Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/19/09 07:49 PM, wwry wrote: http://uimg.ngfiles.com/profile/93/93729 .jpg

this is you.

i rest my case.

This is also me.

What pisses me off about the Beatles rock Band is how many young Beatles fans are coming out of the woodwork for it. No one's talking about the remastered albums that came out. They're talking about the game. And do you know why? The the previous generation didn't have the game.
This isn't about the music, love it or hate it, it's yet another example of how youth cannot see to define itself with any respect to the past other than warping it towards it's own purpose. The albums may or may not be improved by the remastering (there's a whole topic of debate in that) but people before you had then and you can't have that, can you you sexy rebel?
Social commentary over. I'm gonna go watch britcoms.

FUNKbrs? more like FUNKbs. thats what he spouts bs. and im going to kick the bs (bullsh*t) out of him. i dare you to come and fight me. I live in Olive Branch Mississippi motherfucker.

I was just coincidentally listening to London Calling a second ago.

At 9/19/09 05:25 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Jim Morrison would piss in Ringo Star's lemon drank.

OH SNAP a Lemon Drank reference. Who's to say he hasn't already?

At 9/19/09 08:04 PM, wwry wrote: FUNKbrs? more like FUNKbs. thats what he spouts bs. and im going to kick the bs (bullsh*t) out of him. i dare you to come and fight me. I live in Olive Branch Mississippi motherfucker.

Address Plz.

I live like an hour drive from there.

At 9/19/09 07:13 PM, Victory wrote: I like how Ringo was exempt from the list.

Haha, feeling toward Ringo aside, there's a small reason why I tend to do this myself. It's the cover to Sgt. Pepper's. It's a famous album cover, and it's created a whole host of parodies, but the original is supposed to show people that the band have taken a liking to. As far as I'm aware, Ringo let the others take control of the process of deciding who goes on the cover: he didn't want to bother basically. I like how these days, I've actually become familiar with some of the figures on there and what they stand for myself. It speaks a lot about the band members, and while I shouldn't rest my opinion on the whole album cover, it's grabbed my interest anyway.

What gets me with this, like I mentioned earlier, is John Lennon's sense of humour. He supposedly wanted Hitler, Jesus and a few others on the cover just for the sake of pissing people off. In fact, Hitler can be followed up here. It makes me interested in the band, early obvious bland commercialism aside.

At 9/19/09 08:00 PM, stafffighter wrote: What pisses me off about the Beatles rock Band is how many young Beatles fans are coming out of the woodwork for it. No one's talking about the remastered albums that came out. They're talking about the game. And do you know why? The the previous generation didn't have the game.
This isn't about the music, love it or hate it, it's yet another example of how youth cannot see to define itself with any respect to the past other than warping it towards it's own purpose. The albums may or may not be improved by the remastering (there's a whole topic of debate in that) but people before you had then and you can't have that, can you you sexy rebel?
Social commentary over. I'm gonna go watch britcoms.

In this house, the opposite has happened almost. I'm nineteen right now, and my brother is fourteen, but we've both been brought back into the zone of listening to every Beatles album as a result of the current "craze". I haven't really been keeping up with the news on this sort of thing recently, but I know more than a few people my age who were already familiar with the band, for better or worse. I'd like to play the game, but I hear the price is pretty high, and I don't really have the system(s) to play it on unfortunately. I may be interested in music, films, literature from before my time, but I like to think I've experienced the things in the forms they were meant to be experienced in. I can imagine as a fan, it might be annoying to see younger people getting into The Beatles solely through the game, but I suppose that's how things go. If they enjoy the songs by the end, with the interactivity shoved in, that's perfectly fine I think.

My Dad picked up the remastered albums, and they were good. I want to give them a listen some time myself, privately, actually, because I'm a bit of a purist like that with certain artists!

The OP is a fat 28 year old who signed up at newgrounds in 2000.

Just wanted to point that out.

It will be okay, Just put on your cool face!

Problem, Funk?

At 9/19/09 08:24 PM, twotoedsleuth wrote: The OP is a fat 28 year old who signed up at newgrounds in 2000.

Just wanted to point that out.

Presumably he knows his own age and fatness and we can all see his sign up date. what's your point?

At 9/19/09 08:00 PM, stafffighter wrote: What pisses me off about the Beatles rock Band is how many young Beatles fans are coming out of the woodwork for it. No one's talking about the remastered albums that came out.

I'm not particularly GAGA over either to be honest.
Beatles Rock Band is just a game at the end of the day, and although I wouldn't buy it, I'd still probably have fun playing it with some friends.
As for the remastered CDs, the originals are already brilliant and flawless that it seems like not much more can be done.

At 9/19/09 04:21 PM, Sidorio wrote: What are opinions?

Yes, and now the board is yours. The topics are U.S. History, Biggest Whiners on the internet, and This Guy is Pathetic.

At 9/19/09 08:24 PM, twotoedsleuth wrote: The OP is a fat 28 year old who signed up at newgrounds in 2000.

Just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, I know I'm better than you. You're so insecure you won't even put your age in your account.

