US were
jealous/resentful. Elvis was jealous. Certain unions and unionized
entertainers were jealous of the Beatles' success.

Plus, certain European countries loved American music. If the Beatles
were American, they would been popular in Europe.

[WillyShears]

I hate to say it, but the answer is not 'no' but 'hell no'.
Willy

[Gemini Jackson]

I concur. Their alien-ness had a very exotic appeal to us stiff,
uptight americans. Their experiences growing up in Liverpool and
playing all those years in where, Germany? ...developed into a style
that the Dave Clark Five, Beach Boys, etc. couldn't compare with.
-gj

[Home Guard Chris]

Couldn't have put it better myself. Too much *besides* the music that
added to their mystique couldn't have come from anywhere other than
England. Their humour, in fact, probably couldn't have come from anyone
other than a bunch of Scousers.

--
http://www.thehomeguard.info/music.html
^ My band - feedback always welcome ^

[Home Guard Chris]

Fattuchus wrote:
> On May 18, 1:30 pm, marcus<marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
>> Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
>> been as successful?
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=10353196
>
> IMO, yes. Maybe more successful.

Can't agree at all, I'm afraid.

> If they were from the US, they may have had a more sophisticated
> manager. Brian was a good manager, but naive.

I'm not even convinced Brian was a particularly good manager - I think
he was out of his depth and winging it - but he was exactly what The
Beatles needed. A harder task master or a more hands-off kind of guy
would likely have messed up the whole dynamic.

> When the Beatles toured the US, certain elements in the US were
> jealous/resentful. Elvis was jealous. Certain unions and unionized
> entertainers were jealous of the Beatles' success.

I think a large part of Beatlemania in the US was partly down to the
novelty of it being four English lads. (If that wasn't a factor, I doubt
the whole British Invasion would have happened.) Would the Ed Sullivan
shows have been such a big deal in the case of an Indianapolis group, no
matter how good?

> Plus, certain European countries loved American music. If the Beatles
> were American, they would been popular in Europe.

?

You say that like The Beatles *weren't* popular in Europe. I can assure
that they were! (Still are, in fact.)

Anyway, where was American music around 1962? Mostly smiling Bobbys and
Neil Sedaka-type jolly ditties. The Beatles, though heavily influenced
by any number of Americans, were partly reacting against that. Would the
hypothetical Indianapolis Beatles have done that, or would they have
been swept along with the flow by their American manager?

Four great musicians can make a great band no matter where they come
from, but so much about The Beatles aligned so perfectly that I don't
think they could have been more successful if you changed something as
fundamental as nationality or location.

[WillyShears]

On 5/18/2012 2:25 PM, Home Guard Chris wrote:
> WillyShears wrote:
>> On 5/18/2012 12:30 PM, marcus wrote:
>>> If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
>>> Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
>>> been as successful?
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=10353196
>>
>> I hate to say it, but the answer is not 'no' but 'hell no'.
>
> Couldn't have put it better myself. Too much *besides* the music that
> added to their mystique couldn't have come from anywhere other than
> England. Their humour, in fact, probably couldn't have come from anyone
> other than a bunch of Scousers.
>

Just look at how it took Jimi Hendrix going to England to be 'discovered.
And of course how all the great bluesman were practically worshiped
by the young up and coming rock and rollers, who ended up using blues
technique to create their own sounds. The great, immensely influential
delta bluesman Robert Johnson was practically a non entity until those
young rockers in Britain discovered him. Now he's a musical deity to
many far and wide, as he should be. We don't even really know where
the man is buried. It's a shame. A musician of such profound genius.
Willy

[WillyShears]

If they'd have been Americans they might have hooked up with
a manager like 'The Colonel', who took a fabulous rockabilly
talent- Elvis -and screwed them up like he did E. From songs
like 'Baby Let's Play House' Colonel tamed E down to mush
like 'Love Me Tender'. A damn shame. JMHO
Willy
pl

[Alert]

> >> On May 18, 1:30 pm, marcus<marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
> >>> Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
> >>> been as successful?
>

If brilliance, ambition and an irrepressible work ethic are the kind
of attributes that lead to success, I think the Beatles were destine
to shine regardless of their place of origin.

Don't forget the Beatles had a slow and steady climb to success in
England (as opposed to their "overnight success" in the US). The
longer it took for them to climb to the top, the less luck and
circumstance had to do with it.

The pop landscape in the US was pretty bare in 1962 - 64. If the Beach
Boys could achieve success in the US at that time, the Beatles
certainly could've, also.

[Budd...@webtv.net]

as long as the yoke were their manager.

[M C hammered]

On May 18, 1:30 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well theyda certinly talked differnt...they prolly woulda ate differnt
kindsa food, namely pizza burgas fried stuff, pizza burgas fried
stuff...wish ALSO.means they woulda been FATTA.

But what iffa they was Japanese fer Gobsakes?? Then Yoke woonta gona
afta John sice she perferred cockasian man....means they woulda made
many more reckids fer sure.

