Thank you for this post. It was clear, not accusatory and you state your observations taking into consideration that I made it clear that I wasn't around during that time. I wish others were as rational as you were here. Thanks for the comments. Yes, from that perspective I can see how they had an impact on music in terms of them being a catalyst for other young people to want to start bands. But I often wonder about what life was like before most people had TVs. It's funny to imagine what life was like before that time.
You didn't have to be around at that time to appreciate and see it;s greatness- I wasn't around in the 1950s to hear Miles Davis at Birdland or Hank Williams at the Grand Ol Opry- but I still know they were great talents....
You know, I remember growing up seeing pictures of the Coliseum in Rome but it wasn't until I was actually THERE in Rome in all of its glory, that was life changing. So, I think we can't underestimate what it means to have a connection with something that's right in front of you....
So from what you're saying we can thank the Beatles for giving birth to the movement that started hip hop huh? LOL Yeah, let's take this song below by Kendrick Lamar (who won best rap album...FINALLY). This song is so Beatles huh? LOL
[Edited 2/22/16 18:38pm]
[Edited 2/22/16 18:46pm]
That's like saying Frank Sinatra or Bach is no good because they don't use the break from "Funky Drummer"....There are different styles of music, and they can each have greatness in their own way
Seems like you're playing the same game that Mickey is playing So, it's "everything is everything" when it comes to some artists but when it comes to the Beatles "Oh, they influenced XYZ artist"....do you guys really not see what you're doing here? This is crazy.
But The Jacksons' version is a remake. This is the original singer, who also wrote it
You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
I'm pretty sure someone posted some pictures of The Beatles with Little Richard in this thread. You can look at old threads on this subject and folks have mentioned who the Beatles were influenced by. There's no point in saying the same things over and over that have been said in the older threads. Especially since the question was did the Beatles influence music, not who influenced the Beatles. So you can go into search and look up the earlier threads since you claim people are downplaying.
Well, what do you think music historians 100 years from now will say about the impact of the Beatles? Do you think historians will overlook Little Richard? Will they overlook the Isley Brothers? History tends to be twisted to fit an agenda. I'm afraid this will happen when it comes to music history of the 20th century. I mean honestly, there are people in the United States who have no idea that Garret A. Morgan invented the traffic light but think about how that invention changed the world...
[Edited 2/22/16 21:11pm]
When the Beatles first came to America, a reporter asked them what musician they most wanted to see. Paul said "Muddy Waters". The reporter asked "Where's that ?". Paul then said "You don't know your own famour people here in America".
You have a right to your opinion, right or wrong as it may be...
But do you also consider Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Ray Charles, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Smokey Robinson, Curtis Mayfield also to be "simpleton music, simpleton lyrics" for the masses ?
Smokey Robinson was the undisputed author of the sound of the 60s. Hands down. How could you put him in the same sentence with the word "simpleton"??
You miss my point. Smokey Robinson was one of the greatest songwriters of all time, who wrote huge hits...just like Lennon & McCartney ! And robinson himself said that they were brilliant writers
But there is nothing new here- the Beatles readily admitted that their idols were Chuck Berry , Little Richard, Fats Domino, Arthur Alexander....and Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins...and songwriters like Goffin and King and Burt Bacharach. What is your point ? They never his their influences or denied them
Well, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that throughout American history, there have been conscious efforts to diminsh or in some cases ERASE the history of people who are not of European decent. I remember in school, the ONLY history that was taught was European history. No exceptions. I think there may have been a few sentences here and there about black history but it wasn't much and I remember a teacher once tried to have me suspended from school for asking her why she didn't teach black art. Yes, I was fucking 11 years old threatened with suspension because I wanted to learn about black art. I think THAT is what is heartbreaking sometimes. Every great artist has their influences but the way that history books are written, the way that historians shape the narrative has a powerful impact on how people in the future perceive historical events. It's the NARRATIVE of how music history will be perceived to be by the masses in the future. Imagine if someone in 100 years wrote about 20th century music and didn't include David Bowie and then tried to explain "glam rock" without talking about David Bowie because he wasn't as "commercially successful" as say Duran Duran. How can you have a discussion about British new wave music without talking about David Bowie who, albeit was NOT new wave, had a significant impact on music that is STILL SEEN. I mean do you people think that because Duran Duran was HOT back in the 80s that their music had a long lasting impact on music? Not at all...The Beatles were the "Duran Duran" of the 60s....
