Were Beatles a boring band?
Raja, The Great
Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
Lets face it Beatles were the band for GRANNIES.
AllaBest
Here is real ROCKIN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tngIiaV3BFo
Scott
the Beatles were a vital bridge between 1960s musical sensibility and
the "rock" heard from people like Hendrix. if you don't think they
rock, try:
back in the USSR
Helter Skelter
Old Brown Shoe
Savoy Truffle
i think the second side of Abbey Road is peerless. anyone who thinks
that they are for grannies--must be a granny.
The Home Guard
So boring that, over four decades on, you're still starting discussions
about them...
--
My band: feedback always welcome
- www.thehomeguard.info/music.html
who?
> How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
If you could rock your girlfriend hard enough, or had one, you
wouldn't have the time to write these silly posts. Time to get
laid, Raja.
Patrick Kehoe
They were/are THEE voice of the 1960s... the iconic cultural musical
sound of western, youth-cult pop for their generation... the greatest
ROCK band of all time, against which all others are measured...
Get real...
P
Pelle Svanslös
Fattuchus
Given the Beatles' immense popularity, there must be lots of grannies
out there.
Fattuchus
Baahaahaahaaaaaaaaaa!
Post
of
the
month!
who?
>> Baahaahaahaaaaaaaaaa!
>> Post
>>of
>> the
>> month!
Thanks, Fatt.
:-)
Edvado
More importantly, what exactly DOES a troll get paid these days?
TT
No, it was not a band for grannies, nor was it boring. I've always said
that they were not a rock band though, what took you so long?
TT
Nope. Actually Raja got married recently - so he's getting some, maybe.
TT
Greatest pop band of all time.
TT
> On 13.8.2011 0:04, Raja, The Great wrote:
>> How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>>
>> Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
>> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>>
>> Lets face it Beatles were the band for GRANNIES.
>
> Fuck your wife, ffs.
>
24/7? :)
TT
Well they are now. Grannies.
Fattuchus
High five!
WeReo_BoY
news:Qvs1q.67904$mX5....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
Being this is tennis and music, I saw the Beatles live at Forest Hills
Tennis Stadium on August 28th, 1964. I'm probably theonly one in these
particular groups that did.
In fact, I walked away with a bit of film of the spot; seems to be a world
exclusive.
iarwain
Depends on how you define "rock". There are those who would consider
early Beatles material such as I Saw Her Standing There as being
closer to pure rock and roll than any of the other bands you mention.
I won't make that argument though.
Regardless, I don't consider the Stones as rocking harder. They were
more blues based and maybe a little more "jammy". But I don't think
of them as a hard rock band by any means. The Yardbirds, for all
their potential, weren't really that good IMO. I don't think the
Kinks rocked any harder than the Beatles either. In any case, I'd say
the Beatles, Stones, Yardbirds, and Kinks are all about in the same
ballpark as far as how hard they rock.
Now the Who, they could definitely rock harder than the Beatles. They
were also a very brilliant band.
But they were also much more uneven and inconsistent than the
Beatles. They don't have as many great albums IMO.
Ocean
The Rolling Stones were better.
Tim
Rocking at it's absolute epitome during Woodstock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xJWxPE8G2c
Court_1
I know the Beatles are revered around the world but the truth is while
I respect them and think they have many many great songs I never LOVED
them. Never thought Paul McCartney was "the cute one" either and I
have seen McCartney in concert a couple of times.
I prefer the Stones to the Beatles--don't throw things at me! ;)
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> On Aug 12, 6:04 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> > Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
> > their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
> > Lets face it Beatles were the band for GRANNIES.
>
> the Beatles were a vital bridge between 1960s musical sensibility and
> the "rock" heard from people like Hendrix. if you don't think they
> rock, try:
>
> back in the USSR
> Helter Skelter
> Old Brown Shoe
> Savoy Truffle
Except Back in the USSR all of them suck and dont have good rocking -
danceworthy
>
> i think the second side of Abbey Road is peerless. anyone who thinks
> that they are for grannies--must be a granny.