Nuff said

"Spiritual not religious"

[Home Guard Chris]

WillyShears wrote:
> If they'd have been Americans they might have hooked up with
> a manager like 'The Colonel', who took a fabulous rockabilly
> talent- Elvis -and screwed them up like he did E. From songs
> like 'Baby Let's Play House' Colonel tamed E down to mush
> like 'Love Me Tender'. A damn shame. JMHO

Well, John Lennon always said that Elvis's best material was before his
stint in the army. I'm inclined to agree.

Also notable is the fact that Elvis never performed live anywhere except
on North American soil. If these American Beatles had had a manager with
a similar ethos, they'd have had to have made a *lot* more films to gain
anywhere near the reach that the real Beatles achieved through their
extensive touring.

[Home Guard Chris]

Alert wrote:
> If brilliance, ambition and an irrepressible work ethic are the kind
> of attributes that lead to success, I think the Beatles were destine
> to shine regardless of their place of origin.

Agree totally, but they'd have been a very different band. Being from
Liverpool (a major port city), they were ahead of most of the country
when it came to getting their hands on the newest American records. If
they'd been from the US, that advantage disappears.

Likewise, having influences from both sides of the Atlantic was a major
factor in The Beatles' sound. If they'd been American, there's no way
they'd have even heard of (say) Lonnie Donegan or The Shadows, let alone
get musical ideas from them.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 18, 1:30 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:

A better question is if they came from Mexico? Would they have called
themselves The Cockroaches instead? Would their first American hit be
as big if it was called "I Want To Wash My Hands"?

Would they still have had Ringo in the band?

[Eric Ramon]

that is a good question. Another good one would be "what if they were
all polar bears?" Would anyone have had the insight to sign them up?
Or even understand that they were making music? If they were kittens,
especially in the US, sure, they could have become stars. But polar
bears, or maybe wolves, out in the wild, what would have been the
chances that they would have made it?

[RichL]

"Home Guard Chris" <cont...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info> wrote in message
news:a1nnf4...@mid.individual.net...

One other factor to consider that no one has mentioned so far.

If the Beatles had been American rather than British, it's likely that the
instrumental parts on their early records would have been played by session
musicians. That was the paradigm in the US at the time. That's how the
earliest Beach Boys records were recorded. Those early Beatles records
would probably have sounded more "professional" but would have lost a lot of
their charm.

I think of how many musicians (myself included) who were inspired by the
Beatles playing their instruments and wonder if that would have even
happened had they been American.

The Beach Boys were certainly popular in the US but I can't think of many
people first learning guitar in those days who wanted to play like Carl
Wilson. Maybe the fact that it wasn't really Carl Wilson playing (at least
at first) had something to do with that.

[Alert]

>
> One other factor to consider that no one has mentioned so far.
>
> If the Beatles had been American rather than British, it's likely that the
> instrumental parts on their early records would have been played by session
> musicians.  That was the paradigm in the US at the time.  That's how the
> earliest Beach Boys records were recorded.

Actually, the first four Beach Boys albums were recorded with the
Beach Boys playing the instruments. It wasn't until early 1964 (when
Brian stopped touring) that they began to regularly use studio
musicians. When the Beach Boys appeared live on Television they played
their own instruments (when not lip-syncing -- see "The Lost Concert"
for an impressive example). So to the average rock-loving kids they
appeared to be every bit as capable as the Beatles to put across their
sound live.

As for your other point -- I agree, none of the Beach Boys ever gained
a reputation as a virtuoso on their instrument.

As a side note: I think that the Beach Boys became a very good live
act; I love the sound of their live performances in the early
seventies.

[hislop]

The American pop scene at that time was like a fat sleeping animal. The
Beatles from there would have been doing show tunes most of the time not
just occasionally.

Anyway, American got its abundance of Beatle-like groups from there in
the fullness of time.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[hislop]

On 19/05/2012 8:48 AM, Home Guard Chris wrote:
> WillyShears wrote:
>> If they'd have been Americans they might have hooked up with
>> a manager like 'The Colonel', who took a fabulous rockabilly
>> talent- Elvis -and screwed them up like he did E. From songs
>> like 'Baby Let's Play House' Colonel tamed E down to mush
>> like 'Love Me Tender'. A damn shame. JMHO
>
> Well, John Lennon always said that Elvis's best material was before his
> stint in the army. I'm inclined to agree.
>
> Also notable is the fact that Elvis never performed live anywhere except
> on North American soil.

Maybe partly because the Colonel couldn't have left the country and
gotten back in.. I heard something like that somewhere.

If these American Beatles had had a manager with
> a similar ethos, they'd have had to have made a *lot* more films to gain
> anywhere near the reach that the real Beatles achieved through their
> extensive touring.
>

The American Beatles would have made the movies first then started
releasing records.

