George Harrison: major asshole
Mike Phillips
Jade wrote:
>
> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
> to do with today's music.
A friend of mine met George Harrison not too long ago. Sadly he
described George as "a bitter old man." I was hoping that he was having
a bad day.
Mike
D. Durousseau
Jade wrote:
>
> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
> to do with today's music.
work is remembered NOW, let alone thirty years from now?
Deni D.
j...@spoc.voz
In article <3406F4...@pagesz.net>, Mike Phillips <mi...@pagesz.net> says:
>
>Jade wrote:
>>
>> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
>> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
>> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
>> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
>> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
>> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
>> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
>> to do with today's music.
>
>
>described George as "a bitter old man." I was hoping that he was having
>a bad day.
I'd like to know more about the circumstances of this. Unlike Paul,
George has never been very gregarious. One of the perks of getting
older is that you don't have to give a rat's rear about being au courant.
And as John Cleese once said, looking ahead to the future of Monty
Python, "We want to make really mean-spirited movies about young people."
With respect to Dylan, can we no longer enjoy him because he's not at
the top of the charts? I guess that rules out Mozart and Louis Armstrong,
too.
jam
Jade wrote:
>
> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
> to do with today's music.
What is the problem?
George can have his opinion.
He doesn't think the spice girls or Oasis have staying power, and he
doesn't think U2 will be remembered.
I'm not an old fart and I agree with him.
If something comes along that he likes, will you judge him for that,
too?
jam
KARL NAGEL
>It's been almost 30 years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and
>he has precious little to do with today's music.
I think the basic premise is similar to the old argument that since the
current baseball talent pool is severely diluted, today's stars aren't
as great as those of yesteryear.
In other words, during the 60s there were probably twice as many people
in their teens and 20s (the prime source for pop music) than there are
today ie the good 'ole baby boom. So to reach the top, you had to get
past a lot more competition, with the result being that music from that
era is still heavily listened to today.
Vormax
> In other words, during the 60s there were probably twice as many people
> in their teens and 20s (the prime source for pop music) than there are
> today ie the good 'ole baby boom. So to reach the top, you had to get
> past a lot more competition, with the result being that music from that
> era is still heavily listened to today.
>
Maybe the rate of teens and 20's born after the baby boom declined, but
given the constant rise in population, the numbers probabaly remained the
same if not increased. The fact is that in the 50s and 60s rock groups
made up a much smaller percentage of what is known as "popular music." For
rock bands, scoring a contract may have been more competitive then, but it
doesn't mean that great bands don't emerge today.
George is unquestionably stuck in the 60s (and before, ie: George Formby).
He's entitled to his opinion, though, even if it does make him appear to be
a grumpy old man.
ML Compton
The last time I looked Jade <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> was saying
something like this:
>Well, you're both quite ignorant. U2 have been together for almost 20
>years. Imagine that - _20 Years_. Twice as long as the Beatles were
>together. They've already outlasted the Beatles in that respect, and I
>can quite seriously imagine them outlasting the Beatles in terms of
>popularity.
None of which has anything to do with talent. I like U2. I like them a
lot. But they don't even come close to The Beatles in originality and
overall talent.
I'll agree with you that Harrison is an asshole, but those are my own
reasons and have nothing to do with his musical tastes.
--ML COMPTON-- (To email me, delete "stopspam." from email address.)
This week's highlights:
MUSIC: KING LOSER "Caul Of The Outlaw" Yet another great band from
New Zealand. A 90s answer to Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazlewood.
TARNATION/JIM WHITE "live" An atmospheric, goth-tinged country
band with the best female vocalist working these days. And a
singer/songwriter who crosses Tom Waits, Lou Reed & Nick Cave
with Hank Williams and comes up a total original.
Quote: DEAR ANN: I read someplace that 12% of the American people
surveyed believe Joan Of Arc was Noah's wife. Is it possible so
many people are really this ignorant? - SHERBROOKE, Nove Scotia
DEAR SHERBROOKE: Nothing surprises me anymore. - ANN LANDERS
Gondola Bob
In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.970829...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
Jade <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan."
Well, if preferring Dylan over Oasis makes you "pathetic," then I'm sitting
high atop the Pathetic Wagon.
And if you think Dylan has nothing to do with today's music, you're kooky.
Dylan has something to do with ANY pop/rock artist who tries to write
intelligent, eloquent lyrics.
Eb
Rumpus_Cat
>Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
>while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
>cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
>have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
>and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
>however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
>years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
>to do with today's music.
So, having an opinion different from yours is "pathetic"?
And define this "value" you're referring to. What value has Dylan not had
in the last 30 years? Nothing on the charts? Okay then- it is safe to
assume that whenever something hits the top ten _you_ run out and buy
it. I mean, it has "value," right? I suppose we can also assume that the
minute U2 falls off the charts you'll start melting the discs...after all,
U2 would no longer have your "value." Oh, and if the length of time a
group has been together is the deciding factor of "value" then the Four
Tops is the band for you. They've maintained the same line-up for more
than 40 years. That makes them TWICE as good as U2!
It's interesting that you use such fragile criteria to accuse someone
you've never met of being a major asshole.
Rumpus Cat
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~d-max
"Always . . . always remember: less is less. More is more. More is better, and twice as much is good too . . . Not enough is bad and too much is never enough except when it's just about right."
-the Tick, from Chroma-Tick no. 9
***Remove NOSPAM from my e-mail address to reply***
Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
Gondola Bob wrote:
>
> Dylan has something to do with ANY pop/rock artist who tries to write
> intelligent, eloquent lyrics.
All two of them? [Huh? *C'mon* -- Joe Cassidy and Prince, of course.
*wink*].
--
O-O-O- Founder of the alt.music.alternative Court of Star Chamber O-O-O-
O-O- Minister of Obscure Musics, Britpop/Isolationist Division, DNRC O-O
Ned Raggett n...@kuci.org nrag...@uci.edu
Listowner for the Oasis, Suede, Sparks and T. Rex lists -- ask for info!
"My big mouth/my big name
Who'll put on my shoes while they're walking
Slowly down the hall of fame?"
-- Oasis, "My Big Mouth", _Be Here Now_ -- in a word, excellent
O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- http://kuci.org/~nraggett/ O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-
Lulu Spice
Why in the hell was this crossed to r.m.b? It all but eliminates the
possibility of sensible, logical discussion.
In article <5u7dr8$17do$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
dan...@prodigy.stopspam.net wrote:
>The last time I looked Jade <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> was saying
>something like this:
>>Well, you're both quite ignorant. U2 have been together for almost 20
>>years. Imagine that - _20 Years_. Twice as long as the Beatles were
>>together. They've already outlasted the Beatles in that respect, and I
>>can quite seriously imagine them outlasting the Beatles in terms of
>>popularity.
>None of which has anything to do with talent. I like U2. I like them a
>lot. But they don't even come close to The Beatles in originality and
>overall talent.
And *TALENT* has nothing to do with the ability to be memorable. I'm quite
sorry, but U2, Oasis and, yes, even Spice Girls will all be remembered in
30 years. Remember, all three are record-holders, and Oasis and U2
(especially U2) have been around for awhile *now*.
George, on the other hand, is often referred to as the 'forgotten Beatle'.
Brill.
Cheers,
Lulu (well, two out of three like Oasis and U2, and the other is dead)
PS: The Beatles were ace nickers. Stop calling them original. They had
their moments, but overall....
--
Step-by-Step Guide to Being a Philosopher:
1. Exist.
2. Observe
3. Contemplate steps 1 and 2.
4. Continue to exist.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
Michael Gebert
In article <bitchyspice-29...@d116-mfs.dancris.com>,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com wrote:
> And *TALENT* has nothing to do with the ability to be memorable. I'm quite
> sorry, but U2, Oasis and, yes, even Spice Girls will all be remembered in
> 30 years. Remember, all three are record-holders
Oh, so they're going to be remembered like Bobby Sherman!
Jordan
> U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
> boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
> U2's first album are still being played?
> Also,I would rather listen to Dylan records than most of the
> du;ll,boring,repetitive
> gargage being released today.
> Way to go George,thanks for speaking up.
> Glen
Well, I agree that U2 will NOT stand the test of time at all, but I really
doubt Dylan will either.
"du;ll,boring,repetitive" sort of descibes Dylans music stripped down.
I've heard everyone say that what makes it so special is the lyrics.
I have a copy of Indigo Girls doing Tangled Up In Blue, with the person who
played violin for him. This was a beautiful job, better than Dylans own,
but the only problem is this crap blues thing they put in the middle.
I know this doesn't belong here.
-Jordan
Glen & Lynn
U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
U2's first album are still being played?
Also,I would rather listen to Dylan records than most of the
du;ll,boring,repetitive
gargage being released today.
Way to go George,thanks for speaking up.
Glen
Mike Phillips <mi...@pagesz.net> wrote in article
<3406F4...@pagesz.net>...
> Jade wrote:
> >
> > Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al.,
and
> > while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> > cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last."
U2
> > have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles
did,
> > and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> > however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> > years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious
little
> > to do with today's music.
>
>
> A friend of mine met George Harrison not too long ago. Sadly he
> described George as "a bitter old man." I was hoping that he was having
> a bad day.
>
> Mike
>
Catty
Jade <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>U2 have been together for almost 20
>years. Imagine that - _20 Years_. Twice as long as the Beatles were
>together.
<Jade, excuse moi for trimming your posting to pieces>
Twenty years? Already? It *can't* be that long. I remember Bono's
dodgy spiky haircut. No, it can't be twenty years ago that they gotten
together. It just *can't* be! I am not that old. I am NOT! <gibberish,
gibberish> Noononononoono...<burst into hysterical sobbing> *can't*
be.
ObGossip: A few (okay, okay, five) years ago, a fellow student, at
Doncaster Art College, John did up a project on Anton ??? (the bloke
behind U2's Joshua Tree photography/look) and John (the lucky bastard)
managed to get a chance to interview him at Anton's studio in London.
