bjorky

Lord, I was talking about the Beatles, not the solo careers of the four. And I'll tell you that I don't like much of their solo work, and I still prefer Lennon over McCartney. Your last post has nothing to do with what I said.

And then, this desire to seek out the inventors of psychedelia at all costs!! Some things arise spontaneously, like progressive! No one can say for certain who was the first.....it's said to be the 13th Floor Elevators, but that statement should be taken with a grain of salt....they only definitively invented the term Psychedelia. Let's say that everyone has tried to contribute in their own way; some have done it in a revolutionary and bold manner, like the Velvet Underground, who gathered very few followers because they were so ahead of their time, and some have done it cleverly and on a mass distribution level, greatly simplifying everything. And then everyone can hold onto their own theories, for goodness' sake, but this is how I see it.

The experiments in '65 and '66 with psychedelia are quite naive, but I assure you I took note of them at the time. Thanks to Harrison and Lennon, because if it had depended on your Macca, they wouldn't have done even that little.

But what prejudices???? This is plain and simple reality, dear Lord, I was listening to the Beatles and trying to understand them when you were still in the world of dreams!!! Their departure from the simple little pop song formula was marginal! Damn, you really have your blinders on!

My God, how much damage this Scaruffi is doing. The issue is that the Beatles are always talked about inappropriately, either too poorly or too well. We need to give a rightful downsizing to both those who detest them and those who adore them, because their ideas are a bit confused. The Beatles are criticized for being conservatives, for insisting on the "verse - chorus - verse" formula when the great psychedelic bands had already gone beyond that. Well, the Beatles were conservative because they were mediocre musicians!!! As composers, they were certainly better; maybe they could have composed endless suites, but to play them???? I doubt it. Their strength and cunning lay in exploiting the insights of others and making them accessible to everyone. That's the secret of their success. And it’s not their fault if their die-hard fans attributed merits to them that they don’t have. The early works of the Beatles are dreadful, but from Rubber Soul onwards, they began to make their work less banal and predictable. Revolver, the White Album, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road are good POP works, and they were skilled songwriters and an unparalleled cultural phenomenon. Nothing more.

I really love Suicide, I haven't listened to anything by Alan Vega alone yet, but from what I read, that's one to skip.

I don't know, zombies are kinda gross to me... I prefer vampires, fascinating creatures...

a day in the life are 2 independent songs, one written by Lennon and one by McCartney.....the first was missing the chorus, the second the verses. They put it all together and ended up with one of their most beautiful songs.

I understand memento, I asked because they spoke well of it but if there's a bit of Led Zeppelin in them I might give it a try, who knows...

besides Les Boys, everything is beautiful.....especially Tunnel of Love and Skateway