See, I think your point is more political than musical. And here I basically agree with you. But it's like I have said on the (numerous) Elvis Presley threads that come up here. There can be two separate but not mutually exclusive issues here : Yes, Elvis's success was aided by the fact that he was White (and good looking). AND YES- Elvis WAS one of the greatest singers who ever lived. (Even Chuck D admitted that Elvis was a great artist...)
Smokey Robinson was the undisputed author of the sound of the 60s. Hands down. How could you put him in the same sentence with the word "simpleton"??
You miss my point. Smokey Robinson was one of the greatest songwriters of all time, who wrote huge hits...just like Lennon & McCartney ! And robinson himself said that they were brilliant writers
So, what difference does it make then? Why don't the historians, the pop culture "experts", etc. give credit across the board? How many people to this day say that the "King" of Rock n' Roll is Elvis? How many people think of the Beatles when they think of the song "Twist and Shout"???? I swear, you guys are really playing games in this thread.
You have a right to your opinion, right or wrong as it may be...
But do you also consider Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Ray Charles, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Smokey Robinson, Curtis Mayfield also to be "simpleton music, simpleton lyrics" for the masses ?
Smokey Robinson was the undisputed author of the sound of the 60s. Hands down. How could you put him in the same sentence with the word "simpleton"??
Also, Greycap said that the Beatles were only covered so much because their music was "simple". So how would he and you describe the music of Porter, Berlin, Ellington, Mercer, Rogers & Hart, Rogers & Hammerstein....all of who have written songs covered by thousands of artists ?
Well, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that throughout American history, there have been conscious efforts to diminsh or in some cases ERASE the history of people who are not of European decent. I remember in school, the ONLY history that was taught was European history. No exceptions. I think there may have been a few sentences here and there about black history but it wasn't much and I remember a teacher once tried to have me suspended from school for asking her why she didn't teach black art. Yes, I was fucking 11 years old threatened with suspension because I wanted to learn about black art. I think THAT is what is heartbreaking sometimes. Every great artist has their influences but the way that history books are written, the way that historians shape the narrative has a powerful impact on how people in the future perceive historical events. It's the NARRATIVE of how music history will be perceived to be by the masses in the future. Imagine if someone in 100 years wrote about 20th century music and didn't include David Bowie and then tried to explain "glam rock" without talking about David Bowie because he wasn't as "commercially successful" as say Duran Duran. How can you have a discussion about British new wave music without talking about David Bowie who, albeit was NOT new wave, had a significant impact on music that is STILL SEEN. I mean do you people think that because Duran Duran was HOT back in the 80s that their music had a long lasting impact on music? Not at all...The Beatles were the "Duran Duran" of the 60s....
See, I think your point is more political than musical. And here I basically agree with you. But it's like I have said on the (numerous) Elvis Presley threads that come up here. There can be two separate but not mutually exclusive issues here : Yes, Elvis's success was aided by the fact that he was White (and good looking). AND YES- Elvis WAS one of the greatest singers who ever lived. (Even Chuck D admitted that Elvis was a great artist...)
So you say, "Even Chuck D said..." Well okay, does that mean that EVERYONE thinks that's true? Okay, so Chuck D has that opinion but remember how he threw shade at Elvis in one of his songs? Remember that? It's like you guys think that pulling up a few random quotes by some artists justifies the bullshit that happened to other artists who don't get fair recognition. I would hate to think that people can't keep in mind that up until perhaps the early 80s that radio was still very much segregated.
That's like saying Frank Sinatra or Bach is no good because they don't use the break from "Funky Drummer"....There are different styles of music, and they can each have greatness in their own way
Seems like you're playing the same game that Mickey is playing So, it's "everything is everything" when it comes to some artists but when it comes to the Beatles "Oh, they influenced XYZ artist"....do you guys really not see what you're doing here? This is crazy.
