Da'Beatles will Humiliate GNR forever? it's up to us!

[jarmo]

Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

This thread has really turned ridiculous. You refuse to understand that the world looked different back when The Beatles were still around. Maybe you'd like to see how many acts at the time played in Latin America at the time before going on and on about it?

Still to this day, many bands skip Latin America on their tours. Pearl Jam played their first ever show in Mexico in 2003 and they've been touring since 1990! They've never played south of Mexico.

Maybe The Beatles didn't tour there because the market wasn't big? Could that be the case?

GN'R never played in my hometown. Fucking pansies, what are they afraid of? They should play every shithole there is even if there's no market for a concert there. Right?

I don't even know why I'm replying since you seem to take the fact that bands didn't tour in Latin America in the 60s/70s personally..... 


/jarmo

[pilferk]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?? Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

I'm not talking about fuckin somalia, they could've played Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico without a problem.

Do a little historical research.? Just a bit.?

There was little to no way they could play, in any sort of effective way, between '63 and 66, Argentina, Costa Rica, or Mexico.? ? Argentina was unstable, politically, during that time frame, with the government changing hands between the military and the civillians on a seemingly weekly basis (Peron was exiled in '55 and stability didn't really return until he returned in the early 70's).?

Costa Rica, at that time, was not exactly the safest country to be in.? Panama (it's neighbor) was going through untoward political upheavel (culminating in a military coup in '68).? Nicaragua, it's other neighbor, was also a hotbed of violence

And perhaps you've heard of "The Bay of Pigs" in '61 and "The Cuban Missle Crisis" in '62?? ?Both contributed to make Mexico (and much of Central America), given world events, less attractive and possibly less safe for any sort of event.? In addition, with the PRI in power, while Mexico had great economic growth, overall, the economy was VERY unstable.?

As I said in my initial post...it's not just BEATLES history people are forgetting, it's HISTORY, in general, and the events of the time that would be limiting factors.

Get off your high horse, I know my history.
I was born in Costa RIca, believe me, it's been safe since 1948. AS for Argentina and Mexico, they may have had their shit, but that doesnt mean the beatles couldn't go there. Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

BEATLES = BUNCH OF PANZIES, oh I'm so scared, there's a civil war there , I won't play, boofuckin hoo. Ill just play to screaming teenies who cry when I sing because they think about their 15 min long relationships with their pimplefaced shithead boyfriends.

 

Right, GnR was willing to play in practical war zones, with their safety unable to be gaurenteed, and risk their lives to bring the music to "the people". ?They were on the front lines of the Gulf War, singing "Welcome to the Jungle" outside Baghdad, right (Of course, confronted with a malfunctioning ear monitor...Axl screamed like a baby and headed for the hills)?. ?You keep right on believing that. ?It ain't true, but..whatever get's you through the night, big guy. ?The Beatles did what they could do in the era they were in. ?It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. ?GnR had MANY more opportunities, 20+ year later. ?If you can't grasp that concept, simple as it is, I think that speaks VOLUMES about whatever you might add to this discussion. ?Really....to compare touring in the two eras really is comparing appleseeds to jet airplanes.

And the Beatles weren't touring in the 70's. ?Early to Mid 60's. ?Again, with the history.

And if you REALLY knew your history, I wouldn't have to keep explaining to you WHY, during that time frame, the Beatles weren't touring Central America or other politically charged areas of the world. ?You'd have known already. ?You said there was no reason why they couldn't have toured those areas. ?You were incorrect. ?There WERE reasons. ?You might not like the reasons..but they exist all the same. ?Oh, and if you were born in Costa Rica, you know they have no army....and you SHOULD know that, in the 60's, the US AND the UK were advising all it's citizens to stay out of Central America. ?All of it. ?You SHOULD know this because it had a pretty profound effect on the Costa Rican economy, in particular.

Pssshhhhaaawwww. ?Get off MY high horse? How about you crack a book so I don't have to keep doing research FOR you, eh? ?

[Wooody]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?? Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

I'm not talking about fuckin somalia, they could've played Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico without a problem.

Do a little historical research.? Just a bit.?

There was little to no way they could play, in any sort of effective way, between '63 and 66, Argentina, Costa Rica, or Mexico.? ? Argentina was unstable, politically, during that time frame, with the government changing hands between the military and the civillians on a seemingly weekly basis (Peron was exiled in '55 and stability didn't really return until he returned in the early 70's).?

