Made In America

["Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 420-2284, CH2-59" <AGOUGH%F6ACC2@SC.INTEL.COM>]

>From: fingerle@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (J. Fingerle)
>Subject: ranting and raving (but not about her KaTeness)
>Cc: fingerle@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL, pirrung@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL
>
>Whoa!!!! I just got done reading Julian Lawton's posting about the Beatles.
>How sorely deluded and misinformed the poor fellow is!  I'm sorry if I'm get-
>ting personal, but an attack on the Beatles, to me, is nothing short of 
>BLASPHEMY.
>
>>Any single facet of the Beatles'work has easily been surpassed...
>
>I've read some stupid things in my time, but that comment tops them all.  First,from one point of view, you might say that the achivement of the transistor is 
>not noteworthy to today's world, simply because the IC is orders of magnitude
>beyond it.  So let's dismiss the transistor.  That's ridiculous.  But based on
>the arguement that the sophistication of post-Beatles artists somehow invalidates the contribution of the Beatles is equally ridiculous.
>
>But look at the other side of this.  One could argue that the Beatles music has
>NOT ever been surpassed.  oh sure, new pop heroes come and go, sales records
>continue to be set, but the Beatles are still worshipped by millions a full twenty years after they last recorded.
>
>Another thing, however, is that prior to the Beatles, no one had done what they
>did.  They blazed new ground, they opened all the Doors, they pushed all the 
>barriers.  (Hey i accidently capitalized door-a slip betraying my affection
>for that group!).  Using history as an analogy again, think of what Colombus
>did--he simply sailed across the ocean.   Big deal.  But then, NO ONE else had
>dared to do it.  When you boil it down, the Beatles simply wrote pop music.  So
>what.  The point is, their way of writing had never been attempted before.  It was totally unique.
>>
>Do you realize that prior to Sgt. Pepper, no one had ever printed the lyrics to their songs on the album before?  No one had ever put out a concept album prior
>to Pepper?  These may seem like minor points, but no one had ever done them.
>Can any of us conceive of March 1964 when the top five songs in America were
>by the Beatles?  Or 14 of the top 100?  Do you realize that 'She Loves You'
>shipped gold-the first time in history that had happened?
>
>You've got to realize that the Beatles did not just put the music world on it 
>side, they litterally blew it apart and let the pieces fall where they might.
>
>In conclusion, the Beatles far and away transcended pop music.  They were a 
>catalyst to a redefinition of life.  Maybe Jane Austin and Emily Bronte are
>still read today, but don't tell me that their effect on literature was 
>any where near the  Beatles effect on music.   And what was their effect on
>life in the last century?  C'mon, you may not like the Beatles music, and you
>are certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't delude yourself into thinking
>the world is not how it seems because YOU don't understand it from your 
>vantage point.

>Jimmy                              "When in doubt, bore it out!"
>fingerle@NADC.NAVY.MIL              -Harley Davidson (circa 1947)

This view is often expressed by Beatles fans.  I've even heard Beatles fans
say that they "invented" Rock 'n' Roll.

But . . .

1. Bill Haley & The Comets invented Rock 'n' Roll

2. Elvis Presley was the first superstar of Rock 'n' Roll

So you might consider The Beatles as a follow-on to Elvis, The King.

-andy