[RichL]

"Alert" <aler...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:978bffa7-737a-47b0...@e18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

>
>>
>> One other factor to consider that no one has mentioned so far.
>>
>> If the Beatles had been American rather than British, it's likely that
>> the
>> instrumental parts on their early records would have been played by
>> session
>> musicians. That was the paradigm in the US at the time. That's how the
>> earliest Beach Boys records were recorded.
>
> Actually, the first four Beach Boys albums were recorded with the
> Beach Boys playing the instruments. It wasn't until early 1964 (when
> Brian stopped touring) that they began to regularly use studio
> musicians.

I stand corrected.

[brilton]

And they at least had a bona fide "lost concert" they could tout. Oops,
sorry, wrong thread.

[Sir Indipity]

I think they would have made it if they had been Americans.
As long as they made the same move after 1966 and
said they wouldn't perform in front of a live audience
again. That was the best move they ever made...to be
inaccessible. It just made the public want more and
more of them.

[hislop]

The guitar playing seems very good on the first one or two albums of
theirs. It's something I've wondered about who was playing.

[Sir Indipity]

I wasn't aware you had this type of sense of humor.

LOL

[Bernie Woodham]

Well, all kidding aside. I don't think it was possible for a band like
the Beatles to emerge within the United States.

A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.

The fact is a lot of what is appealing in music is social, and America
had become socially stagnant. We were acting like a bunch of dumb
hillbillys. The Beatles introduced a lot more than music to this
society. They also began a fashion and life-style change. They
represented a different mentality.

It was their music. But it's good to remember that other, smaller
labels did pick up their early efforts, (She Loves You, Please Please
Me, PS I Love You...), and those records went nowhere.

It took promotion to get America to pay attention to the Beatles. But
there was a lot there to promote.

[marcus]

I tend to agree with those who say that The Beatles would never have
made it big if they were Americans. They were an English phenomenon
for almost a year before the USA got hip to them. They were
responsible for shattering class distinctions in Great Britain. As we
all know there are no class differences in America. ;-)

Also, what American male circa 1963/1964 would have had the nerve to
sport that moptop hair-do? (sorry, Moe Howard doesn't count)

Marc

[Eric Ramon]

On May 19, 7:59 am, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2012 11:24 PM, RichL wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Alert" <alert6...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

the Beach Boys' albums have been re-released as two-fers, like Wild
Honey/Smile. They include bonus tracks of the Beach Boys playing and
there's really no reason that I can see why they weren't the musicians
on the actual releases.

[Sir Indipity]

On May 19, 12:12 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 10:58 am, Sir Indipity <sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 7:44 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 1:30 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
> > > > Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
> > > > been as successful?
>
> > > > Marc
>
> > > >http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=10353196
>
> > > A better question is if they came from Mexico?  Would they have called
> > > themselves The Cockroaches instead? Would their first American hit be
> > > as big if it was called "I Want To Wash My Hands"?
>
> > > Would they still have had Ringo in the band?
>
> > I wasn't aware you had this type of sense of humor.
>
> > LOL
>
> Well, all kidding aside. I don't think it was possible for a band like
> the Beatles to emerge within the United States.
>
> A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
> These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
> did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.

Bernie, I agree with you but that's a matter of opinion. Lot's
of folks love The Beach Boys. I only like their serious songs,
not their surfing music. You?

> The fact is a lot of what is appealing in music is social, and America
> had become socially stagnant. We were acting like a bunch of dumb
> hillbillys.  The Beatles introduced a lot more than music to this
> society.  They also began a fashion and life-style change. They
> represented a different mentality.

Yeah, and nothing like it will ever happen again.

> It was their music. But it's good to remember that other, smaller
> labels did pick up their early efforts, (She Loves You, Please Please
> Me, PS I Love You...), and those records went nowhere.

I wonder why they didn't?

> It took promotion to get America to pay attention to the Beatles.  But
> there was a lot there to promote.

Yeah, a band can release great music...but without being promoted,
nobody much is going hear it. There's a lot of good music out there
today...but you have to sort through so much crap to find it.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 20, 1:12 pm, Sir Indipity <sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
> > These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
> > did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.
>
> Bernie, I agree with you but that's a matter of opinion. Lot's
> of folks love The Beach Boys. I only like their serious songs,
> not their surfing music. You?
>

I didn't meant to say I didn't like the Beach Boys. I thought they
were nerdy, but I liked some of their songs. But I have always thought
of them as a singles band. I didn't even like Pet Sounds. But, I
don't think many in the states did.

But what I meant to say, is that they did not generate the response
the Beatles did. That's no opinion, that's fact.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 20, 1:12 pm, Sir Indipity <sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> > It took promotion to get America to pay attention to the Beatles.  But
> > there was a lot there to promote.
>
> Yeah, a band can release great music...but without being promoted,
> nobody much is going hear it. There's a lot of good music out there
> today...but you have to sort through so much crap to find it.

Well, the classic experiment was Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the
Wall (Part 2)".

CBS was growing tired of paying "Independent Promoters" to plug songs
at radio stations. This is actually payola. The independents are used
as a buffer between the record companies and the radio stations. These
promoters were just making too much. So, the guy at CBS chose the Pink
Floyd single to see if it was at all possible to have a hit without
the promoters.

The album was big, (this is back in 1980). The band was on tour. So,
they CBS denied payments to promote the single. There was no radio
play. The single was going nowhere. Floyd's manager found out and
pitched a hissy fit. The payment was made, the single got air play
and immediately went to # one.

You'd think that with Pandora and YouTube and all the other outlets
for music, that the practice would stop. Uh, uh. It's said that
payola is just as big today as it ever was.

[Sir Indipity]

On May 20, 1:30 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 1:12 pm, Sir Indipity <sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
> > > These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
> > > did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.
>
> > Bernie, I agree with you but that's a matter of opinion. Lot's
> > of folks love The Beach Boys. I only like their serious songs,
> > not their surfing music. You?
>
> I didn't meant to say I didn't like the Beach Boys. I thought they
> were nerdy, but I liked some of their songs. But I have always thought
> of them as a singles band.  I didn't even like Pet Sounds. But, I
> don't think many in the states did.

Not me. I thought Pet Sounds is terrible.

> But what I meant to say, is that they did not generate the response
> the Beatles did. That's no opinion, that's fact.

You're right.

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:22563e92-0776-43d3...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

But Pet Sounds certainly generated a response from The Beatles!

[Eric Ramon]

On May 20, 2:20 pm, Sir Indipity <sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 1:30 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I didn't meant to say I didn't like the Beach Boys. I thought they
> > were nerdy, but I liked some of their songs. But I have always thought
> > of them as a singles band.  I didn't even like Pet Sounds. But, I
> > don't think many in the states did.
>
> Not me. I thought Pet Sounds is terrible.
>

I wouldn't call Pet Sounds terrible but I'm not all that interested in
it. I love Today!, which some think is a precursor to PS.

[brilton]

On 21/05/12 5:20 AM, Sir Indipity wrote:
> On May 20, 1:30 pm, Bernie Woodham<birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> On May 20, 1:12 pm, Sir Indipity<sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
>>>> These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
>>>> did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.
>>
>>> Bernie, I agree with you but that's a matter of opinion. Lot's
>>> of folks love The Beach Boys. I only like their serious songs,
>>> not their surfing music. You?
>>
>> I didn't meant to say I didn't like the Beach Boys. I thought they
>> were nerdy, but I liked some of their songs. But I have always thought
>> of them as a singles band. I didn't even like Pet Sounds. But, I
>> don't think many in the states did.
>
> Not me. I thought Pet Sounds is terrible.

I think that's a fairly common opinion, and I think it goes to the fact
that the LP has been hyped and acclaimed by so many for so long that it
can't ever possibly live up to it.

Obviously I'm presupposing when and how you first heard the album. If my
assumption is wrong, then I apologise.

I like your handle, by the way.

[marcus]

On May 20, 6:04 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

Have any of the other Beatles actually gone on record(no pun intended)
that Pet Sounds inspired them to think in more loftier musical terms,
which led to SPLHCB? I know George Martin has stated that.

btw, I do not intend to start another mega-posts thread about Pet
Sounds vs. Revolver, or Pet Sounds vs Pepper(as you recall there have
been many in the past), but other than the advanced production
quality, I don't think the songs on PS, collectively, can compete with
the contemporary Beatles' release, Revolver.

I bought PS, and remember skipping over some songs to get to others.
"Wouldn't It Be Nice" was the "our song" for my then girlfriend and
me. I loved "God Only Knows", and to this day, I think the best song
is "Caroline No" ( I have a greatest songs CD by the Beach Boys that
has a gazillion songs on it, but not "Caroline No"...go figure). I
don't have a CD of PS, and should probably get one and listen to it in
that format, but what really ruined PS for me, in terms of thinking it
was a great album, was being blown away in the Fall of 1966 by the
single release, "Good Vibrations". That should have been on PS and
would have made the album far better.

btw, I absolutely despised, and still do, "Sloop John B" with it's
monotonous drone. Although, it's only approx. 3 minutes long, it
seemed to go on forever, and I alwys changed to another radio station
whenever it came on. "Sloop" weighed down PS like Coleridge's
albatross.

[brilton]

On 21/05/12 9:54 AM, marcus wrote:



>
> I bought PS, and remember skipping over some songs to get to others.
> "Wouldn't It Be Nice" was the "our song" for my then girlfriend and
> me. I loved "God Only Knows", and to this day, I think the best song
> is "Caroline No" ( I have a greatest songs CD by the Beach Boys that
> has a gazillion songs on it, but not "Caroline No"...go figure).

In terms of singles (and "hits"), Caroline No was released and marketed
as a solo Brian Wilson song. I know that's probably irrelevant in terms
of the collected output of Beach Boys songs, but that's just a "by the
way" aside. I concur, it is really a lovely, lovely song.

I
> don't have a CD of PS, and should probably get one and listen to it in
> that format, but what really ruined PS for me, in terms of thinking it
> was a great album, was being blown away in the Fall of 1966 by the
> single release, "Good Vibrations". That should have been on PS and
> would have made the album far better.

