Log In
Register
1.31am
1 November 2013
Offline
^ don’t forget boys!
2.10am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline 
Of course, the real conspiracy theory is that you are all figments of my imagination that my subconscious has created to keep me entertained!
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Oudis, Beatlebug"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.18am
1 November 2013
Offline ^ So should that mean this forum and everyone on it are all figments of your imagination!
10.23am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Oudis said
Ahhh Girl said
If anyone is interested, the link in the above post probably goes to this website. Project Walrus and the Murder of John Lennon
So, has anybody read the article? What do you make of it?
Like @Ahhh Girl i skimmed thru when figuring out what the link was. I take the approach of Proverbs 17:28
Even dunces who keep quiet are thought to be wise;
as long as they keep their mouths shut, they’re smart.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.46pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline This is way off topic, but since it has been brought up…
I do not believe for one second that the Beatles fit the definition of a “Boy Band”. From Wiki:
A boy band (or boyband) is loosely defined as a vocal group consisting of young male singers, usually in their teenage years or in their twenties at the time of formation. Being vocal groups, most boy band members do not play musical instruments, either in recording sessions or on stage, making the term something of a misnomer.
The same Wiki article says:
The Beatles were directly an influence on boy bands that use rock band instrumentation, and played more rock orientated music. The precedent for this was when TV Producers Bert Schneider and Bob Rafelson got four members to perform catchy pop tunes while also acting in a television series. The Monkees are often considered as the original pioneers among boy bands as they were the first example of a manufactured boy band.
I can see their influence on the Boy Band concept. Anyone trying to convince me they were a true Boy Band will met with looks of exasperation and derision.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
Ahhh Girl, parlance, Merch, BeatlebugTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
5.38pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Though, of course, @Zig, the definition of the term has changed over the years. Just as, to my mind, the modern use of “R&B” has nothing to do with the music I identify as R&B.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Expert Textpert"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.54pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Ron Nasty said
Though, of course, @Zig, the definition of the term has changed over the years. Just as, to my mind, the modern use of “R&B” has nothing to do with the music I identify as R&B.
Other people’s broadening of definitions does not change my thinking. I am with you on the R&B thing as well. Slow, tearful tunes sung by someone with quivering lips and closed eyes has nothing to with rhythm or blues.
Could that be a conspiracy in itself? Hmmm…
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
6.04pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I was thinking more of the phrase “boy band” having been narrowed, @Zig. One of the early examples of the use of the phrase were The Bay City Rollers, who all played instruments. You might also consider The Osmonds as an example, also capable musicians. Or point back to the original boy band, The Monkees.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.16pm
8 October 2014
Offline Hurray, a conspiracy thread! I will be as circumspect as possible. However, I was ‘in’ when this lot came along, so none of this is invented.
People think the Beatles were a big, big deal, but of course when they were allowed ‘in’ … they learned about things far over their own tiny little heads. They were ‘leashed’ too, there were charges held in abeyance. There’s revelation #1.
This is a long way from any weirdass theories. It is common practice. The charges were basically nonsense, faked up, very minor, but they were real enough to shut the mouths. Insurance.
There weren’t ‘clones’. Long before Beatles, the use of twins was instigated by someone like Howard Hughes. Body doubles, etc. or just twins who had been separated. You can imagine how this would work…. twin1 makes the fortune, disappears, twin2 agrees to a deal, and free money pours into the bad guy coffers. That’s a lot easier than cloning a bloody human being!
Only Paul can tell you what happened re: his ‘death.’
I can’t imagine where this crazy ‘didn’t exist’ stuff comes in. I know that, over a span of thirty years, the same guys showed up and most of what you read about them is exactly true.
People will continue to attack, and obfuscate, and muddy the waters, but the fact is: The Beatles did not like being part of MKUltra-like reality. They rebelled, and struck back, via the famous backwards stuff. Still unheard, most of it!
I was frantic, thinking how bad it all was, until I remembered how methodically John Lennon approached things. He wasn’t going to stand for it, not all of it. So the truth is there, and will always be there, for future gens. Just a few names, and facts. Nothing terribly mystical or Crowley or any of that.
