Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou2b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hou2b!ajy
From: ajy@hou2b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Beatles
Message-ID: <86@hou2b.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Aug-83 18:19:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2b.86
Posted: Mon Aug 22 18:19:32 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Aug-83 22:40:31 EDT
References: <501@ihuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 18

Just some random replies to the critique of the Fab Four....
1. Hindsight is 20/20. Given today's (often over-produced)
Rock-and-Roll, it's easy to look at the Beatles as simply an extremely
successful Bubble-Gum group. At the time, they were considered quite
refreshing. It's no different today. In my mind punk and new wave
music, with its the cleaner, simpler lines, was a revolt against the pompous
rock of the early to mid seventies. The Beatles offered people a something
besides the likes of Phil Spector. And I guarantee you that were going
though the cycle now. People will soon tire of this synthesizer Rock.
1a. Simplicity is its own virtue. I'd much rathrer listen to "She Loves You"
than anything Yes or Genesis has ever done.
2. The Beatles were one of the first rockers to have personality beyond
their music. They were, infact, quite witty.
3. Assembling virtuosos(sp?) to form a band is no guarantee of success.
Ask George Steinbrenner.
4. The Beatle's recording studios were, in fact, quite primative.
They stayed with George Martin and the Abbey Road studios out of,
perhaps, loyalty.