At what point did the Beatles stop being pop music?
natjo1986
to know at what point the Beatles stopped being pop? Like all pop it's
all about the flavor of the month. I do know that there was the Beatles
invasion where every giddy school girl wanted every little piece of
them. My best guess is that Rubber Soul really weeded out the pop music
scene and the true fans stayed with them. Then Revolver came along and
I'm pretty sure that weeded out even more pop people out. The thing
about it is that whoever stopped being a Beatles fan after RS, was
picked up with different people who weren't into the pre-RS Beatles
music. I'm also pretty sure that once Revolver was released that it
sealed the deal in concrete with newly acquired fans.
mcnews
maybe you mean teeny bopper or bubble gum...?
Runnnerr
It's ALL pop.
Dale Houstman
The Beatles NEVER stopped being pop music. You seem to think the term
"popular music" is somewhat derogatory and represents a trivial aspect
of music, but nothing is further from the truth. Frank Sinatra was a pop
artist, so were such luminaries as Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Cole
Porter, and thousands of others. The ability to connect profoundly with
a lot of people and still produce superior art is a rare enough item,
and the Beatles were masters of pop music.
I think what you're implying here is a false dichotomy between "pop" and
"serious" which means that any discussion which revolves around that
question can only hope to be pointless.
dmh
waltbrad
Most classical music was "pop" in it's time also. Certainly "The
Marriage of Figaro" was a big hit with the poor masses in France.
It became "classical" only after time; much like rock music became
"classic rock".
So, where do we draw the line?
Dale Houstman
Simple: we don't. Someone asked Louis Armstrong once if what he did was
folk music: he said "Well, I'm folk ain't I?" All these genre divisions
- while perfectly useful for general discussion and for critics - tend
to make people believe musical types spring from disparate gardens and
only commingle reluctantly, but music informs music with reckless
abandon, and you can't keep the rabbits out of the lettuce patch. So
we've got bluesmen influenced by country musicians, country musicians
singing their country blues, rockabilly speeding up the front porch
tunes of daddy anmd mommy, Irving Berlin and Gershwin dipping into
"black" music, jazz rubbing up against classical, polka-punks secretly
listening to Mel Torme, Lieber and Stowe channeling "hot negro sounds,"
the Beatles doing music hall songs, and blues, and folk, and reggae, and
"space music," and on and on and on. "Pop" isn't even as usueful a
division as most: a popular song can be almost any of the ones mentioned
above if enough people listen.
dmh
Runnnerr
Despite artistic pretensions that many (or most or even all) in the
entertainment industry have, what they're essentially doing is putting
out a product in the good old capitalist tradition. They want to reach
as many people as possible with their product through CD sales, concert
tickets, etc. They want it to be POPular. Why put it out for public
consumption at all if not? They could sit at home and just make music
for themselves. The fact that some things become popular makes them
pop. They're all trying to be that.
I've often wondered why the term "pop" has such negative connotations
both within and without industry.
frank megaweege
Dale Houstman wrote:
...
> listening to Mel Torme, Lieber and Stowe channeling "hot negro sounds,"
> the Beatles doing music hall songs, and blues, and folk, and reggae, and
> "space music," and on and on and on.
Which Beatles songs are considered reggae?
Runnnerr
Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da is sort of psuedo reggae. John and Paul each had a
couple of solo songs (maybe more) with that beat.
BlackMonk
"Runnnerr" <Runn...@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:1152720511.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Calling "Ob-la-di, Ob-La-Da" Reggae is an anachronism. There wasn't
something called Reggae until well after. The Beatles were slightly
influenced by Ska, which was a predecessor of Reggae.
Runnnerr
BlackMonk wrote:
> "Runnnerr" <Runn...@AOL.com> wrote in message
> news:1152720511.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > frank megaweege wrote:
> >> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > listening to Mel Torme, Lieber and Stowe channeling "hot negro sounds,"
> >> > the Beatles doing music hall songs, and blues, and folk, and reggae,
> >> > and
> >> > "space music," and on and on and on.
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Which Beatles songs are considered reggae?
> >
> > Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da is sort of psuedo reggae. John and Paul each had a
> > couple of solo songs (maybe more) with that beat.
> >
Toots and the Maytals, who coined the phrase in the title of their hit
Do the Reggay in 1968. Other stories claim that the term came from the
word "streggae", a slang jamaican term for a prostitute, or that it
originated from the term Regga which was a bantu speaking tribe from
lake tanganyika.
