Posted on 07/22/2014 9:44:16 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
USA Today. No excerpts. Just title and link.
http://www.kare11.com/story/entertainment/music/2014/07/22/george-harrison-memorial-tree-killed-by-beetles/12985001/
Now we know
How many holes
It takes to fill
The Albert Hall
(Out of curiosity, was it a Northern Elm infested with Emerald Borer?)
Thanks for the info. VERY INTERESTING.
It looks like Buddy Holly really influenced a lot of later superstars.
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Byrds, Eric Clapton, Pete Townshend and Bruce Springsteen all freely admit they began to play only after Buddy taught them how. Though normal-sighted as a teenager, Elton John donned spectacles in imitation of the famous Holly horn-rims and ruined his eyesight as a result.
And let’s not forget the iconic AMERICAN PIE by Don McLean, which was a tribute to Holly.
One can only wonder how his music would have evolved had he lived longer...
This title's just .. seven .. words .. long
"Let me tell you something. We need a two and a half hour movie about the Doors? Folks, no we don't. I can sum it up for you in five seconds, ok. I'm drunk. I'm nobody. I'm drunk. I'm famous. I'm drunk. I'm f...ing dead. There's the whole movie, ok!? 'Big Fat Dead Guy in a Bath Tub', there's your title for you." - DENIS LEARY NO CURE FOR CANCER
I always had several interpretations of that song. most of them cenetering around the term “norwegian wood”.
Mind you, I was a pubescent teenager of minimal melanin at the time of the release. I stacked a lot of norwegian wood.
LOL — I wonder if that bugs the remaining Beetles er Beatles???
There was a FM station out of San Francisco, KSAN, that played a cut and randomly remixed version of Norwegian Wood called “Woodwegian Nord.” It actually made more sense than the original.
I don't see that at all. Their last two albums, Let It Be and Abbey Road , were both really good. Given the immediate successes of the individual careers of Paul, George, and Ringo, it didn't look like the Beatles were slowing down much. It could be argued that McCartney and Wings became the biggest act in the world once the Beatles broke up.
It was clear that the personal relationships were strained (particularly between Paul and John) but if they had acted like professionals and set aside those differences, they still had a lot of creative ideas. It was also clear that the world had not tired of the Beatles yet.
More that times were changing as the 70s came in. That’s not necessarily a comment on the quality of the music. But seven years is a pretty good run, all the same.
LOL
That’s rich...
#HIPSTERLENNONMUSTACHEANDGLASSES
All things must pass
Beetles, the Spice Bugs.
hahaha
That is a funny one.
Fair enough. Although given the commercial success of Paul, George, and Ringo in the 70s, it appears that they adapted pretty well to the evolving musical scene.
You're right that the musical scene was about to change in huge way in the mid-70s with disco taking over. Although some 60s performers had some success with disco, only the BeeGees thrived to be accompanied by a whole bunch of new acts.
All that has surfaced in all of these years is a drug fuel studio jam session from 1974 while John had escaped to LA to avoid Yoko.
I seriously doubt that they would still be a couple in 2014.
Also John was the last Beatle to sign the paperwork to dissolve the band.
There are bits and places where this Beatle collaborated or appeared with that one as they grew on. John and Paul would've likely done something together at some point if he hadn't been shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.