John came away with a few titbits about Anton and his experiences with
the celebrities (especially U2). Apparently, all U2 members were a
bunch of utterly family-oriented hard working friendly chaps. Either
Anton (Cobin?) was a brilliant publicist for U2, or a damn good liar.
In any case, John was graded A for his project on Anton. No fair as
Anton gave him a few pixs to spuce up his project!
Catty (a severely depressed film bore who remembered being at two of
U2's early concerts in Colchester & Braintree, Essex back then) xx
Falcon
Jade wrote:
>
> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
> to do with today's music.
U2, Oasis, et al. will NEVER be remembered for changing a generation of
kids. You had a dead president, a boring muscic scene, and four guys
from Liverpool just ready to take on the world in 1964. Timing is
everything. The Beatles will be making the history books not so much for
their music, but their impact on the world. It cracks me up when some
idiots post here and say Kurt Cobain was as good as Lennon or the Spice
Girls are more popular than the Beatles.....hogwash. Nobody can touch
the Fab 4!!
Besides all of that, I would rather listen to Dylan than some of the
trash out there now. Look at MTV!!! It looks like the movie "Escape From
New York".. All these gangstah rappers sitting in hottubs sipping
champagne, talking a lot of empty shit. The music world is in a bad way
these days.
Falcon
AppleCorp3
>> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
>> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
>> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
>> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
>> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
>> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
>> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
>> to do with today's music.
>
>George can have his opinion.
>He doesn't think the spice girls or Oasis have staying power, and he
>doesn't think U2 will be remembered.
>I'm not an old fart and I agree with him.
>If something comes along that he likes, will you judge him for that,
>too?
>jam
Seems everyone is forgetting that U2 took some stabs at the Beatles as
well, calling them "elevator music" etc. Does that make what George said
any more right? No, but it gives him a reason anyway. So I ask you which
is better, U2 making fun of the greatest rock and roll band we've ever
seen, or George, a member of that band, making fun of U2? George can say
what he wants, he's been at it a lot longer than *any* member of U2!!!
CarnyDC
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
>> "D. Durousseau" <i8y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip> honestly how much of George's solo
>>work is remembered NOW, let alone thirty years from now?
>>
>>Deni D.
>
>All of it! Do you have any idea how many teenagers have bought, not just
>All Things Must Pass, but Cloud 9, Extra Texture, Concert for Bangla Desh,
>etc.? I'm on 2 mailing lists for George. Most of the participants are
>under 25, and many have every solo album heever made, including some
>bootlegs. And what about "Something"? Musicians are still covering it.
I'm sure there are a lot of people into George's solo work, but the
popular culture really seems to have passed on it, not that that's a good
thing. I got into his solo work when I was a teenager, but I'd bet more
people now are buying old Led Zepplin or Kiss records, or music from
numerous other bands from the '70s than are buying George's work. And
there'll probably be at least many or more people buying old U2 and Oasis
albums twenty years from now than are buying George's old catalog. I
wouldn't put down any band just because its music won't be as popular 20
years on as it was when it came out, kind of a high standard to hit.
Leaves out a lot of great music, what about those great bands which weren't
even that commercially popular in their time? Don't forget, also, that
Something falls under George's Beatle work, not his solo career.
AppleCorp3
>George needs to get laid, record a new album, and relax a little. Rob
>
>
You know, Rob, I was just about to take your little comment partially
serious, then you threw in that little "getting laid" comment and it made
your entire post seem childish and just plain stupid!
CarnyDC
Laura Dever <lde...@flash.net> wrote:
>George is not being an asshole. He is simply telling the truth. I like
>Oasis' music, but that is probably because it is a total rip-off of
>Beatles music. They even admit it. There is no orginality. If you want
>an example of 'major asshole,'just look in the dictionary, Noel and Liam
>are pictured with the definition.
Truth or not truth, George is giving his opinion, I don't think anyone can
accurately predict what people will be listening to 30 years from now. And
how can someone who has listened to even a small amount of Oasis' music
even begin to think its a 'total rip-off' of Beatles music? Besides that
Chemical Bros-Noel song Setting Sun (sounding very much like Tomorrow Never
Knows), the only Beatles 'rip off' is a few lines and short musical bits
tossed here and there which most people wouldn't even recognize and which
would be nothing on their own. No more than the Beatles 'ripped off' from
Chuck Berry, James Taylor, Elvis or a number of other artists. Oasis are
also at least as much influences by bands like T.Rex, Bowie, Gary Glitter,
Slade and the bunch as they are by Beatles. I don't recall Noel ever
admitting that Oasis's music is a total rip off of the Beatles. Noel has
written over 50 songs for Oasis, and I don't see how someone who has
actually listened to a good number of those songs can seriously say that
there is no originality in that body of work. So using a phrase George
Harrison used once for a song title (Wonderwall) negates all other
originality and quality of the song? Can people be more simplistic when
they discuss Oasis' music? And also, I really don't see why anyone has to
refer to any of these musicians as 'assholes', is there a point to that?
Joe McGlinchey
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Jade wrote:
> years. Imagine that - _20 Years_. Twice as long as the Beatles were
> together. They've already outlasted the Beatles in that respect, and I
> can quite seriously imagine them outlasting the Beatles in terms of
> popularity.
> Harrison sounds exactly like older singers like Sinatra and Crosby who
> said that rock n' roll "wouldn't last." People laughed at them and called
> them out of touch. Well, as of now, George Harrison is officially Out Of
> Touch.
It's called an opinion.
He might not be correct on what he said, and I'm sure many people will not
agree with him completely or even partially (I, for example, think that
U2, Oasis and yes even the Spice Girls will be remembered in at least some
respect years from now).
But do his comments *really* seem *that* outrageous? You think it's
completely implausible that people might find Liam Gallagher silly, Bono
and company egocentric, "the Spice Girls-are-nice-to-look-at-but...", and
that the record industry sucks more than ever nowadays?!
I don't think he's a grouch, either...don't forget, he was the one who
helped finance Monty Python's "Life of Brian", complained that Madonna
didn't have a sense of humor and Sean Penn was too uptight, and fondly
remembered Roy Orbison by saying he knew all the lyrics to "Sit on My
Face".
He just strikes me as an outspoken (and extremely introverted, given his
retreats from public life and general disdain for the "Rock Star as God"
image, an image Bono, IMO, seems to be eating up currently) individual not
afraid to speak *his* point of view. So sue him.
Joe McGlinchey
Teachers College
Columbia University
Gavin Allen
>Why in the hell was this crossed to r.m.b? It all but eliminates the
>possibility of sensible, logical discussion.
>
>In article <5u7dr8$17do$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>dan...@prodigy.stopspam.net wrote:
>
>>The last time I looked Jade <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> was saying
>>something like this:
>>>Well, you're both quite ignorant. U2 have been together for almost 20
>>>years. Imagine that - _20 Years_. Twice as long as the Beatles were
>>>together. They've already outlasted the Beatles in that respect, and I
>>>can quite seriously imagine them outlasting the Beatles in terms of
>>>popularity.
>>None of which has anything to do with talent. I like U2. I like them a
>>lot. But they don't even come close to The Beatles in originality and
>>overall talent.
>
>And *TALENT* has nothing to do with the ability to be memorable. I'm quite
>sorry, but U2, Oasis and, yes, even Spice Girls will all be remembered in
>30 years. Remember, all three are record-holders, and Oasis and U2
>(especially U2) have been around for awhile *now*.
>
They'll be remembered like Tiny Tim is remembered.
Bono VoxU2
Oh COME on....look how far U2 has gotten from then...sure they've been
swallowed by today's pop-obsessed trash music, but they'll break through,a
nd kick some ass...then George will be mad that he said that.
>U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
>boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
>U2's first album are still being played?
>Also,I would rather listen to Dylan records than most of the
>du;ll,boring,repetitive
>gargage being released today.
>Way to go George,thanks for speaking up.
>Glen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Mother Sucking Rock and Roll!"
Bono...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/bonovoxu2/popmart.html
NEW: http://members.aol.com/bonovoxu2/please.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steve Marinucci
I think it goes without saying that U2 and Oasis will never get the
scrutiny and respect of their music that the Beatles get (and rightfully
so...). As for Dylan, I think U2 would admit their music hasn't reached the
level of Dylan's accomplishments yet. On the other hand, Oasis wouldn't
admit it, but they're too caught up in themselves anyway.
--
----------------------------
Abbeyrd's Beatles Page
http://www.best.com/~abbeyrd
----------------------------
Jade <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.970829...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>...
: Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
: while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
: cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
: have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
: and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
: however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
: years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
:
Blitz
Hmmm...a lot of arrogant attitudes here. A lot of crap as well. As a
Beatle fan for most of my life (since I was 12 - so 20 years) I am just
so happy that I found them at such an impressionable age. I could've
easily slid into the Black Sabbath / Foghat / stupid uncreative band of
the day syndrome. And thank God I didn't because my mind is so open for
new music, new ideas, etc. The Beatle pushed the '60's a long for sure,
but the attitudes here would make John roll over in his grave. I notice
a lot of people my age won't give new music a chance - so I'm assuming
you're 30 or older.
Did someone like you not hear the excitement in "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
- enough to send shivers down your spine (Similar to impressionable
teenagers in early '64 who heard "I Want To Hold Your Hand" for the first
time.
Does someone like you reject a band because they have a weird name like
"The Breeders" before even giving the tunes a chance?
Would someone like you denounce a younger brother or cousin because they
can play an instrument, joined a band and performed a very noisy, but
strangely entertaining, version of "Day Tripper"
As L7 (whom you've obviously never heard of) said - "People like you
just fuel my fire". For those who are so taken by the Beatles creativity
and vision to go criticize...........
Dale
Falcon wrote:
>
> Jade wrote:
> >
> > Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> > while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> > cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> > have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> > and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> > however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> > years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
> > to do with today's music.
