Page 2 of 2

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:35 am
by Rocky
Channel Hopper wrote:
Rocky wrote:You obviously know very little of the history of Walthamstow.


I've only been working round there for the past 35 years, so you are correct, and my father passed away a few years back so I couldn't possibly comment on his experience onwards from 1946.


THe Stow was once a thriving borough, full of life, the heartbeat of East London, where people came from miles around to visit the Variety Palace in the high street and the most famous and longest street market in Europe, not to mention the William Morris Gallery and Vestry Road museum. Your father, had he been alive today, would have been saddened by the gradual decline of the borough due to a massive influx of immigrants and a multicultural takeover encouraged by the local Labour council.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:47 am
by Dolls
Rocky wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:


Much prefer Queen. better songs, better musicianship and way way way way way better voice! Few could touch Freddie for Vocals.


The Beatles can't be compared to any other group because they had a sound of their own that was inimitable, That and their music was what made them unique, plus, they all had personality and charisma, unlike many other well known groups. I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.



I also see them at Leyton Baths!!!! Great venue back then!

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:52 am
by Rocky
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:


Much prefer Queen. better songs, better musicianship and way way way way way better voice! Few could touch Freddie for Vocals.


The Beatles can't be compared to any other group because they had a sound of their own that was inimitable, That and their music was what made them unique, plus, they all had personality and charisma, unlike many other well known groups. I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.



I also see them at Leyton Baths!!!! Great venue back then!


Yeah, you're right Dolls.Leyton Baths was the in place in those days.
It's now called the Laguna where people go to swim and keep fit, mostly immigrants.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:56 am
by Channel Hopper
He was saddened, as were many citizens, by the work of Eric Deakins upon the area for some 20 years.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:06 am
by Dolls
Rocky wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:


Much prefer Queen. better songs, better musicianship and way way way way way better voice! Few could touch Freddie for Vocals.


The Beatles can't be compared to any other group because they had a sound of their own that was inimitable, That and their music was what made them unique, plus, they all had personality and charisma, unlike many other well known groups. I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.



I also see them at Leyton Baths!!!! Great venue back then!


Yeah, you're right Dolls.Leyton Baths was the in place in those days.
It's now called the Laguna where people go to swim and keep fit, mostly immigrants.

Well in a way but the original baths is now tescos. I used to go to school round the corner (Capworth st) sadly school pulled down now :(

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:07 am
by Rocky
Channel Hopper wrote:He was saddened, as were many citizens, by the work of Eric Deakins upon the area for some 20 years.


I remember Eric Deakins well way back in the 1970s I was then a member of the local Labour Party when he was MP for the borough. In person he was a really nice person, a thorough gentleman.
I left the party as a protest when the borough's rates were raised by 62% by the Labour Council. Bill Pearmine and Stan Millard, labour councillors, were the only ones to oppose the increase.

That was the parting of the waves for me and the Labour party.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:12 am
by Channel Hopper
Gentlemen rarely complain when their life comes courtesy of that gravy train.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nCYm ... CD4Q6AEwAA

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:13 am
by Rocky
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:


Much prefer Queen. better songs, better musicianship and way way way way way better voice! Few could touch Freddie for Vocals.


The Beatles can't be compared to any other group because they had a sound of their own that was inimitable, That and their music was what made them unique, plus, they all had personality and charisma, unlike many other well known groups. I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.



I also see them at Leyton Baths!!!! Great venue back then!


Yeah, you're right Dolls.Leyton Baths was the in place in those days.
It's now called the Laguna where people go to swim and keep fit, mostly immigrants.

Well in a way but the original baths is now tescos. I used to go to school round the corner (Capworth st) sadly school pulled down now :(


Yes, Dolls, Tescos now is where the old Leyton baths used to be but the Laguna was a replacement just a bit further along from Tescos. I am often in Capworth Street where I buy wood from the timber yard there. I shop sometimes in the Baker's Arms area.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:30 am
by Dolls
Its dire round there now! Me nan used to live in Capworth street,the timber yard is right near where me school was.

Lots of tat shops now,bleeding pub (bakers arms) is a soddin betting shop!

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:30 am
by Channel Hopper
Rocky wrote:
Yes, Dolls, Tescos now is where the old Leyton baths used to be but the Laguna was a replacement just a bit further along from Tescos. I am often in Capworth Street where I buy wood from the timber yard there. I shop sometimes in the Baker's Arms area.


Not the Tesco just round the corner from Blackhorse Road tube then (propa Walthamstow innit !).
A complete depressing shithole, the top contenders of that area being the wankers capitalising on the 30 minute parking spots using Smart camera cars (parked illegally...) to nail drivers without so much as a ticket.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:40 am
by Dolls
I hate it round that area , Depressing place that and higham hill area

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:51 am
by 4444
I found the article pretty amusing (so amusing, in fact, that I was almost going to blog it on). Not to be taken too seriously, methinks.

Mr Squirrel wrote:Interestingly, i believe it was in late 2010 that Queen officially overtook the Beatles in the record sales statistics. Nod a bad feat considering that the Beatles had a 10+ year head start on Freddie and the boys.


