The Influence of the Breatles is Undisputed
Mack A. Damia
1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
at the time
2. The Beatles connected a generation of young people. At no other
time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
culture.
3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
Beatlemania are not wrong.
4. The Beatles had a worldwide power over millions of people that was
singular among artists in history. In 1967, with the release of their
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album, as one critic noted, it
was the closest Europe had been to unification since the Congress of
Vienna in 1815.
Read more.......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/its-the-beatles-world-we_b_410374.html
Fattuchus
> 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> at the time
I think that's a stretch.
>
> 2. The Beatles connected a generation of young people. At no other
> time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
> vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
> culture.
True.
>
> 3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
> endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
> Beatlemania are not wrong.
True, but I they may not be a good thing. IMO the Beatles did not
feel comfortable with it.
John Doherty
> On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> > at the time
>
> I think that's a stretch.
I dunno, I'd have to agree with Mack. Prior to the Beatles, there was
never any of that "are you a girl or are you a boy?" stuff that became
so cliche in the 60s. The uniform for both sexes became pretty similar
there for a while. And Lennon specifically worked to promote and live
sexual politics of equality that still reverberate today.
Mack A. Damia
I edited and summarized the guy's article, so it's not my original
thought.
I had never heard the idea before, though, and I think it's a valid
point. The author mentions their mop hair and falsetto voices, which
were quickly adopted by many other bands.
Their mop hair took the world by storm, and an entire generation
followed suit. I do believe that they spearheaded and epitomized the
changing temper of the times.
RichL
"Mack A. Damia" <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vualp5p43j4548eln...@4ax.com...
>
> 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> at the time
Beatles "androgynous"?? That's an odd assessment.
Bowie did it better, anyways.
>
> 2. The Beatles connected a generation of young people. At no other
> time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
> vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
> culture.
As did Elvis, Sinatra, Rudy Vallee, etc. in their times.
>
> 3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
> endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
> Beatlemania are not wrong.
"We're more popular than Jesus".
>
> 4. The Beatles had a worldwide power over millions of people that was
> singular among artists in history. In 1967, with the release of their
> Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album, as one critic noted, it
> was the closest Europe had been to unification since the Congress of
> Vienna in 1815.
Horribly exaggerated.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> > 4. The Beatles had a worldwide power over millions of people that was
> > singular among artists in history. In 1967, with the release of their
> > Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album, as one critic noted, it
> > was the closest Europe had been to unification since the Congress of
> > Vienna in 1815.
>
> Horribly exaggerated.
Well yes it is exaggerated but...The Fabs did come at the right time
to embrace the emerging youth culture and it kind of was
global...look at what's happened now..you go on this youtube thing
I've been wittering on about..and click on say a lady gaga vid..and
check on the insight..the whole world lights up. It was the Fabs that
kind of set this music thing up in a way...(All you need is
Love?) ...look at the prog about Russia that was on a couple of months
ago..the Fabs filtered out to there in a way that not much else
did...the fact they were the first truely massive UK thing to hit the
States kind of says it all. I think the fabs did have..and still do
have a worldwide power that drives a worldwide unification...I mean
*everybody* more or less digs the fabs.
Danny
RichL
"TheWalrusWasDanny" <dannyist...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:d40e6f2d-9606-4544...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
"More or less" qualifier noted. I know a lot of folks who DETEST the fabs,
though!
They did come at the right time, synchronously with the development of the
youth culture in the US and elsewhere to a degree it hadn't been before.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> "More or less" qualifier noted. I know a lot of folks who DETEST the fabs,
> though!
Well yes but other than the fact they're Philistines, they are in an
utter minority.
>
> They did come at the right time, synchronously with the development of the
> youth culture in the US and elsewhere to a degree it hadn't been before.-
Exactly..I suppose you could argue that it was Elvis who kicked it all
off, but because of the songwriting thing it was the Beatles who drove
the unification forward IMO.
Danny
RichL
"TheWalrusWasDanny" <dannyist...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:62234c14-1244-4b5e...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, it's hard for me to get a handle on how influential Elvis was outside
the US, compared with how the Beatles were perceived IN the US. But I do
think The Beatles kicked it up several notches.