So no big deal. Just a few denied ‘Beatles’ like me and I dunno, a few others.
But, you can imagine how much weight a pop group carried, next to, say, the facts about the (secret) space program or the Royals or whatnot. Yknow? Zip.
One thing I’m quite sure about – later on, Yoko did not know what had really gone on. She may well have been surrounded by a Japanese version of the mkUltra types, but otherwise she was just there, yknow?
I know that, at one point, the 4 wanted to blow the cover, if they could, because they saw the incredible exploitive nature of it all.
If you want ‘conspiracy’ action, head for Mars. The Beatles… well I don’t know what Paul and Ringo want, or would like to do, if anything, after all these years.
Still, I don’t like it at all. As Brian Epstein said: “No man needs this. Insanity the rule.’
It does get very crazy and ultra-pressurized and people should remember that when they sling accusations about.
Imagine being ‘gagged’ for forty straight years! Then, when you do try to talk, the whole damned world is conditioned to deny, freak out, lie, take potshots and etc. etc.
J
7.44pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Hooray, @MOCKSWELL! You will not get a single complaint for making the above post in this thread. You will likely find much disagreement with the substance, but no complaint about you saying it. This is all that was wanted, comments like this made in an appropriate thread. It’s likely that some of the responses you may not like, but we should all expect our comments and opinions to be challenged.
As someone who has questioned where you have posted such comments in the past, can I thank you for posting the above comments here. And there are several other “conspiracy” threads floating around.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
10.14pm
15 May 2014
Offline Oudis said
Bongo said
The Beatles were just a Boy Band […]Well, in a way they were. The ultimate Boyband in my opinion. Not just that, though.
(I know you’ll hang me for this)
Zig said
This is way off topic, but since it has been brought up…I do not believe for one second that the Beatles fit the definition of a “Boy Band”. From Wiki:
A boy band (or boyband) is loosely defined as a vocal group consisting of young male singers, usually in their teenage years or in their twenties at the time of formation. Being vocal groups, most boy band members do not play musical instruments, either in recording sessions or on stage, making the term something of a misnomer.
According to the definition of Wikipedia (which I also checked before posting) The Beatles were not a Boy Band; however what I had in mind when I said they were was their haircut, boots, clothes, and the way they cleaned up their act with Brian and turned into a product to be consumed by the masses. Listen: I’m not saying it, John said it decades ago (and because he felt he had sold out to the Establishment, he returned his MBE). And of course they were more than that.
“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
4.02am
8 April 2015
Offline Sorry,but I can’t not believe and comprehend what I just read, several members of a Beatles fan site ludicrously,ignorantly,calling The Beatles a ”boy band”!
The Beatles were *NEVER* a ”boy band”! As a poster Reverend Rock,who is a rock musician,reverend and a big Beatles fan said on a classic rock site years ago,that anyone who knows The Beatles history knows it’s ludicrous to even *suggest* such a thing! And what a huge insult to their enormous talent as true singers,song writers and musicians! The Beatles were a *zillion* times more talented and cool than any stupid,uncool,untalented real boy band!The Monkees are the first true boy band because they didn’t even start off as a genuine band, they were all musical but they were originally hired as actors to play members of a TV pop rock band for their TV show, they didn’t start off playing together like Paul at age 15,George age 14 and John age 16 playing guitars and singing,then playing a few years later for 8 hours a night in sleazy strip clubs( and The Beatles had sex with many young women groupies,many who were teen girls and strippers) like The Beatles did in Hamburg Germany(or anywhere) for 2 years in a row,taking speed pills to stay awake to do it,and working their a*ses off playing as a real rock n roll band,and then playing successfully in the Cavern club as a real rock n roll band for years by the time they made it big.And The Beatles wrote and played a lot of great rock n roll and pop rock songs in their early days. John and Paul wrote the rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man write in front of Keith Richards and Mick Jagger in 1963 and they were both really impressed that they could just write a song just like that,and it inspired them to start writing their own songs and both bands became good friends from then on. And this song was one of The Rolling Stones first hits.
