joelbb wrote: 
Joel, you pretty much nailed it apart from the snarky bit at the end. The Beatles paid their dues in Hamburg (Ringo aside). They were tight, professional band. Brian Epstein cleaned and polished them up for the Brits and American audiences, but he just helped them get their collective foot in the door. The Beatles' talent, discipline and drive put them on top. Remember that Epstein killed himself in part because he realized the lads no longer needed him--they'd taken control of their careers and music. 

I'll bet that every success in rock, pop and rap is due to a mix of hype and talent. People will always debate about which musician or band got by on hype only and which had lasting talent. The Beatles were lucky in part because they showed up near the beginning of mass-marketed rock and youth culture and part of their fame was probably partly due to being one of the first superstar bands. Admittedly, they were famous for being famous.

But the Beatles set trends and changed the rules of popular music and their impact has lasted for decades. Overhyped bands don't get to do that. 

 bachbeet wrote: 
agree!

 midreaming wrote: 
Dear PA and midreaming,
1.  They were not a "Boy Band".  They were in their mid-20s when they took off in '63, not mid-teens,  They'd played in the rock dungeons of Liverpool and Hamburg for several years before becoming popular.
2.  The band contained significant musical talent:  2 terrific and one mediocre song writers, 4 vocalists and one of the best rock drummers going.  Do recall that McCartney eventually wrote classical pieces performed by the London Symphony.  Also note that Ringo still tours w/ Starr's All-Stars, an ad hoc group of superstars who are chosen from the many who desire to play (non-Beatles) music with the man.
3.  They were graced with an extraordinary supporting cast, first their early manager Brian Epstein and later George Martin, possibly THE best rock-pop producer ever.
4.  If you really think they wrote/sang/performed bubble gum, you've obviously never listened to "Revolver", many critics' pick for best pop album ever cut. It's filled with complexly arranged tunes that often spoke pithily to the cultural realities of the time.
5.  Also please recall that, as cliched as they seem to be 40 - 45 years later, along with "Revolver", "Rubber Soul" (their C&W album), "Sgt. Pepper" and "Abbey Road" were monstrously influential, an influence which reverberates in music that you actually like quite a lot.  However, you lack the historical referents to perceive that influence (i.e, you are ignorant twits).
6.  Finally, note that from the time Hendrix went to London in '65 to the time he died in '70 was only 75% of the longevity of the Beatles;  Janis Joplin's popular career was about the same; Kurt Cobain's even shorter.  Meanwhile, Barry Manilow has persisted for decades.  Obviously, much like penises, it's not the length but the quality of its employment that marks a good musical career.  I suspect you know little about either.

One of their weakest.

This song is soooo good it puts a spring in my step this autumn day...

 

This song is soooo good it puts a spring in my step this summer night...

 

 unclehud wrote: 
I guess others had a different, literal interpretation of PA1749's comments than I did.  Mentioning that "even NKOTB lasted ten years" is only comparing the time difference in their existences, not making a material-based, or cultural comparison between the two musical acts.   He diminished the mention of NKOTB by preceding their name with the adverb "even", and prefaced his comments by stating his admiration for The Beatles' music.  Of course, many people want to make their own translations of someone else's words, ignore contexts, and devise illogical and specious conclusions (straw-men), which is part of the reason we have what passes for "journalism" and "politics" these days.
 I don't agree with his assertions, but he is entitled to them, and it does not make him a "moron" (as one response chides) to have his opinions.  Why so many people desire to take PA1749's opinions as a personal assault is more puzzling, but I guess we all can get defensive about our heroes or idols sometimes - myself included.

 PA1749 wrote:h8rhater wrote:  PA, you're not alone. oh, except I think most of the JPG Ringo Jingo music sucks. I call it free thinking. These people are sheep. Especially this pathetic self h8ing h8r that h8s h8ers

half as nice!

Comparing The Beatles to NKOTB is like comparing Chuck Yeager to Flash Gordon. Yeah, they both went fast, but one looked a bit hokey (can you guess which one?)

"Like"

2cats wrote: 

This song is soooo good it puts a spring in my step this spring evening...

 

 On_The_Beach wrote: 
I have had the DVD for years.  Ordered off eBay but was shipped from Europe.

 drsteevo wrote: 
Bill, we need a "Like" button on here.

Gotta agree with what Bill said when he played this a few weeks ago; It is probably John Lennon's best vocal performance in a Beatles song.

PA1749, I can't even respond to someone who would compare The Beatles to NKOTB. 

However, to respond to the other folks here, I don't think you had to grow up with the Beatles to appreciate them.  I was a small child when they broke up but I don't think they are over-rated in any way.

 PA1749 wrote:
No heat from me, bud.
 
No fault of yours, but you weren't around to feel the global effect they had on those living during the 1960's and 1970s — whether we were old or young back then — and that global optimism is a major reason they are still so widely accepted.
 
You're an English teacher, so I'm a bit surprised you don't appreciate the poetry that serves as most Beatles lyrics, but, hey, to each his own.
 
Here's how I would judge them, using your NKOTB comparison: in 50 more years, which do you think you'll hear on the radio, in elevators, on movie soundtracks, re-recorded by big-name music acts, or covered by honky-tonk bar bands?  ("They say it's your birthday, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da ...")

Everybody in my hotel room loves this song...