>
Lulu Spice
In article <mgmax-29089...@ip250.chicago10.il.pub-ip.psi.net>,
mg...@mindspring.com (Michael Gebert) wrote:
>In article <bitchyspice-29...@d116-mfs.dancris.com>,
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com wrote:
>> And *TALENT* has nothing to do with the ability to be memorable. I'm quite
>> sorry, but U2, Oasis and, yes, even Spice Girls will all be remembered in
>> 30 years. Remember, all three are record-holders
>Oh, so they're going to be remembered like Bobby Sherman!
If you'd kindly explain to those in the audience not familiar with every
one-hit wonder of the 60s who Bobby Sherman is, I'll entertain your
ridiculous 'sarcastic' and obviously brilliant reply.
Cheers,
Lulu, hoping everyone realises the consequences of posting to r.m.b
Lulu Spice
In article <01bcb4ed$0af7ebc0$3511...@glynn.pathcom.com>, "Glen & Lynn"
<gl...@pathcom.com> wrote:
>U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
>boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
>U2's first album are still being played?
I do believe 'I Will Follow' is off their first album, and is considered a
classic.
>Also,I would rather listen to Dylan records than most of the
>du;ll,boring,repetitive
>gargage being released today.
Gargage? Obviously Dylan's enunciation wears off upon his listeners.
>Way to go George,thanks for speaking up.
Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
radio?
Cheers,
Lulu
Lulu Spice
In article <19970830201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
>Seems everyone is forgetting that U2 took some stabs at the Beatles as
>well, calling them "elevator music" etc. Does that make what George said
>any more right? No, but it gives him a reason anyway. So I ask you which
>is better, U2 making fun of the greatest rock and roll band we've ever
>seen, or George, a member of that band, making fun of U2? George can say
>what he wants, he's been at it a lot longer than *any* member of U2!!!
You're thinking of REM, not U2. U2 are huge Beatles fans, and have covered
Beatles songs in concerts (see their excellent version of Helter Skelter
on the Rattle & Hum LP), and modelled one of their videos after the
infamous rooftop concert. Until you go and research musical history, you
are not allowed to post on this groop. First reading assignment: the
history of U2. Thanks.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
I'm sick and tired of absolute ignorance in the world.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
^E! online says it's the #4 best 'teen idol' site in the world...
Lulu Spice
I love this newsgroop...nice to see people so out of touch with reality.
In article <3407BF...@flash.net>, lde...@flash.net wrote:
>George is not being an asshole. He is simply telling the truth. I like
>Oasis' music, but that is probably because it is a total rip-off of
>Beatles music. They even admit it.
Do they then? Funny, in Noel Gallagher's words: 'Look. It's like this. The
Beatles didn't invent string arrangements. They didn't invent guitars.
They didn't invent rock and roll. The Beatles didn't invent
anything...[snip]...this isn't their sound, it's anyone's sound, it's our
sound. We are Oasis'. Anyone who has heard anything from their first
album, the harder songs off ther second, any of their new album and most
of their b-sides would know that Oasis actually sound very little like the
Beatles, save for a handful of songs. They are far more Who/T Rex/Stones
influenced, and anyone who knows anything about musical history could see
that. Just because Noel says he admires John Lennon doesn't mean he's
trying to rip off the Beatles.
>There is no orginality. If you want
>an example of 'major asshole,'just look in the dictionary, Noel and Liam
>are pictured with the definition.
Right. Let me tell you something then, an interesting story. Noel and Liam
are amongst the nicest people I have ever met. Liam is nasty in the press
to get attention (and partially because the paparazzi deserve it, and if
you don't believe me turn on SKY or CNN or whatever you have near you and
watch the Princess Diana coverage). Noel simply isn't nasty in the press.
He does get blunt, but in general he is amiable and intelligent. George
Harrison, on the other hand, is little more than a doddery old man. At
least the other two Beatles are amiable people.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
"YOu never notice nutcases unless they do something normal" - from Dr Katz
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
^E! online said it's the #4 best web site...
Gavin Allen
On 30 Aug 1997 20:10:41 GMT, apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
>>> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
>>> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
>>> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
>>> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
>>> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
>>> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
>>> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
>>> to do with today's music.
>>
>>What is the problem?
>>George can have his opinion.
>>He doesn't think the spice girls or Oasis have staying power, and he
>>doesn't think U2 will be remembered.
>>I'm not an old fart and I agree with him.
>>If something comes along that he likes, will you judge him for that,
>>too?
>>jam
>
>
>Seems everyone is forgetting that U2 took some stabs at the Beatles as
>well, calling them "elevator music" etc. Does that make what George said
>any more right? No, but it gives him a reason anyway. So I ask you which
>is better, U2 making fun of the greatest rock and roll band we've ever
>seen, or George, a member of that band, making fun of U2? George can say
>what he wants, he's been at it a lot longer than *any* member of U2!!!
Actually, that was Michael Stipe of R.E.M. who made the "elevator
music" remark regarding The Beatles. I think George got his stab in at
U2 in the Simpsons episode. Even though it was the B-Sharps up on the
roof when George made his comment about it having already been done, I
think he was aiming this barb at U-2's "Streets Have No Name" video.
That's what I like to think, anyway.
Danny Caccavo
In article <19970831141...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
tpr67...@aol.com (Tpr67thRTT) wrote:
> My comments stand as is. And I am sorry but my comments were not juvenile.
> The comment of George 'getting laid' is merely an analogy for him to
> 'lighten up' a little and not be so uptight. 'Getting laid' refers, in a
> roundabout way, to him 'letting loose' a little. He just seems so uptight.
> Why doesn't he get into the studio, record some great new music, and show
> these new bands how the 'big boys' do it? Cloud 9 was and is a masterpiece.
> It's a shame George has let success and money cloud his original dreams
> when he was just a young scruff in Liverpool. It's really sad. ROB
You sound very young.....this is not a putdown, but it's difficult for
some rock stars to remain adolescents forever. For other rock stars, it's
easy. Give George a break.
--
Danny Caccavo (dan...@interport.net)
This Way Studios
http://www.users.interport.net/~danielj/
"Hey, Bee-atle - we shall have fun, eh?"
(delete the * from my return address for replies.....)
R Lapworth
In message <3413bb46...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>
al...@cris.com (Gavin Allen) writes:
> Actually, that was Michael Stipe of R.E.M. who made the "elevator
> music" remark regarding The Beatles. I think George got his stab in at
> U2 in the Simpsons episode. Even though it was the B-Sharps up on the
> roof when George made his comment about it having already been done, I
> think he was aiming this barb at U-2's "Streets Have No Name" video.
> That's what I like to think, anyway.
"Elevator music"? The Beatles?
Well, they certainly give me lift.
(Sorry about that one. They can't all be gems.)
Ron
cst
D. Durousseau wrote:
>
> Jade wrote:
> >
> > Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
> > while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
> > cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
> > have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
> > and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
> > however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
> > years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
> > to do with today's music.
> work is remembered NOW, let alone thirty years from now?
>
> Deni D.
Even if George Harrison released a new album, popular culture of the
nineties would ignore it. Don't get me wrong here, I was surprised that
Paul McCartney was able to put out a hit album this year. Maybe George
still has some stuff in him.
jweb
George's statements about the music of today is a non-event. If he
would have given maybe a longer interview, those comments would have
been lost in the shuffle. It's not like George held a press conference
and said "Oasis and U2 suck".
I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. Maybe George
is just going through a Dylan-phase again, and listening to his music.
If someone asks him in 6 months if he likes any current groups, he might
have a completely different answer.
John
"No one I think is in my tree,
because I don't have one, just shrubbery"
Tpr67thRTT
Lulu Spice
In article <19970830154...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
runn...@aol.com (Runnnerr) wrote:
>George is right. Groups like U2, Oasis, etc. just suck. Your little
>brother is laughing behind your back when he hears you listening to that
>shit. See if you're listening to it 10 years from now.
Oh, that makes sense. Being as U2 have been around since the late 70s and
had lots of fans back then and all. So how about see if you're listening
to it 30 years, then? Whatever. Think, McFly, think.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
Please go to http://www.royal.gov.uk before seeing my site...
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
^E! online says it's the #4 best site
Gondola Bob
In article <bitchyspice-31...@mp14.dancris.com>,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com wrote:
> In article <mgmax-29089...@ip250.chicago10.il.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> mg...@mindspring.com (Michael Gebert) wrote:
>
> >In article <bitchyspice-29...@d116-mfs.dancris.com>,
> >bitch...@removethis.geocities.com wrote:
> >> And *TALENT* has nothing to do with the ability to be memorable. I'm quite
> >> sorry, but U2, Oasis and, yes, even Spice Girls will all be remembered in
> >> 30 years. Remember, all three are record-holders
> >Oh, so they're going to be remembered like Bobby Sherman!
>
> If you'd kindly explain to those in the audience not familiar with every
> one-hit wonder of the 60s who Bobby Sherman is, I'll entertain your
> ridiculous 'sarcastic' and obviously brilliant reply.
I have a Bobby Sherman record containing a cover of Dylan's "One Too Many
Mornings." ;)
Tying together two errant threads,
Eb
Joe McGlinchey
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Lulu Spice wrote:
> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
> radio?
"My Sweet Lord" is probably the only one (I personally love that
one--actually sounds quite Californian), and is still played pretty
frequently. Technically, though (and I could be wrong), I think George's
uncommercial "Wonderwall" album preceded the more accessible "All Things
Must Pass".
Rumpus_Cat
In article
<Pine.SUN.3.95L.97083...@ahnnyong.cc.columbia.edu>, Joe
McGlinchey <jb...@columbia.edu> wrote:
I also hear "What Is Life" very often, and I always hear Wilburys tunes
being piped in at the mall (the real songs, not the Muzak).
Technically, ATMP is George's 3rd album, but it's the first one he made
after leaving the Beatles so it is considered his first solo release by
most. _Electronic Sound_ and _Wonderwall Music_ were first, but they were
released while he was with the Beatles. They get about as much radio play
as John Lennon's _Life With the Lions_ and _Two Virgins_.