Interestingly, at least in the area where I lived, Gerry & the Pacemakers
and the DC Five were considered more-or-less equals to the Beatles, with
debates over which one would stand the test of time.
Mack A. Damia
Elvis? Why?
I could say Bill Haley and the Comets kicked it off. What's so
special about Elvis?
ermitano
John Doherty
> "Mack A. Damia" <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:vualp5p43j4548eln...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> > at the time
>
> Beatles "androgynous"?? That's an odd assessment.
> Bowie did it better, anyways.
Bowie didn't come from nowhere. The Beatles were first to openly
embrace a hairstyle that was perceived as "feminine"-- especially in
the earlier period when none had mustaches or beards.
It's hard to remember the initial culture shock-- though IIRC, you
were old enough then to have experienced it first hand. Nowadays, a
"beatle haircut" looks positively masculine, but at the time it did
not.
The Beatles opened the door, Jagger kicked it open further, and Bowie
floated right off the ground with it.
>
>
>
> > 2. The Beatles connected a generation of young people. At no other
> > time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
> > vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
> > culture.
>
> As did Elvis, Sinatra, Rudy Vallee, etc. in their times.
Camille Paglia noted that Elvis had some classic feminine features, in
his lush eyelashes and dark skin around the eyes that made it look
like he was wearing eye shadow. I think it was part of the threat to
sexual propriety at the times as much as the hip swiveling.
RichL
"John Doherty" <jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote in message
news:67960ed4-fd26-48f8...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "Mack A. Damia" <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:vualp5p43j4548eln...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
>> > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
>> > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
>> > at the time
>>
> On Mar 12, 7:42 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Beatles "androgynous"?? That's an odd assessment.
>> Bowie did it better, anyways.
>
> Bowie didn't come from nowhere. The Beatles were first to openly
> embrace a hairstyle that was perceived as "feminine"-- especially in
> the earlier period when none had mustaches or beards.
It wasn't perceived as feminine for very long. At least in northeastern MA.
It caught on very quickly. And the usual complaint about it wasn't that it
was feminine, it was more perceived (among older folks) as "unkempt".
marcus
> 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> at the time
The Beatles changed and opened many peoples' heads to the idea and
acceptance of the evolving movements...antiwar, feminism, civil
rights, environmental...by their music, appearance, and anti-
authoritarian attitudes.
>
> 2. The Beatles connected a generation of young people. At no other
> time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
> vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
> culture.
IMHO, that is correct...there was a commonality among young people in
America, Europe, Asia, South America, Australia, and the U.S.S.R. that
established through The Beatles music. Undoubtedly, there were
singers and musicians that had been popular worldwide, but The Beatles
and their music struck a universal chord within the passion and
discontent of a worldwide generation unlike any other in recent
history.
>
> 3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
> endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
> Beatlemania are not wrong.
I wouldn't used the word "religious", but they did usher in a more
spiritual attitude among young people, many of who turned to Eastern
philosophies, and practices which would later be called, "New Age".
>
> 4. The Beatles had a worldwide power over millions of people that was
> singular among artists in history. In 1967, with the release of their
> Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album, as one critic noted, it
> was the closest Europe had been to unification since the Congress of
> Vienna in 1815.
The second sentence makes a good read, but it is an exaggeration done
within the context of poetic license.
Jeff
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:27:35 -0800 (PST), TheWalrusWasDanny
>
I've never understood his popularity.
Mack A. Damia
Heart throb for the gals and a role model for the guys, I think.
At one point, he was a "nice, clean-cut young man", according to Ed
Sullivan. That was before he got fat and started popping pills.
I like some of his stuff, but he's not a favorite of mine.
iarwain
long at other times in history. There's no question the Beatles
helped make longer hair popular at the time, but it wasn't the only
time guys have worn their hair long.
marcus
He provided a way to make black music acceptable to white kids, and he
did it with an original style and passion they had never seen before.
