How could the history of the Beatles have been fabricated?
That's just laughable.
So the thousands of ppl who were involved, personally and in business, are all in on the lie?
Epstein died of drug overdose, happens all the time.
George died of cancer, happens all the time.
People die guys, and if you look at the music industry ppl tend to die younger.
Maybe it's the dugs and stressful lifestyle??? Huh?
As for the Sgt.Pepper cover, they were just ppl who the band either admired or they thought were controversial and well known at the time.
Yes there was '___' references, but how many times to I have to say that it DID NOT create
the drug culture, they were just following it.
You give them too much credit.
Again John called Paul stupid for thinking basically the same thing, that the Beatles were influencing culture when in reality they were just
Youth culture always starts in the underground and only becomes the mainstream if the media gets hold of it for some reason.
If any one is to blame for spreading drug use it's the media not rock bands.
Rock music started out as a rebellion against normal society, but the mainstream got a hold of it and took it's power away and turned it into a gravy
This silly theory of yours doesn't help, stop trying to discredit the bands and look at those that run the music industry.
I've never heard of Paul saying Norwegian Wood was about a lesbian, where did you get that from?
But seeing as how John wrote that song, what would Paul know anyway?
And I don't deny there was some drug influence, of course there was, but not in the way you are claiming. All you have to do is look at the history,
start around 1955 and work your way up to the end of the '60's and you'll see how silly this theory is.
Many bands were far more open about drugs than the Beatles, especially American artists, Gratefull Dead, Hendrix, Joplin, Jefferson Airplane etc..far
more open about drugs than the Beatles were.
You also need to read some more, the Beatles didn't have a 'meteoric rise to fame', it was long hard slog for them, as it is most bands.
And what bit in between has been left deliberately vague?
John didn't befriend Brian Epstein, well not till later
, again read something...
And what is so strange about John meeting Yoko at the Indica Gallery, ppl meet like that everyday.
You present a very simplified version of the breakup, didn't go down like you think.
Paul broke the Beatles up, his attitude wasn't going down well with the rest of the boys. They were growing up, getting married, making lifes outside
of the band.
John especially was tired of the whole scene and Paul was trying to push the band in his own direction, Paul with the Beatles as baking band.
John didn't like this, he was always the leader, but he was too involved in other things to assert himself as leader again.
John was the first to quit but was advised by Alen Klein to not say anything. Then Paul stole Johns fire once again and publicly quit the band.
As far as Johns change, he's talked about that a lot. For one it's called growing up. He was trying to ease his own guilt, but it was mostly a
front. He didn't really change that much.
You do know about the 'lost weekend' right? A year of drugs and violence in '74. No more mr.peace.
The 'official" Beatles story you talk about has been written by hundreds of different people, including friends, relatives, co-workers. How come
they don't contradict each other?
I've talked to ppl who were there (Gerry Marsdon for one). Was he part of it too?
But the real qustion is, do drugs help or hinder society? I believe they help.
Do you think there would have been ANY of the classic rock songs we have if it wasn't for drugs?
If it was a plan to bring society down with drugs, then their plan back fired.
[edit on 12/5/2006 by ANOK]