Rumpus Cat
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~d-max
"Always . . . always remember: less is less. More is more. More is better, and twice as much is good too . . . Not enough is bad and too much is never enough except when it's just about right."
-the Tick, from Chroma-Tick no. 9
***Remove NOSPAM from my e-mail address to reply***
Lulu Spice
In article
<Pine.SUN.3.95L.97083...@ahnnyong.cc.columbia.edu>, Joe
McGlinchey <jb...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Lulu Spice wrote:
>> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
>> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
>> radio?
>"My Sweet Lord" is probably the only one (I personally love that
>one--actually sounds quite Californian), and is still played pretty
>frequently. Technically, though (and I could be wrong), I think George's
>uncommercial "Wonderwall" album preceded the more accessible "All Things
>Must Pass".
Um -- I *meant* Wonderwall Music, not All Things Must Pass. I never said
otherwise, actually :)
Russell Taylor
Speaking of U2, anyone remember the video they did where the police came
to break up the scene they were causing by performing live? If I didn`t
know any better, I would say that was a direct rip-off from Let It Be.
Russell
Falcon
Calvin MacLean wrote:
<good stuff>
>
> cm
Point well taken..I stand corrected
Gavin Allen
On 30 Aug 1997 20:10:41 GMT, apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
>>> Just read the original comments from Harrison about Oasis, U2 et al., and
>>> while he's entitled to his opinion, I can't help but think of all those
>>> cranky old farts in the 60s who said that the Beatles "wouldn't last." U2
>>> have been together and recording a damn site longer than the Beatles did,
>>> and have been on top for most of that time. What's most pathetic,
>>> however, is his claim "I'd rather listen to Dylan." It's been almost 30
>>> years _since_ Dylan put out anything of value, and he has precious little
>>> to do with today's music.
>>
>>What is the problem?
>>George can have his opinion.
>>He doesn't think the spice girls or Oasis have staying power, and he
>>doesn't think U2 will be remembered.
>>I'm not an old fart and I agree with him.
>>If something comes along that he likes, will you judge him for that,
>>too?
>>jam
>
>
>Seems everyone is forgetting that U2 took some stabs at the Beatles as
>well, calling them "elevator music" etc. Does that make what George said
>any more right? No, but it gives him a reason anyway. So I ask you which
>is better, U2 making fun of the greatest rock and roll band we've ever
>seen, or George, a member of that band, making fun of U2? George can say
>what he wants, he's been at it a lot longer than *any* member of U2!!!
Actually, that was Michael Stipe of R.E.M. who made the "elevator
Susan Juliano
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:38:20 +0100, R Lapworth <rlap...@zetnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>"Elevator music"? The Beatles?
>
>Well, they certainly give me lift.
Ba-DUMP-bump!
I always thought that hearing Beatles music "interpreted" as Muzak was the
worst thing that I could ever be exposed to, and Lord knows I've heard
enough of it in elevators, restaurants and various waiting rooms. Then I
went to Beatlefest in Chicago and heard the hotel pianist early Friday
morning. He was doing songs from the sixties, "San Francisco (Wear Some
Flowers in Your Hair" being the only one I can remember offhand, and I told
my companion how depressing it was to hear the music of my youth rendered
in tinkling cocktail piano style. Then he switched to Beatles songs and I
nearly cried. I tell you, it was horrible. No denegration of the pianist's
talent or technique... It was just WRONG to do that to Beatles songs!
==========================================================
Susan Juliano "Sooner or later, love comes to everyone"
sjul...@gte.net --George Harrison
Neheb-ka-f
In article <01bcb638$26d13580$29175ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"
<patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> Pierre Torvald <oe...@netset.com> wrote in article
> <34094B...@netset.com>...
> > Lulu Spice wrote:
>
> > > Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
> > > Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on
> > > the radio?
> >
> > None
>
> Well, I have heard that one he got sued for... whatsisname... the one that
> sounded like "He's So Fine"... oh, hell. Guess that's it, though.
>
> -Nate "My Sweet... uh... Lord? Yeah, that's it." Patrin
"He's so Fine" was George's response to meating Brian Epstein.
Susan Juliano
>Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
>Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
>radio?
Funny you should mention this! I heard "Devil's Radio" on my local rock
station just this morning! OK, so that's from _Cloud 9_, but I often hear
Olivia Newton-John's version of "If Not for You" on the oldies station.
RasMaster
In article <5ud3v7$2gm$1...@gte1.gte.net>, sjul...@gte.net (Susan Juliano)
writes:
>>"Elevator music"? The Beatles?
>>
>>Well, they certainly give me lift.
>
>Ba-DUMP-bump!
>
>I always thought that hearing Beatles music "interpreted" as Muzak was the
>worst thing that I could ever be exposed to, and Lord knows I've heard
>enough of it in elevators, restaurants and various waiting rooms. Then I
>went to Beatlefest in Chicago and heard the hotel pianist early Friday
>morning. He was doing songs from the sixties, "San Francisco (Wear Some
>Flowers in Your Hair" being the only one I can remember offhand, and I told
>my companion how depressing it was to hear the music of my youth rendered
>in tinkling cocktail piano style. Then he switched to Beatles songs and I
>nearly cried. I tell you, it was horrible. No denegration of the pianist's
>talent or technique... It was just WRONG to do that to Beatles songs!
>
Susan - if that's the same "pianist" I ran into, it wasn't even a pianist,
it was some new-fangled player piano, that plays songs automatically,
based on some tiny computer disk attached to the bottom of the
keyboard. My girls were quite fascinated by it. A few people sat at the
piano at times, and pretended to be playing, but it was all mechanical.
They did have a program of various songs going for awhile, then somebody
replaced it with an all beatles program later, and that's what we heard
for the rest of the weekend.
Bob Purse
AppleCorp3
>Even if George Harrison released a new album, popular culture of the
>nineties would ignore it. Don't get me wrong here, I was surprised that
>Paul McCartney was able to put out a hit album this year. Maybe George
>still has some stuff in him.
>
then you say a George album would be totally ignored?!?
AppleCorp3
I think a lot of you are missing the point (some of you are so I don't
want posts or mail saying you are) that this is just OPINION. Have we
heard of that?!! Just because George is famous and thus public property
doesn't mean he has to have the opinion that everyone wants him to have,
and shame on you if you think that! Probably a few days ago before
George's comments were published you all probably thought that he was
great, etc. Now that his opinions conflict with yours he is a "major
asshole" i don't get it. I KNOW i'll be in big trouble as soon as I hit
the "send" button, but I want people to read this so here it goes....
Mcgbjk
HTML>On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Jade wrote:
> years. Imagine that - _20 Years_. Twice as long as the Beatles were
> together. They've already outlasted the Beatles in that respect, and I
> can quite seriously imagine them outlasting the Beatles in terms of
> popularity.
> Harrison sounds exactly like older singers like Sinatra and Crosby who
> said that rock n' roll "wouldn't last." People laughed at them and called
> them out of touch. Well, as of now, George Harrison is officially Out Of
> Touch.
I'm curious: George is "Out Of Touch" because he doesn't think much of a
20 year old band? That seems kind of odd. Wouldn't liking U2 make one
"Out Of Touch", since they are no longer a new, or young, band? 20 years
is an ENTIRE generation.....
Lulu Spice
In article <5udbk5$ps9$1...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>, bigj...@webtv.net
(Russell Taylor) wrote:
We've already discussed this, and it wasn't a rip off, it was a homage.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
Visit the Spice Rack: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
(E! says that it's the #4 site on the net)
Calvin MacLean
apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
It's just that any opinions of the "greats" from the era carry so much
weight with at least all of us who read rmb. I suspect a lot of young
Oasis or U2 fans haven't heard Harrison's comment, maybe haven't even
"heard" of Harrison. It's sorta like Da Vinci having a look at
Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and saying "well this sucks doesn't it,
Not like in my day..." (...well, maybe only sorta like that)
My point is: having another old fart pooh, poohing the big-uns of
today just gets those youngsters' blood boiling. We of the baby boom
persuasion are so damn many that just about anyone important to us
then, will be important to all now, darnnit! Even if they're kinda
quiet these days. No, George hasn't set the world on fire since
Traveling Wilburys (maybe not even then), but he has mattered a lot to
R&R and a lot of people still sit up and take notice when he has
something to say.
Now, when what he has to say is kinda grumpy about today's music, some
people just feel that baby boomer boot grinding down on them. Hard to
blame them. Many of my younger friends just shake their heads when I
pull out my Beatles music ("there he goes again, hummin' them ol'
tunes") --they appreciate them, but only as historical background, as
the grandaddies of bands like Oasis, or Wallflowers, or Counting
Crows. So, while Harrison's opinion IS just that, it's an opinion
that matters more than mine or yours, or Bach's or Beethoven's (by the
way, I've "read somewhere" that Bach and Beethoven did not like
today's music!). Harrison was at the start, defining the form, along
with guys like Dylan, and if he says that what's happening today
doesn't cut it, it's going to get passed around. And some people
aren't going to like it.
'Cause maybe he's got a point.
cm
AppleCorp3
>It's just that any opinions of the "greats"
Exactly, he is one of the greats. He was part of greatest R&R band of
all time. So at least he has his ranks right. I know i am not alone in
thinking that the Beatles rank above and beyond U2, Oasis, and the Spice
Girls in all fields. So George has every right to make his comments,
coming from where he's been, you have every right not to agree but don't
condem (sp?) him just for his actions or words cuz it's not right.
Susan Juliano
On 1 Sep 1997 02:29:41 GMT, rasm...@aol.com (RasMaster) wrote:
>In article <5ud3v7$2gm$1...@gte1.gte.net>, sjul...@gte.net (Susan Juliano)
>writes:
>>[...] how depressing it was to hear the music of my youth rendered
>>in tinkling cocktail piano style.