Costa Rica, at that time, was not exactly the safest country to be in.? Panama (it's neighbor) was going through untoward political upheavel (culminating in a military coup in '68).? Nicaragua, it's other neighbor, was also a hotbed of violence

And perhaps you've heard of "The Bay of Pigs" in '61 and "The Cuban Missle Crisis" in '62?? ?Both contributed to make Mexico (and much of Central America), given world events, less attractive and possibly less safe for any sort of event.? In addition, with the PRI in power, while Mexico had great economic growth, overall, the economy was VERY unstable.?

As I said in my initial post...it's not just BEATLES history people are forgetting, it's HISTORY, in general, and the events of the time that would be limiting factors.

Get off your high horse, I know my history.
I was born in Costa RIca, believe me, it's been safe since 1948. AS for Argentina and Mexico, they may have had their shit, but that doesnt mean the beatles couldn't go there. Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

BEATLES = BUNCH OF PANZIES, oh I'm so scared, there's a civil war there , I won't play, boofuckin hoo. Ill just play to screaming teenies who cry when I sing because they think about their 15 min long relationships with their pimplefaced shithead boyfriends.

 

Right, GnR was willing to play in practical war zones, with their safety unable to be gaurenteed, and risk their lives to bring the music to "the people". ?They were on the front lines of the Gulf War, singing "Welcome to the Jungle" outside Baghdad, right (Of course, confronted with a malfunctioning ear monitor...Axl screamed like a baby and headed for the hills)?. ?You keep right on believing that. ?It ain't true, but..whatever get's you through the night, big guy. ?The Beatles did what they could do in the era they were in. ?It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. ?GnR had MANY more opportunities, 20+ year later. ?If you can't grasp that concept, simple as it is, I think that speaks VOLUMES about whatever you might add to this discussion. ?Really....to compare touring in the two eras really is comparing appleseeds to jet airplanes.

And the Beatles weren't touring in the 70's. ?Early to Mid 60's. ?Again, with the history.

And if you REALLY knew your history, I wouldn't have to keep explaining to you WHY, during that time frame, the Beatles weren't touring Central America or other politically charged areas of the world. ?You'd have known already. ?You said there was no reason why they couldn't have toured those areas. ?You were incorrect. ?There WERE reasons. ?You might not like the reasons..but they exist all the same. ?Oh, and if you were born in Costa Rica, you know they have no army....and you SHOULD know that, in the 60's, the US AND the UK were advising all it's citizens to stay out of Central America. ?All of it. ?You SHOULD know this because it had a pretty profound effect on the Costa Rican economy, in particular.

Pssshhhhaaawwww. ?Get off MY high horse? How about you crack a book so I don't have to keep doing research FOR you, eh? ?

Err, what are you trying to prove by putting words in my mouth :-) Of course I know Costa Rica has no army, I never said the contrary :-) I don't care what the US and the UK were advising, they practically created all the mess, mostly the US though. It was still possible to tour there if you had a set of balls, regular balls, not even big ones. (and the beatles didn't have)

60's, 70's, shmellys, they were all fucked up, even the 80's. That don't change the fact that the beatles were pussies, how about all those bands who went to play for the US troops in vietnam ? 

[Wooody]

I don't even know why I'm replying since you seem to take the fact that bands didn't tour in Latin America in the 60s/70s personally.....?


/jarmo

I don't take it personally, bands did play there, just not pussy bands like the beatles 

[gilld1]

Why would any band want to tour there?  There are only about 12 people in the entire region that can buy tickets. 

My vote goes to Woody for the biggest dumbass on the board!

[pilferk]

I don't even know why I'm replying since you seem to take the fact that bands didn't tour in Latin America in the 60s/70s personally.....?


/jarmo

I don't take it personally, bands did play there, just not pussy bands like the beatles?

As jarmo suggested in his post...like, fer instance, who?? During the early and mid 60's? Big acts from the US and/or UK?

You, sir, have proven you have not a whit of knowledge about what you speak.? And as such...I'm quite done with you.? Your original assertion was there was no reason the Beatles couldn't play places like Argentina, Costa Rica, and Mexico.? That has been proven summarily false.? Instead of accepting it, and moving on...you continue to rail away incoherently about who's a pussy and who's not.? Personally, I say...you are what you eat, so....

Please continue to rant maniacally about which bands are "pussies" (wtf does that have to do with anything, anyway?) and which are not.? Rant about who has bigger balls than who.? I will promptly ignore your inanity, henceforth.? You've proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are incapable of intelligent discourse, of adding anything meaningful to the discussion, in your failure to grasp the simplest of concepts: Then is not now.? Then is not the 90's.? Then was then.

