Thebeatles.com

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:33 pm

Is it just me or does this website blow. Just think of all the stuff they could put on there and instead we get this.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:44 pm

yea, it's pretty limited. And the worst part is that it doesn't let you download the photos!

alanz · Post by **alanz** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:50 pm

"Please do no distribute."

OK...

lennonon · Post by **lennonon** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:49 pm

So funny....

I've thought that so many times....

There are Indie bands trying to get signed with web sites that blow that POS of the planet...

Maybe Paulie insisted on doing it himself.

Yeah, it blows

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:12 pm

Yeah, be careful if you download any of the "screensavers" ... I had all kinds of trouble with the Yellow Submarine bubbly screensaver thingy....when it would come on...it didn't want to go off at all, ever.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:29 pm

If ever there was a band that didn't need it's own website....

mdbuck · Post by **mdbuck** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:46 pm

You can out smart the website and get any picture you want...

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:35 pm

Their isn't anything I want. That's the problem. McCartney's is just as bad. The fan sites are much better.

firstbassman · Post by **firstbassman** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:45 am

Re: picture above

I’m prepared for an onslaught of flames from Beatles fanatics here, but I wouldn’t be true to my
Jefferson Airplane heritage if I didn’t point out that the Airplane did the rooftop thing (in NYC) a year BEFORE the Fab Four.

(It was filmed with the intention of it being part of a Goddard movie.)

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:36 am

Good point, Mark...part of understanding the worldwide cultural revolution that occurred in the sixties is to grasp what a flow of ideas went on, involving musicians, artists, film makers, etc. Everyone was being influenced by everyone else, and frequently in a more cooperative way than we've seen in the ensuing decades. There was an atmosphere of shared experience that the modern corporate approach can't begin to simulate.

Oh yeah, and another thing: aren't those 'Chuck Taylors' George is wearing in that shot? A few years before they became "The Official Shoe Of The Punk Rock Movement"...

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:32 am

those 'Chuck Taylors' George is wearing were the official shoe in my Junior High in the mid sixties (in NYC). If you weren't wearing those you were L7.

(in the interest of full disclosure, Pro Keds were also acceptable)

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:22 pm

Great shot! Wonderful times those were. What happened that type of musical energy?

Can only imagine what the world would be like if the Beatles had survived like the Stones. Would have been quite a half time show this year.

string_along · Post by **string_along** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:21 pm

Those shoes remind me of the old "Joe Lapchick" basketball shoe sold by Kinney's!

expomick · Post by **expomick** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:04 pm

The Ramones were HUGE Beatles fans...hence the name of the band, the haircuts, the 14 songs per album.

Everything good is related.

And now...inner peace.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:14 am

Chuck Taylors are almost as cool as Jack Purcells, which of course Lennon is wearing on the cover of Abbey Road and James Dean wore in the 50s. Perhaps because of Let It Be, Taylors went far beyond punk by the time New Wave rolled around.