Chris Jepson
This seems to be something of a semantic argument. I think the OP's
point was that the Beatles' style changed, and I think that's true...
it's just that the OP used the term "pop" to refer to the earlier style,
which was probably a poor choice of word. We might say that the
Beatles' early music was more "commercial" or "teen-oriented" or
something like that ... which would still be an overgeneralization, but
there's no question that a major change took place around 1965-66.
Chris Jepson
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:44B519B1...@skypoint.com...
<snip>
> Someone asked Louis Armstrong once if what he did was folk music: he said
> "Well, I'm folk ain't I?"
THAT is such a great retort.
>All these genre divisions - while perfectly useful for general discussion
>and for critics - tend to make people believe musical types spring from
>disparate gardens and only commingle reluctantly, but music informs music
>with reckless abandon, and you can't keep the rabbits out of the lettuce
>patch. So we've got bluesmen influenced by country musicians, country
>musicians singing their country blues, rockabilly speeding up the front
>porch tunes of daddy anmd mommy, Irving Berlin and Gershwin dipping into
>"black" music, jazz rubbing up against classical, polka-punks secretly
>listening to Mel Torme, Lieber and Stowe channeling "hot negro sounds," the
>Beatles doing music hall songs, and blues, and folk, and reggae, and "space
>music," and on and on and on. "Pop" isn't even as usueful a division as
>most: a popular song can be almost any of the ones mentioned above if
>enough people listen.
>
> dmh
..."you don't get time to hang a sign on me..."
dave (...tuned to a natural E...)
www.Shemakhan.com
mingl...@nls.net
their changes. Most fans at the beginning did not give them up as
their music became more complex. We grew up with them, as did all
pop/rock music Now, I knew of a few people who didn't get into them
until their later albums. but that's a little different.
mingl...@nls.net
left pop (although, as many have pointed out, it's all pop music
really). Help! seems that last album of pure pop that began with PPM,
although their music had been progressing through many innovative
touches and advancing songwriting and arranging the whole time. It
just seems that with RS they turned more deliberately artistic.
Dale Houstman
Probably for the same reasons comedies usually don't win Oscars: ideas
of "seriousness" and "high culture" that have afflicted art since day
one I imagine. And whatever vestiges of "detached hipness" still exist:
the notion that if everyone likes it, it can't be any good. Of course,
often enough this appears to be true.
But I do disagree with your notion that art is created with the
profit-motive in a primary position. It is true that people will want
their labors to be rewarded, and that - in a capitalist society - this
reward will be cash. So that's what is looked for. But even without
profit-motive, most people inclined toward creative expression would
pursue their interests, because there really is a reward built-in to
personal accomplishment. All the other benefits come (or - usually -
don't come) later.Of course, a capitalist system will want to have every
aspect of human activity be based on finances, because this lends itself
to control and exploitation. But people simply do not suddenly get the
"artistic bug" when a contract (usually an inadequate cheat in the "good
old capitalist tradition") is dangled before their eyes. The desire to
create starts many years before any reward but self-satisfaction and the
appreciation of your friends and family exists.
In truth, I think that "good old capitalist tradition" is primarily
bullshit: capitalism works great when its selling toasters and
Pop-Tarts. With art and education and "doing what is best for the
citizenry" it often fails, and in a spectacular way. One only has to
look at what capitalism has created out of a once vital and varied radio
landscape to see that homogeneity and blandness is what dominates the
scene. Why? Because it makes predictable, safe profits.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Well, that would be Obladi Oblada. It isn't really, but it's caribbean
flavor has been noted from day one.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Nit-picking a bit really.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Probably, but - in a discussion - semantics means an awful lot.
>We might say that the
> Beatles' early music was more "commercial" or "teen-oriented" or
> something like that ... which would still be an overgeneralization, but
> there's no question that a major change took place around 1965-66.
A lot is made of this. It's still pop music.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:44B519B1...@skypoint.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>>Someone asked Louis Armstrong once if what he did was folk music: he said
>>"Well, I'm folk ain't I?"
>
>
> THAT is such a great retort.
>
Well, Louis was a great man. Somked reefer up until the day he died, was
generous to his friends and strangers, and never moved out of his old
neighborhood, alhough he could obviously afford to, and it wasn't what
was considered a "good" area. He had roots...