There is just no comparison to The Monkees etc. A guy so accurately said on a message board many years ago when some idiots called them a ”boy band” that The Beatles were *never* a boy band,not even during their 1963-1965 period. And another guy said a few years after this on another forum,when some ignorant guy said this,that he too once thought the early Beatles were a boy band like NYSNC,or The Back Street Boys ,until he got out of 7th grade.Every time some ignorant person unjustly calls them a boy band,I’m sure John Lennon ‘s ashes must be turning with outrage.I’m sure he would go on to these sites and say I was *not* the founder and the leader of some f*king,stupid,uncool,untalented, boy band get that through your stupid f*cking heads!And younger people don’t know what type of music was out in 1963,even though I wasn’t born yet,I know that The Beatles early songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand were hard rock compared to the music out then.There was just Bobby Darin,The Four Seasons,Bobby Vinton and The Beach Boys surfing hits.
4.15am
8 April 2015
Offline Please read all of my great informative posts debunking this beyond stupid,inaccurate,ridiculous,ludicrous nonsense by someone on MTV once again calling The Beatles a ”boy band”.
http://www.mtv.com/artists/the…..s/7097924/
And Ironically both VH1 and MTV have been using Richie Unterberger’s excellent long Beatles biography as their Beatles biography they both used to not have a very good biography of The Beatles.
http://www.allmusic.com/artist…../biography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…..he_Beatles
The Beatles own documentary The Beatles Anthology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…..Z-OeU#t=13
The great 1982 Beatles documentary,The Complete Beatles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…..38;index=2
And any great reputable accurate Beatles biography would debunk this ludicrous,stupid myth too.
4.19am
8 April 2015
Offline A guy once gave links to the definition of what a true boy band is when someone ignorantly listed The Beatles as one of the boy bands,and he said it explains what a true boy band is,and The Beatles were *not* a boy band and he rightfully said that it’s an insult to call them that.
This is what ignorant Beatles haters say all of the time,they call The Beatles the One Direction( before that,it was saying they are like the Jonas Brothers,and years before that The Back Street Boys and NSYNC and New Kids On The Block) of the 1960’s and an overrated crappy boy band!
4.39am
8 April 2015
Offline 5.10am
8 April 2015
Offline 5.14am
8 April 2015
Offline And in an online 1977 Eric Clapton interview,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that there was always this game between John and George,and he said partly because John was a pretty good guitar player himself http://www.superseventies.com/…..apton.html .He played live with John as a member of John’s 1969 Plastic Ono Band.
5.15am
8 April 2015
Offline John Lodge and Justin of The Moody Blues are interviewed in this book and Bill Wyman and Ron Wood says how The Rolling Stones became good friends with The Beatles in 1963 after John and Paul wrote 1 of their first hits,the Rock n Roll song,I Wanna Be You’re Man.
Ron Wood was asked what his favorite Beatles songs and he said there are so many apart from the obvious like Strawberry Fields I Want To Hold Your Hand is one he said he used to like a lot ,and he said he really loved We Can Work It Out .He also says that The Beatles used to have a radio show every Friday where they played live and spoke and he would never miss an episode. He said infact whoever has the rights to those shows should dig them up,because they are incredible.
Justin Hayward says that the album he always really loved ,and he said it was when they started experimenting with chord structures ,was A Hard Day’s Night .He says they began to move away from the standard 3 chord thing and just went into more interesting structures .He said A Hard Day’s Night was the album for him and their song If I Fell was the song.He said it started in a different key to how it ended up,and it’s a beautifully worked out song and that there are some songs on that album that were very emotional and evocative. He said that for everybody just starting to write songs as he was,it was a real turn on and eye opener.
5.20am
8 April 2015
Offline 5.25am
8 April 2015
Offline As I’m sure most of you on here know, that The Beatles revolutionized popular and rock music and were very innovative,prolific and creative,more than any other group. And their great timeless songs are the most covered in music history by everyone from jazz musicians,classical,Motown,rock,pop and even heavy metal recording and playing their great timeless music.
interesting and unusual arrangements.Paul’s great rocker,You Never Give Me You’re Money on their excellent amazingly modern sounding rock album,Abbey Road has 21 chords.Here is the link to his extensive analysis http://www.recmusicbeatles.com…..p/awp.html
1 Guest(s)