Interestingly, I believe this to have been only in the UK and involving 'weeks on the chart', as opposed to actual sales.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:44 pm
by Mr Squirrel
4444 wrote:I found the article pretty amusing (so amusing, in fact, that I was almost going to blog it on). Not to be taken too seriously, methinks.

Mr Squirrel wrote:Interestingly, i believe it was in late 2010 that Queen officially overtook the Beatles in the record sales statistics. Nod a bad feat considering that the Beatles had a 10+ year head start on Freddie and the boys.


Interestingly, I believe this to have been only in the UK and involving 'weeks on the chart', as opposed to actual sales.


I see. I dont recall the exact details of the report, i just remember hearing it on the radio at the time.

Personally, i would still rather listen to Queen's back catalogue than the Beatles anytime but i suppose thats individual taste.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:53 pm
by 4444
Mr Squirrel wrote:
4444 wrote:I found the article pretty amusing (so amusing, in fact, that I was almost going to blog it on). Not to be taken too seriously, methinks.

Mr Squirrel wrote:Interestingly, i believe it was in late 2010 that Queen officially overtook the Beatles in the record sales statistics. Nod a bad feat considering that the Beatles had a 10+ year head start on Freddie and the boys.


Interestingly, I believe this to have been only in the UK and involving 'weeks on the chart', as opposed to actual sales.


I see. I dont recall the exact details of the report, i just remember hearing it on the radio at the time.

Personally, i would still rather listen to Queen's back catalogue than the Beatles anytime but i suppose thats individual taste.


Well, at the time of posting I took the trouble to do a search just to make sure (I would hate to be caught out generally but where Mr Squirrel is concerned? No ruddy way!) and I must confess I didn't spend a great deal of time doing it, but among the articles I found was this, which pretty much makes things clear:

http://www.gear4music.com/news/article/ ... 2009-11-18

Their Greatest Hits album has outsold (or at least did, at the time) Sgt Pepper, but that would have been largely the result of the Ben Elton-penned We Will Rock You jukebox musical (which came into being as a result of the success of Mamma Mia!, of course).

I'm obviously more of a Beatles fan than of Queen, although I do recognise Freddie Mercury as quite an amazing talent and their appearance at Live Aid was probably the very definition of the word 'entertainment'. :thumb:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:10 pm
by Mr Squirrel
4444 wrote:
Well, at the time of posting I took the trouble to do a search just to make sure (I would hate to be caught out generally but where Mr Squirrel is concerned? No ruddy way!) and I must confess I didn't spend a great deal of time doing it, but among the articles I found was this, which pretty much makes things clear:


Bold.

Tragic that you feel the need to perform 'research' in order to prove your opinion 'right' and equally tragic that you do so just in order to claim 'one upmanship' on a dense Squirrel. Personally, i treat these forums as a discussion arena, a place where one exchanges opinions, rather like a pub... a bunch of people (mostly mates) sharing some banter over a pint. I do not treat these places as institutions of knowledge. Thats very precarious ground.

Anyways...

4444 wrote:http://www.gear4music.com/news/article/Queen-overtake-Beatles-in-UK-album-charts/KH/2009-11-18

Their Greatest Hits album has outsold (or at least did, at the time) Sgt Pepper, but that would have been largely the result of the Ben Elton-penned We Will Rock You jukebox musical (which came into being as a result of the success of Mamma Mia!, of course).

I'm obviously more of a Beatles fan than of Queen, although I do recognise Freddie Mercury as quite an amazing talent and their appearance at Live Aid was probably the very definition of the word 'entertainment'. :thumb:


Genuinely interesting stuff. :thumb:

I dont dislike the Beatles... I just think (IMO) that their 'status' as the best British band ever is slightly sentimental. They were good and i dont deny that but there have been many bands since that deserve just as much recognition for their efforts. In the spirit of the thread title, i was being critical to add to the sentiment of 'Why they sucked' and not 'why they were great'. :)

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:26 pm
by 4444
Mr Squirrel wrote:
4444 wrote:
Well, at the time of posting I took the trouble to do a search just to make sure (I would hate to be caught out generally but where Mr Squirrel is concerned? No ruddy way!) and I must confess I didn't spend a great deal of time doing it, but among the articles I found was this, which pretty much makes things clear:


Bold.

Tragic that you feel the need to perform 'research' in order to prove your opinion 'right' and equally tragic that you do so just in order to claim 'one upmanship' on a dense Squirrel. Personally, i treat these forums as a discussion arena, a place where one exchanges opinions, rather like a pub... a bunch of people (mostly mates) sharing some banter over a pint. I do not treat these places as institutions of knowledge. Thats very precarious ground.


A little research does absolutely no harm and saves the public ridicule of having been found erroneous, I think.

Claim 'one upmanship'? On you? You've got to be fucking kidding, haven't you?

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:15 pm
by Mr Squirrel
4444 wrote:
Claim 'one upmanship'? On you? You've got to be fucking kidding, haven't you?


Well, it seems terribly important to you.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:23 pm
by Opethian
Hmn... I'm a big fan... of some of the bands who are heavily influenced by The Beatles. For one, there's my all time favorite Type O Negative:

[Link To Youtube Video]


Respect them, and am proud their British.