Elvis was a jewel in the rough...his early recordings on the Sun label
are amazing and have stood the test of a half-century of time. The
way he sang, the way he moved...his "James Dean" attitude caught on
with young America...and in England and Europe as well.
The Beatles were devoted fans of his...it is not an oversimplication
to say that if there hadn't been for Elvis, there would never have
been The Beatles.
The sad thing about Elvis is that he had no other peers to lean on, or
keep him honest and his ego in check, as the four Beatles did. He was
easily led astray by his manager, Colonel Parker, and became a trapped
man-child in a world of trinkets, gifts, and terrible movies.
But what he later became does not diminish his early star power and
influence.
marcus
I'm changing the thread title, the "r" in Beatles is disconcerting to
say the least.
Mack A. Damia
The Beatles long hair was a "style". The Mop Top.
In other words it wasn't just long hair.
Up until their arrival, middle-class respectible guys wouldn't dare
wear their hair long; it was considered sloppy, unhygienic,
unattractive and even dangerous. I'm speaking here of the 20th
Century after the advent of industrial society.
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
Thanks. My vision ain't what it used to be.
My hearing is okay, though. :)
Fattuchus
> > On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> > > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> > > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> > > at the time
>
> On Mar 12, 4:24 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a stretch.
>
> I dunno, I'd have to agree with Mack. Prior to the Beatles, there was
> never any of that "are you a girl or are you a boy?" stuff that became
> so cliche in the 60s. The uniform for both sexes became pretty similar
> there for a while.
Given the way the Beatles treated women in the early 1960's and their
working class background, I don't think they feminized anything.
They were macho sex machines.
And Lennon specifically worked to promote and live
True, but that was John the individual. And he came around to that
way of thinking in about 1968.
Fattuchus
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:49:28 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
>
>
>
>
>
> <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> >> > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> >> > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> >> > at the time
>
> >On Mar 12, 4:24 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think that's a stretch.
>
> >I dunno, I'd have to agree with Mack. Prior to the Beatles, there was
> >never any of that "are you a girl or are you a boy?" stuff that became
> >so cliche in the 60s. The uniform for both sexes became pretty similar
> >there for a while. And Lennon specifically worked to promote and live
> >sexual politics of equality that still reverberate today.
>
> I edited and summarized the guy's article, so it's not my original
> thought.
> I had never heard the idea before, though, and I think it's a valid
> point. The author mentions their mop hair and falsetto voices, which
> were quickly adopted by many other bands.
Didn't other artists sing in high voices like the
Four Seasons and Frankie Lyman? I don't think
of the Beatles being leaders in falsetto voices.
>
> Their mop hair took the world by storm, and an entire generation
> followed suit. I do believe that they spearheaded and epitomized the
> changing temper of the times.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TheWalrusWasDanny
> I could say Bill Haley and the Comets kicked it off. What's so
> special about Elvis?
Young girls (the Youth) wanted to shag Elvis..so young boys wanted to
be Elvis...who wanted to be Bill Haley?
Danny
scouser
wrote:
My mother thinks it was Frank Sinatra !
RichL
"scouser" <denise.t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0253753a-b81e-45ba...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
She's right, in a way. It wasn't exactly a transition from total darkness
to unbearably bright light, was it? Each person in the chain made a step
forward. Sinatra, Elvis, Beatles...
John Doherty
John Doherty
> On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
> > endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
> > Beatlemania are not wrong.
>
> I wouldn't used the word "religious", but they did usher in a more
> spiritual attitude among young people, many of who turned to Eastern
> philosophies, and practices which would later be called, "New Age".
The early hormonal ecstasy is pretty much the Dionysian religious
experience later celebrated by The Doors and noted by Joseph Campbell
as a regular function of Grateful Dead concerts. That does not seem
"religious" by modern chaste standards, but in the longview, it taps
into a strong vein of religiosity.
You're right that they did later point to India, to the Tibetan book
of the Dead, to Buddhism, etc.
>
> On Mar 12, 5:49 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>. Prior to the Beatles, there was
> > never any of that "are you a girl or are you a boy?" stuff that became
> > so cliche in the 60s. The uniform for both sexes became pretty similar
> > there for a while.