[Edited 2/22/16 21:46pm]
I don't get your point here. I'm saying "why can't the Beatles be great and highly influential without influencing every single style of music out there ?"
Smokey Robinson was the undisputed author of the sound of the 60s. Hands down. How could you put him in the same sentence with the word "simpleton"??
Also, Greycap said that the Beatles were only covered so much because their music was "simple". So how would he and you describe the music of Porter, Berlin, Ellington, Mercer, Rogers & Hart, Rogers & Hammerstein....all of who have written songs covered by thousands of artists ?
Amazing, just amazing, what about James Brown, Bootsy Collins, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, etc? What about them? Who has had a bigger impact on music of the 21st century apart from these folks?
Seems like you're playing the same game that Mickey is playing So, it's "everything is everything" when it comes to some artists but when it comes to the Beatles "Oh, they influenced XYZ artist"....do you guys really not see what you're doing here? This is crazy.
[Edited 2/22/16 21:46pm]
I don't get your point here. I'm saying "why can't the Beatles be great and highly influential without influencing every single style of music out there ?"
Well, the way that SOME people in this thread are carrying on you'd think the Beatles were Jesus Christ I think you're probably one of the more rational people on this thread
You miss my point. Smokey Robinson was one of the greatest songwriters of all time, who wrote huge hits...just like Lennon & McCartney ! And robinson himself said that they were brilliant writers
So, what difference does it make then? Why don't the historians, the pop culture "experts", etc. give credit across the board? How many people to this day say that the "King" of Rock n' Roll is Elvis? How many people think of the Beatles when they think of the song "Twist and Shout"???? I swear, you guys are really playing games in this thread.
I'm not playing any games- I know "Twist and Shout" by the Isley Brothers, The Beatles, AND the Bell Notes, who did it FIRST....I still get the impression that you are down grading the beatles for political and social reasons more than musical ones. Believe me, I KNOW the history...and I know the MUSIC too
But has Duran Duran sold close to 30 million copies of an album in the 2000s? The Beatles have with the compilation 1. Not bad for a group that hasn't existed since 1970. They also had a popular Rock Band video game and a Cirque Du Soleil show, the success of which helped to spawn others Cirque shows for Elvis Presley & Michael Jackson. Why do you think Mike purchased the ATV catalog, when his advisors told him not to? He knew The Beatles songs were worth a lot of money, although it contained other songs from many acts. It was Paul who told Mike about buying song publishing in the 1st place. That catalog kept him afloat when his career wasn't going that great. If that doesn't prove influence, then nothing will. If Mike bought the catalog of the Bay City Rollers instead, it would have been a different story.
You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
So, what difference does it make then? Why don't the historians, the pop culture "experts", etc. give credit across the board? How many people to this day say that the "King" of Rock n' Roll is Elvis? How many people think of the Beatles when they think of the song "Twist and Shout"???? I swear, you guys are really playing games in this thread.
I'm not playing any games- I know "Twist and Shout" by the Isley Brothers, The Beatles, AND the Bell Notes, who did it FIRST....I still get the impression that you are down grading the beatles for political and social reasons more than musical ones. Believe me, I KNOW the history...and I know the MUSIC too
Okay, we're over 10 pages deep into this thread and you're saying I have an "agenda" against the Beatles but you and many others have glossed over that I said I LIKE the Sgt. Peppers album and I clearly see THAT album as a game changer in music.....nice try though. Try reading carefully the next time Anyway, the Beatles basically covered/copied black music to make it big in the music business, made some money and then experimented with sounds from all over the world and made the Sgt. Pepper's album during a time of the "hippie" generation, anti-war protests, Haight-Ashbury, LSD, "love ins" and "communes"....but that generation has passed and I don't know if the "psychedelic" sound that they defined a generation with was relevant even 5-10 years later. THAT is what I am questioning here. You can clearly see that 35 years after the release of Thriller that it is STILL impacting music in 2016. As I said from the FIRST POST I said that David Bowie's influence in music has never ended (Prince, Lady Gaga come to mind). There's no disputing that. What I am saying is that the Beatles are, in my opinion, only significant for that specific period of time but beyond the time that they broke up I don't think their impact has been THAT substantial. I mean, by the time the Beatles broke up, funk music, soul music and eventually disco music happened and I'm pretty sure that ALL of those genres of music would have still happened regardless of the Beatles or not. But, you CANNOT honestly say that without James Brown that those genres of music would have happened. Not a chance.