Abbey Road has some rocking songs, but then boring stuff as well.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Osama Bin Ladetorest
A bit too much. It is overwhelming really ;-)
Osama Bin Ladetorest
You are deluded if you think Kinks didnt rock more than The Beatles.
Superdave
yeah right. i'll believe it when i see the video.
Superdave
you married a few assholes? now that i can believe.
Superdave
we already know your a kink.
uly...@mscomm.com
greatest "rocking" band, then they are "boring."
No point in arguing with a premise so infantile, flawed and
nonsensical. The Beatles aren't the greatest band for hard rock songs,
they merely are the greatest band of all time, period.
So what if Zeppelin rocked harder than the Beatles? Any moron can
traipse by and come up with a pro-Beatle (albeit idiotic) premise:
"Zeppelin never wrote great ballads like the Beatles, they are
BORING."
Snore. Go back to your third grade classroom and learn those times
tables, it's almost recess.
WeReo_BoY
news:6552004a-1bba-43a7...@s18g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
That's not exactly true. My band is greater than the Beatles. Nuclear
Warrior "the world's ONLY Original Words & Music" thank you.
WeReo_BoY
news:j278di$36o$1...@dont-email.me...
PLUS I did a concert bigger and better than Woodstock in 1974 cawled
California Jam. Nuclear Warrior's still better though.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> The premise of the OP is an errant one: if the Beatles aren't the
> greatest "rocking" band, then they are "boring."
Greatest Schmetest... this has nothing to do with this. By popularity
alone Beatles are the greatest by a huge margin. My point is Beatles
made few rocking songs and most of their good melodic songs are
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> greatest "rocking" band, then they are "boring."
>
> No point in arguing with a premise so infantile, flawed and
> nonsensical. The Beatles aren't the greatest band for hard rock songs,
> they merely are the greatest band of all time, period.
>
> So what if Zeppelin rocked harder than the Beatles? Any moron can
> traipse by and come up with a pro-Beatle (albeit idiotic) premise:
> "Zeppelin never wrote great ballads like the Beatles, they are
> BORING."
Ballads are boring. Zeppelin wrote one ballad which Harrison liked -
The Rain Song. And it was not boring
Fattuchus
So, if Paul is not "the cute one," which Beatle is?
johnty
>
> So, if Paul is not "the cute one," which Beatle is?
Stu
Jales
> Regardless, I don't consider the Stones as rocking harder. They were
> more blues based and maybe a little more "jammy". But I don't think
> of them as a hard rock band by any means. The Yardbirds, for all
> their potential, weren't really that good IMO. I don't think the
> Kinks rocked any harder than the Beatles either. In any case, I'd say
> the Beatles, Stones, Yardbirds, and Kinks are all about in the same
> ballpark as far as how hard they rock.
>
> Now the Who, they could definitely rock harder than the Beatles. They
> were also a very brilliant band.
> But they were also much more uneven and inconsistent than the
> Beatles. They don't have as many great albums IMO.
I was gonna say exactly this. I'd even say that IMHO while Stones and
Beatles coexisted (until 1970) the Stones definitely rocked less than
the Beatles...
iarwain
I'll give the Kinks credit for helping to popularize power chords.
But I still don't see how they rocked any harder than the Beatles.
Even if they did, it's not that big a difference.
It seems to me the Who rocked considerably harder than the Kinks,
Stones, Beatles, or Yardbirds.
The other four seem to be on about the same level to me.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Yardbirds were all about rocking. They didnt know how to write a pop
song. Seriously you people have no clue about why people consider
Beatles a pop band.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
I have never heard of Stones as being referred as to being a pop band,
but Beatles have been many many times. The only pop phase Stones were
in was around 1967.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
>
> I'll give the Kinks credit for helping to popularize power chords.
> But I still don't see how they rocked any harder than the Beatles.
> Even if they did, it's not that big a difference.