>
On Mar 13, 4:42 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Given the way the Beatles treated women in the early 1960's and their
> working class background, I don't think they feminized anything.
> They were macho sex machines.
You write as if the two things cancel out one another. The Beatles,
while rampant consumers of groupies backstage they still broadened the
definition of masculinity. In fact, their rampant heterosexuality
helped "move the goalposts" on what was an acceptable (or indeed
mandatory) guy's haircut. "See-- those guys are totally straight and
absolutely cool, and look how long their hair is!".
>
> And Lennon specifically worked to promote and live
>
> True, but that was John the individual. And he came around to that
> way of thinking in about 1968.
Yeah, wasn't he in a band back then?
What's the name of that band...wait, it will come to me...
Oh yeah, The Breatles!;-)
It's all of a piece though. The earlier androgyny in the hair style
prefigures John's later embrace of nascent feminism (even if he was
better at "talking the talk" than "walking the walk")
The Arranger
Early Sinatra was also seen as "girlish" in his vocal style and
material...the swaggering Vegas Frank was well in the future. Plus,
the male vical style that preceded him was dominated for a while by
extremely fey tenors...In the 1950s, you have a host of doo-wop groups
with soaring falsettos.
The Arranger
The Arranger
> On Mar 12, 6:03 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:49:28 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
>
> > <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> > >> > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> > >> > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> > >> > at the time
>
> > >On Mar 12, 4:24 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I think that's a stretch.
>
> > >I dunno, I'd have to agree with Mack. Prior to the Beatles, there was
> > >never any of that "are you a girl or are you a boy?" stuff that became
> > >so cliche in the 60s. The uniform for both sexes became pretty similar
> > >there for a while. And Lennon specifically worked to promote and live
> > >sexual politics of equality that still reverberate today.
>
> > I edited and summarized the guy's article, so it's not my original
> > thought.
> > I had never heard the idea before, though, and I think it's a valid
> > point. The author mentions their mop hair and falsetto voices, which
> > were quickly adopted by many other bands.
>
> Didn't other artists sing in high voices like the
> Four Seasons and Frankie Lyman? I don't think
> of the Beatles being leaders in falsetto voices.
You are correct...there is a lot more flasetto from the people who
preceded the Beatles than from the Beatles nd their followers. Doo-wop
is rife with it, and there were plenty of singles acts such as Del
Shannon that leaned on it. Frankie Lymon, though, didn't use much
falsetto, if any.
The Arranger
The Arranger
> "scouser" <denise.theophi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Like Gould, I prefer to theink evolution means "different," not
necessarily "better."
The Arranger
The Arranger
> 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> at the time
>
> time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
> vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
> culture.
I don't know what this last sentence references...what was all the
music that came before the Beatles doing?
> 3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
> endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
> Beatlemania are not wrong.
You get that with a ton of music before and after the Beatles, and a
lot of it is expressly spiritual in nature.
> 4. The Beatles had a worldwide power over millions of people that was
> singular among artists in history. In 1967, with the release of their
> Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album, as one critic noted, it
> was the closest Europe had been to unification since the Congress of
> Vienna in 1815.
I hate stuff like that...glibness and false erudition.
There's nothing more common than the feeling that one's self/family/
high school/generation/hometown/country is uni
RichL
"The Arranger" <recu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd62b04c-3b7c-432a...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I'm referring here specifically to the degree of world exposure, not
inherent quality.
Mack A. Damia
Maybe the author of the article is referring to the combination of
long, styled hair and falsetto?
Mack A. Damia
<recu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
>> Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
>> effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
>> at the time
>>
>> 2. The Beatles connected a generation of young people. At no other
>> time in history, or since, has a generation been so connected. The
>> vehicle was rock music. And the Beatles helped create an aural
>> culture.
>
>I don't know what this last sentence references...what was all the
>music that came before the Beatles doing?
Music took off in the 1960s as it hadn't done before. Coincided with
the maturing Boomer generation, me thinks.
