easycure

X sirbony Point 1: how did the Beatles lay the groundwork for pop when they themselves were one of the biggest pop groups and were clearly inspired by the Beach Boys, who were in fact the TRUE inventors of pop? The Beatles didn't "lay the groundwork"; rather, they were among the greatest interpreters of pop, and they certainly didn't invent it. Point 2: how did they manage to lay the groundwork for rock when rock had existed for at least five years by the time they were playing at the Cavern? Point 3: how did they lay the groundwork for heavy metal? Now, if you had said Hard rock much more humbly, you would still be talking nonsense, but not quite as much... :-) However, linking the Beatles to Heavy metal is truly far-fetched. I will thus renew my observation: apparently, you have never heard of the Electric Prunes, and even less have you ever listened to Iron Butterfly; and that's leaving aside the already mentioned Cream and Who. It’s equally obvious that they did not lay the groundwork for psychedelia because when the Beatles began making psychedelia, it already existed. But I don't understand your ongoing denial of one of the few pieces of evidence that can't be labeled as clichés regarding the Beatles: that is, for a certain period of their career, they tried (and more or less succeeded, depending on opinions) to make psychedelia. If you had even a minimal sense of the historical context of that period, you would understand that they can be easily labeled in that sense.

Gladly ;-) see you soon!

AHAHAHAH, I just now notice a terrifying blunder: "the Beatles were never considered a psychedelic group" ..sirbony, please, but where did you read the history of rock, in Mickey Mouse? :-D ..you know, usually when discussing the Beatles, three historical periods are meant: the one that starts with "Rubber Soul" (not by chance considered the turning point album, and even more so the single "Paperback Writer") and ends with the White Album is unanimously regarded (whether by detractors or not) as the psychedelic period of the Beatles. If what you meant was that the Beatles were too pop to deserve the label of "psychedelic," then we can end the discussion; we are of the same opinion EHEHEHEH ;-D

AH, of course I only brought a few examples from the Beatles' pop tracks, specifically from the '65-'68 period... I won't go beyond that and especially not further back because I would easily dismantle your ridiculous point of view :-D ..see you soon

ahi ahi ahi, sirbony, how much you have to learn :-) ..I write exactly what Scaruffi writes?? Look, it's not necessary at all.. as I said before, just listen to a bit of music, something that you very clearly have never done (it's obvious that you don't have the slightest idea who the Blossom Toes or the Electric Prunes are, the latter being the "little group" that invented garage), among other things Scaruffi doesn't even mention the Blossom Toes, but let's forget that.. your childish naivety makes me suspect that you are young enough not to have listened to anything truly significant yet.. I hope this is the reason for your foolish last post, otherwise it would be serious :-) ..if, as is presumable, the reason is indeed your age, then everything is explained: probably the Velvet Underground is too complex of a listen for you, come back to them in a few years and after a few hundred bands.. as for the Beatles, I don't convince myself of anything: if I'm not mistaken, the songs I mentioned are not something I made up, or am I wrong? otherwise we could mention "drive my car," "taxman," "michelle," "blackbird," "she said she said," "dear prudence," "getting better" (but come on, let's face it, practically EVERYTHING from sgt. pepper :-D) ..all absolutely NOT trivial and NOT commercial rock songs eheheh :-D but come on, you’re descending into the ridiculous, as I said before, there’s nothing wrong with making light music.. Ah, to conclude, regarding the importance of one group over the other, I don’t deny the Beatles' significance (but as anyone with a minimum of real musical culture would tell you, the Velvet Underground's impact was vastly superior in purely musical terms), however, it seems to me that you consider importance exclusively as the millions of copies sold. Just so you know, importance is something else, unless you want to elect Michael Jackson as the greatest artist in history eheheh :-D P.S. I’m still waiting for you to explain one reason why the Beatles are the greatest band in history, I eagerly await the wonderful cliché you’ll come up with ;-)

the usual old, stale ramblings of someone unable to accept opinions different from their own, I’d even say with an almost hysterical fervor :-) ..you see, you prattle on with superficial opinions: too bad that the most predictable reaction (and indeed the most common) to this film has been an uncritical "gaping in awe" for the sole reason that such things are rarely seen. Ah yes, art, however, requires something more than just mere astonishment. But you keep on gaping, stubbornly convinced that your attitude is less superficial just because it’s more or less unconsciously upheld by an inferiority complex that makes you scream masterpiece every time something is less straightforward than usual. I really don’t envy you at all :-)

Wang/Sellers is sensational! The film is a somewhat frenzied succession of twists, but some ideas remain brilliant!

First of all, the debut "Velvet Underground and Nico" actually predates "Sgt. Pepper's.." since it was released in February 1967: and there's really no doubt about which of the two is more original, braver, more important, ENORMOUSLY more psychedelic compared to the Beatles' pop songs. Apart from that, I don't completely disdain the Beatles; the fact is that if you listen to a bit of 60s stuff that isn't too hard to find, you realize that the Beatles are just the most sweetened and commercial of the psychedelic groups, even compared to others of the same kind (like Blossom Toes or Elmer's Gantry Velvet Opera, or the early Pink Floyd themselves).. if you continue to prefer relying on the usual dreary rock encyclopedias that claim, without any imagination (and without any historically plausible rationale), that the Beatles are the be-all and end-all, then go ahead: I really don't envy you :-) ..uhhhh Helter Skelter, very wicked! So what should we say about the Electric Prunes, Iron Butterfly, Creation, or Jimi Hendrix? Do you think Paul McCartney just came up with that song out of nowhere? ..besides, alongside Helter Skelter, I listen to stuff like "Back in the U.S.S.R." or, if we want to mention Sgt. Pepper, "With a Little Help from My Friends," all tracks to which I really wouldn't know what definition to give other than "pop song".. but look, light music is not an insult; even the Beach Boys (whom I admire greatly and who had a much more modern understanding of rock 'n' roll when the Beatles were still playing Skiffle) are light music in every respect. How do you want to categorize the Beatles' pop? Hard pop? :-D

I haven't heard this, but they remain a guarantee.

I would like you to point out at least one thing in which the Beatles have been unbeatable, but apart from that, I notice your complete lack of decency in giving this album a 2.. come on, if you're a fan of pop music, go listen to Sanremo and leave the masterpieces alone, it's for the best.. eheheh ;-)