Even at their pop phase which was their most artistically sucessful
phase, Kinks had plenty songs which were louder and more rocking than
the Beatles. Have you really heard Face To Face, Something Else,
Village Green and Arthur?
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Harrison and Starr were super ugly. Lennon and McCartney were much
better in terms of talent and look. Pete Best was the best Beatle in
terms of looks, I heard.
iarwain
Originally they were more of a blues band.
They moved more into pop/rock after Clapton left, but they still
retained their blues influence.
Superdave
Put your wife on the line or hang up the phone.
Jim Beam
>
> - Show quoted text -
Took a trip to New York?
Jim Beam
>
> - Show quoted text -
They did become a "disco" band in the late "70's"
Superdave
wrote:
How many assholes did he actually marry?
It's confusing.
richforman
Or maybe he just has a different opinion from yours, are anybody
else's opinions valid to your mind, or of any interest to you?
Hypothetical question.
richforman
richforman
> How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
Ha, saw the thread title and I knew immediately Raja was back in
town.
richforman
RichL
news:6a3a0245-12ad-4220...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
What silly Raja fails to grasp is that whether or not something "rocks", or
how much, is a highly subjective assessment in the first place. It's vague,
juvenile terminology.
Jales
> Ballads are boring. Zeppelin wrote one ballad which Harrison liked -
> The Rain Song. And it was not boring
>
It's quite boring, IMHO
Jales
> I have never heard of Stones as being referred as to being a pop band,
> but Beatles have been many many times. The only pop phase Stones were
> in was around 1967.
But, it doesn't contradict what I've posted before: while both bands
coexisted, the Stones didn't rock any harder than the Beatles. Nor did
they have more "rocking" songs
Osama Bin Ladetorest
>
> - Show quoted text -
You cannot have an opinion on who rocked more... the idea of what
rocking actually means is universally accepted. If you think Good
Night is a very rocking song by the Beatles, you need to get your head
examined.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> "richforman" <rforma...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its not.
uly...@mscomm.com
Lennon praised.
Jales
> Greatest Schmetest... this has nothing to do with this. By popularity
> alone Beatles are the greatest by a huge margin. My point is Beatles
> made few rocking songs and most of their good melodic songs are
> boring.
Maybe they are boring for you. Boring is such a subjective concept,
isn't it?
Jales
So do you if you think Take It Or Leave It is a very rocking song by
the Stones, or Wonderboy is a very rocking song by the Kinks...
Osama Bin Ladetorest
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah that doesnt count. Anything they did after post peak - Exile on
Main St. I hate Exile very much, so I would say even that doesn't
count ;-) Their best period was from Out of Their Heads to Sticky
Fingers. I dont like the 1967 albums. So I would say their best period
was 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969 and 1971.
Jales
> Lets face it Beatles were the band for GRANNIES.
Each and every band will eventually be a band for grannies ;)
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Theres no way Slayer will ever be a band for grannies.
Jales
There's every way. Take any female who likes Slayer. She will be a
granny too. Shouldn't she have the right to like Slayer then?
Osama Bin Ladetorest
That doesnt make Slayer a band for grannies dummy. A band for grannies
means a majority of grannies like that band... and the music is
grannie like. Even Lennon admitted McCartney wrote songs for
grannies.... why don't you get a clue... o bloody o bla da
Superdave
When it comes to music the Beatles easily won the most slams so they are
definitely the goat.
Raja is trying to pull a fast one like a music based 7543 on us but we all know
the Beatles were the best of all time.
The CHARTS and the SALES do NOT lie !!!
Jales
> That doesnt make Slayer a band for grannies dummy. A band for grannies
> means a majority of grannies like that band... and the music is
> grannie like. Even Lennon admitted McCartney wrote songs for
> grannies.... why don't you get a clue... o bloody o bla da
If grannies like any kind of music, there must be something right
about that music. Grannies are humans too, don't you think? Or must I
dislike music that's enjoyed by grannies just because of it? Open your
mind.... Besides, how do you know what the majority of grannies like
when it comes to music? And how that defines 'boring' just escapes me
Ray
> On Aug 14, 9:14 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are deluded if you think Kinks didnt rock more than The Beatles.
