Wednesday, January 30, 2013

A third of a century

That's how long it's been since The Beatles* had their last pubic performance.





* Go ask your parents, kids.

8 comments:

  1. Old NFOJanuary 30, 2013 at 8:44 PM

    Damn... I'm getting old... I remember them appearing on Ed Sullivan...

    ReplyDelete
  2. New Jovian ThunderboltJanuary 30, 2013 at 9:14 PM

    I'd pay $10000 never to hear about them ever again. Or at least to hear about THEM as much as people heard about Al Jolson's music from 1936 in 1969. That would be infrequent enough.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BorepatchJanuary 30, 2013 at 9:16 PM

    T-Bolt, get offa my lawn. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1389January 30, 2013 at 10:33 PM

    Pubic performance?

    Ya mean "Two Virgins"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hat TrickJanuary 30, 2013 at 11:46 PM

    Might recheck your math. Hasn't it been 44 years?

    ReplyDelete
  6. eiaftinfoJanuary 31, 2013 at 8:27 AM

    My lovely wife would still boot be out for a chance at Paul . . . . sigh. She went to the 2nd tour concert in Detroit . . . not that I would EVER remind her how many years ago that was. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 31, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    I'll take Iron Maiden instead. Or from that era, the Rolling Stones, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  8. UnknownJanuary 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM

    Most of the pre-Beatles rock music I can recall was either I-IV-V and a shot of rotgut or I-vi-ii-V and a sack of raging hormones. Like them or not--and there are some solidly arguable reasons to not be too impressed with them as people--they did make popular music a lot more interesting from a purely musical standpoint.

    When I switched from choir to band at age 11, the Beatles turned out to be my gateway drug (so to speak) to classical and jazz. I've gotta give 'em some credit for that.

    ReplyDelete

Remember your manners when you post. Anonymous comments are not allowed because of the plague of spam comments.