[Wooody]

I don't even know why I'm replying since you seem to take the fact that bands didn't tour in Latin America in the 60s/70s personally.....?


/jarmo

I don't take it personally, bands did play there, just not pussy bands like the beatles?

As jarmo suggested in his post...like, fer instance, who?? During the early and mid 60's? Big acts from the US and/or UK?

You, sir, have proven you have not a whit of knowledge about what you speak.? And as such...I'm quite done with you.? Your original assertion was there was no reason the Beatles couldn't play places like Argentina, Costa Rica, and Mexico.? That has been proven summarily false.? Instead of accepting it, and moving on...you continue to rail away incoherently about who's a pussy and who's not.? Personally, I say...you are what you eat, so....

Please continue to rant maniacally about which bands are "pussies" (wtf does that have to do with anything, anyway?) and which are not.? Rant about who has bigger balls than who.? I will promptly ignore your inanity, henceforth.? You've proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are incapable of intelligent discourse in your failure to grasp the simplest of concepts: Then is not now.? Then is not the 90's.? Then was then.

it sure took you a while to try and sound intelligent, nice choice of words, " discourse, grasp (you used that one twice ) promptly, inanity, henceforth, etc." looks like you're trying to impress yourself. it's pathetic but quite amusing.
I stand by what I said, bands did tour Latinamerica during the 60's and 70's, and Costa Rica was definitely not a dangerous country to go to. Why didn't the Beatles tour there? money ? fear? who cares, in the end they didn't when they could have, and that's a fact.

[jarmo]

it sure took you a while to try and sound intelligent, nice choice of words, " discourse, grasp (you used that one twice ) promptly, inanity, henceforth, etc." looks like you're trying to impress yourself. it's pathetic but quite amusing.
I stand by what I said, bands did tour Latinamerica during the 60's and 70's, and Costa Rica was definitely not a dangerous country to go to. Why didn't the Beatles tour there? money ? fear? who cares, in the end they didn't when they could have, and that's a fact.

Costa Rica? GN'R didn't even play there!

Here's some big bands from the 60s/70s, let us know which ones played in South America (I'm too lazy to look it up myself and since I'm bored, I might as well have some "fun" here):

The Rolling Stones
The Who
Jimi Hendrix
Led Zeppelin
Elvis Presley
The Beach Boys
The Monkees
The Doors
Bob Dylan

 

So please enlighten us, which of those toured in South America? Thank you.



/jarmo

[conny]

which of those toured in South America?

The Doors played in Mexico. (Yes, the original Doors with Jim Morrison)

Not that this would add anything to the "discussion", but I just felt like sharing that information.

[pilferk]

which of those toured in South America?

The Doors played in Mexico. (Yes, the original Doors with Jim Morrison)

Not that this would add anything to the "discussion", but I just felt like sharing that information.

True.  They played Mexico City in late '69.  From what I've heard about that show, they were actually invited to play by The Office of the President, supposedly at the urging of the President's son....not sure how true that is, of course, but it's the story that's followed that particular show around.

[Booker Floyd]

This thread has really turned ridiculous.

Turned ridiculous?  This thread has been ridiculous since post #1...

[conny]

Holy shit! I just went through this topic and...well, I hope not too many people read it. It's embarassing for GN'R fans.

Not to add to this embarassement, but to clear up some things, here are some FACTS for the confused kids among you:

The Beatles developed / discovered some sort of "formula" in songwriting and appereance like no one did before them. It has worked ever since, they just happened to be the first. Also, they went through a progression, going from nice and easy pop music (wich was a lot better than the by then washed up Elvis or mindless "let's go to the drive-in" surf music) to more complex, artificial and elaborate stuff incl. lots of recording studio experiments. And they were among the first "pop" artists to that, opening the doors for many other artists by not relying on their "formula" but rather experiment and move on, takng the fans on a journey. So for many people (especially those who grew up with them) they are icons - just like GN'R (for the very same reasons: no Beatles = no Hendrix, no AFD = no Nevermind - because the ears needed to be opened first) are icons for us.

However, in that era, there have been many artists that were more skilled songwriters, instrumentalists and producers and even more daring and progressive than The Beatles. Some recommended listening: Bob Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" (bringing poetry and folk music to rock and vice versa), Hendrix' "Electric Ladyland" (in case you wonder: the greatest album ever was made in 1968) and "Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys (brillant concept album and production masterpiece) - all from the same time, and these albums blow any Beatles album out of the fucken water. So much for the 60's.