>
>>All these genre divisions - while perfectly useful for general discussion
>>and for critics - tend to make people believe musical types spring from
>>disparate gardens and only commingle reluctantly, but music informs music
>>with reckless abandon, and you can't keep the rabbits out of the lettuce
>>patch. So we've got bluesmen influenced by country musicians, country
>>musicians singing their country blues, rockabilly speeding up the front
>>porch tunes of daddy anmd mommy, Irving Berlin and Gershwin dipping into
>>"black" music, jazz rubbing up against classical, polka-punks secretly
>>listening to Mel Torme, Lieber and Stowe channeling "hot negro sounds," the
>>Beatles doing music hall songs, and blues, and folk, and reggae, and "space
>>music," and on and on and on. "Pop" isn't even as usueful a division as
>>most: a popular song can be almost any of the ones mentioned above if
>>enough people listen.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
>
> ..."you don't get time to hang a sign on me..."
>
"Out To Lunch. Back In Five Minutes"
dmh
Runnnerr
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Runnnerr wrote:
> >
> > Despite artistic pretensions that many (or most or even all) in the
> > entertainment industry have, what they're essentially doing is putting
> > out a product in the good old capitalist tradition. They want to reach
> > as many people as possible with their product through CD sales, concert
> > tickets, etc. They want it to be POPular. Why put it out for public
> > consumption at all if not? They could sit at home and just make music
> > for themselves. The fact that some things become popular makes them
> > pop. They're all trying to be that.
> >
> > I've often wondered why the term "pop" has such negative connotations
> > both within and without industry.
> >
>
> profit-motive in a primary position. It is true that people will want
> their labors to be rewarded, and that - in a capitalist society - this
> reward will be cash. So that's what is looked for. But even without
> profit-motive, most people inclined toward creative expression would
> pursue their interests, because there really is a reward built-in to
> personal accomplishment. All the other benefits come (or - usually -
> don't come) later.Of course, a capitalist system will want to have every
> aspect of human activity be based on finances, because this lends itself
> to control and exploitation. But people simply do not suddenly get the
> "artistic bug" when a contract (usually an inadequate cheat in the "good
> old capitalist tradition") is dangled before their eyes. The desire to
> create starts many years before any reward but self-satisfaction and the
> appreciation of your friends and family exists.
>
>
I understand your point, but disagree with it to some degree. Making
music, making art, while they may have inherent rewards are
nonetheless, jobs. How many times have we heard Pete Townshend say that
The Who tour for the money (not recently, but he has in the past).
There's nothing wrong with it. Many other bands do as well, even if
they won't say it. This where their skills are. I wouldn't expect a
musician to go out to be a brick-layer tomorrow in order to put food on
his table, I'd expect him to make music and attempt to sell it, as a
commodity, as a product which others may want to buy. A large part of
capitialism is acting in one's own self-interest (as opposed to actiing
selfishly). I enjoy making music, people enjoy listening to my music
and watching me perform it, I'm going to sell it my way of making a
living. Why do "artists" charge large amounts of money to see them
perform? Because it's what the market will bear. There's nothing wrong
with any of this, but art, is a commodity to be exchanged and sold.
BlackMonk
Not really. Ska is a different form of music. Reggae developed out of it,
but that doesn't mean everything influenced by Ska is Reggae.
bottl...@my-deja.com
have used: "grown up".
"Pop" has a negative connotation partly because it is associated -
especially where the Beatles are concerned - with screaming hysterical
14 year olds. Few people want to categorise themselves with screaming
hysterical 14 year olds.
"Rock" though sounds a bit older. It may, in reality, not be all that
much older....I know so many 40 year old rock fans who seem to have
stopped maturing at about 19.
Dr. Strangemonde
BlackMonk wrote:
> "Ob-la-di" [was] slightly influenced by Ska, a predecessor of Reggae.
"You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" is, like, totally ska, mon!
(Or parts of it are, anyhow).
"Pop" music, BTW, is nothing more than POPULAR music, as opposed to,
say, classical music. It's music for enjoying and moving your butt to,
not analyzing and nodding seriously at. So, the question should be:
Q: "When did the Beatles stop being popular?"
A: "This happened when Britney Spears was elected President of the USA,
in November of 2046 (which was coincidentally also the year of Mick
Jagger's big near-death scare after Keith Richards smashed into him
while hang-gliding)."
- Dr Strangemonde
(Source: The Rocklopedia Galactica [Great Whopping Big and Occasionally
Correct 23rd Century Edition])
DayTripper1966
natjo1986 wrote:
> Since I wasn't around to see for myself when it happened, I would like
> to know at what point the Beatles stopped being pop? Like all pop it's
> all about the flavor of the month.
Pop music simply means popular music. The Beatles were always popular.
