SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 04, 2008, 05:02 PM
E-flyer since 1981
Michael in Toronto's Avatar
Joined Oct 2000
1,494 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder1
At .1hz, it might take 431 years to send the entire song! Imagine the disappointment waiting that long to get the whole song downloaded, you hit play, and it's the Beatles!
I'd think one would be overjoyed!

My 8-gig ipod is FULL of only Beatles!
Michael in Toronto is online now Find More Posts by Michael in Toronto
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2008, 08:23 PM
Registered User
College Park, MD
Joined Sep 2002
4,714 Posts
I was only kidding;-) I like the Beatles just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto
I'd think one would be overjoyed!

My 8-gig ipod is FULL of only Beatles!
thunder1 is online now Find More Posts by thunder1
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2008, 08:27 PM
E-flyer since 1981
Michael in Toronto's Avatar
Joined Oct 2000
1,494 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder1
I was only kidding;-) I like the Beatles just fine.
I should have known better.
Michael in Toronto is online now Find More Posts by Michael in Toronto
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 02:03 AM
Love & a Molotov cocktail
Punkie's Avatar
on a boat on the river cam
Joined Jan 2005
615 Posts
Why not just parcel up all the Beatles "music" especially Paul McCartneys and shoot it all off into space?
Punkie is offline Find More Posts by Punkie
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 05:32 AM
Registered User
Bleriot's Avatar
Joined May 2000
2,837 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punkie
Why not just parcel up all the Beatles "music" especially Paul McCartneys and shoot it all off into space?
Ha! Let's send it out at 2.4Gig! See if THEY can frequency hop. Ha Ha
Bleriot is offline Find More Posts by Bleriot
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 06:12 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punkie
Why not just parcel up all the Beatles "music" especially Paul McCartneys and shoot it all off into space?
Punkie, mate, you're a lovely feller and all that but lets be honest here.

Musical tastes are very personal and IMO Macca was rocking harder than groups such as the Pistols twenty years before they'd even set foot on stage. If it hadn't been for the Beatles we'd still be listening to Acker Bilk and Cleo Laine, with a side helping of Lonnie Donegan*

He's rightly recognised as one of the greatest songwriters of the past century and has more musical talent in one hand that the entire punk movement ever showed.

As you know Punk had very little to do with actual music or musicianship- the vast majority of it was the most appalling untuneful garbage -it was about attitude, dressing up, rebelling and trying to shock, not about making great music.

* Not that there is anything wrong with Acker or Lonnie.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:17 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2002
1,860 Posts
The whole Punk thing was a reaction to that rock anthem ... "Mull of Kintyre" which was on a par with the Rock Chicks of St Winnifred's school.
Robert May is offline Find More Posts by Robert May
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:27 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert May
The whole Punk thing was a reaction to that rock anthem ... "Mull of Kintyre" which was on a par with the Rock Chicks of St Winnifred's school.
Impossible.

Mull of Kintyre was released in late 1977, by which time Punk was already up and running.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:50 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2002
1,860 Posts
Oh right, sorry! Mull of Kintyre was Paul's way of showing the young fibbidy gibb Punks what real rock was all about? A lesson from the master?
Robert May is offline Find More Posts by Robert May
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:51 AM
Progress not Perfection
wilscor41's Avatar
Palmdale, Ca.
Joined Dec 2005
438 Posts
Hey Brits, what is a "Mull"?
wilscor41 is offline Find More Posts by wilscor41
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:54 AM
fix-it-up chappie
tolladay's Avatar
Valley Village, CA
Joined Jan 2002
2,262 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilscor41
Hey Brits, what is a "Mull"?
Something you put in your wine when you serve it warm.
tolladay is offline Find More Posts by tolladay
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:58 AM
Progress not Perfection
wilscor41's Avatar
Palmdale, Ca.
Joined Dec 2005
438 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolladay
Something you put in your wine when you serve it warm.
It figures you'd be thinkin about booze this early Tolladay

From Wiki:The Mull of Kintyre is the most southwesterly section of the long Kintyre Peninsula in southwestern Scotland. The name is an Anglicization of the Gaelic Maol Ceanntěre. The area is home to an historic lighthouse and has been immortalised into the popular consciousness by the hit 1977 song "Mull of Kintyre" by resident Paul McCartney's band of the time, Wings.
wilscor41 is offline Find More Posts by wilscor41
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 08:59 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert May
Oh right, sorry! Mull of Kintyre was Paul's way of showing the young fibbidy gibb Punks what real rock was all about? A lesson from the master?
Nope.