At 9/19/09 08:43 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 9/19/09 08:24 PM, twotoedsleuth wrote: The OP is a fat 28 year old who signed up at newgrounds in 2000.

Just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, I know I'm better than you. You're so insecure you won't even put your age in your account.

Zing!

The Beatles are still gay, by the way.

The Beatles are perhaps among some of the most monumental figures in modern music. Yes, some people loved them for just being four handsome dudes who partake in silly shenanigans, but they are also some of the most respected musicians in recent history.

Every one had exceptional skill at their instrument [yes, even Ringo; if you happen to play drummers than a guy who made music in the sixties then good for you], and every album, Rubber Soul and on, are considered to be some of the greatest classics of rock music.

Not only did they make excellently crafted songs about love [with horrible lyrics mind you], but they grew into experimentations that ultimately changed the foundations of music. Their lyrics and vocal harmonizations were probably more advanced than any band previous to them [that is a broad statement]. The only thing this band has ever suffered from is media whoring and over-inflated egotism. You have the right to say the Beatles suck, but by no means did they.

At 9/19/09 05:25 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I already know too much about that shitty band the Beatles.

Jim Morrison would piss in Ringo Star's lemon drank.

Are you kidding me? Jim Morrison was a whiny little bitch.

At 9/19/09 08:47 PM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote:

Not only did they make excellently crafted songs about love [with horrible lyrics mind you],

Not horrible in the slighest.
There is nothing 'horrible' about showing affection for another human being.

I've noticed the reference to The Clash in the first post , they were a band who were truely 'punk'. Not in terms of music, as they crossed many genres, but in terms of ideology and a hightened awareness towards individiualism, not caring what others think about yourself.
Quite ironic seeing as the OP is so desperate to make us all care for his opinion.

I like the Beatles, no mass of crude irellevant insults or opinions can change that.

At 9/19/09 08:56 PM, TheTrooper5 wrote:

At 9/19/09 08:47 PM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote:

Not horrible in the slighest.
There is nothing 'horrible' about showing affection for another human being.

i'm sorry, but one of their fuckin albums mentioned the word love like 58 times. that is repulsive; john lennon is way better than that.

okay, well mr. rants-alot , If their music sucked, why did they have SOOO many fans? You have an opinion.....a very strong one.

At 9/19/09 09:13 PM, DannyJay wrote: okay, well mr. rants-alot , If their music sucked, why did they have SOOO many fans? You have an opinion.....a very strong one.

Twilight has lots of fans.
I love the Beatles but populatiy does not equal quality.

Beatlemania was nothing more than a ploy by the music industry, made to take advantage of needy or otherwise disaffected peoples' desires to live vicariously through others who tend to exist at higher echelons of the cultural hegemony. It was a sad chapter in the history of this country, indicative of a longing of the youth to be somehow connected to a common touchstone in the face of the failings of their parents, who had dichotomized the world into two factions of right and wrong, each side considering itself, of course, to be exclusively in possession of the title "right."

The music, newspaper, and mass-media industries of the time, run by those who had so destroyed the equilibrium of the world as to render it impossible to effectively mend, sought instead to cast a rosily-tinted view of the future, of a connected, one-world group of juveniles whose enjoyments and tastes superceded cultural boundaries, and made the deep divisions of the time period, between good and bad, communist and capitalist, racist and colorblind, seem to be on the verge of disappearance with a new and more world-literate group of people assuming positions of authority.

Clearly, as history has effectively indicated, the view of reality aggressively set forth by these outlets was a fabrication meant to create a global phenomenon, not an actual awakening of the human species, as the grip of mania would seem to suggest. The pursuit of the fabrication was a self-fulfilling prophecy of its own pervasiveness, and as more media outlets covered the phenomenon, it grew in size simply because it was already a dynamo

Beatlemania is nothing less than the unrealistic hopes and dreams of millions of people, crushed by their own submissiveness to the sterile, artificial manifestation of reality presented in the form of four vaguely representative members of the generation. Millions whose belief in free will, belief in independence from permeating memes, and belief in the escape of the dystopian world which was believed to be fast-approaching, was invalidated by the nature of their enjoyment of this bizarre and unremarkable little band.

At 9/19/09 09:26 PM, Bolo wrote: Beatlemania is nothing less than the unrealistic hopes and dreams of millions of people, crushed by their own submissiveness to the sterile, artificial manifestation of reality presented in the form of four vaguely representative members of the generation. Millions whose belief in free will, belief in independence from permeating memes, and belief in the escape of the dystopian world which was believed to be fast-approaching, was invalidated by the nature of their enjoyment of this bizarre and unremarkable little band.

i can agree with everything about your post except for the last three words; i don't know of too many bands who surprass their greatness during that generation of music; if you care to list some examples...

At 9/19/09 09:26 PM, Bolo wrote:

Beatlemania is nothing less than the unrealistic hopes and dreams of millions of people, crushed by their own submissiveness to the sterile, artificial manifestation of reality presented in the form of four vaguely representative members of the generation. Millions whose belief in free will, belief in independence from permeating memes, and belief in the escape of the dystopian world which was believed to be fast-approaching, was invalidated by the nature of their enjoyment of this bizarre and unremarkable little band.