 

 kaybee wrote: 
Paul's harmonies are relatively easy to sing.  But trying to sing like John is rough!

The other benefit to RP: wildlife photos

 kaybee wrote: 
...some can !

 Rooney wrote: 
  I must agree with much of what you say Rooney.

A lot of what the Beatles did was deceptively complex.  I tried singing along with this and it's really, really hard to sing this song!  Maybe that's why no-one else has covered it!

There is no reason for EMI-Music to "downgrade" to arm themselves in disgust neter on the Web, claiming rights and censor these bits of video. It's a bad output, with poor results and that reflected negatively on their image, and should have other concerns more important than constantly teasing and pestering with the users of large YT channel. Then do not complain of rejection and boycott the products of your label. Lately, we've seen big monopolies fall to the ground. The music industry is changing, and should be reviewed the processes that lead to greed for obtaining high profits at the expense of exploration of art and artists, from the sale at exorbitant prices of their work. If the winds liberators and reformers that we see, for now, other parts of the world, reaching the heart of the Western-World, you will see how useless and ridiculous the gesture of censoring litle pieces of video.

—————————————————————————————————————————
Quote an excerpt from an interview of Francis Ford Coppola talks about copying, copyright and file sharing, recently given by the director to the site The 99%:

"I once found a little excerpt from Balzac. He speaks about a young writer who stole some of his prose. The thing that almost made me weep,  he said, "I was so happy when this young person took from me." Because that's what we want. We want you to take from us. We want you, at first, to steal from us, because you can't steal. You will take what we give you and you will put it in your own voice and that's how you will find your voice.

And that's how you begin. And then one day someone will steal from you. And Balzac said that in his book: It makes me so happy because it makes me immortal because I know that 200 years from now there will be people doing things that somehow I am part of. So the answer to your question is: Don't worry about whether it's appropriate to borrow or to take or do something like someone you admire because that's only the first step and you have to take the first step. 

We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.

This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it."

http://the99percent.com/

 calypsus_1 wrote: 

 PA1749 wrote: 

Damn you did get a lot of heat for this. I think part of the reason they were so big is that they were the best at #1. and the "first" to do #2 (they were the first HUGE band to do it anyway). So all these people lost their innocence right along with the Beatles — all the way to the end of John Lennon. Also they were really really good at #3, as you can find them influencing new bands even today, 50 years later. Thankfully, the New Kids have no such legacy.

As far as longevity goes, NKOTB or whatever the kids called them for short put out 7 albums in their 10-year reign. The beatles put out 12 LPs over 7 years (with 7 Grammys in their belts). That earns you a rep.

Both bands are emblematic of a decade — it's just that a lot more happened during Beatles' decade.

One more thing to consider is that the individual members of the band each proved their individual talents for years following the breakup of the band. That had to help keep the Beatles fresh in peoples' minds for a long time.

To paraphrase Dennis Miller, which would you rather have, 7 Sammy Davis Jr. years or 10 Kenneth Starr years? Incidentally if you think Sammy Davis didn't have fun then you are hopelessly lost.

 PA1749 wrote: 

Wow, and I'll bet you honestly feel like you actually thought the whole thing out, huh?

..BTW, I think it's a good bet they probably WOULD have had a reunion if not for a lunatic looking for his 15 minutes....moron...

 On_The_Beach wrote: 
It's on Netflix.

 PA1749 wrote: 
I'd give you A LOT of heat but, seriously, there is really nothing to say in the face of utter clueless-ness.  Your own words speak for you and OF you.

 PA1749 wrote: 

You're right.  You don't understand.  The Beatles had a short, memorable and creative seven years. That you can even mention them in the same breath as New Schmucks on the Block is astounding.  Nearly every musician I know, or knew relishes the idea of playing Beatle music. 

We were all young once, wanted peace and harmony and the best of everything for the world, but could not apply it to our own lives because you have to acquire wisdom as you grow older.  Forgiveness?  That comes again with time and with experience.  But to have vision when you're young is quite normal, and in the Beatles musical case, extraordinary.  To remain visionary as you grow older is the tricky part.  Are you saying the Beatles were hypocrites, then?  But aren't we all at  18 - 35? Just shrugging my shoulders here.  To this day, I've yet to know a group as prolific and with as much creativity in one catalog.  Nobody comes close, except Stevie Wonder, or Buddy Holly.  But they were the 50's, 70's and 80's.  The Beatles were the 60's.  They changed music. 

I expect to take A LOT of heat for this but....

Ok, I like the Beatles. I think they made some great music. But, I just don't understand the magnitude of the hype.

1. Boy band from England makes it big doing teeny bopper bubble gum rock.
2. Boy band discovers drugs.
3. Boy band gets experimental and goes off the deep end.
4. Boy band falls apart.
5. The longevity of the entire band was only 7 years. (even New Kids on the Block was together for 10 years)

The same thing happens today. Except when it happens today, the band dries up and blows away, Then is quickly replaced by another money generating act. Also the fact that they had so many opportunities to get together for a reunion and never did, makes me question the purity of their "we are all one", "come together" facade. They tried to teach the world to forgive but couldn't do it for each other?

Oh. It's them?

One of the most straightforward and rather pedestrian songs ever recorded by the Beatles.  But still a 9 because their least is still better than the best of most.