MISS PATRICIA M HEFNER ([email protected])
Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:43:29, -0500
I *still* don't think that you can compare these two bands. They're too
different. They came along at different times in the history of rock
music. The Beatles had damn few influences because they came along only
a few years after the very first rock'n roll hit, "Rock Around the
Clock" by Bill Haley and the Comets. The music got rather sappy....and
then here came the Brits! It wasn't just the Beatles. It was also groups
that never made much of a showing in the States like the Yardbirds, who
were a *great* group. Two of their songs, "Heart Full of Soul" and
"Shapes of Things" are among my all-time faves. The Beatles evolved from
a young group doing songs lilke "Love Me Do" to songs like "Eleanor
Rigby" and albums like "Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Band". Yes,
there is the issue of drugs. I don't particularly think anyone was
making records while tripping on acid. Making records has always been
hard work and you can't do it when your head is blown on psychedelics.
If you must know, I tried these myself when I was in high school. I
hated them. They made me paranoid. But they were a factor in these
peoples' lives, so of course their music was influenced by them. Then
other acts came in, like Pink Floyd, who introduced electronics into
rock, David Bowie, and Roxy Music, and Genesis, (Peter Gabriel *started*
that band, then quit) who introduced theatrics into rock. Rock had
diversified greatly since the days of "Love Me Do". So it was only
fitting that another great group, U2, would be influenced by these
various modes of rock, but would always put their stamp on it.
Originality was as rare as hen's teeth in '80's rock but these guys had
it big time. Personally, I think comparing U2 and the Beatles is like
comparing apples to oranges. You can't really do it.
Just my purple tuppence for the day.
Pax,
Patricia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Dec 02 1998 - 17:06:27 PST