Mull of Kintyre was Paul's song about his home on the Mull of Kintyre.

It's called range.

McCartney's range is vast, from out and out rock numbers to ballads, quirky songs, sentimental songs, film scores, instrumental pieces- you name it he's done it and he continues to do it, fifty years on.

There really is no basis of comparison with the musicality of punk. McCartney could rock as much, if not more, as the youngsters blssting out three chords in 1977, except he was doing it in 1957, 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997 and yeah, even in 2007. Most of those youngsters are long gone as musical forces and haven't had a thousandth of the impact that McCsrtney has had.

And that's just ONE Beatle.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 09:34 AM
Love & a Molotov cocktail
Punkie's Avatar
on a boat on the river cam
Joined Jan 2005
615 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer
Punkie, mate, you're a lovely feller and all that but lets be honest here.
Watch that “lovely feller” bit, My cred is shot enough with Moe calling me friend, without you joining in the compliments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer
Musical tastes are very personal and IMO Macca was rocking harder than groups such as the Pistols twenty years before they'd even set foot on stage. If it hadn't been for the Beatles we'd still be listening to Acker Bilk and Cleo Laine, with a side helping of Lonnie Donegan*

He's rightly recognised as one of the greatest songwriters of the past century and has more musical talent in one hand that the entire punk movement ever showed.
Musical tastes are personal, and I find a lot of Paul’s stuff extremely lacklustre, especially the stuff post the Beatles.
The 60s wasn't just the Beatles you know, the London Blues scene was creating some great bands like the Stones and the Yardbirds. That the Beatles caught the public imagination was to certain extent luck. I must admit to liking some of their material, but I can not understand this bloody hero worship that goes on about them. It to my mind diminishes their ability to have their music compared with other bands of the time.
The Jazz scene was changing; we had a photographer at work who spent his youth in the jazz clubs of London from the 50s. And he showed me his photos of the greats like Satchmo and others, when we got into the late 50s beginning of the 60s the Blues musicians were starting to show up, he was even able to show me pictures of Mick Jagger before the Stones formed.
Blues based music was pushing Acker out of the clubs and Cleo had moved into Acting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer
As you know Punk had very little to do with actual music or musicianship- the vast majority of it was the most appalling untuneful garbage -it was about attitude, dressing up, rebelling and trying to shock, not about making great music.

Not that there is anything wrong with Acker or Lonnie.
You are wrong, it was the music, big time and in the same way that the Beatles and the Stones were, and for the same reasons. The Sex Pistols are closer than you would realise to the Beatles, but closer to the Stones. They grew out of the London music scene, were Blues based but unfortunately had a manager.
Some of the punk bands were out to shock, but most just wanted to make music. The Clash, the Undertones, The Stranglers. Even the Sex pistols.
The Music scene of the 70s had sunk into a mire of super groups and ordinary pop fans were being ignored, so they took a leaf out of the 60s scene and formed their own bands. As Sniffin Glue the Punk zine said in one glorious issue, "this is a chord, this is another, this is a third. Now form a band".
Funny thing is at the time I was going to watch the Punk bands, I had a very enjoyable evening in a Jazz club in a North Essex village watching Kenny Ball. He let rip in a sweaty smoky room full of drunken fans with his loud in your face Jazz and to be honest there was little to tell between that gig and a punk gig.
Yes the Beatles were good, but not so good that they should be beamed into space as some bizarre musical ambassadors, especially as its not one of their best.
Punkie is offline Find More Posts by Punkie
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2008, 09:36 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2002
1,860 Posts
"you name it he's done it" ......Rap, Ska?
Robert May is offline Find More Posts by Robert May
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools