Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

You know,the look,the sound,the attitude.

I was watching some 7-part rock history thing on VH-1 Classic last night and they went back to the Stones.
BUT NO MENTION AT ALL OF THE BEATLES?
Um.....Ed Sullivan? Launching a million rock bands? Sure, the Who and the Kinks and the Stones were huge, but how can you not even MENTION the BEATLES in a history of Rock and Roll????

atomic_punk wrote:I was watching some 7-part rock history thing on VH-1 Classic last night and they went back to the Stones.
BUT NO MENTION AT ALL OF THE BEATLES?
Um.....Ed Sullivan? Launching a million rock bands? Sure, the Who and the Kinks and the Stones were huge, but how can you not even MENTION the BEATLES in a history of Rock and Roll????

Couldn't buy the rights to use their music?

I can't see how they couldnt have gotten some of their footage, even if they didn't show the songs. Threw the whole thing into BS-ville for me.

Well, the simple truth of the matter is that ANY discussion (be it about physics, astronomy, religion, or even porcupines) that doesn't mention The Fab Four is seriously off base. Therefore, this show was a dud by definition.

One things The Beatles had over the Stones was how they came across in interviews. Granted, Mick and Charlie looked like they were fairly stoned (on pot that is), but so were the Beatles after '64. In fact, at least some small degree of the Beatles success was due to the fact that they simply charmed the pants off of the press.

On another note, I know I'll get heat for this, but I've always thought that the VOX Teardrop guitar was one of the ugliest things to ever put on a set of strings.

brammy wrote:On another note, I know I'll get heat for this, but I've always thought that the VOX Teardrop guitar was one of the ugliest things to ever put on a set of strings.

...and I just bought my 3rd one.