See, I think your point is more political than musical. And here I basically agree with you. But it's like I have said on the (numerous) Elvis Presley threads that come up here. There can be two separate but not mutually exclusive issues here : Yes, Elvis's success was aided by the fact that he was White (and good looking). AND YES- Elvis WAS one of the greatest singers who ever lived. (Even Chuck D admitted that Elvis was a great artist...)
So you say, "Even Chuck D said..." Well okay, does that mean that EVERYONE thinks that's true? Okay, so Chuck D has that opinion but remember how he threw shade at Elvis in one of his songs? Remember that? It's like you guys think that pulling up a few random quotes by some artists justifies the bullshit that happened to other artists who don't get fair recognition. I would hate to think that people can't keep in mind that up until perhaps the early 80s that radio was still very much segregated.
[Edited 2/22/16 22:03pm]
I WAS actually around in the 1980s (and before), so I know what you speak. And on these issues I agree with you totally, as I said before...but it's what is in the grooves that also matters. I'm probably older than you, I actually worked in the music business for several years, and (not that this should make any difference) but I'm Black (I suspect you thought otherwise...)
I quote Chuck D because he says that his point was about the SOCIAL aspect of Elvis's success, not about his musical talent- which he (and I) emphasize are two different things
Also, Greycap said that the Beatles were only covered so much because their music was "simple". So how would he and you describe the music of Porter, Berlin, Ellington, Mercer, Rogers & Hart, Rogers & Hammerstein....all of who have written songs covered by thousands of artists ?
Amazing, just amazing, what about James Brown, Bootsy Collins, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, etc? What about them? Who has had a bigger impact on music of the 21st century apart from these folks?
These are ALL great artists who I love to death. You missed my point. BTW- Wonder and Bowie loved the Beatles (and actually worked with members of the group), and Jackson was so obsessed with them he went out of his way to buy their publishing company so he could own the songs...just telling the truth
But has Duran Duran sold close to 30 million copies of an album in the 2000s? The Beatles have with the compilation 1. Not bad for a group that hasn't existed since 1970. They also had a popular Rock Band video game and a Cirque Du Soleil show, the success of which helped to spawn others Cirque shows for Elvis Presley & Michael Jackson. Why do you think Mike purchased the ATV catalog, when his advisors told him not to? He knew The Beatles songs were worth a lot of money, although it contained other songs from many acts. It was Paul who told Mike about buying song publishing in the 1st place. That catalog kept him afloat when his career wasn't going that great. If that doesn't prove influence, then nothing will. If Mike bought the catalog of the Bay City Rollers instead, it would have been a different story.
Interesting. You cut out ONE sentence of an entire paragraph and ignore everything else I wrote. That's lame. All of your posts can basically be summarized like this...."Yeah, we know X artist started it but Y artist did it better"....but then when I brought up Blame it on the Boogie you said..."Yeah, Michael sang it but it was a remake"....so, when it comes to SOME artists it's not significant that it was a COVER but for other artists it's significant that it's a cover? Yes, Michael bought the catalog and THAT is precisely when the media turned on him. God forbid that an artist like Michael is anything more than a "song and dance" man....that's a discussion for the P&R thread though. Not here. So, by the way, you DO know that Michael GAVE Little Richard his publishing back huh? Interesting that LITTLE RICHARD benefited from MICHAEL buying his catalog. Do you think Paul McCartney would have done that? Nope! Okay folks, it's bed time. Thanks for being so involved in this thread guys. It's making for a good discussion
I don't get your point here. I'm saying "why can't the Beatles be great and highly influential without influencing every single style of music out there ?"
Well, the way that SOME people in this thread are carrying on you'd think the Beatles were Jesus Christ I think you're probably one of the more rational people on this thread
John Lennon got in trouble in 1966 for saying the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus"...and at that time, he was probably right !