DayTripper1966
Dale Houstman wrote:
But even without
> profit-motive, most people inclined toward creative expression would
> pursue their interests, because there really is a reward built-in to
> personal accomplishment.
And who supports these people if no one wants to buy their product?
All the other benefits come (or - usually -
> don't come) later.Of course, a capitalist system will want to have every
> aspect of human activity be based on finances, because this lends itself
> to control and exploitation.
>
> In truth, I think that "good old capitalist tradition" is primarily
> bullshit: capitalism works great when its selling toasters and
> Pop-Tarts.
Save this nonsense for a Marxist newsgroup, not a music one.
With art and education and "doing what is best for the
> citizenry" it often fails, and in a spectacular way.
One only has to
> look at what capitalism has created out of a once vital and varied radio
> landscape to see that homogeneity and blandness is what dominates the
> scene. Why? Because it makes predictable, safe profits.
To obtain profits, one has to produce what someone else wants to pay
for. That is why the groups that more people want to listen to make
the money. .
DayTripper1966
Runnnerr wrote:
> I've often wondered why the term "pop" has such negative connotations
> both within and without industry.
Because of the elitist view that if something is popular, than it
cannot be high quality.
DayTripper1966
Chris Jepson wrote:
> >
>
> This seems to be something of a semantic argument. I think the OP's
> point was that the Beatles' style changed, and I think that's true...
> it's just that the OP used the term "pop" to refer to the earlier style,
> which was probably a poor choice of word. We might say that the
> Beatles' early music was more "commercial" or "teen-oriented" or
> something like that ... which would still be an overgeneralization, but
> there's no question that a major change took place around 1965-66.
It was still hugely "commercial" (appealing to a huge amount of people
after 1965, but not as teen oriented.
Dale Houstman
DayTripper1966 wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> But even without
>
>>profit-motive, most people inclined toward creative expression would
>>pursue their interests, because there really is a reward built-in to
>>personal accomplishment.
>
>
> And who supports these people if no one wants to buy their product?
You're kidding? The vast m,ajority of creative people make little or no
money from their work. And so they support themselves the same way
everyone else has to: they get jobs.
>
>
> All the other benefits come (or - usually -
>
>>don't come) later.Of course, a capitalist system will want to have every
>>aspect of human activity be based on finances, because this lends itself
>>to control and exploitation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>In truth, I think that "good old capitalist tradition" is primarily
>>bullshit: capitalism works great when its selling toasters and
>>Pop-Tarts.
>
>
> Save this nonsense for a Marxist newsgroup, not a music one.
Not to be unkind, but - to be blunt - eat shit. The question of
capital's role in artistic pursuits was brought up by others, and has
been before. I have every right to respond to such opinions. And it
isn't nonsense: it's true. And - to be even more honest - capitalism
doesn't even do a very good job on toasters, because of one of its great
modern inventions: planned obsolescence. This - of course- increases
profits, but decreases pleasure, and is a great waate of resources. so -
I take it back - capitalism doesn't work great even when selling toasters.
By the frigging way: Marxists listen to music too. Stuff your giddy
capitalist head back in the burning sands.
dmh
Lookingglass
>
>
> Lookingglass wrote:
>> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>> news:44B519B1...@skypoint.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Someone asked Louis Armstrong once if what he did was folk music: he said
>>>"Well, I'm folk ain't I?"
>>
>>
>> THAT is such a great retort.
>>
> Well, Louis was a great man. Somked reefer up until the day he died, was
> generous to his friends and strangers, and never moved out of his old
> neighborhood, alhough he could obviously afford to, and it wasn't what was
> considered a "good" area. He had roots...
...he was "just folks"... !!! Great musician. I hope I die in the manner of
Louis... ;^)
>> ..."you don't get time to hang a sign on me..."
> "Out To Lunch. Back In Five Minutes"
>
> dmh
...except for that one...
dave (...you won't see me...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:44B54564...@skypoint.com...
>
>>
>>Lookingglass wrote:
>>
>>>"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>>news:44B519B1...@skypoint.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Someone asked Louis Armstrong once if what he did was folk music: he said
>>>>"Well, I'm folk ain't I?"
>>>
>>>
>>>THAT is such a great retort.
>>>
>>
>>Well, Louis was a great man. Somked reefer up until the day he died, was
>>generous to his friends and strangers, and never moved out of his old
>>neighborhood, alhough he could obviously afford to, and it wasn't what was
>>considered a "good" area. He had roots...