>
> > I'll give the Kinks credit for helping to popularize power chords.
> > But I still don't see how they rocked any harder than the Beatles.
> > Even if they did, it's not that big a difference.
>
> > It seems to me the Who rocked considerably harder than the Kinks,
> > Stones, Beatles, or Yardbirds.
> > The other four seem to be on about the same level to me.
>
> Yardbirds were all about rocking. They didnt know how to write a pop
> song. Seriously you people have no clue about why people consider
> Beatles a pop band.
Any idea why Clapton left the Yardbirds?
you might want to look into it before you call someone else clueless
asswipe.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Wrong, I agree that Beatles are the greatest, but were they the
best ;-)
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Because he was a fuckwit. He left Yardbirds because he thought they
were becoming less of a *PURE BLUES/R&B* band. And the fuckwit then
goes and forms Cream, the most commercial band that ever was.
Raja, The Great
> 13.8.2011 5:25, Patrick Kehoe kirjoitti:
>
> > On Aug 12, 3:04 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> >> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
>
> > sound of western, youth-cult pop for their generation... the greatest
> > ROCK band of all time, against which all others are measured...
>
> > Get real...
>
> > P
>
> Greatest pop band of all time.
Yes completely agree. I say top 5 pop bands were Beatles, Bee Gees,
ABBA, Beach Boys and Zombies. Some of the best melodies ever.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
When did I say granny music is bad?
Raja, The Great
Your honest opinion is WRONG
Pelle Svanslös
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Sorry, I am not interested in your wife.
Superdave
should'nt you be spending more time with your new bride? or did you carve her up
and put her in the freezer already?
abe slaney
> When did I say granny music is bad?
You didn't, so there.
I now pronounce this moronic Raja-instigated-thread-about-
nothing....dead.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
You can pronounce anything you want. Nothing will change
Raja, The Great
Did I say ALL of their songs are rocking?
Raja, The Great
> Zeppelin's best ballad was "Going to California," off Zep IV, which
> Lennon praised.
Its not a ballad
Jales
> > > You cannot have an opinion on who rocked more... the idea of what
> > > rocking actually means is universally accepted. If you think Good
> > > Night is a very rocking song by the Beatles, you need to get your head
> > > examined.-
>
> > So do you if you think Take It Or Leave It is a very rocking song by
> > the Stones, or Wonderboy is a very rocking song by the Kinks...
>
> Did I say ALL of their songs are rocking?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
You just said (just take a look at your words above): "If you think
Superdave
Raja is a boring band.
King Size Johnson
> Were Beatles a boring band?
No, but Elm Bark Beetles are boring insects.
abe slaney
To each his own, but I find them pretty darned exciting myself!
marcus
>
> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
What The Beatles possessed, which most bands of their era didn't have,
was versatility.
I think you are mistaking their ability to make diverse music to mean
that they couldn't Rock. However, the reality is they did Rock, on
more songs that I care to name, but they transcended the music which
made them popular, and reinvented it to include more
Osama Bin Ladetorest
You got this out of context. What I meant is certain songs cannot be
considered as rockers by any fucking means. Good example is Good
Night.
abe slaney
> You got this out of context. What I meant is certain songs cannot be
> considered as rockers by any fucking means. Good example is Good
> Night.
Context, schmontext. I have rocked my kids to bed with that song so
many times I can't tell you.
Probably the best rocker the Beatles ever made. Where do you *get*
these opinions?
Osama Bin Ladetorest
I agree with the versatility part... But I think they overdid that
part especially on the White Album, half of which is atrocious.
Jim Beam
Out fo his ass, every time he sneezes.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> On Aug 18, 11:37 pm, Osama Bin Ladetorest <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You got this out of context. What I meant is certain songs cannot be
> > considered as rockers by any fucking means. Good example is Good
> > Night.
>
> Context, schmontext. I have rocked my kids to bed with that song so
> many times I can't tell you.
Exactly... that is a cure for insomnia
Osama Bin Ladetorest
No, straight from the heart, without prejudices. Since Beatles have so
much respect and they are considered the greatest band ever, do I need
to alter my opinion of them? I think they made several good songs,
many of which are boring and do not rock at all.
billy
> - Show quoted text -
TennisGuy
troll of a post?
You must be a paid dis-info agent! (Right Scott?)
Ray
> On Aug 13, 12:52 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 9:49 pm, "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 5:04 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> > > > Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
> > > > their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
> > > wouldn't have the time to write these silly posts. Time to get
> > > laid, Raja.
>
> > Baahaahaahaaaaaaaaaa!
>
> > Post
>
> > of
>
> > the
>
> > month!
>
> I am married, assholes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those arranged marriages must be the shit, has your 'wife' noticed
you're a closet case who wanks off to photos of Robert Plant? She must
love that.
Darrin
> >> How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> >> Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
> >> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
>
> > They were/are THEE voice of the 1960s... the iconic cultural musical
> > sound of western, youth-cult pop for their generation... the greatest
> > ROCK band of all time, against which all others are measured...>
> > Get real...> > P>
> Greatest pop band of all time.>>
What about lyrical prolificacy? While Dylan was being called "the
voice of a generation," Fab was singing, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
LOL! We then have George & Ira Gershwin and Leiber & Stoller. I don't
think one Beatles song comes close to "Summertime," "Stand By Me" or
"Jailhouse Rock," in terms of "genuine originals." Pop music didn't
begin with The Beatles. It began with The Gershwins - the first
crossover pop stars who forever changed the face of music. -D
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
How many of the great classical composers were Jewish - men like Bach
and Beethoven?
Cole Porter was as great as the Gershwins, and he wrote BOTH music and
lyrics unlike George and Ira. And he was as much of a crossover pop
star as they were.
How many of The Beatles were Jewish? You can count the number on your
foreskin. Oops! I forgot.
Darrin
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:55:16 -0700 (PDT), Darrin <darrin...@aol.com>
> >On Aug 13, 6:39 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 13.8.2011 5:25, Patrick Kehoe kirjoitti:
>
> >> > On Aug 12, 3:04 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> How many of their songs rock, seriously?
>
> >> >> Granted they had many melodic songs, but they never rocked as hard as
> >> >> their peers Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks and Who.
>
> >> >> Lets face it Beatles were the band for GRANNIES.
>
> >> > They were/are THEE voice of the 1960s... the iconic cultural musical
> >> > sound of western, youth-cult pop for their generation... the greatest
> >> > ROCK band of all time, against which all others are measured...>
>
> >> > Get real...> > P>
>
> >> Greatest pop band of all time.>>
>
> >What about lyrical prolificacy? While Dylan was being called "the
> >voice of a generation," Fab was singing, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
> >LOL! We then have George & Ira Gershwin and Leiber & Stoller. I don't
> >think one Beatles song comes close to "Summertime," "Stand By Me" or
> >"Jailhouse Rock," in terms of "genuine originals." Pop music didn't
> >begin with The Beatles. It began with The Gershwins - the first
> >crossover pop stars who forever changed the face of music. -D
> You're being a naughty boy, Darrin. Behave yourself.>
> How many of the great classical composers were Jewish - men like Bach> and Beethoven?>
Mahler all come to mind!
> Cole Porter was as great as the Gershwins, and he wrote BOTH music and> lyrics unlike George and Ira. And he was as much of a crossover pop> star as they were.>
population, remember? IOW, it doesn't take an Einstein (guess what his
religion was?eh) to excel in this world when you comprise the majority
of its population. Jews comprise 1/4 of 1% of the world's population,
and have still been able to (disproportionately) excel in every field
of human endeavor. Music being no exception. All this despite enduring
thousands of years of persecution & the Holocaust.
