Eff you and your Beatles.
Those SOB’s helped lead a pied piper movement that led youth to drugs and counter culture destruction, and encouraged them to work for victory of communism in Vietnam.
Go to hell Mr. McCartney.
I must respectfully disagree. The Beatles were about as non-political as a successful rock band could get in the '60s.
Bob Dylan, The Doors, even Donovan and Joan Baez had more anti-war rhetoric in their songs than the Beatles, who did more to spoof the political mentality, as with their song Revolution.
The Beatles and the Rolling Stones (Street Fighting Man) were seen as burgeousie opportunists by the radical Left. No one took their songs seriously. I know, I was there.
As for 'Sir' Paul McCartney, all he has proved since the breakup of the Beatles is that he is incapable of writing quality songs on his own, same as John Lennon. But I can't hate him, nor feel sorry for him and his self-made wealth.
If the truth be known, the anti-establishment, proletarian-oriented music started with the Weavers and Pete Seeger, way back in the '50s. Now those were some real subversives.
Eff you and your Beatles.
Those SOB’s helped lead a pied piper movement that led youth to drugs and counter culture destruction, and encouraged them to work for victory of communism in Vietnam.
Go to hell Mr. McCartney.
Yes ... if you know the “lifestyle” behind the scenes, when they came here ... the womanzing, drug use etc. that went on ... I don’t believe another group or solo artist came close to their throw away people philosophy.