>Susan - if that's the same "pianist" I ran into, it wasn't even a pianist,
>it was some new-fangled player piano, that plays songs automatically,
Even worse! Tinkling cocktail piano style Muzak! It's a sign of the
Apocalypse, I tell you. :-)
========================================================================
Susan Juliano <sjul...@gte.net> "Aw, rock on, anybody!" --Ringo Starr
cst
Yeah, it's a shame how George Harrison is stuck with folk, country, and
old rock and roll. Also, George is still stuck with his million dollar
cars and his million room mansion, Friar Park. At least Paul McCartney
is open to new music like he said on VH1's town meeting in which he
liked Oasis and Beck. Paul has even dabled with some techno in 1993
with techno producer, Youth, before the term "electronica" was coined.
cst
What I was trying to say is that for solo Beatles like Paul McCartney or
George Harrison, radio, MTV, and VH-1 have ignored them on a regular
basis. I'm talking about the new stuff that is released from them is
usually ignored completely by top 40 radio or MTV.
cst
Lulu Spice wrote:
>
> In article <19970830201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
>
> >Seems everyone is forgetting that U2 took some stabs at the Beatles as
> >well, calling them "elevator music" etc. Does that make what George said
> >any more right? No, but it gives him a reason anyway. So I ask you which
> >is better, U2 making fun of the greatest rock and roll band we've ever
> >seen, or George, a member of that band, making fun of U2? George can say
> >what he wants, he's been at it a lot longer than *any* member of U2!!!
>
> You're thinking of REM, not U2. U2 are huge Beatles fans, and have covered
> Beatles songs in concerts (see their excellent version of Helter Skelter
> on the Rattle & Hum LP), and modelled one of their videos after the
> infamous rooftop concert. Until you go and research musical history, you
> are not allowed to post on this groop. First reading assignment: the
> history of U2. Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Lulu
>
> --
> I'm sick and tired of absolute ignorance in the world.
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
> ^E! online says it's the #4 best 'teen idol' site in the world...
Right on!!!!!
I mean U2 paid tribute on the video for "Where the Streets Have No Name"
on the rooftop of a hotel in L.A. U2 also paid tribute in the video for
"Even Better than the Real Thing" with a brief shot of Sgt. Pepper, in
their sequel to Lennon's track, "God", with the appropriately tittled
"God Part II" in which Bono denounces Albert Goldman's hachet job of his
biography on John Lennon by saying "Instant Karma will get him first if
I don't get him first".
cst
"Elevator music"? The Beatles?
I don't think so. That's why Paul McCartney wrote "Helter Skelter" and
John Lennon wrote "Revolution". Gee, that sounds like "Elevator Music".
Lulu Spice
In article <19970901053...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
>I think a lot of you are missing the point (some of you are so I don't
>want posts or mail saying you are) that this is just OPINION. Have we
>heard of that?!!
Yes, but apparently you haven't. Every subsequent post to this thread --
including yours, right above, and mine, right here -- has been opinion on
George's opinion. So what's your story?
>Just because George is famous and thus public property
>doesn't mean he has to have the opinion that everyone wants him to have,
>and shame on you if you think that!
And shame on you for thinking people who disagree with him just want him
to have a certain opinion. Obviously, there are people with a bit much,
but I find this hasn't been TOO prevalent. Also, shame on you for calling
ANYONE public property.
>Probably a few days ago before
>George's comments were published you all probably thought that he was
>great, etc.
Nope. I've thought he was a wanker for ages. He always has been.
gaanji
In article <bitchyspice-31...@mp14.dancris.com>,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com wrote:
> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
> radio?
"Apple Scruffs", "All Things Must Pass", "Isn't It a Pity", "What is
Life", and "My Sweet Lord".
- gaanji
--
"If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?" -X Files
Lulu Spice
In article <01bcb743$a8759020$a1608cd0@jmills>, "Jeff Mills"
<jmi...@awod.com> wrote:
>Lulu Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> wrote in article
><bitchyspice-31...@mp14.dancris.com>...
>> In article <01bcb4ed$0af7ebc0$3511...@glynn.pathcom.com>, "Glen & Lynn"
>> <gl...@pathcom.com> wrote:
>> >U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
>> >boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
>> >U2's first album are still being played?
>> I do believe 'I Will Follow' is off their first album, and is considered
>> classic.
> I haven't heard it but ok.
There is also Gloria, from either their first or second album (I honestly
cannot remember whether Boy or Octobre were their first album), not to
mention Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One,
Pride in the Name of Love and Bad are all off early U2 work, and are this
close of being *overplayed* on 'classic rock radio' in the US (I never can
work out just how these stations exactly work)
>> >Also,I would rather listen to Dylan records than most of the
>> >du;ll,boring,repetitive
>> >gargage being released today.
>> Gargage? Obviously Dylan's enunciation wears off upon his listeners.
> Obviously, it's a typo.
Obviously, my statement was a joke that anyone who has had the, erm,
pleasure of listening to Mr. Dylan speak would've understood.
Incidentally, there's no semi-colon in 'dull'.
>> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
>> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
>> radio?
> Okay. These have been.
>1. My Sweet Lord
>2. What Is Life?
>3. Art Of Dying
> any more questions?
Yeah: since when did All Things Must Pass become George's first album?
Actually, I don't even believe that is his *second* album.
Cheers,
Lulu, sick and tired of Beatles 'fans' who don't even know the history of
the people involved.
Jeff Mills
Lulu Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> wrote in article
<bitchyspice-31...@mp14.dancris.com>...
> In article <01bcb4ed$0af7ebc0$3511...@glynn.pathcom.com>, "Glen & Lynn"
> <gl...@pathcom.com> wrote:
>
> >U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
> >boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
> >U2's first album are still being played?
>
> I do believe 'I Will Follow' is off their first album, and is considered
a
> classic.
I haven't heard it but ok.
> >Also,I would rather listen to Dylan records than most of the
> >du;ll,boring,repetitive
> >gargage being released today.
>
> Gargage? Obviously Dylan's enunciation wears off upon his listeners.
Obviously, it's a typo.
> >Way to go George,thanks for speaking up.
>
> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
> radio?
Okay. These have been.
1. My Sweet Lord
2. What Is Life?
3. Art Of Dying
any more questions?
CarnyDC
mcg...@aol.com (Mcgbjk) wrote:
>Carny wrote:
>
>>I'm sure there are a lot of people into George's solo work, but the
>>popular culture really seems to have passed on it
>
>Gotta disagree with you here Carny. I live in NYC, and the classic rock
>stations play quite a few George songs: My Sweet Lord, What Is My Life
>Without YOu (whatever the name of that song is), etc. This is a major
>cultural center, or so I am told (you certainly wouldn't know it from the
>locals). Anyway, while I am not a big fan of his solo work, I do get the
>impressiont that these, and other tunes, are part of the popular culture,
>and can be described as rock "standards".
I agree that classic rock radio will play the occasional My Sweet Lord,
What Is Life or Beatle Harrison tune, but they really have seemed to boil
George's entire solo work down to a handful of songs. Like with John
Lennon, the popular (and radio) view seems to be that his solo career
consists of Imagine, Instant Karma (that song in the commercial to many
people), Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Woman, and (Just Like) Starting
Over and that's it. Almost no attention is paid to Harrison's solo career
other than a few of his top hits played on classic rock radio now and then
and maybe a mention of the story behind the Concert for Bangladesh. I
think that's a real shame, as I especially like Harrison albums like 33 1/3
and George Harrison. But I really do think that all the popular culture
remembers of solo Harrison these days is My Sweet Lord, What is Life, (Give
Me Love) Give Me Peace On Earth, Got My Mind Set On You and maybe a
Wilbury's song or two if even that much. People probably recognize more of
his Beatle songs like Something, Here Comes the Sun, While My Guitar Gently
Weeps and Within you Without you. That's a real shame, but it just goes to
show how hard it is for any band, including solo Beatles, to compete with
the lasting legacy of the Beatles.
Blac...@msn.com
In article <5ue845$11...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
cam...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu wrote:
>
> It's just that any opinions of the "greats" from the era carry so much
> weight with at least all of us who read rmb.
Speak for yourself. When I hear a "great" say something like that, I
wonder how closely he follows music. Something tells me that George's
knowledge of newer bands consists of the stuff he hears in the car and
the stuff he yells at his kid to turn down. No one says he has to follow
them, but it doesn't exactly qualify him to assess contemporary music. >
I suspect a lot of young
> Oasis or U2 fans haven't heard Harrison's comment, maybe haven't even
> "heard" of Harrison.
I've noticed that if you ask someone under 25 to name all four Beatles,
George is the one they usually leave out.
> My point is: having another old fart pooh, poohing the big-uns of
> today just gets those youngsters' blood boiling. We of the baby boom
> persuasion are so damn many that just about anyone important to us
> then, will be important to all now, darnnit!
Just like Benny Goodman was important in 67.
>
> Now, when what he has to say is kinda grumpy about today's music, some
> people just feel that baby boomer boot grinding down on them. Hard to
> blame them. Many of my younger friends just shake their heads when I
> pull out my Beatles music ("there he goes again, hummin' them ol'
> tunes") --they appreciate them, but only as historical background, as
> the grandaddies of bands like Oasis, or Wallflowers, or Counting
> Crows. So, while Harrison's opinion IS just that, it's an opinion
> that matters more than mine or yours,
Maybe more than yours, but if his opinion ever conflicts with mine I'm
going with my own every time. (I do know myself a bit better than George
Harrison does, after all)
> or Bach's or Beethoven's (by the
> way, I've "read somewhere" that Bach and Beethoven did not like
> today's music!). Harrison was at the start, defining the form, along
> with guys like Dylan, and if he says that what's happening today
> doesn't cut it, it's going to get passed around. And some people
> aren't going to like it.
>
> 'Cause maybe he's got a point.
>
Then again, maybe not. I wonder how he would have felt if, in 64, Carl
Perkins had said to him "you know, some of those licks you're playing
sound mighty familiar."