So you say, "Even Chuck D said..." Well okay, does that mean that EVERYONE thinks that's true? Okay, so Chuck D has that opinion but remember how he threw shade at Elvis in one of his songs? Remember that? It's like you guys think that pulling up a few random quotes by some artists justifies the bullshit that happened to other artists who don't get fair recognition. I would hate to think that people can't keep in mind that up until perhaps the early 80s that radio was still very much segregated.
[Edited 2/22/16 22:03pm]
I WAS actually around in the 1980s (and before), so I know what you speak. And on these issues I agree with you totally, as I said before...but it's what is in the grooves that also matters. I'm probably older than you, I actually worked in the music business for several years, and (not that this should make any difference) but I'm Black (I suspect you thought otherwise...)
I quote Chuck D because he says that his point was about the SOCIAL aspect of Elvis's success, not about his musical talent- which he (and I) emphasize are two different things
That's interesting...so perhaps Chuck D was talking shit about Elvis in that song just to fan the flames huh? Nobody is above using gimmicks, catchphrases and off color remarks to appeal to the masses, not even Chuck D
Amazing, just amazing, what about James Brown, Bootsy Collins, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, etc? What about them? Who has had a bigger impact on music of the 21st century apart from these folks?
These are ALL great artists who I love to death. You missed my point. BTW- Wonder and Bowie loved the Beatles (and actually worked with members of the group), and Jackson was so obsessed with them he went out of his way to buy their publishing company so he could own the songs...just telling the truth
So what about Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Isley Brothers, you know, everyone who was famous BEFORE the Beatles????? Did everything START and END with the Beatles? NO.
Well, the way that SOME people in this thread are carrying on you'd think the Beatles were Jesus Christ I think you're probably one of the more rational people on this thread
John Lennon got in trouble in 1966 for saying the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus"...and at that time, he was probably right !
Well, I can see why he got in trouble for saying that...
I'm not playing any games- I know "Twist and Shout" by the Isley Brothers, The Beatles, AND the Bell Notes, who did it FIRST....I still get the impression that you are down grading the beatles for political and social reasons more than musical ones. Believe me, I KNOW the history...and I know the MUSIC too
Okay, we're over 10 pages deep into this thread and you're saying I have an "agenda" against the Beatles but you and many others have glossed over that I said I LIKE the Sgt. Peppers album and I clearly see THAT album as a game changer in music.....nice try though. Try reading carefully the next time Anyway, the Beatles basically covered/copied black music to make it big in the music business, made some money and then experimented with sounds from all over the world and made the Sgt. Pepper's album during a time of the "hippie" generation, anti-war protests, Haight-Ashbury, LSD, "love ins" and "communes"....but that generation has passed and I don't know if the "psychedelic" sound that they defined a generation with was relevant even 5-10 years later. THAT is what I am questioning here. You can clearly see that 35 years after the release of Thriller that it is STILL impacting music in 2016. As I said from the FIRST POST I said that David Bowie's influence in music has never ended (Prince, Lady Gaga come to mind). There's no disputing that. What I am saying is that the Beatles are, in my opinion, only significant for that specific period of time but beyond the time that they broke up I don't think their impact has been THAT substantial. I mean, by the time the Beatles broke up, funk music, soul music and eventually disco music happened and I'm pretty sure that ALL of those genres of music would have still happened regardless of the Beatles or not. But, you CANNOT honestly say that without James Brown that those genres of music would have happened. Not a chance.
But Bowie was hugely influenced by the Beatles, and so was Prince ! And in another post I listed dozens of important and well known acts who have admitted to their influence as well. Now you may not listen to that type of music, so you don't hear it...
How many people think of the Beatles when they think of the song "Twist and Shout"???? I swear, you guys are really playing games in this thread.
Because The Beatles was a bigger hit and is more well known. The Isley Brothers is not even the original. Twist And Shout was originally by The Top Notes. It's like with Respect, more people think of Aretha Franklin. Many people do not know Otis Redding originally released it. When Who's Loving You comes up, they don't think of The Miracles, they think Jackson 5 or with Killing Me Softly, most people know the Roberta Flack version or even the Fugees version, not the Lori Lieberman original. Many of Whitney Houstons hits were remakes of little known songs like this
You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
These are ALL great artists who I love to death. You missed my point. BTW- Wonder and Bowie loved the Beatles (and actually worked with members of the group), and Jackson was so obsessed with them he went out of his way to buy their publishing company so he could own the songs...just telling the truth
So what about Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Isley Brothers, you know, everyone who was famous BEFORE the Beatles????? Did everything START and END with the Beatles? NO.