Right, if it weren't for "Yellow Submarine" humanity would have explored it's own potential to the point where we'd all be levitating by now.

At 9/19/09 09:26 PM, Bolo wrote: Beatlemania

I bet you think you're really smart and edgy for typing all that out.

Jesus, quit acting like some pseudo-intellectual.

At 9/19/09 09:17 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 9/19/09 09:13 PM, DannyJay wrote: okay, well mr. rants-alot , If their music sucked, why did they have SOOO many fans? You have an opinion.....a very strong one.

Twilight has lots of fans.
I love the Beatles but populatiy does not equal quality.

Well, sure, but... I highly doubt in 50 years we're all going to still be talking about Twilight. The Beatles are still talked about for a reason.

And to FUNK's original post - even if the main reason The Beatles became popular was because of "raving fans" they've obviously proven that there was more too them than that. Granted, I am a little biased since I grew up listening to them - and was named after one of their songs by a complete Beatles fanatic, one of your aforementioned "raving fans", my mother - but I think the people who judge them are the ones that haven't actually sat down and taken the time to really listen to their music. Sure, I get tired of hearing "Can't Buy Me Love" and "She Loves You" on the radio all the time, but you need to really listen to them as a band that really matured (musically..) as they went on.

At 9/19/09 09:35 PM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote: i can agree with everything about your post except for the last three words; i don't know of too many bands who surprass their greatness during that generation of music; if you care to list some examples...

I don't believe any band or musician of any era truly deserves to be termed "great" by any means. A normal band is merely reflective of its contemporary culture, and reflective of those to whom it wishes to cater. Bands do not in and of themselves inspire men to do great things, to collectively alter the status quo or become something of a higher caliber. Music is merely the foil for something, an idea or person or object, that already exists in another form but is deemed to be in need of reinforcement in the popular consciousness.

At 9/19/09 09:35 PM, stafffighter wrote: Right, if it weren't for "Yellow Submarine" humanity would have explored it's own potential to the point where we'd all be levitating by now.

I never indicated that the Beatles' existence had hampered the growth of society. Merely that the creation of such a high standard as permanent civil harmony amongst the youth was bound to cause a culture shock when its truth was upended by reality. Indeed, as those youth who enjoyed the Beatles matured in the '70s, their grudging acceptance of their parents' created world was the end of the illusion of a collective interest that could be satisfied by something as simple as a band -- an illusion that had fooled those youth for so many years. The growing disaffection of the 1970s was perhaps a side effect of this realization, coupled with anger over Watergate and various public abuses. The widespread drug use of the period was certainly symptomatic.

...the Beatles inspire myself (among many other musicians) to experiment with conventional sound and make it unique to the individual; doesn't that count for anything?

i think the only purpose of music is to inspire emotion or ideas to the listener, and music does impact society because occasionally it reflects the views of a certain group of people; this spreads their ideas to others who might share similar perspectives and create new sub-cultures.

i know it really isn't an effect impact on society, but sometimes art can only do so much for the world.

At 9/19/09 09:45 PM, disingenuous wrote:

At 9/19/09 09:17 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Twilight has lots of fans.
I love the Beatles but populatiy does not equal quality.

Well, sure, but... I highly doubt in 50 years we're all going to still be talking about Twilight. The Beatles are still talked about for a reason.

People will love anything nostalgic for the sheer warmth of familularity (energing 90's nostalgia) the intellectual ego boost of something they expereinced first hand being overanalized (60's nostalgia) or for simple irony (80's nostalgia)

:Granted, I am a little biased since I grew up listening to them - and was named after one of their songs by a complete Beatles fanatic, one of your aforementioned "raving fans", my mother

Whatever you say Elenor Prudence Eggman.

At 9/19/09 09:51 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 9/19/09 09:35 PM, stafffighter wrote: Right, if it weren't for "Yellow Submarine" humanity would have explored it's own potential to the point where we'd all be levitating by now.

I never indicated that the Beatles' existence had hampered the growth of society. Merely that the creation of such a high standard as permanent civil harmony amongst the youth was bound to cause a culture shock when its truth was upended by reality.......................

The growing disaffection of the 1970s was perhaps a side effect of this realization, coupled with anger over Watergate and various public abuses. The widespread drug use of the period was certainly symptomatic.

Right, the Beatles didn't do anything bad other than team up with Nixon to turn a generation of people into disenfranchised drug addicts.

At 9/19/09 10:08 PM, stafffighter wrote: Right, the Beatles didn't do anything bad other than team up with Nixon to turn a generation of people into disenfranchised drug addicts.

Well, I think we can all agree that the 1970s really was bursting to the seams with disenfranchised drug addicts. The only part we have to determine is exactly why that was. I don't allege that the Beatles were solely responsible for this, but I do believe that the optimism of their era, fostered both by them, and by the people around them, who admittedly had reasonably good intentions in creating this false perception of limitless achievement and harmony, came crashing down around society's ears when met with the cold steel of reality.

At 9/19/09 10:08 PM, stafffighter wrote: Whatever you say Elenor Prudence Eggman.

Oh, I see we've already discussed this topic.