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Calvin MacLean
Blac...@msn.com wrote:
>In article <5ue845$11...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
> cam...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu wrote:
So, while Harrison's opinion IS just that, it's an opinion
>> that matters more than mine or yours,
>Maybe more than yours, but if his opinion ever conflicts with mine I'm
>going with my own every time. (I do know myself a bit better than George
>Harrison does, after all)
I have no doubt. But Harrison's opinion has been blasted over the
media, prompted heated reply here and elsewhere and carries at least
the authority of his name, reputation and success in the field. By
all these objective measures, his opinion still matters. In my view,
still more than yours -- or mine.
Harrison was at the start, defining the form, along
>> with guys like Dylan, and if he says that what's happening today
>> doesn't cut it, it's going to get passed around. And some people
>> aren't going to like it.
>>
>> 'Cause maybe he's got a point.
>>
>Then again, maybe not. I wonder how he would have felt if, in 64, Carl
>Perkins had said to him "you know, some of those licks you're playing
>sound mighty familiar."
Who knows! Maybe something like "Carl Perkins is listening to me!
Joy! Rapture! I know, I'll record one of his songs. But, gee, maybe
I need some new influences. This Indian gizmo looks like fun. Let's
give it a try."
But your larger point is well taken. Maybe Harrison's comment has no
real validity to the world beyond an understanding of George's own
personal tastes. OK, so he'd rather listen to Highway 61. Go for it
George. Make yourself happy! But Harrison has always struck me as
more than ordinarily thoughtful about the music he and others make.
His real criticism, it seems to me, was about the perils of creative
self-absorption (something he has some knowledge of which might be
useful), not who's using whose licks. A bit different.
cm
IAmagazine
>I've never considered Paul's
>solo work to be as 'fluffy' as a lot of people do, but when >he goes and
>puts out a song like this.... And for John, "Cold Turkey" is >just as bad,
>on the opposite end of the stick.
Re: "Cold Turkey." Isn't it great that people who are kicking drugs (and
other habits) have a song that acknowledges the difficulty of what they're
going through and lets them know they aren't alone? The world would be
poorer without it.
Ted
Mcgbjk
<HTML>amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
>> "D. Durousseau" <i8y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip> honestly how much of George's solo
>>work is remembered NOW, let alone thirty years from now?
>>
>>Deni D.
>
>All of it! Do you have any idea how many teenagers have bought, not just
>All Things Must Pass, but Cloud 9, Extra Texture, Concert for Bangla Desh,
>etc.? I'm on 2 mailing lists for George. Most of the participants are
>under 25, and many have every solo album heever made, including some
>bootlegs. And what about "Something"? Musicians are still covering it.
Mcgbjk
> In other words, during the 60s there were probably twice as many people
> in their teens and 20s (the prime source for pop music) than there are
> today ie the good 'ole baby boom. So to reach the top, you had to get
> past a lot more competition, with the result being that music from that
> era is still heavily listened to today.
>
Actually, there are probably WAY more people in their teens and 20s today
than in the 60s. World population has virtually doubled in the past 20
years (and the US pop has increased by well over 30 million people). Most
of these people are probably under the age of 30.....
AppleCorp3
>What I was trying to say is that for solo Beatles like Paul McCartney or
>George Harrison, radio, MTV, and VH-1 have ignored them on a regular
>basis. I'm talking about the new stuff that is released from them is
>usually ignored completely by top 40 radio or MTV.
I've heard tracks from Flaming Pie on a few Top 40 stations. And even if
the ARE ignored the album went gold and to # 2 in the charts, so it's not
like ONLY what is on Top 40 and MTV is popular.
JON
"Paul" <rpc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>This is really sad, Lulu. All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
>that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
>experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
>Anybody who doesn't know that All Things Must Pass is George's first solo
>album has no right to comment on the man's music career. How ironic that
>you chose to sign off with a comment about fans not knowing their history.
>Kind of embarrassing, eh Lulu?
"All Things Must Pass" is George's third solo album, because you
need to count "Wonderwall Music" & "Electronic Sound". Yes,
he was a Beatle when these two were made, and yes, they are hard-
listening (especially the second), but that doesn't change the fact
that they are solo albums. That's what Lulu was referring to.
Mr H
Some loser wrote:
> >This is really sad, Lulu. All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
> >that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
> >experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
> >Anybody who doesn't know that All Things Must Pass is George's first solo
> >album has no right to comment on the man's music career. How ironic that
> >you chose to sign off with a comment about fans not knowing their history.
> >Kind of embarrassing, eh Lulu?
Then Lulu wrote:
>
> So let me get this straight. You first are going to acknowledge his first
> (and far more interesting) solo albums, and then claim that All Things was
> his first? Hi, I'm Mr. Contradiction, and I like hear myself speak. If you
> are going to pretend that All Things was his first solo excursion, don't
> acknowledge his far earlier efforts in the same *paragraph*.
>
> Cheers,
> Lulu, wondering if Paul actually thought before typing on that one.
Well, Lulu, you're right. All Things Must Pass is actually George's
THIRD solo album (after Wonderwall and Electronic Sounds, in that
order). The thing to remember about these first two albums though is
that Wonderwall was a movie soundtrack, and no singles were ever even
intended to be released from it, and Electronic Sounds was just George's
dabbling in the Avant Garde. I listen to Wonderwall quite often, but
prefer to admire Electronic Sounds at a safe distance. :)
So to pit these two albums against Oasis or the Spice Girls or whatever
is really irrelevant. Maybe if Oasis and The Spice Girls released some
Indian or Avant Garde records, you'd be quite justified in comparing the
sales or whatever.
As for All Things Must Pass- it's a fantastic album. Many great songs
on it, and I wish more of them were released as singles (that way we'd
hear them on the radio).
In closing, I think one important thing to remember about this whole
thing is that George was only expressing an opinion. I guess when Oasis
voiced their opinions they got jumped on by Beatle fans, so George's
probably getting his just desserts, I dunno. Anyway, we're all entitled
to our opinions. :)
-Mr H
http://members.tripod.com/~Crackerbox
Crackerbox Palace - The DarkHorse Resource
Lulu Spice
>> So let me get this straight. You first are going to acknowledge his first
>> (and far more interesting) solo albums, and then claim that All Things was
>> his first? Hi, I'm Mr. Contradiction, and I like hear myself speak. If you
>> are going to pretend that All Things was his first solo excursion, don't
>> acknowledge his far earlier efforts in the same *paragraph*.
>Well, Lulu, you're right. All Things Must Pass is actually George's
>THIRD solo album (after Wonderwall and Electronic Sounds, in that
>order). The thing to remember about these first two albums though is
>that Wonderwall was a movie soundtrack, and no singles were ever even
>intended to be released from it, and Electronic Sounds was just George's
>dabbling in the Avant Garde. I listen to Wonderwall quite often, but
>prefer to admire Electronic Sounds at a safe distance. :)
They're both far more interesting albums than All Things Must Pass, at any
rate. A real attempt at innovation, I think.
>So to pit these two albums against Oasis or the Spice Girls or whatever
>is really irrelevant. Maybe if Oasis and The Spice Girls released some
>Indian or Avant Garde records, you'd be quite justified in comparing the
>sales or whatever.
Um, I think the fact that we weren't talking about this in terms of Oasis
or Spice Girls, and were rather talking about it in terms of U2's very
early, unpopular work, sort of ruins this point, as good as it would've
been had the Spice Girl comparison been true. I mean, you probably did
miss the post in this bizarre furour over George's solo albums, but the
original post that started this tangent asked which songs off of U2's
first album were ever played on the radio (two of them are, at any rate),
then went on to compare it to All Things Must Pass in terms of success.
Which is actually doing just what you said is irrelevant, when I think
about it.
>In closing, I think one important thing to remember about this whole
>thing is that George was only expressing an opinion. I guess when Oasis
>voiced their opinions they got jumped on by Beatle fans, so George's
>probably getting his just desserts, I dunno. Anyway, we're all entitled
>to our opinions. :)
Yep. That's why I like the more intelligent posts here (yours being one of
them, obviously). Unfortunate title for the posts, though. But, at any
rate, I find most of them are interesting point/counterpoints to George's
somewhat bizarre assertations.
Cheers,
Lulu
AppleCorp3
>All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
>>that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
>>experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
Does anywhere know where I can get some unlistenable experimental
non-music crap? Are they on CD yet? I've never heard them and very curious.
I've seen a lot of people refer to JL/POB as his first album. He, like
George, released several experemental albums that were in the same vein as
Wonderwall and Electronic Sound. I'm not saying they were the same, just
that they weren't the usual "formula music" we'd been used to with the
Beatles. However the REASON people refer to POB as John's first album is
that is his first to have songs on it just like any other album, you know
what I mean?? I also think of All Things Must Pass as George's first album
in the sense that it is not experemental, he released it with the intention
of it being a hit and it was following the same type of music that The
Beatles had been putting out.
But if you're gonna get technical about it All Things Must Pass is his
third solo album, period. But if we're gonna get like that we then must
call Paul's "McCartney" his SECOND solo album because of the Family Way
soundtrack released in 1966 (or was it '67?). Sorry Paul but I think Lulu
won this one!
Lulu Spice
In article <340deeda...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>What's truly sad here, of course, is that the same people who are so
>quick to tell us all how the Beatles were great experimenters,
>changers of music, et al, are so predictable when it comes to anything
>which steps remotely outside the (now extremely cosy) bounds of
>experimentation the Beatles set.
Yeah, exactly. I think it's a particular disservice because I happen to
think that George Harrison's experimental work is ten times more
interesting than anything else he's done. Wonderwall and Electronic are
worth listens, and, as far as I'm concerned, more worthy of praise than
All Things. I mean, at least he was trying to do something new, even if it
wasn't within those Beatlesque bounds.
Obviously, innovation is only innovation when it fits a narrow definition
of 'good'.
jweb
Why in the world is this thread being crossposted to
alt.showbiz.gossip and alt.music.alternative? Please, when you are on
rmb, and you respond to a post, make sure that the newsgroup you are
responding to is rmb.