(I for one don't like The Beatles. I think John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" and "Imagine" outshine anything Paul McCartney or The Beatles ever did by a mile. But that's just me...)

Now what does all that have to do with GN'R? Absolutely nothing. Guns N' Roses had their roots in the 70's - Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones (Banquet to Exile era), AC/DC, Elton John, even Pink Floyd. (Does the name Bob Ezrin (sp.) ring any bell?) - And GN'R brought back some of that era's values, spirit and attitude along with an edge, vulnerability and sincerity into the 80's - a time when music and culture was dying for these things.

In the post war 1950's, people wanted to forget and move on and got music that made them forget and move on. In the 60's people wanted to progress - The Beatles, Hendrix, Dylan...? In the 70's the hangover from the 60's went up people's heads and their kids rebelled against it -> Floyd / Punk. The 80's and 90's most of you should have experienced yourself.

What I'm saying is do the math and do your homework before you post so much bullshit about bands and especially about interactions in music that you obviously have no clue about.

I'm sure the majority of the posters won't agree or even understand on what I just said, but for this post is for the few that do, so I don't care.

[jarmo]

This thread has really turned ridiculous.

Turned ridiculous?? This thread has been ridiculous since post #1...

Yes it has!

I'm interested in hearing Woody's thoughts about the big concert market that South America was in the 60s/70s.....

Yes, I'm that bored and I can't believe some of the posts I've read in this thread....




/jarmo

[AxlRoseVen]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?? Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

I'm not talking about fuckin somalia, they could've played Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico without a problem.

Do a little historical research.? Just a bit.?

There was little to no way they could play, in any sort of effective way, between '63 and 66, Argentina, Costa Rica, or Mexico.? ? Argentina was unstable, politically, during that time frame, with the government changing hands between the military and the civillians on a seemingly weekly basis (Peron was exiled in '55 and stability didn't really return until he returned in the early 70's).?

Costa Rica, at that time, was not exactly the safest country to be in.? Panama (it's neighbor) was going through untoward political upheavel (culminating in a military coup in '68).? Nicaragua, it's other neighbor, was also a hotbed of violence

And perhaps you've heard of "The Bay of Pigs" in '61 and "The Cuban Missle Crisis" in '62?? ?Both contributed to make Mexico (and much of Central America), given world events, less attractive and possibly less safe for any sort of event.? In addition, with the PRI in power, while Mexico had great economic growth, overall, the economy was VERY unstable.?

As I said in my initial post...it's not just BEATLES history people are forgetting, it's HISTORY, in general, and the events of the time that would be limiting factors.

Get off your high horse, I know my history.
I was born in Costa RIca, believe me, it's been safe since 1948. AS for Argentina and Mexico, they may have had their shit, but that doesnt mean the beatles couldn't go there. Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

BEATLES = BUNCH OF PANZIES, oh I'm so scared, there's a civil war there , I won't play, boofuckin hoo. Ill just play to screaming teenies who cry when I sing because they think about their 15 min long relationships with their pimplefaced shithead boyfriends.

 

Right, GnR was willing to play in practical war zones, with their safety unable to be gaurenteed, and risk their lives to bring the music to "the people". ?They were on the front lines of the Gulf War, singing "Welcome to the Jungle" outside Baghdad, right (Of course, confronted with a malfunctioning ear monitor...Axl screamed like a baby and headed for the hills)?. ?You keep right on believing that. ?It ain't true, but..whatever get's you through the night, big guy. ?The Beatles did what they could do in the era they were in. ?It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. ?GnR had MANY more opportunities, 20+ year later. ?If you can't grasp that concept, simple as it is, I think that speaks VOLUMES about whatever you might add to this discussion. ?Really....to compare touring in the two eras really is comparing appleseeds to jet airplanes.

And the Beatles weren't touring in the 70's. ?Early to Mid 60's. ?Again, with the history.

And if you REALLY knew your history, I wouldn't have to keep explaining to you WHY, during that time frame, the Beatles weren't touring Central America or other politically charged areas of the world. ?You'd have known already. ?You said there was no reason why they couldn't have toured those areas. ?You were incorrect. ?There WERE reasons. ?You might not like the reasons..but they exist all the same. ?Oh, and if you were born in Costa Rica, you know they have no army....and you SHOULD know that, in the 60's, the US AND the UK were advising all it's citizens to stay out of Central America. ?All of it. ?You SHOULD know this because it had a pretty profound effect on the Costa Rican economy, in particular.