I love all those artists as well, and see their brilliance. Interstingly, you would find very few Balck people today who talk about the influence and genius of those artists . Nobody- ESPECIALLY not the Beatles themselves- ever said they did not have influences and forefathers
Okay, we're over 10 pages deep into this thread and you're saying I have an "agenda" against the Beatles but you and many others have glossed over that I said I LIKE the Sgt. Peppers album and I clearly see THAT album as a game changer in music.....nice try though. Try reading carefully the next time Anyway, the Beatles basically covered/copied black music to make it big in the music business, made some money and then experimented with sounds from all over the world and made the Sgt. Pepper's album during a time of the "hippie" generation, anti-war protests, Haight-Ashbury, LSD, "love ins" and "communes"....but that generation has passed and I don't know if the "psychedelic" sound that they defined a generation with was relevant even 5-10 years later. THAT is what I am questioning here. You can clearly see that 35 years after the release of Thriller that it is STILL impacting music in 2016. As I said from the FIRST POST I said that David Bowie's influence in music has never ended (Prince, Lady Gaga come to mind). There's no disputing that. What I am saying is that the Beatles are, in my opinion, only significant for that specific period of time but beyond the time that they broke up I don't think their impact has been THAT substantial. I mean, by the time the Beatles broke up, funk music, soul music and eventually disco music happened and I'm pretty sure that ALL of those genres of music would have still happened regardless of the Beatles or not. But, you CANNOT honestly say that without James Brown that those genres of music would have happened. Not a chance.
But Bowie was hugely influenced by the Beatles, and so was Prince ! And in another post I listed dozens of important and well known acts who have admitted to their influence as well. Now you may not listen to that type of music, so you don't hear it...
Okay so you're telling me that a band like Kiss, Bon Jovi, Lynrd Synrd (spelling) are THAT influenced by the Beatles?
How many people think of the Beatles when they think of the song "Twist and Shout"???? I swear, you guys are really playing games in this thread.
Because The Beatles was a bigger hit and is more well known. The Isley Brothers is not even the original. Twist And Shout was originally by The Top Notes. It's like with Respect, more people think of Aretha Franklin. Many people do not know Otis Redding originally released it. When Who's Loving You comes up, they don't think of The Miracles, they think Jackson 5 or with Killing Me Softly, most people know the Roberta Flack version or even the Fugees version, not the Lori Lieberman original. Many of Whitney Houstons hits were remakes of little known songs like this
So when you were talking about "Blame it on the Boogie" you didn't seem quick to jump on the "but they made it popular" bandwagon See that? See how that double standard works? Good night
But Bowie was hugely influenced by the Beatles, and so was Prince ! And in another post I listed dozens of important and well known acts who have admitted to their influence as well. Now you may not listen to that type of music, so you don't hear it...
Okay so you're telling me that a band like Kiss, Bon Jovi, Lynrd Synrd (spelling) are THAT influenced by the Beatles?
I'm going to bed now. Talk tomorrow!
Kiss certianly. Gene Simmons said they were he greatest band ever !
You didn't have to be around at that time to appreciate and see it;s greatness- I wasn't around in the 1950s to hear Miles Davis at Birdland or Hank Williams at the Grand Ol Opry- but I still know they were great talents....
You know, I remember growing up seeing pictures of the Coliseum in Rome but it wasn't until I was actually THERE in Rome in all of its glory, that was life changing. So, I think we can't underestimate what it means to have a connection with something that's right in front of you....
See, i grew up with the Beatles. The first movie I ever saw was "A Hard Days Night" (a brilliant film BTW) at age 3
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
So, it's "everything is everything" when it comes to some artists but when it comes to the Beatles "Oh, they influenced XYZ artist"....do you guys really not see what you're doing here? This is crazy.
Nobody is above using gimmicks, catchphrases and off color remarks to appeal to the masses, not even Chuck D