I responded to the Beatles-Kiss thread, and was shocked to find out
how many others outside of rmb read my thoughts. Crossposting just
brings in more trolls. Let's be careful out there folks. =)
John
Blac...@msn.com
In article <19970903211...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
>
> >All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
> >>that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
> >>experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
>
> Does anywhere know where I can get some unlistenable experimental
> non-music crap? Are they on CD yet? I've never heard them and very curious.
You're in luck, Wonderwall is on Apple and Electronic Sound is available
somewhere in Europe.
>
> I've seen a lot of people refer to JL/POB as his first album. He, like
> George, released several experemental albums that were in the same vein as
> Wonderwall and Electronic Sound.
Technically, none of Lennon's albums were solo albums since he was part
of a duet.
> I'm not saying they were the same, just
> that they weren't the usual "formula music" we'd been used to with the
> Beatles. However the REASON people refer to POB as John's first album is
> that is his first to have songs on it just like any other album, you know
> what I mean??
Or maybe it's because no one knows about the earlier records, or
Electronic Sound, since Apple seems interested in making the Beatles as
"user friendly" as possible. I was amazed that they even reissued
"Sentimental Journey."
Paul
Lulu Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> wrote in article
<bitchyspice-01...@d118-mfs.dancris.com>...
> any more questions?
>
> Yeah: since when did All Things Must Pass become George's first album?
> Actually, I don't even believe that is his *second* album.
>
> Cheers,
> Lulu, sick and tired of Beatles 'fans' who don't even know the history of
> the people involved.
This is really sad, Lulu. All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
Anybody who doesn't know that All Things Must Pass is George's first solo
album has no right to comment on the man's music career. How ironic that
you chose to sign off with a comment about fans not knowing their history.
Kind of embarrassing, eh Lulu?
-Paul
Colleen Reardon
Lulu Spice (bitch...@removethis.geocities.com) wrote:
: In article <01bcb743$a8759020$a1608cd0@jmills>, "Jeff Mills"
: <jmi...@awod.com> wrote:
: >Lulu Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> wrote in article
: ><bitchyspice-31...@mp14.dancris.com>...
: >> In article <01bcb4ed$0af7ebc0$3511...@glynn.pathcom.com>, "Glen & Lynn"
: >> <gl...@pathcom.com> wrote:
: >> >U2 may have been recording for 20 years but they are sooooooo
: >> >boring.The music will mot stand the test of time.How many songs from
: >> >U2's first album are still being played?
: >> I do believe 'I Will Follow' is off their first album, and is considered
: >> classic.
: > I haven't heard it but ok.
: There is also Gloria, from either their first or second album (I honestly
: cannot remember whether Boy or Octobre were their first album),
Boy was first, October second. Gloria is on October.
- Colleen
Lulu Spice
In article <19970902000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mcg...@aol.com
(Mcgbjk) wrote:
>Carny wrote:
>>I'm sure there are a lot of people into George's solo work, but the
>>popular culture really seems to have passed on it
>Gotta disagree with you here Carny. I live in NYC, and the classic rock
>stations play quite a few George songs: My Sweet Lord, What Is My Life
>Without YOu (whatever the name of that song is), etc.
What is Life is the title :)
>This is a major
>cultural center, or so I am told (you certainly wouldn't know it from the
>locals). Anyway, while I am not a big fan of his solo work, I do get the
>impressiont that these, and other tunes, are part of the popular culture,
>and can be described as rock "standards".
I think the point Carny was trying to make, however (I might be wrong), is
that stuff like My Sweet Lord and What is Life, and occasionally that I
Got My Mind Set on You thing, are really the only things you hear now, and
being as the man has a rather large body of solo work, it just doesn't
seem like a very high percentage. My Sweet Lord also gets made fun of left
and right for it's plagarism problems. Perhaps unfair to the song, which
is good in its own right albeit very much a rip off, because things like
that happen accidentally sometimes, but it's still a big part of the
reason why it's remembered in popular culture.
I reckon his unpopular early work was far better than much of his solo
work anyhow, to be honest. It was much more of a stretch for him. Then
again, I'm also apparently one of about 4 people on the 'net who think
Yoko Ono is ace, so oh well :)
AppleCorp3
>> >All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
>> >>that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
>> >>experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
>>
>> Does anywhere know where I can get some unlistenable experimental
>> non-music crap? Are they on CD yet? I've never heard them and very
>curious.
>
>You're in luck, Wonderwall is on Apple and Electronic Sound is available
>somewhere in Europe.
WONDERFUL!!!!! Let me fly to Europe! Be back in about 36 hours! Can I
pick anything up for anyone?
Wayne J. Salamon
: cannot remember whether Boy or Octobre were their first album), not to
: mention Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One,
: Pride in the Name of Love and Bad are all off early U2 work, and are this
: close of being *overplayed* on 'classic rock radio' in the US (I never can
: work out just how these stations exactly work)
: >> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
: >> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
: >> radio?
: > Okay. These have been.
: >1. My Sweet Lord
: >2. What Is Life?
: >3. Art Of Dying
: > any more questions?
: Yeah: since when did All Things Must Pass become George's first album?
: Actually, I don't even believe that is his *second* album.
: Cheers,
: Lulu, sick and tired of Beatles 'fans' who don't even know the history of
: the people involved.
Since when did 'Boy' become U2's first album?
Actually, the songs you mention aren't off of U2's first album
either, but their second. 'Pride in the Name of Love' is off
the sixth album, not quite early work.
I think comments such as these irk George:
"Have you ever seen so many fans created by only 4 men?
U2 are said to be the most popular band in the world, sometimes in universe...
but it doesn't matter, however the important thing is
YOU trust them TOO... "
Uh, yes we have seen so many fans before created by four men.
I used to like U2, but lost interest with Zooropa. I don't agree
with George H. when he lumps U2 is with Spice Girls and some of the
other nonsense bands. I think U2 is (were?) a step above them.
'Boy', 'October', and 'War' are classics, in my opinion.
[ 'Boy' isn't the first album, 'Three' is. I can be pedantic as well.]
Cheers,
Wayne, sick and tired of U2 'fans' who don't even know the history of
the people involved. [ :) ]
--
John Patrick Riley
I'd like a authenic toasted english muffin and a stein of beer from
Munich, please. There's more, but why be pushy? It's so nice of you to
offer! :) -John
joebiola
While I am certainly not endorsing Harrisons' remarks (as I have not read
or heard them) I can say that there is no todays music. I will say that
there are some good bands out there but with the exception of U2 (which
started there run long ago) there is no artist making music that is very
timeless. That, at the very least, is what artists like The Beatles and
Dylan have done. This is the flatest period for Rock ever. No one is
buying records and no one is making money. Trust me, it is my business
to know these things. Oh how we need a rock star, a real star with
something that starts a new artistic momement, I think I have him, but
we'll just have to be patient.
Direct flames and spam to my mom.
Colleen Reardon
Wayne J. Salamon (sal...@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov) wrote:
: Lulu Spice (bitch...@removethis.geocities.com) wrote:
: : There is also Gloria, from either their first or second album (I honestly
: : cannot remember whether Boy or Octobre were their first album), not to
: : mention Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One,
: : Pride in the Name of Love and Bad are all off early U2 work, and are this
: : close of being *overplayed* on 'classic rock radio' in the US (I never can
: : work out just how these stations exactly work)
: : >> Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
: : >> Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
: : >> radio?
: : > Okay. These have been.
: : >1. My Sweet Lord
: : >2. What Is Life?
: : >3. Art Of Dying
: : > any more questions?
: : Yeah: since when did All Things Must Pass become George's first album?
: : Actually, I don't even believe that is his *second* album.
: : Cheers,
: : Lulu, sick and tired of Beatles 'fans' who don't even know the history of
: : the people involved.
: Since when did 'Boy' become U2's first album?
Since U2-3 was an EP and not an album, therefore Boy was the first album.
: Actually, the songs you mention aren't off of U2's first album
: either, but their second.
Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day and Two Hearts are on War - the
third album.
'Pride in the Name of Love' is off
: the sixth album, not quite early work.
Pride is on Unforgettable Fire - the fourth studio album.
: I think comments such as these irk George:
: "Have you ever seen so many fans created by only 4 men?
: U2 are said to be the most popular band in the world, sometimes in universe...
: but it doesn't matter, however the important thing is
: YOU trust them TOO... "
: Uh, yes we have seen so many fans before created by four men.
: I used to like U2, but lost interest with Zooropa. I don't agree
: with George H. when he lumps U2 is with Spice Girls and some of the
: other nonsense bands. I think U2 is (were?) a step above them.
: 'Boy', 'October', and 'War' are classics, in my opinion.
: [ 'Boy' isn't the first album, 'Three' is. I can be pedantic as well.]
Me too.
: Wayne, sick and tired of U2 'fans' who don't even know the history of
: the people involved. [ :) ]
I KNOW THE ENTIRE HISTORY.
- Colleen
AppleCorp3
>> >> Does anywhere know where I can get some unlistenable experimental
>> >> non-music crap? Are they on CD yet? I've never heard them and very
>> >curious.
>> >
>> >You're in luck, Wonderwall is on Apple and Electronic Sound is available
>> >somewhere in Europe.
>>
>> WONDERFUL!!!!! Let me fly to Europe! Be back in about 36 hours! Can I
>> pick anything up for anyone?
>
>I'd like a authenic toasted english muffin and a stein of beer from
>Munich, please. There's more, but why be pushy? It's so nice of you to
>offer! :) -John
>
and watch the funeral so the muffin might get a bit stale and I don't think
I'll hit Munich but I'll give it my best shot!
Gavin Allen
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 13:25:37 -0700, John Patrick Riley
<rile...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>AppleCorp3 wrote:
>>
>> >> >All Things Must Pass is the first solo record
>> >> >>that George Harrison ever put out (not including the unlistenable
>> >> >>experimental non-music crap he put out on Zapple while still a Beatle).
