RE: Beatles Who and Scooby Doo

["Nigel Morton" <nigel@adastey.demon.co.uk>]

Do none of you remember a frequent hypothosis that one of the principle
reasons the Beatles broke in America in such a massive way (and I don't have
reference book at for to double check dates b4 anyone leaps down my thnroat)
is that as a nation being exposed to them nationally vie the Ed Sullivan
show came about after the (tragic) assisination of a certain US President
JFK.  It is meant in as far as a nation were mourning collectively and along
came these four bouncy chappies with weird hair, weird accents, more than a
handfull of wit and humour etc, etc as well as pretty tasty new sounding
songs.  The social changes taking place around then in the US were part and
parcel of the "English" invasion and the Beatles just happened to be right
there first.

I won't go into the debate of who is better between The 'Oo and The Beatles
but it is worth noting that BOTH of them were considered as being "of no
artistic merit" by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) when
work permits were applied for them to perform in the US.  This bizarre
distinction is, I believe, held also by The Rolling Stones, The Sex Pistol,
Billy Bragg and New Model Army.

Personally, I think the Beatles were great in many, many, many ways and they
opened lots of doors, ears and minds BUT I LOVE THE WHO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-thewho@igtc.com [mailto:owner-thewho@igtc.com]On Behalf Of
L. Bird
Sent: 06 September 2001 23:39
To: thewho@igtc.com
Subject: RE: Beatles Who and Scooby Doo


> >The Beatles definitely have a broader appeal--Who music has too much of a
>discordant edge to it for some folks.  BUT, much of Who music still sounds
>contemporary for that same reason.  The dissonance cuts across styles, as
>well, and makes it serious rather than pop.
>
>Most intelligent thing written on this list in a long time.
>Yea!  Keets and I agreeing again!

Why, thank you!  :)


>The *above* is the difference between The Beatles and The Who.
>What made the Beatles so "important" though, was that they were literally
>guiding society through a change.  They were changing more than just music.
>They were changing societies outlook.

I don't know that they actually led the change, but they did become a major
symbol for it.


> >You obviously have no taste  in music except for liking The Who. :)
> >Deni
>
>Deni, statements like that are gonna get folk pissed off at you.
>Just a friendly warning.

Now, now.  She did include a smiley.  It sounds like sarcasm.  (Where's that
emoticon?  We really DO need it.)


>Now you're pulling a "Keets".  You don't believe that The Beatles can be
>compared to Michael Jackson or GB.  Do you??  What kind of CD store are you
>runnin' down there???  Is it the heat??

Don't sell Michael Jackson short.  He's gotten mega-weird just lately, but
for a while there he ruled.  He's on the pop side, but he deserves  respect
for seriously raising the bar on music video.  THRILLER and BAD compare very
favorably to The Who's rock opera.

Also, a comment on Bjorn's disco collection--disco may be passe in the US,
but it seems very popular in Europe.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp