Log In
Register
6.16pm
27 April 2015
Offline
He was a fan alright, when it suited him.
If anything, I’d say George wasn’t all that much.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Little Piggy Dragonguy
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
6.21pm
5 November 2011
Offline Ron Nasty said
HMBeatlesfan said
Expert Texpert said
That doesn’t make them the fans. They are the band. There is a clear delineation.
If there were an article about Paul and Ringo attending a movie premier, the press would not say “Two Beatles fans attended the premier.”
If Axl Rose, James Hetfield, and Mike Tyson went to the premier of The Force Awakens, would the press say “Three Star Wars fans attended the premier”.
If Paul and Ringo, attending the premier of The Beatles: Eight Days A Week in a few weeks time, found themselves being described as “Two Beatles fans attending the premier”, unless it was done tongue-in-cheek, would have us all raising our eyebrows and pointing out they’re actual Beatles. Axl Rose, James Hatfield and Mike Tyson attending the same premier, along with many other celebrities who get the chance to go, could easily be described in an all encompassing phrase like, “Celebrity Beatles’ fans turned out in force tonight for the premier of Ron Howard’s new film, with former Beatles Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr giving their seal of approval, along with John Lennon and George Harrison ‘s widows, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison.”
What it would not say is, “Beatles’ fans Paul McCartney , Ringo Starr , Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison were at the head of the queue to see Ron Howard’s new film about The Beatles at its premier tonight. They were not the only celebrity Beatles’ fans who turned out…”
So your proof that The Beatles can’t be fans of themselves is that the press wouldn’t call them fans?
QUESTION: DID YOU READ THE DEFINITION OF “FAN”?
Expert Textpert said
Someone who was in their 60’s by the time The Beatles hit the scene probably could not relate in the slightest to the experience of the teenagers who were first generation Beatles fans (born 1945 to 1961). Just because you are not a first generation fan and would like to be one, doesn’t mean you get to change the definitions of lots of things to make it seem like you are one.
Just because they might not have been able to relate doesn’t make them any less of fans. If somebody who was a fan of The Beatles when they were together and making music isn’t a first generation fan because they are too old then what are they? A negative generation fan?
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
6.22pm
18 April 2013
Offline HMBeatlesfan said
Expert Texpert said
That doesn’t make them the fans. They are the band. There is a clear delineation.
If there were an article about Paul and Ringo attending a movie premier, the press would not say “Two Beatles fans attended the premier.”
If Axl Rose, James Hetfield, and Mike Tyson went to the premier of The Force Awakens, would the press say “Three Star Wars fans attended the premier”.
Expert Texpert said
The Beatles didn’t buy tickets to their own concerts. Could it be because they were not fans or spectators of The Beatles?
2. What sort of logic is that, just because you don’t see someone live doesn’t mean you’re not a fan. I’ve never seen Iron Maiden live, does that mean I’m not a fan, no it doesn’t.
I am not saying that anyone is not a Beatles fan because they didn’t see them live. You don’t have to see a band live to enjoy its music. But who goes to shows? Fans. Since it would have been impossible for them to buy tickets, sit in the audience, and watch themselves, then it follows that they can’t be fans.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
6.25pm
18 April 2013
Offline Little Piggy Dragonguy said
So your proof that The Beatles can’t be fans of themselves is that the press wouldn’t call them fans?
QUESTION: DID YOU READ THE DEFINITION OF “FAN”?
Expert Textpert said
Someone who was in their 60’s by the time The Beatles hit the scene probably could not relate in the slightest to the experience of the teenagers who were first generation Beatles fans (born 1945 to 1961). Just because you are not a first generation fan and would like to be one, doesn’t mean you get to change the definitions of lots of things to make it seem like you are one.Just because they might not have been able to relate doesn’t make them any less of fans. If somebody who was a fan of The Beatles when they were together and making music isn’t a first generation fan because they are too old then what are they? A negative generation fan?
Once you find someone who was actually 65 when Please, Please Me came out, and was screaming along with the kids in the audience, then we can discuss what they are.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
6.29pm
27 April 2015
Offline Expert Textpert said
Just because they might not have been able to relate doesn’t make them any less of fans. If somebody who was a fan of The Beatles when they were together and making music isn’t a first generation fan because they are too old then what are they? A negative generation fan?
Once you find someone who was actually 65 when Please, Please Me came out, and was screaming along with the kids in the audience, then we can discuss what they are.
No, but I came across an article of a 60+ winning a contest in order to meet the Beatles.
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
6.30pm
18 April 2013
Offline Provide a link.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
6.37pm
27 April 2015
Offline I read it on meetthebeatlesforreal blog, and I don’t have the time at the moment to find it again. Take it or leave it; I don’t have any reason to make it up anyway.
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
6.40pm
18 April 2013
Offline Well, then we can’t discuss it. But assuming you didn’t make it up, we could probably describe that person as a first generation Benny Goodman or Rudy Vallee fan who liked The Beatles.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
6.46pm
1 November 2013
Offline
Just because they might not have been able to relate doesn’t make them any less of fans. If somebody who was a fan of The Beatles when they were together and making music isn’t a first generation fan because they are too old then what are they? A negative generation fan?
Could be 0th generation fans like how siblings are 0th cousins.
6.50pm
27 April 2015
Offline There isn’t anything to discuss if you don’t want to. I told you what’s in the blog entry. There is about as much to discuss in that as much as in Hayley Mills’ mother being a huge Beatle fan.
EDIT: But any way, I found something more interesting than that:
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Little Piggy Dragonguy
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
8.18pm
19 May 2016
Offline Expert Textpert said
Someone who was in their 60’s by the time The Beatles hit the scene probably could not relate in the slightest to the experience of the teenagers who were first generation Beatles fans (born 1945 to 1961). Just because you are not a first generation fan and would like to be one, doesn’t mean you get to change the definitions of lots of things to make it seem like you are one.
First of all, who decided the rules when it comes to drawing the line between 1st and 2nd gen fans because I’m not trusting a stupid book that you treat like a magical source. Second of all, I do consider myself a 1st gen fan regardless of what a book tells me. Third of all, does THE BOOK even explain why it draws these borders. Fourth of all, someone born in 1961 would’ve been 9 when The Beatles split, most certainly not a teenager. Fifth of all, someone born in 1962 would’ve been the perfect age for The Beatles TV show, Yellow Submarine (album and movie), Sgt. Pepper ‘s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Magical Mystery Tour (album and movie). Sixth of all, not everyone who liked The Beatles were teenagers, there’s people born in 1942 that were screaming in those crowds and buying those records along with people born in 1950. I wonder, did you write your so called magical mystery source because you stand for it more than that scene in Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes where the guy jumps out of the window because he refuses to tell the person the whereabouts of Caesar. I think that it’s funny that made it seem like I was screwing with the rules when in reality, those rules are just mere opinions.
The following people thank sgtpepper63 for this post:
HMBeatlesfan8.49pm
1 November 2013
Offline Second of all, I do consider myself a 1st gen fan regardless of what a book tells me.
Then what does the book matter if you disagree? The book isn’t forcing you to change your mind and your opinion on the matter. 
Anyway, if I was growing up in the 60’s my best friend would probably be in some Gulag or if they made it to the US, bullied extensively.
11.22pm
5 November 2011
Offline Expert Textpert said
Well, then we can’t discuss it. But assuming you didn’t make it up, we could probably describe that person as a first generation Benny Goodman or Rudy Vallee fan who liked The Beatles.
Wait is this a joke? When did Peppy say they were a Benny Goodman or Rudy Vallee fan? And you won’t even call them a Beatles fan?
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
2.18am
27 April 2015
Offline No no, that’s Expert Textpert’s assumption that the man might be a Rudy Vallee fan who might’ve liked the Beatles.
Could be, couldn’t be, but so what? There might have been some teenagers who were Rudy Vallee fans who liked the Beatles, too. That isn’t enough to say he wasn’t among the first wave/first generation of Beatle fans. He was around when Beatles were a performing and an active band, he liked them well enough to participate in a contest. Age doesn’t matter.
Anyway, here it is:
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
3.05am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I have not yet made any comment on what constitutes a (1st/2nd generation) Beatles fan, @Little Piggy Dragonguy.
My observation was simply on the silliness of the comparison. Taking it from the other angle, could the three celebs referred to be described as “Star Wars fans” were they to attend the premier, I would say yes, but I would say that George Lucas attending the a Star Wars premier would not be described as a “Stars War fan” but as its creator, and I would also say that were Paul and Ringo there, they might also be referred to “Star Wars fans”.
My own view on whether The Beatles can be fans of The Beatles? Not in any way that compares to the normal fan experience. Olivia can be a Beatles fan. Yoko can be a Beatles fan. Barbara, Nancy. Their kids can be Beatles fans. But John, Paul, George and Ringo? Far too close to it for them to be able to approach The Beatles purely as fans.
An example? Let It Be . Nearly every Beatles fan, if not every, has been calling out for it to find its way onto DVD for… well… now we’re getting into decades! Now, you can call Paul and Ringo Beatles fan, but with that you have to accept – to a greater or lesser degree – they are involved in withholding something that is just about the top of the list of things to give a proper release to, but they don’t respond to that fan desire as Beatles fans, but as ex-Beatles who have an investment in how they come off in it.
Beatles fans clamour to hear, what most of us believe will quickly be down there with Revolution 9 if ever heard, Carnival Of Light . Paul punches his hand in the air and screams, “Yes!” George stalks out the room muttering, “No f*cking way, McCartney!”
Vested interests mean they cannot have a purely fans-eye view, and no other Beatles fans are in their position. I would, therefore, suggest that their history as Beatles far outweighs their view of them as fans.
As to the generation argument that has cropped up here and elsewhere, for what they are worth, my thoughts.
Anybody, born up to around 1960, could be classed as a 1st generation fan, no matter how old they were at the time The Beatles emerged. One of the lines about them is about how they broke the barriers of age and class. One could point to a lady born in 1926, who some here have suggested by dint of age is too old, who had a private home cinema set-up, and could get prints directly from the studios, and records of the films she requested be shown – and she rarely requested the same film twice – show the film she requested most (4 times) was Yellow Submarine .
Does that indicate this woman who was in her late-30s when The Beatles broke was a Beatles fan, or too old to be a Beatles fan? Her younger sister, Margaret, born four years later, and also in her thirties, was known as a Beatles fan.
Who is it?
Queen Elizabeth II. Around the time of one of her major birthdays or major jubilee, it was revealed that the film she had ordered most at the home cinema at Windsor Castle was Yellow Submarine .
I get confused when it comes to those born in a year that begins “196” though, and – myself – I refer to them as Generation 1.5a and 1.5b.
Those that became old enough during the decade to start making choices about their musical taste, and those born later in the decade that – while showing a liking for them, were just hearing what was played. It didn’t make them conscious fans, they just liked what they were hearing.
I could use myself as an example. I was born in 1967, and have been told I would dance around the room in my nappy to The Beatles. On that basis, and my definition, I could call myself a 1.5b generation fan. I’m not though. I don’t remember dancing around to The Beatles. I remember dancing around in my nappy to this:
God ! So fecking amazed someone put that whole album up! I am dancing around the room wearing a bath towel like a nappy as I remember being a toddler. Oops! Did I just say any of that out loud. It’s all lies! Honest, guv’nor!
My point? I wasn’t making a conscious decision to listen to The Beatles at that age. It was just music my parents played alongside lots of other music.
I was born in 1967. I am told I danced around the room to them while still in a nappy. I’m a definite 2nd generation fan though. Growing up I remember Simon & Garfunkel, The Beach Boys , Elvis (the girl-next-door), Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers. I remember the punk bands my older sister was going to see, and was friends with. I didn’t truly connect with The Beatles until 1980. So while born in the years which for many would make me 1st generation, I identify myself as second generation.
This isn’t to say that someone the same age as me couldn’t have found themselves a huge Beatles at a very young age, just that it’s a moveable feast and it’s wrong to try to suggest there are definite, hard dividing lines between one group and another. Which is why I have groups 1.5a & b. And say those that could fit those groups may not.
Not sure if any of that makes sense. I may just have spouted lots of garbage.
Sorry!
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
HMBeatlesfan, Evangeline, Beatlebug, The Hippie Chick"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
3.32am
15 May 2014
Offline HMBeatlesfan said
So I’m guessing you’d also have no interest in The Beach Boys and The Monkees if you were alive at the time. Also, it’s interesting how John’s death gave us so many 2nd gen fans.
@HMBeatlesfan:
Oh, well, I’ve never been into The Beach Boys and The Monkees –perhaps you’re right. But I’d been into The Beatles for two years before John was murdered.
“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)
7.44am
18 April 2013
Offline Good post, Ron. Born in 1970, I consider myself a second generation fan. My first Beatles purchase was Lady Madonna , probably around 1976. My next Beatles-related experience was The Bee Gees Sgt. Pepper movie, for which I had the soundtrack. And a few years after that (1982 or so) we bought the Let It Be album. I had The White Album in college, which was my next purchase (didn’t like it).
Didn’t become a true fan until well after I had heard the entire catalogue (a friend gave me his 1987 CDs when he bought the remasters) around seven years ago. Another friend had given me some Beatles vinyl, and, having heard the whole catalogue and still not impressed for some reason, I suddenly became a fan one night in 2010 when I put Rock And Roll Music Vol. 1 on the turntable.
I was probably a fan all along and didn’t know it.
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Oudis"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
8.46am
24 July 2016
Offline Wow, @Ron Nasty , I didn’t know how much you had to say.
1. I’d much rather see Carnival Of Light get released than Let It Be get a DVD release because with Let It Be , you wouldn’t be missing much just getting the VHS. Although it isn’t that common, Me and my friend/coworker have seen it a couple of times when we were buying up stuff at flea markets/yard sales/thrift stores/stores for our boss to resell them at a higher price (you may think of it as illegal or wrong, but I think of it as bringing valuable items to a place where people can expect to see them and therefore go out of their way to look for them and make it easier for them to find).
2. As right as you are with that person born in 1926, you ever thought she bought them to watch with her children.
3. So you’d sort out generations something like this:
(_-1957) 1st gen
(1958-1964) 1.5th gen A
(1965-1970) 1.5th gen B
(1971-_) 2nd gen
4. Great to see another person born in 1967, the same year I was born in.
That all made perfect sense (for the most part).
Maybe you should try posting more.
8.51am
24 July 2016
Offline Expert Textpert said
My next Beatles-related experience was The Bee Gees Sgt. Pepper movie, for which I had the soundtrack.
Well, that’s got to be a terrible experience because that movie is so bad, I’m surprised this guy hasn’t made a review of it yet.
Maybe you should try posting more.