By the time Pet Sounds was ready to release, Brian had only recorded
that first, early version of (Good Good Good) Good Vibrations. The other
sessions and the final compilation took place much later in the year,
and were well outside the time frame of the Pet Sounds activities. I
personally think it works better in the context of Smile, not least
because of the modus operandi in which it was recorded in bits and then
grafted together.

>
> btw, I absolutely despised, and still do, "Sloop John B" with it's
> monotonous drone. Although, it's only approx. 3 minutes long, it
> seemed to go on forever, and I alwys changed to another radio station
> whenever it came on. "Sloop" weighed down PS like Coleridge's
> albatross.

I agree that Sloop John B just doesn't seem to fit in context of Pet
Sounds. To me, it certainly stands out as a "one of these things is not
like the others" scenario.

[Sir Indipity]

On May 20, 9:17 pm, brilton <notl...@yacht.net> wrote:
> On 21/05/12 5:20 AM, Sir Indipity wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 1:30 pm, Bernie Woodham<birnhamw...@insightbb.com>  wrote:
> >> On May 20, 1:12 pm, Sir Indipity<sirindipit...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
> >>>> These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
> >>>> did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.
>
> >>> Bernie, I agree with you but that's a matter of opinion. Lot's
> >>> of folks love The Beach Boys. I only like their serious songs,
> >>> not their surfing music. You?
>
> >> I didn't meant to say I didn't like the Beach Boys. I thought they
> >> were nerdy, but I liked some of their songs. But I have always thought
> >> of them as a singles band.  I didn't even like Pet Sounds. But, I
> >> don't think many in the states did.
>
> > Not me. I thought Pet Sounds is terrible.
>
> I think that's a fairly common opinion, and I think it goes to the fact
> that the LP has been hyped and acclaimed by so many for so long that it
> can't ever possibly live up to it.

I think I would have felt differently had I heard Pet Sounds right
after
"Pepper" was released, but I didn't hear it until the late 80's or
early 90's.

> Obviously I'm presupposing when and how you first heard the album. If my
> assumption is wrong, then I apologise.

No problem.

> I like your handle, by the way.

Thank you.

[ermitano]

On 18 mayo, 13:30, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
> Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
> been as successful?
>
> Marc
>
> http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=10353196

what country from America?
there are many countries in America

[rwalker]

That always bugs me too, and I'm a Usaian.
It's a long way from Baffin Island to Terra del Fuego.

[Bernie Woodham]

Well, he did say Indianapolis...

[paramucho]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:30:51 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>If John, Paul, George and Ringo had been Americans...say from
>Indianapolis...and had formed The Beatles there, would they still have
>been as successful?
>
>Marc
>
>http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=10353196

I'd put the question the other way around and look what happened to
Brian Wilson--if he'd gone to England he would have probably found
much more resonance for his projects. In the USA it was
business-as-usual--nothing had essentially changed management-wise
from the fifties.


Ian

[marcus]

Thank you...I was wondering how that got missed.

[marcus]

On May 21, 3:06 pm, ermitano <maikelbur...@gmail.com> wrote:

What do you call someone from Uruguay, or Mexico, or Chile, or Costa
Rica, or Brazil?

Hint...they aren't called Americans.

[ermitano]

Is Indianapolis a country?

[ermitano]

cos i don't call people from USA as "Americans"
they are yankis :)

[marcus]

> they are yankis :)-


Since it isn't slang, profane, or derogatory, I will continue to use
Americans as it sounds much better and is easier to say than "United
Staters"

[ermitano]

even if it's wrong? cos i live in south america, so i'm an american
too
anyway, i prefer yankis for you

[Bernie Woodham]

But, South America is not a country, it is a continent. America is
not a continent. The continent is called "North America". When a
person says "America" it is known to refer to the United States.

[ermitano]

did i say South America is a country? nope.
America IS a continent, there is no "North America" continent, America
continent is divided in 3 parts: North, Central and South. I know you
refer USA as America, but sorry, you're all wrong, what can i say? of
course my opinion doesn't matter, but i say it anyway.

[Bernie Woodham]

So long as you know your opinion doesn't matter I don't care.

[Estudios Aqubé]

what? i was still laughing.. America is not a continent.. haha! that
was good

[Fattuchus]

Marcus, I get the impression that people who live in North or South
America (other than the USA) get upset sometimes
when people refer to the USA as "America."

[Fattuchus]

I know in some places in the world, people from the US are called,
"Yanks" but that sounds strange to me.

Here in NYC, when many of us hear the word, "Yank" or "Yankee" we
think of the famous baseball team. People
from the US don't usually think of themselves as "Yanks" or
"Yankees." People in the US call themselves Americans;
it is not meant to be derogatory to anyone else.

[Sir Indipity]

In Colorado, people tend to think all the people in Kansas
are cowboys. They're wrong. I've never met a cowboy
in Kansas, but I've seen plenty of them in Colorado.