>
>
>
> ...he was "just folks"... !!! Great musician. I hope I die in the manner of
> Louis... ;^)
>
>
It can be arranged for a small fee (paid in advance)...
dmh
Runnnerr
So what you're saying is that Yoko has consistently made bad "music" so
that it wouldn't be popular and would therefore be considered high
quality music.
Yes, I see your point. I've often wondered about the classic "Toilet
Piece". Now I understand why so many consider it to be so great.
black bertie
> Since I wasn't around to see for myself when it happened, I would like
> to know at what point the Beatles stopped being pop? Like all pop it's
> all about the flavor of the month. I do know that there was the Beatles
> invasion where every giddy school girl wanted every little piece of
> them. My best guess is that Rubber Soul really weeded out the pop music
> scene and the true fans stayed with them. Then Revolver came along and
> I'm pretty sure that weeded out even more pop people out. The thing
> about it is that whoever stopped being a Beatles fan after RS, was
> picked up with different people who weren't into the pre-RS Beatles
> music. I'm also pretty sure that once Revolver was released that it
> sealed the deal in concrete with newly acquired fans.
"fans"
Runnnerr
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > THAT is such a great retort.
> >
> Well, Louis was a great man. Somked reefer up until the day he died, was
> generous to his friends and strangers, and never moved out of his old
> neighborhood, alhough he could obviously afford to, and it wasn't what
> was considered a "good" area. He had roots...
>
> >
> dmh
Well, he did move a few times- from New Orleans to Chicago, from
Chicago to New York. He lived in Europe for a few years and maybe some
places in between before settling into Queens where his house is now a
museum.
AC
And it always has been. Whether it's the state-funded art of Ancient
Egypt or Rome, or the aristocratic-funded art of the Renaissance, at the
end of the day art is the ultimate consumer product. On a rare occasion
you will have an artist who is wealthy enough (either through some other
venture or because he or she chose more consumable art earlier on) to
pursue art for art's sake, but for the most part artists have always had
to put up with the capitalist nature of the game.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dale Houstman
Yes. I should have said he KEPT his family home. As a musician, it is
obvious he would be mobile.
dmh
Dale Houstman
I think we are miscomprehending something here: most artists are never
heard of at all. These guys (like me!) do it because it's rewarding in
and of itself. Even the "big guys" start out this way, and - if they're
not total hacks - retain their enthusiasm for "art for art's sake." It
is nice - of course- if the money comes, but - almost inevitably - it
doesn't, yet art continues to be made. Van Gogh must have liked it,
because he only sold one painting in his lifetime. And "putting up with"
is a big difference from "laboring for the sake of." And - frankly -
most art isn't all that expensive to pursue, and so patronage is not
usually necessary. If you want to be a monumental public sculptor, or
put on an opera, you will certainly need support, but poetry (my main
pursuit), many visual arts, and songwriting necessitate very small output.
dmh
>
Lookingglass
>
>
> Lookingglass wrote:
>> ...he was "just folks"... !!! Great musician. I hope I die in the manner
>> of Louis... ;^)
>
>
> It can be arranged for a small fee (paid in advance)...
>
> dmh
...seed money?
dave (...I was alone...I didn't know what I would find there...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Lookingglass
> I think we are miscomprehending something here: most artists are never
> heard of at all. These guys (like me!) do it because it's rewarding in and
> of itself. Even the "big guys" start out this way, and - if they're not
> total hacks - retain their enthusiasm for "art for art's sake." It is
> nice - of course- if the money comes, but - almost inevitably - it
> doesn't, yet art continues to be made. Van Gogh must have liked it,
> because he only sold one painting in his lifetime. And "putting up with"
> is a big difference from "laboring for the sake of." And - frankly - most
> art isn't all that expensive to pursue, and so patronage is not usually
> necessary. If you want to be a monumental public sculptor, or put on an
> opera, you will certainly need support, but poetry (my main pursuit), many
> visual arts, and songwriting necessitate very small output.
>
> dmh
I agree with you Dale... I've been 'making Art' all my life and no one
recognizes me... 'I' don't even recognize me at this stage of my life. ;^)
...rather than make babies, I make 'art'....... though I certainly do my
best to "make LOVE, not war"... I believe, like you, that Artists make Art
because of a passion to do so... not to make money. If an Artist is lucky
enough to be 'discovered', that's wonderful. There are many, many Artists
doing what they love to do for no money... god bless 'em.
dave (...that's what I want...)
www.Shemakhan.com
DayTripper1966
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> Not to be unkind, but - to be blunt - eat shit. > By the frigging way: Marxists listen to music too. Stuff your giddy
> capitalist head back in the burning sands.
