Beatles

[Joseph Brooks]

Hmm.. I'm with you on the Beatles but.. You have a problem with musicians
that use(d) drugs? Do you think BOC was clean & sober back in the day? Or is
it just that you feel that the songs, having been influenced by drugs are
the poorer for it? Just wondering, not advocating or condemning drug use.

I remember the 2nd or 3rd time I saw BOC (1975 or so) someone threw a
handful of joints on stage. Joe and Allen picked one up each and smoked it
right there on stage.. I can't recall if the others had any or not. To our
smoke addled 16 year old brains, this seemed extremely cool.

My point is, drugs have a major impact on many many bands and thus on their
material as well. You know this I'm sure.

The Beatles were on speed and pot as far back as the Help days at least. I
read that they were all stoned out of their minds during the filming of
Help. Revolver was (according to Lennon) the first album influenced by LSD.

Which reminds me of one of the most intense experiences of my life, seeing
BOC live while on a tab of good LSD. Peaking on acid as they played
"Telepaths" and "Astronomy" was an almost religious experience. This was in
an old hall in San Diego which had sort of a gothic motif which always
reminded me of the inner sleeve of OYFOOYK. More than 20 years ago and it
still gives me the heebie-jeebies...

JB "I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more..."

> O.K., since I've been in somewhat rare form this week, I'm
> going to use
> this opportunity to say - DON'T BE PICKING ON THE BEATLES!
>
> No, I can't say I'm a huge fan, and yes, their overall musicianship
> could be questioned, and some of their songwriting is less
> than stellar
> (some of it obviously written under the influence of drugs -- then
> again, some of their best work was probably also written under the
> influence), but I would say that:
>
> 1.  For their time, the Beatles were revolutionary in many ways
>
> 2.  Their influence on the music that came after them is probably as
> great as anyone's in the last 30 years.
>
>
> Now, I was too young to have listened to the Beatles in the 60s.  In
> fact, it was only about 3 years ago that I took much notice
> of them.  I
> was mostly intrigued to learn more about Paul McCartney's bassplaying.
> Through some study of their music, and in reading a book or two about
> the band, I came to realize the affect they had on their time, and on
> those that would come after them.
>
> As an interesting aside - I saw some old video footage of KISS.  They
> were big fans of the Beatles - especially Gene Simmons.  And, it shows
> in their old performances - Gene used to bounce up and down while
> singing just like John Lennon used to do, and some of his
> "hair-shaking"
> (before he made flicking his tongue his trademark) is very reminiscent
> of the Beatles.  It's actually quite amusing in retrospect.
>
> While you might listen to an album like "Revolver" or
> (especially) "Sgt.
> Pepper" in the 90s and think, "oh, that's not so great" -
> remember that
> this stuff was revolutionary at the time.  Hey, looking back
> on it, some
> might say that "Tyranny and Mutation", when listened to today doesn't
> sound that special -- yet many of us BOC fans not only think
> it's great,
> but that it was the true genesis of speed metal.  But, try convincing
> some 18-year-old kid that grew up on Nirvanna and Metallica that...
>
> By the way, I believe that Les Braunstein in particular, but probably
> most of the Soft White Underbelly was heavily influenced by
> the Beatles'
> "Sgt. Pepper".  I keep saying this, but perhaps Al Bouchard can
> enlighten us further...
>
> Hey Al - I know you're making a new album and all, but feel
> free to jump
> in!  ;-)
>
>
> John
>