[Gemini Jackson]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:48:40 -0700 (PDT), ermitano

>> > > Since it isn't slang, profane, or derogatory, I will continue to use
>> > > Americans as it sounds much better and is easier to say than "United
>> > > Staters"
>>
>> > even if it's wrong? cos i live in south america, so i'm an american
>> > too
>> > anyway, i prefer yankis for you
>>
>> But, South America is not a country, it is a continent.  America is
>> not a continent. The continent is called "North America".   When a
>> person says "America" it is known to refer to the United States.
>
>did i say South America is a country? nope.
>America IS a continent, there is no "North America" continent, America
>continent is divided in 3 parts: North, Central and South. I know you
>refer USA as America, but sorry, you're all wrong, what can i say? of
>course my opinion doesn't matter, but i say it anyway.

Next you'll be telling me that Sunday isn't the Sabbath.
-gj

[Bernie Woodham]

America is not a continent. There I said it again. When you speak of
the continents as a group they are called the "Americas". Plural.
Then there is North, Central and South America.

The word America, singular and without any modifier, is taken to mean
the United States of America.

There, now split your sides.

[Bernie Woodham]

I don't know that Canadians have ever had a problem calling us
americans. There may be some who are hostile that call us Yanks, or
Yahoos or jingos. I think in Britain "Yanks" is not really
derogatory. It could be friendly.

But this is the first I've heard about someone being bothered that
Americans are called Americans. If there going to me a yanki, I'm
going to call them a wetback.

[ermitano]

by the way, i didn't know what you say.. that you call "Americas" to
the continent and it's divided in 3 "continents"
here the political geography is understood in a different way

[marcus]

> here the political geography is understood in a different way-

Do you prefer calling yourself an American more than calling yourself
a Chilean?

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 20, 6:04 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:22563e92-0776-43d3...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On May 20, 1:12 pm, Sir Indipity <sirindipit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > A good case in point are acts like The Beach Boys and Del Shannon.
> >> > These guys were Americans into rock music, (rock and roll), but they
> >> > did not have the appeal of The Beatles at all.
>
> >> Bernie, I agree with you but that's a matter of opinion. Lot's
> >> of folks love The Beach Boys. I only like their serious songs,
> >> not their surfing music. You?
>
> > I didn't meant to say I didn't like the Beach Boys. I thought they
> > were nerdy, but I liked some of their songs. But I have always thought
> > of them as a singles band.  I didn't even like Pet Sounds. But, I
> > don't think many in the states did.
>

> > But what I meant to say, is that they did not generate the response
> > the Beatles did. That's no opinion, that's fact.
>
> But Pet Sounds certainly generated a response from The Beatles!

Well, it's really interesting how different people can hear different
things and be so influenced by it.

I guess Roger Waters was really influenced by Lennon's Plastic Ono
Band album around the time he started writing songs for Meddle:

"Waters had been very taken with the rawness and grim candour of the
previous year's John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album, a record inspired
by the primal scream therapy Lennon had submitted to in order to
tackle issues from his childhood. Part of the Floyd's purge would
involve Roger writing lyrics that connected the group with the real
world, even if they couldn't mirror the abrasiveness of the Plastic
Ono Band's music..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=hKXhLoWCPQ8C&lpg=PA160&ots=V6diAsWUpn&dq=Waters%20had%20been%20very%20taken%20with%20the%20rawness%20and%20grim%20candour&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q=Waters%20had%20been%20very%20taken%20with%20the%20rawness%20and%20grim%20candour&f=false

[ermitano]

mmh.. both..... first chilean, then an american, as an english is an
european too

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 23, 2:18 pm, ermitano <maikelbur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> > The word America, singular and without any modifier, is taken to mean
> > the United States of America.
>
> > There, now split your sides.
>
> by the way, i didn't know what you say.. that you call "Americas" to
> the continent and it's divided in 3 "continents"
> here the political geography is understood in a different way

So, you people are taught that it's all one big continent?

I mean if we didn't call ourselves Americans, what would we call
ourselves? "Yanki" can be insulting. There was a time in our country
when people identified with states more than country. Kentuckians,
Floridians, New Yorkers, etc...
But somewhere we transcended that identity. Especially people who have
immigrated and have become naturalized think of themselves as
american.

And that title trancends the continent, people in Hawaii are
Americans. Would you only call them Hawaiians?

[Eric Ramon]

have you ever heard of "the Americas"? That's North, South and
Central. The whole thing is America...and it's divided into sections,
as you can tell from the modifiers. Therefore anybody who lives in any
of those is an American.

There is also a country called the United States of America. If you
look closely you'll see that the smaller regions are the states and
that they are in America, referring to the large land mass. It's
similar to the United Arab Republic which certainly did not include
all Arabs and did not prevent other Arabs from calling themselves
Arabs.

[Bernie Woodham]

If they want to call theirselves americans that's fine with me. But
you're turning the whole damn conversation around. It was people from
South America that were complaining that Marcus referred to Americans
when he was talking about the States!

Christ!