When you use personal attacks, is shows that you have run out of
reason.
DayTripper1966
Runnnerr wrote:
> >
> > Because of the elitist view that if something is popular, than it
> > cannot be high quality.
>
> So what you're saying is that Yoko has consistently made bad "music" so
> that it wouldn't be popular and would therefore be considered high
> quality music.
No, the converse is not necessarily true.
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:44B6296...@skypoint.com...
>
>>
>>Lookingglass wrote:
>>
>>>...he was "just folks"... !!! Great musician. I hope I die in the manner
>>>of Louis... ;^)
>>
>>
>>It can be arranged for a small fee (paid in advance)...
>>
>>dmh
>
>
>
> ...seed money?
>
Sticks and stems may just cause phlegm but flowers can never hurt you...
dmh
t...@aerovons.com
True...
I also think pop is not self conscious. It tends to talk about things
that we get too uptight to talk about as we grow older. In pop, you can
have a song about crying over someone, in rock, that thought better be
accompanied by some pretty loud guitars, and you'd better be screaming
that line;)
TH
Lookingglass
...You're on a roll Dude! I bet you think you're funny!?! (Howdy do Mrs. H)
:^)
dave (...I get high with a little help from my friends...)
www.Shemakhan.com
A Canker Sore
>>it happened, I would like to know at what
>>point the Beatles stopped being pop? Like
>>all pop it's all
A glass of ice hot pop? No.
Bill Bassett
"A Canker Sore" <ACank...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28093-44B...@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:44B72524...@skypoint.com...
>
>>
>>Lookingglass wrote:
>>
>>>"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>>news:44B6296...@skypoint.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lookingglass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>...he was "just folks"... !!! Great musician. I hope I die in the manner
>>>>>of Louis... ;^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It can be arranged for a small fee (paid in advance)...
>>>>
>>>>dmh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>...seed money?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Sticks and stems may just cause phlegm but flowers can never hurt you...
>>
>>dmh
>
>
>
> ...You're on a roll Dude! I bet you think you're funny!?! (Howdy do Mrs. H)
>
A sesame seed roll of course...
Mrs. H (actually her last name isn't mine) still thinks I'm as funny as
blind pilot.
dmh
Lookingglass
> Mrs. H (actually her last name isn't mine) still thinks I'm as funny as
> blind pilot.
>
> dmh
...I will henceforth (?) make my infrequent salutations to Mrs. H as Mrs.
Dale... if it's OK with you and the 'missus'... !?! (Ms...?)
dave (...Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:44B833CB...@skypoint.com...
>
>>Mrs. H (actually her last name isn't mine) still thinks I'm as funny as
>>blind pilot.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
>
> ...I will henceforth (?) make my infrequent salutations to Mrs. H as Mrs.
> Dale... if it's OK with you and the 'missus'... !?! (Ms...?)
>
Actually, considering she owns the house and is the bigger wage-earner,
you might more accurately call me Mr. Theresa...
dmh
IBen Getiner
natjo1986 wrote:
> Since I wasn't around to see for myself when it happened, I would like
> to know at what point the Beatles stopped being pop? Like all pop it's
> invasion where every giddy school girl wanted every little piece of
> them. My best guess is that Rubber Soul really weeded out the pop music
> scene and the true fans stayed with them. Then Revolver came along and
> I'm pretty sure that weeded out even more pop people out. The thing
> about it is that whoever stopped being a Beatles fan after RS, was
> picked up with different people who weren't into the pre-RS Beatles
> music. I'm also pretty sure that once Revolver was released that it
> sealed the deal in concrete with newly acquired fans.
I think you're confused on your terminology. It's all pop, actually..
It's like Musicologist Wilfrid Mellers once said... "Sgt. Pepper's was
the most distinctive event in pop's brief history.. It marked the
turning point...... where the Beatles stopped being ritual dance music
and became music to be listen to"..
That's a little more like it, ehh.....?
IBen Getiner
Lookingglass
..."Nothing to get hung about" Mr. T.............. ;^)
ps... (nothing to do with you or your very significant other) Are you
familiar with the story of Bridget Cleary? Fascinating!!! Google her
name...true story. I am re-reading a book on the subject.
dave (...a soap impression of his wife which he ate and donated to the
National Trust...)
www.Shemakhan.com
#9
The answer to the OP's question is as follows:
When they meet Bob Dylan in 1965.
A year before Dylan changed music forever.