The Beatles Were Quitters!!!

oscar gamble said:

First of all, I couldn't even tell you who most of the mods on this board are nor do I care. You must have an awfully high opinion of yourself. As far as your opening salvo above, it was a joke. Geez man, are you really such a stuffed shirt that you're still letting that bother you a week or two later?



LOL, this is priceless. First, you admit it's all subjective, then you start talking about evidence. If it's all subjective, there is no evidence. Again, this ought to be obvious.



But you see, the fact that the early Beatles couldn't have recorded the White Album entirely misses the point. That doesn't mean that their early stuff wasn't just as good or that I wouldn't like their earlier stuff better. I'll take "She Loves You" over "Rocky Raccoon" and anything over "Revolution 9" for example.

Click to expand...

You did it twice or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

You might not know who runs this board but you are on a collision course to find out.

Stuffed Shirt......not so much a High Opinion of myself but watching my posts being dissected by a troll is something I've seen many times Troggy and I have no respect for that old forum ploy.

You contribute little or nothing to CRF, and Always seem to take a negative stance when you do find a thread to play in.

You are a Troll plain and simple, and I am done playing with you.

Call me another nice name if you like...

oscar gamble said:

The Johnny Burnette Trio
Buddy Holly & the Crickets
Bill Haley & the Comets
The Ventures
Link Wray & the Raymen

There were even rock bands in England before the Beatles, like Johnny Kidd & the Pirates who did the original version of "Shakin' All Over".

There were thousands of rock bands before the Beatles, some popular, most not.

Click to expand...

There were bands for sure, but I wouldn't call them rock bands. What I'm saying is that the Beatles defined the genre of "rock" band.

Lord Grendel said:

You did it twice or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

You might not know who runs this board but you are on a collision course to find out.

Click to expand...

I made a couple of joke posts in something like the last three weeks. I've been nothing but sincere in this thread. And, by the way, you're the one who brought up the mods, not me.

Stuffed Shirt......not so much a High Opinion of myself but watching my posts being dissected by a troll is something I've seen many times Troggy and I have no respect for that old forum ploy.

Click to expand...

Before today, the only post I even remember responding to of yours was the one earlier in this thread. It was hardly a dissection. I think it was a two word reply. I wasn't singling you out. I simply disagreed with what you wrote.

You contribute little or nothing to CRF, and Always seem to take a negative stance when you do find a thread to play in.

Click to expand...

Grow up. I've tried to sincerly respond to all of your musical arguments in this thread. I don't see why I'm supposed to agree with you or anyone else, so long as I'm being sincere.

You are a Troll plain and simple
Call me another nice name if you like...

Click to expand...

Look who's talking.

I know a lot of theories are out there as to why they ended. The Yoko Conspiracy is a popular one, then there are the drugs, of course.


I think they were all between 18-22, or in that general area, when they became the Beatles.

Babies, really.


I like to think that maybe they just grew in different musical directions, and maybe weren't able to fully express themselves within the confines of being 25% of the Fab Four.

I'm a music lover, and kind of a student of the history & evolution of music. And, I really love the Beatles.

However, I was only 7 or so when they split, so of course I knew nothing about the Beatles at the time. But, make no mistake, their importance isn't lost on me.

I'm kinda torn about it, though. On one hand, It's kind of a bummer to think maybe we never got to hear the best the Beatles had to offer.

But on the other hand, by walking away when they did, their legacy remains one of the most important in modern music history, ever. I don't know if it'll ever be topped.



But who knows? Maybe.

Vehicle said:

I like to think that maybe they just grew in different musical directions, and maybe weren't able to fully express themselves within the confines of being 25% of the Fab Four.

Click to expand...

Considering they all had successful solo careers, you're probably right.

Jake T said:

There were bands for sure, but I wouldn't call them rock bands. What I'm saying is that the Beatles defined the genre of "rock" band.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're trying to say here but what exactly would you call those other bands, if not rock (or rock and roll) bands?

oscar gamble said:

I understand what you're trying to say here but what exactly would you call those other bands, if not rock (or rock and roll) bands?

Click to expand...

I would call them rock and roll bands. At what point did rock and roll bands become rock bands? After the Beatles (and Stones, Animals, Yardbirds, etc.) IMO. I'm just making a distinction between "Chantilly Lace" and "Come Together". Maybe to some there is no distinction.

To be honest, I'm kind of glad the Beatles split when they did. Even after the band broke up they continued to leave us with amazing music. If the Beatles never split then there would have been no "Imagine", "Band on the Run", "All Things Must Pass", "Goodnight Vienna", etc

If I was given the opportunity to travel back in time and prevent them from breaking up, I wouldn't do it. The Beatles left us a ton of great, amazing, and inspirational music, but in my opinion the solo careers of each Beatle left us music that was just as amazing and inspirational

It's sad that one of the greatest bands in music history had to break up like they did, but some of music's greatest albums and songs would have never happened had the break up never occurred

oscar gamble said:

So you're saying that "Help!" is more poppy than "Eleanor Rigby"? Based on what, exactly? I would agree that "Help!" has a very good pop hook but the overall song is much more rocking than "Eleanor Rigby".

Click to expand...

Eleanor Rigby is much darker and cinematic.

HELP is poppy like this

Still a good song.....just sayin'

oscar gamble said:

I understand what you're trying to say here but what exactly would you call those other bands, if not rock (or rock and roll) bands?

Click to expand...

The ones you listed I would call solo artists with a name to the solo artists' backing bands.

It was THE BEATLES not Paul McCartney & The Beatle Boys