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:11371a92-60a8-4154...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Think about this objectively and historically.

First off, 'America' does refer technically to continents. As I learned it
in school, North America and South America are continents.

Second, the usage of 'America' and 'Americans' referring to the United
States dates back to the 1840s and earlier, when the whole "Manifest
Destiny" thing was in vogue. We (of the US) back then thought it was our
historical destiny to occupy and rule the entire North American continent.
And at that time, most of the other countries of N. and S. America were
colonies of European nations. We were (I believe until the Mexican
Revolution) the only truly independent nation in both American continents.
And we were really arrogant m-ther f---ers, and many of us still are.

Seen from that perspective, it's not surprising that there would be
resentment among other nations on the continents toward us co-opting
'Americans' to describe people in the US.

Maybe it seems silly if you don't consider the history. And maybe it's gone
on so long that it's all ingrained in our brains and it's too late to change
it, or maybe it's not even desirable any more to change it. I dunno, I
won't even comment on that. But I do think that to outright dismiss the
comments of ermitano and others who live elsewhere smacks to some degree
(even if it's unintentional) of that "American arrogance" that led to the
terminology in the first place!

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 24, 10:30 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

I've said as much. But I have known the term "Americas" - plural -
when referring to the land mass as a whole.

> Second, the usage of 'America' and 'Americans' referring to the United
> States dates back to the 1840s and earlier, when the whole "Manifest
> Destiny" thing was in vogue.  We (of the US) back then thought it was our
> historical destiny to occupy and rule the entire North American continent.
> And at that time, most of the other countries of N. and S. America were
> colonies of European nations.  We were (I believe until the Mexican
> Revolution) the only truly independent nation in both American continents.
> And we were really arrogant m-ther f---ers, and many of us still are.
>
> Seen from that perspective, it's not surprising that there would be
> resentment among other nations on the continents toward us co-opting
> 'Americans' to describe people in the US.
>
> Maybe it seems silly if you don't consider the history.  And maybe it's gone
> on so long that it's all ingrained in our brains and it's too late to change
> it, or maybe it's not even desirable any more to change it.  I dunno, I
> won't even comment on that.  But I do think that to outright dismiss the
> comments of ermitano and others who live elsewhere smacks to some degree
> (even if it's unintentional) of that "American arrogance" that led to the
> terminology in the first place!

I don't have any resentment towards them. I understand the step child
syndrome, I think. And, as I've said, I don't care if they call
themselves americans.

All I'm saying is that the usage is what it is and it just seems
awkward to say that they can call themselves americans and we can't.

It's not just a colloquialism. It is world wide. If you refer to
Americans to an english person they are going to think of the people
of the United States. Same with Canadians; when they say Americans,
they are referring to the people of the United States.

The way ermitano would have it, an American is vitually anyone from
the Western Hemisphere. Not very descriptive at all, and if we accept
that usage most people are going to say, "Where abouts from the
western hemisphere?"

The term becomes pretty much meaningless.

Nor do I think "Yankis" or yanks or jingos is an acceptable
substitute. What would you call us, if not Americans?

[marcus]

> substitute.  What would you call us, if not Americans?-

Rich's history lesson is pretty accurate, and I understand the point
he is making. We are all, technically, Americans whether we reside in
North America or South America. We are also all Earthlings too, as we
all live on Earth,but telling someone you are an Earthling doesn't
tell them what country you come from.

The term "American" meaning a resident of the United States has been
in usage so long by so many people all around the world, that if
ermitano was in France, and told them he was an American, they would,
justifiably, think he was from the United States.

This whole argument that everyone is an American regardless of whether
they live in North or South America, and that they should be
identified as such regardless of whether they are from Chile, Ecuador,
United States, El Salvador or Canada, reminds me of another situation.

Do you remember the big hoopla made when the century was about to
turn. Most people observed the changeover from December 1999 to
January 2000, whereas those, who were technically correct, said the
change was from December 2000 to January 2001. The latter group is
correct...however, the former group was in the majority of the most
commonly accepted date...and there were bigger parties on New Years
Eve 12/31/99.

Another example of being technically correct vs. popular acceptance
and usage.

Just like this "American" issue we've been discussing.

Marc

http://marccatone.webs.com

[Gemini Jackson]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:38:28 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Just like this "American" issue we've been discussing.

So John Edwards was right, there are two Americas.
-gj

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 24, 3:36 pm, Gemini Jackson <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:38:28 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Just like this "American" issue we've been discussing.
>
> So John Edwards was right, there are two Americas.
> -gj

No, there seem to be a couple of dozen.

