smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Stewart Mason <flamingo@theworld.com> |
| Subject | Re: another Beatles? |
| Date | Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:16:17 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At 03:06 PM 8/4/2004 -0400, Miguel Motta wrote:
>...And I say this with respect... I'm sure your Aunt is a pretty music
>knowledgeable and enjoys a good tune, but the above comment cannot be the
>umbrella under which all first-generation Beatle fans (or any singer/group
>fan for that matter) be placed under... I'm not saying you're implying this;
>but rather just wanted to make it clear (as I'm sure you know) that one
>person's experience (or 1,000 people for that matter) doesn't mean that
>everyone was into the Beatles because of a semi-sexual-teeny-bopper
>experience...
Once again, Miguel: we tend not to like placing ALL people under ANY
umbrella round Audities parts, and that's not at all how I read Gary's
post; he wasn't claiming that his aunt was archetypal any more than I was
claiming that my wife was last night. We are the all-time master
hair-splitters here, and many of us love nothing more than coming up with
conflicting evidence and alternate theories.
>It's a well known fact that many teenage girls probably were
>focusing more on the puppylove-sexual vibes that these new "teenage idols"
>were sending their way... For some, JPG&R were just the next Ricky Nelsons
>and some fans, yes would buy the records, but more for pin-up reasons than
>the music itself...
Okay, NOBODY disses Ricky Nelson when I'm around. You want to talk prefab
teen idols, you can have Fabian as a generic example, but nobody who wasn't
on Sun Records or named Ronnie Dawson was making better pure rockabilly
records in the late '50s than Ricky.
S
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.