>> 3. The religious allure was a vital factor in allowing them to
>> endure. Those who have seen elements of religious ecstasy in
>> Beatlemania are not wrong.
>
>You get that with a ton of music before and after the Beatles, and a
>lot of it is expressly spiritual in nature.
Again, the Boomer generation was searching for meaning in their lives,
and the Beatles arrived at the right time.
>> 4. The Beatles had a worldwide power over millions of people that was
>> singular among artists in history. In 1967, with the release of their
>> Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album, as one critic noted, it
>> was the closest Europe had been to unification since the Congress of
>> Vienna in 1815.
>
>I hate stuff like that...glibness and false erudition.
>
>There's nothing more common than the feeling that one's self/family/
>high school/generation/hometown/country is uni
Possible the quote was said "tongue-in-cheek". Could be construed as
paranois ideation, but there is a grain of truth in all paranoia.
Mack A. Damia
Dunno about that, but his, "Rock Around the Clock", caused quite a
stir in the mid-1950s.
The youth culture was going to hell, according to observers.
We got there, too, in the next decade.
Fattuchus
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:45:17 -0800 (PST), iarwain
>
I don't think that merely having long here is enough to claim that the
Beatles feminized society.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ooopps. I meant "long hair."
John Doherty
>
> (Elvis) provided a way to make black music acceptable to white kids, and he
> did it with an original style and passion they had never seen before.
It was becoming "acceptable to kids" in a way that was very
threatening to adults.
Elvis provided a black sound in a white package. And he allowed black
artists to ride his wake. And Elvis included the implicit sexuality as
part of the ..uh.. package, if you will ;-)
> Elvis was a jewel in the rough...his early recordings on the Sun label
> are amazing and have stood the test of a half-century of time. The
> way he sang, the way he moved...his "James Dean" attitude caught on
> with young America...and in England and Europe as well.
>
> The Beatles were devoted fans of his...it is not an oversimplification
> to say that if there hadn't been for Elvis, there would never have
> been The Beatles.
John Lennon later said that "black people gave white people back their
bodies" by providing music you had to dance to, in a way that was far
more sexualized than was proper before. Suddenly, your hips were part
of the dance. Elvis was the original messenger for white folks that
this new embrace of the lower half of one's body was OK for everyone.
In a similar way, the Beatles gave men back their whole selves, in
allowing, or in fact, mandating, a hairstyle (and later lifestyle)
that allowed fuller expression of one's self.
Lennon particularly spoke to how important nurturing children is, and
how this should not be "women's work".
BlackMonk
"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fc7cf52-6051-48dc...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 5:49 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 4:10 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1. Beatles helped feminize the culture. The implications of the
> > > Beatles' relatively androgynous appearance had a far more profound
> > > effect on sexual and women's liberation than anyone could have guessed
> > > at the time
>
> On Mar 12, 4:24 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a stretch.
>
> I dunno, I'd have to agree with Mack. Prior to the Beatles, there was
> never any of that "are you a girl or are you a boy?" stuff that became
> so cliche in the 60s. The uniform for both sexes became pretty similar
> there for a while.
< Given the way the Beatles treated women in the early 1960's and their
working class background, I don't think they feminized anything.
They were macho sex machines. >
They were "macho pigs?"
LookingGlass
wrote:
>
> Well yes it is exaggerated but...The Fabs did come at the right time
> to embrace the emerging youth culture and it kind of was
> global...look at what's happened now..you go on this youtube thing
> I've been wittering on about..and click on say a lady gaga vid..and
> check on the insight..the whole world lights up. It was the Fabs that
> kind of set this music thing up in a way...(All you need is
> Love?) ...look at the prog about Russia that was on a couple of months
> ago..the Fabs filtered out to there in a way that not much else
> did...the fact they were the first truely massive UK thing to hit the
> States kind of says it all. I think the fabs did have..and still do
> have a worldwide power that drives a worldwide unification...I mean
> *everybody* more or less digs the fabs.
>
> Danny
I agree with you Danny. That charismatic *event* still echoes...it's
"in my ears and in my eyes". The *cult* of The Beatles...with many
overtones.