[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Beatles Who and Scooby Doo



Yes, I know the dates between the two events are seperated by a few months,
Kennedy in November '63 and the Beatles in the early part of '64....however,
the point usually used is that their arrival acted as a cathartic release to
a nation still engrossed, or suffering, from a national tragedy.  I believe
you'll find that the Beatles first US release, on Veejay certainly had
little effect on the national charts and it was only their release on
Capitol (who really had no idea what they were about and were probably
concentrating upon the "other" boy band of the time - The Beach Boys) that
enabled a "machine" to get behind them.

At the end of the day, for me at least, the Beatles were pretty damn good
and yes, their music probably did instigate a massive musical and social
change on a world wide basis that surpassed Elvis (eventually) BUT THE 'Oo
are still without a shadow of a doubt the greatest ROCK band OR ROCK N' ROLL
band that's every existed.  But this doesn't mean that they / Townshend
didn't occassionally come up with some utter shite - Squeeze Box is one and
personally Magic Bus WILL always have me heading for the bog or the bar, if
it's a live gig, or the skip button if's a cd / LP / cassette - it just
drives me batty - it's all very, very personal.

Would The Who, or any of the "British Invasion" bands really have happened
in such a massive way if there'd been NO Beatles kicking down some doors and
if it'd had been, say for example, the Beach Boys instead?  WHO KNOWS??
Let's not get twisted about this, let's be grateful for what we've had /
got!


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-thewho@igtc.com [mailto:owner-thewho@igtc.com]On Behalf Of
L. Bird
Sent: 07 September 2001 11:55
To: thewho@igtc.com
Subject: RE: Beatles Who and Scooby Doo


I don't have anything to check the dates with right off, either, but it does
seem like there was a gap between the two events.  As I recall, parents
weren't so impressed with the band, but teens, especially girls, were.
There was much screaming and much hype about which was cutest, etc. and I
gather that boys studied the phenomenon and went out to buy electric
guitars, jump starting the rock movement.  Later there was a fuss about hair
length, and the beginnings of a visible social change.

VH1 has a Behind the Music show about the Sixties which covers the American
bands and political events that pretty much amounted to a revolution.  I'd
recommend it to anyone interested in the period.


keets


>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!!!!!!!!!!!!


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