As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
Rocagnante said:
Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".
62strat said:As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
Bottlehead90 said:
I will say the Beatles were a big musical influence. Partly because of the timing of there debut and the musical climate at that time. They were four harmless white males with matching haircuts and wearing coats and ties. They appealed to teenage girls and were not considered threatening to their parents.
definitely. They were way more diverse than those 3.Bottlehead90 said:62strat said:As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.
They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
Bottlehead90 said:62strat said:As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.
They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:Bottlehead90 said:62strat said:As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.
They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
We talking about the same band that had all the old farts up in arms after John said they were more popular than Jesus?
62strat said:definitely. They were way more diverse than those 3.Bottlehead90 said:62strat said:As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.Quote:
They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.
I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.
They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
dcAg said:
Beatles
The Who
The Rolling Stones
Zeppelin - If there was no Beatles, Who, Stones and especially Hendrix, Zeppelin would never exist.