Pssshhhhaaawwww. ?Get off MY high horse? How about you crack a book so I don't have to keep doing research FOR you, eh? ?

Err, what are you trying to prove by putting words in my mouth :-) Of course I know Costa Rica has no army, I never said the contrary :-) I don't care what the US and the UK were advising, they practically created all the mess, mostly the US though. It was still possible to tour there if you had a set of balls, regular balls, not even big ones. (and the beatles didn't have)

60's, 70's, shmellys, they were all fucked up, even the 80's. That don't change the fact that the beatles were pussies, how about all those bands who went to play for the US troops in vietnam ??

you're so right, you do know how to kick in the ass cuz everyone doesn't wanna tell the truth about it but i will :

the most important countries of Latin America are :

-Venezuela
-Mexico
-Panama
-Colombia
-Puerto Rico(USA Area)
-Chile
-Argentina
-Brazil

...if you think about other countries in Latin America they've not been so rich like
us to buy tickets to see a' amazing band like GNR BUT they're great persons like us all !!!!?
...so these rich countries were fine in 1962 although most people know that Argentina, Panama n' Chile had Serious political problems some times, example : Argentina-1977, Chile-1973 n' Panama-1989 but should it mean the Beatles couldn't play over there BEFORE? ? well the correct answer is : they didn't play over Latin America cuz those times they knew they just had fans in New york city, New York city, New York City, New York City n' U.K so that's what i call a real famous band? ? ...so that means the Beatles sucks more than ever cuz they have tried to be famous like GOD when a simple baby might notice their music ain't cost a thing from the start! if you buy their albums something so fucking wrong is happenin' into your mind dudes!

oh this is for someone who said Paul isn't the Beatles : dude step down for once, don't try to protect those fucking suckers cuz Paul is a' ex-Beatles member n' the guy is supposedly famous like GOD so why he couldn't play in South America yet? cuz over here no one is so fucking nuts to spend money buyin' his tickets? ...got it??

[usurper]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?? Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

I'm not talking about fuckin somalia, they could've played Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico without a problem.

Do a little historical research.? Just a bit.?

There was little to no way they could play, in any sort of effective way, between '63 and 66, Argentina, Costa Rica, or Mexico.? ? Argentina was unstable, politically, during that time frame, with the government changing hands between the military and the civillians on a seemingly weekly basis (Peron was exiled in '55 and stability didn't really return until he returned in the early 70's).?

Costa Rica, at that time, was not exactly the safest country to be in.? Panama (it's neighbor) was going through untoward political upheavel (culminating in a military coup in '68).? Nicaragua, it's other neighbor, was also a hotbed of violence

And perhaps you've heard of "The Bay of Pigs" in '61 and "The Cuban Missle Crisis" in '62?? ?Both contributed to make Mexico (and much of Central America), given world events, less attractive and possibly less safe for any sort of event.? In addition, with the PRI in power, while Mexico had great economic growth, overall, the economy was VERY unstable.?

As I said in my initial post...it's not just BEATLES history people are forgetting, it's HISTORY, in general, and the events of the time that would be limiting factors.

Get off your high horse, I know my history.
I was born in Costa RIca, believe me, it's been safe since 1948. AS for Argentina and Mexico, they may have had their shit, but that doesnt mean the beatles couldn't go there. Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

BEATLES = BUNCH OF PANZIES, oh I'm so scared, there's a civil war there , I won't play, boofuckin hoo. Ill just play to screaming teenies who cry when I sing because they think about their 15 min long relationships with their pimplefaced shithead boyfriends.

 

Right, GnR was willing to play in practical war zones, with their safety unable to be gaurenteed, and risk their lives to bring the music to "the people". ?They were on the front lines of the Gulf War, singing "Welcome to the Jungle" outside Baghdad, right (Of course, confronted with a malfunctioning ear monitor...Axl screamed like a baby and headed for the hills)?. ?You keep right on believing that. ?It ain't true, but..whatever get's you through the night, big guy. ?The Beatles did what they could do in the era they were in. ?It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. ?GnR had MANY more opportunities, 20+ year later. ?If you can't grasp that concept, simple as it is, I think that speaks VOLUMES about whatever you might add to this discussion. ?Really....to compare touring in the two eras really is comparing appleseeds to jet airplanes.

And the Beatles weren't touring in the 70's. ?Early to Mid 60's. ?Again, with the history.