> How many of The Beatles were Jewish? You can count the number on your> foreskin. Oops! I forgot.->>
Once again, no big whoop to excel in this world when you comprise 99%
of its population. No big whoop when your people had not gone without
a homeland for eighteen-hundred years, and have not suffered universal
persecution for just as long. It becomes an amazing Mitzvah when you
comprise a measly 1/4 of 1% (2% being American) of the world's
population, and have managed to leave a greater impact on World
Civilization than any other ancient culture. Jews are universally
acknowledged as the source of many of the world's major religions.
Jews are the oldest of any living people on earth still around with
their National identity and cultural heritage intact. Jews are still
the wealthiest ethnic group in America. There is no strength in number
unless it can be applied. Jews are so few in number, yet so great in
ability. Despite this, we still produced Simon & Garfunkel, Leonard
Bernstein, Bill Graham, Lou Reed, The Gershwins, Sondheim, Dylan,
Midler, Streisand, Sedaka, David Lee Roth, Carol King, Carly Simon,
Phil Spector, Clive Davis, Billy Joel, Manfred Mann, Herb Alpert,
Hamlisch, Benny Goodman, Janis Ian, Joey Ramone, Irving Berlin, Kander
& Ebb, Leiber & Stoller, Bernard Hermann, Lalo Schifrin, Neil Diamond,
Hammerstein, Jerome Kern, Lerner & Loewe, Rodgers & Hart, Manilow,
Bacharach, Donald Fagen, Leslie West, Mama Cass Elliott, and on and
on! Jews (2% of the American population in flashing neon lights!ehehh)
go oops upside your head in every facet of music! "The Great American
Songbook" is primarily a Jewish phenomenon. Broadway is a Jewish
creation. Just as Holy Wood...err Hollywood is! eh BTW, where would
Fab be without their surrogate father/manager, Brian Epstein?eheh
They'd still be playing skiffle on some sin-infested street corner in
Liverpool! LOL! -D, NYC "The star of the first "talkie" was Jewish" -
AL JOLSON (b. Yoelson).."I think of music as Jewish because it's
dramatic, it's intense, it has a certain passionate lyricism to it. I
can't imagine it written by a Goy" - AARON COPLAND, "Dean of American
Composers".."The most popular-selling Christmas song, "White
Christmas" was penned by a Jew" - IRVING BERLIN..."This legendary
Jewish DJ was known as "The 5th Beatle" - MURRY THE K (Kaufman)
Darrin
> Its not a ballad>>
It's a folk song that was used in the finale for HBO's "Entourage."
Surprising that no one has yet to mention it, except yours truly! -D,
NYC "I can't help feeling sorry, though, for an inventor who got
cheated out of having his name identified with his creation. The
dirigible airship, supposedly the creation of Count Zeppelin, was
actually the brainchild of an obscure
Jewish inventor, David Schwarz, in 1892. Before he could make his
trial flight he died, and Count Zeppelin bought the patents from his
widow. If life were fair, we would really point up to the sky whenever
we see a Zeppelin and yell out, "There's a Schwarz!" And of course
then the rock group would also have to be known as Led Schwarz!" LOL -
excerpt from, "THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO JEWISH HISTORY AND
CULTURE BY RABBI BENJAMIN BLECH".."These Jewish Blues Brothers formed
the first major blues label" - LEONARD & PHIL CHESS, CHESS
RECORDS.."It does have a psychological sort of impression on me.
Despite the fact that we can play for 18,000 people in Chicago, it's
far more important to do better in New York" - ROBERT PLANT.."New York
City is a friendly old town, from Washington Heights to Harlem on
down" - BOB DYLAN (b. Zimmerman, sweet Jew, "Voice of a Generation,
Top 100 selling artist of all-time, #1 rock song of all-time, "Like A
Rolling Stone," as voted by Rolling Stone Magazine)