[ermitano]

it's true that USA was one of the first countries to reach the
independence, after that many countries took it as an example to fight
for the independence. by 1840 i guess many countries have become
independent.. don't know much about it, anyway.

i agree with what you say about being technically correct vs. popular
acceptance. i know you or even all the world call the USA as America
and their people as Americans. I don't like the term, but what the
hell, this is how it's used

what i really didn't know and never read or heard before was the fact
you call "Americas" to what we call here "America", and also you
consider it as 3 different continents when we consider it as 1
continent divided in 3 parts. that's all.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 24, 2:38 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Do you remember the big hoopla made when the century was about to
> turn.  Most people observed the changeover from December 1999 to
> January 2000, whereas those, who were technically correct, said the
> change was from December 2000 to January 2001.  The latter group is
> correct...however, the former group was in the majority of the most
> commonly accepted date...and there were bigger parties on New Years
> Eve 12/31/99.
>

There was no song called, "We're going to Party like it's 2000".

[Bernie Woodham]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

[Bernie Woodham]

Gee, Ermitano, I didn't know this:

"The earliest known use of the name America for this landmass dates
from April 25, 1507, where it was used for what is now known as South
America"

[marcus]

On May 24, 3:45 pm, ermitano <maikelbur...@gmail.com> wrote:

In olden days, both North and South America were referred to as the
"Americas". I don't know if anyone uses that today.

I may be wrong on this, but when I went to school a million years ago,
I was taught that there were two continents, North America(which
included the countries of Central America, and South America.

If this is wrong, I will gladly stand corrected

[rwalker]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:30:00 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Thank you, Rich, for bringing a little reason to this discussion.

[RichL]

"marcus" <marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:02cbc9c1-1883-4a9a...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

That's how I learned it. Seven continents in all: North America, South
America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, and Australia. I never heard
Central America referred to as a separate continent before.

[RichL]

"rwalker" <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:6h6tr71gmfpi789o1...@4ax.com...

What can I say? I try ;-)

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:d83dc434-b25c-423f...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

This isn't surprising, since Amerigo Vespucci (after whom "America" is
supposedly named) is best known for his explorations of the eastern coast of
South America.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 24, 4:36 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "marcus" <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I don't know that I said that Central America was a continent, but if
I did I was mistaken. I have had it driven into me that North,
Central and South americas were distinct "regions". But with the
status of Central America, it may have been that this was just a
political tactic to divide the people of those regions. I don't know.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 24, 4:36 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> " I never heard
> Central America referred to as a separate continent before.

Okay, this bothered me so much that I went back to see what it was I

said. Here is what I said:

"America is not a continent. There I said it again. When you speak of
the continents as a group they are called the "Americas". Plural.
Then there is North, Central and South America.

The word America, singular and without any modifier, is taken to mean
the United States of America."

Now, when I said "Then there is..." I meant the way it was divided
into regions. But I can see how my words could have been
misinterpreted.

[ermitano]

never heard about "jingos" neither
here we use Yankis for USA and Gringos for whoever speak English..
even some europeans tend to be called gringos

[ermitano]

see?
i'm the only real american here!

[ermitano]

from the same link you have posted:

"In Spanish, América is the name of a single continent composed of the
subcontinents of Sudamérica and Norteamérica, the land bridge of
Centroamérica, and the islands of the Antillas. Americano/a in Spanish
refers to a person from América in a similar way that europeo or
europea refers to a person from Europa."

[Bernie Woodham]

Hmmm... that is interesting the differences over this. Actually, this
discussion has made me really uncomfortable because I hate to think
I'm presenting myself as some neo-conservative with a political
agenda.

I don't like the US relations with Mexico, I think we've helped turn
that country into a near failed state with our "drug war" policy.
I've always deplored the way American industry was allowed to control
countries of South America to steal their resources.

I'm very much a solidarity person. American hegemony really means
little to me, I'd much rather this country stopped "leading" the world
and instead took care of it's own people.

And I apologize, ermitano, if this discussion has in anyway offended
you. I just don't believe marcus intended anything political with his
usage of the word "Americans". I know I don't mean anything political
when I use it.

[marcus]

I pretty much echo your sentiments above...I abhor what the USA has
done to countries south of its border. It's just that I had never
heard anyone from outside the USA call himself an "American", and
raise objections to only residents of the USA being called that.

Marc

[ermitano]

but Marcus, did you read the quote that i posted here?

"In Spanish, América is the name of a single continent composed of the
> > > subcontinents of Sudamérica and Norteamérica, the land bridge of
> > > Centroamérica, and the islands of the Antillas. Americano/a in Spanish
> > > refers to a person from América in a similar way that europeo or
> > > europea refers to a person from Europa."

Americano means American and europeo/a means European

anyway.. when i answered to the first question saying "What country
from America?" i admit that i wanted to bother you, cos of course that
i knew what you mean when you say "america" or "american"... almost
just kidding, but then the conversation keep growing around this
subject. i don't like this kind of discussion, i apologize too, and we
are all friends... and americans too.

[marcus]

On May 25, 10:27 pm, ermitano <maikelbur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> anyway.. when i answered to the first question saying "What country
> from America?" i admit that i wanted to bother you, cos of course that
> i knew what you mean when you say "america" or "american"... almost
> just kidding, but then the conversation keep growing around this
> subject. i don't like this kind of discussion, i apologize too, and we
> are all friends... and americans too.

eso es cierto