>> >>
>> >> Does anywhere know where I can get some unlistenable experimental
>> >> non-music crap? Are they on CD yet? I've never heard them and very
>> >curious.
>> >
>> >You're in luck, Wonderwall is on Apple and Electronic Sound is available
>> >somewhere in Europe.
>>
>> WONDERFUL!!!!! Let me fly to Europe! Be back in about 36 hours! Can I
>> pick anything up for anyone?
>
>I'd like a authenic toasted english muffin and a stein of beer from
>Munich, please. There's more, but why be pushy? It's so nice of you to
>offer! :) -John
Actually, english muffins are an American creation. How about a tin of
biscuits? ;-)
Lulu Spice
In article <5upeil$f1...@news.nist.gov>, sal...@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (Wayne
J. Salamon) wrote:
>Lulu Spice (bitch...@removethis.geocities.com) wrote:
[I Will Follow]
>: There is also Gloria, from either their first or second album (I honestly
>: cannot remember whether Boy or Octobre were their first album), not to
>: mention Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One,
>: Pride in the Name of Love and Bad are all off early U2 work, and are this
>: close of being *overplayed* on 'classic rock radio' in the US (I never can
>: work out just how these stations exactly work)
> Actually, the songs you mention aren't off of U2's first album
>either, but their second. 'Pride in the Name of Love' is off
>the sixth album, not quite early work.
Early work from the standpoint that it came early in their career ie
chronologically speaking. I mean, the Beatles had periods where they
released two albums in a year; that doesn't mean that the albums should
thus not be considered early work. And, yes, I know that those songs
aren't off the first or second album, most of them are off War -- once
again, as I said, early work. Middle work being stuff like Joshua Tree,
late work being the awful Zooropa and Pop.
> I think comments such as these irk George:
>"Have you ever seen so many fans created by only 4 men?
> U2 are said to be the most popular band in the world, sometimes in
universe...
> but it doesn't matter, however the important thing is
> YOU trust them TOO... "
If comments such as those irk George, he needs to find better things to
worry about to be quite blunt.
> [ 'Boy' isn't the first album, 'Three' is. I can be pedantic as well.]
I don't think that was a full length album...? From the late 70s, but I
think that was considered an EP by the band, and not an LP (I can be wrong
on this, my basis for it is one interview with Bono who is quite known to
blow things out his arse constantly).
Gavin Allen
If I may step into this for a second, I believe the first poster,
whose name isn't listed so I don't know who it is, but I believe he's
right about George. I think Flaming Pie got so much attention because
it came so soon after the Anthology and Paul was all over the place
promoting it, with the Flaming Pie documentary and his appearance at
the Town Hall meeting. It's obvious George wouldn't go to so much
trouble to promote anything new he might do, and hence would most
likely be ignored by the media. Not to say he wouldnt enjoy healthy
record sales among Beatle fans, but for the most part I think the
original poster is right.
AppleCorp3
So the Beatles are unpopular because they are NOT on MTV or Top 40 radio?
Oh ok. Since when did MTV and Top 40 radio write the book on what is and
isn't popular? I've heard seen some pretty shitty stuff on MTV let me tell
you!
Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
gaanji wrote:
> In article <bitchyspice-31...@mp14.dancris.com>,
> bitch...@removethis.geocities.com wrote:
> > Out of curiousity, which songs from *George's* (read: George, not the
> > Beatles) first album are still -- actually, were ever -- featured on the
> > radio?
> "Apple Scruffs", "All Things Must Pass", "Isn't It a Pity", "What is
> Life", and "My Sweet Lord".
...you forgot "Awaiting on you all"...
--
Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
ultim...@geocities.com, ultim...@hotmail.com
Daevid's Great Mate Hunt is on at
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7853
,d88b.d88b,
88888888888
`Y8888888Y'
`Y888Y'
`Y'
Blac...@msn.com
In article <19970907210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Substitute the word "good" for the word "popular" and you're right. Top
40 radio plays the most popular music, that's what top 40 is. Anyway, I
wonder where you get the idea MTV and VH-1 ignore George Harrison. I
remember seeing at least two videos from his last studio album in heavy
rotation. I haven't watched either regularly in at least 5 years, but as
far as I recall, both Paul is Live and Broad street appeared fairly
regularly as well. I have no doubt that any video George made for his new
album would be shown fairly frequently as well.
Gavin Allen
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 22:26:41 -0700, joebiola <joeb...@psnw.com>
wrote:
This is a very shallow attempt at unbiased commentary.
John Patrick Riley
No Kidding! I didn't know that!(There's SO much to learn here!)
:) -John
Gavin Allen
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:14:06 -0700, Blitz <djo...@sentex.net> wrote:
>Hmmm...a lot of arrogant attitudes here. A lot of crap as well. As a
>Beatle fan for most of my life (since I was 12 - so 20 years) I am just
>so happy that I found them at such an impressionable age. I could've
>easily slid into the Black Sabbath / Foghat / stupid uncreative band of
>the day syndrome. And thank God I didn't because my mind is so open for
>new music, new ideas, etc. The Beatle pushed the '60's a long for sure,
>but the attitudes here would make John roll over in his grave. I notice
>a lot of people my age won't give new music a chance - so I'm assuming
>you're 30 or older.
>
43. I gave my reasons in a previous post. For a song or group to grab
me, a song has to come one and make me think, "Ooh, this is
interesting." When you've heard it all before, for 35 years, that very
rarely happens. I was in a store the other day and this young guy was
playing Marilyn Manson. At one point Manson yells out "I am the God of
Hell Fire! And I bring you...!!!!!" The kid thought this was just the
coolest thing. I just said "Crazy World of Arthur Brown, 1968".
>Did someone like you not hear the excitement in "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
>- enough to send shivers down your spine (Similar to impressionable
>teenagers in early '64 who heard "I Want To Hold Your Hand" for the first
>time.
>
I loved "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I liked the melodies and words of
Nirvana's other songs too but it soon became apparent that every song
of theirs would have the same arrangement.
>Does someone like you reject a band because they have a weird name like
>"The Breeders" before even giving the tunes a chance?
>
It has become the norm for a lot of bands to have one hit and
disappear, so more often these days I'll find myself liking songs
rather than groups, much like teenage girls used to do in the 60s.
Third Eye Blind currently have a hit with a song that sounds just like
the Spin Doctors. Think they'll be around much longer?
>Would someone like you denounce a younger brother or cousin because they
>can play an instrument, joined a band and performed a very noisy, but
>strangely entertaining, version of "Day Tripper"
>
Not if it was strangely entertaining. I hate it when a group takes a
great song and thinks they've modernized it simply by turning it into
noise.
>As L7 (whom you've obviously never heard of) said - "People like you
>just fuel my fire".
L7. All female rock group.
>For
> those who are so taken by the Beatles creativity
>and vision to go criticize...........
>
Maybe that's the problem. We of the older generation were spoiled.
Like the Egyptian civilization, rock and roll started at the heights
and went downhill.
Gavin
>Dale
>
Gavin Allen
Oh man, turn on your tv and look at MTV today! In the 80s there was a
big cry about there not being enough black artists' videos being
played. Today I defy you to turn on MTV randomly during the day and
NOT see a black act, black VJ, or a commercial featuring black
athletes. My point is that MTV's vision has changed drastically and
what you would have seen in 1987, when George last released an album,
is not what you would find on MTV today. As for the other poster
asking since when does MTV decide what is good or not, that wasn't the
original point of this thread, it was that MTV would not play a new
George Harrison video if he came out with a new album. Again, I say
that he is correct. And before anyone takes me to task for my "racist"
comments, please re-read this again thoroughly. Anyone stupid enough
to still think I'm being racist won't be worth responding to.
David Goodwin
VH1 doesn't tend to ignore anybody...MTV (which I have nicknamed
Mega-Trend Vision) does. While on VH1 you'll see the Beatles and the
Who at least PART of the time, on MTV you get pop or "cool acts" ALL
of the time.
Or rap...don't get me STARTED on that...:)
David
--------------------------------------------
http://idt.net/~ksg1/beatles.html The Inner Light
High Quality bootleg sound files
Biffyshrew
All I want to know is, does Major Asshole outrank Sergeant Pepper?
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
"'Beside You' will attack your senses like the sudden sniff of a whore's
underwear."--Warner Bros. advertisement for Van Morrison, 1969
Gort
> Well, I agree that U2 will NOT stand the test of time at all, but I
really
> doubt Dylan will either.
Are you really that stupid?
> "du;ll,boring,repetitive" sort of descibes Dylans music stripped down.
> I've heard everyone say that what makes it so special is the lyrics.
> I have a copy of Indigo Girls doing Tangled Up In Blue, with the person
who
> played violin for him. This was a beautiful job, better than Dylans own,
> but the only problem is this crap blues thing they put in the middle.
> I know this doesn't belong here.
> -Jordan
>
"...crap blues thing."(?) Shows what you know about music, Gomer. While
the Indigo Girls are MILDLY entertaining, their novelty, obviously, is
their appeal to a growing gay population. To infer that Dylan's art will
"not stand the test of time" is pretty absurd, goat-roper.
Socrates
To be honest I must admit that George was half right. I mean of the 20
best bands ever, at least 10 of them are from the 60s. Nobody in my
opinion has ever scaled the dizzying heights acheived by the Beatles,
the Doors and the Velvet Underground. The more I listen to 60s music the
more dissillusioned I become with more modern music. It seems like we've
hardly progressed at all since then. There is no true innovation in rock
music and has been none since the demise of Led Zeppelin, except for the
punk movement which has long since become stale and cliched. The only
good punk bands since 1979 have been the Pixies and Nirvana.
However even if music is not particularly innovative now, there are many
excellent bands whose music will live on well into the next century eg
U2, REM, Radiohead, Suede. Probably not Oasis though. Definately Maybe
is a great album, but Whats the story... was shite. I havent heard all
the new album but what 've heard has been at best good. Oasis aren't
bad, they're far from the worst band ever, but must be THE most
over-rated band EVER...