And if you REALLY knew your history, I wouldn't have to keep explaining to you WHY, during that time frame, the Beatles weren't touring Central America or other politically charged areas of the world. ?You'd have known already. ?You said there was no reason why they couldn't have toured those areas. ?You were incorrect. ?There WERE reasons. ?You might not like the reasons..but they exist all the same. ?Oh, and if you were born in Costa Rica, you know they have no army....and you SHOULD know that, in the 60's, the US AND the UK were advising all it's citizens to stay out of Central America. ?All of it. ?You SHOULD know this because it had a pretty profound effect on the Costa Rican economy, in particular.

Pssshhhhaaawwww. ?Get off MY high horse? How about you crack a book so I don't have to keep doing research FOR you, eh? ?

Err, what are you trying to prove by putting words in my mouth :-) Of course I know Costa Rica has no army, I never said the contrary :-) I don't care what the US and the UK were advising, they practically created all the mess, mostly the US though. It was still possible to tour there if you had a set of balls, regular balls, not even big ones. (and the beatles didn't have)

60's, 70's, shmellys, they were all fucked up, even the 80's. That don't change the fact that the beatles were pussies, how about all those bands who went to play for the US troops in vietnam ??

you're so right, you do know how to kick in the ass cuz everyone doesn't wanna tell the truth about it but i will :

the most important countries of Latin America are :

-Venezuela
-Mexico
-Panama
-Colombia
-Puerto Rico(USA Area)
-Chile
-Argentina
-Brazil

...if you think about other countries in Latin America they've not been so rich like
us to buy tickets to see a' amazing band like GNR BUT they're great persons like us all !!!!?
...so these rich countries were fine in 1962 although most people know that Argentina, Panama n' Chile had Serious political problems some times, example : Argentina-1977, Chile-1973 n' Panama-1989 but should it mean the Beatles couldn't play over there BEFORE? ? well the correct answer is : they didn't play over Latin America cuz those times they knew they just had fans in New york city, New York city, New York City, New York City n' U.K so that's what i call a real famous band? ? ...so that means the Beatles sucks more than ever cuz they have tried to be famous like GOD when a simple baby might notice their music ain't cost a thing from the start! if you buy their albums something so fucking wrong is happenin' into your mind dudes!

oh this is for someone who said Paul isn't the Beatles : dude step down for once, don't try to protect those fucking suckers cuz Paul is a' ex-Beatles member n' the guy is supposedly famous like GOD so why he couldn't play in South America yet? cuz over here no one is so fucking nuts to spend money buyin' his tickets? ...got it??

I think I understood some of that, it is a htgth.com first!

[dENIS]

Dude, I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about...

Yeah!

[electricmage]

which of those toured in South America?

The Doors played in Mexico. (Yes, the original Doors with Jim Morrison)

Not that this would add anything to the "discussion", but I just felt like sharing that information.

The doors played Mexico as a result of the backlash due to the Miami trial. After Jim Allegedly flashed the audience. It was the only place to play until the heat died down. It was a last resort.
But you didn't know that did you?

[electricmage]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?? Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

I'm not talking about fuckin somalia, they could've played Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico without a problem.

Do a little historical research.? Just a bit.?

There was little to no way they could play, in any sort of effective way, between '63 and 66, Argentina, Costa Rica, or Mexico.? ? Argentina was unstable, politically, during that time frame, with the government changing hands between the military and the civillians on a seemingly weekly basis (Peron was exiled in '55 and stability didn't really return until he returned in the early 70's).?

Costa Rica, at that time, was not exactly the safest country to be in.? Panama (it's neighbor) was going through untoward political upheavel (culminating in a military coup in '68).? Nicaragua, it's other neighbor, was also a hotbed of violence

And perhaps you've heard of "The Bay of Pigs" in '61 and "The Cuban Missle Crisis" in '62?? ?Both contributed to make Mexico (and much of Central America), given world events, less attractive and possibly less safe for any sort of event.? In addition, with the PRI in power, while Mexico had great economic growth, overall, the economy was VERY unstable.?

As I said in my initial post...it's not just BEATLES history people are forgetting, it's HISTORY, in general, and the events of the time that would be limiting factors.

Get off your high horse, I know my history.
I was born in Costa RIca, believe me, it's been safe since 1948. AS for Argentina and Mexico, they may have had their shit, but that doesnt mean the beatles couldn't go there. Singers from Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes to Tania Libertad and Fatty mercedes sosa toured constantly all over latinamerica in the 70's without caring about shit. Scared a bit ? pussies. GNR went to countries that don't even exist anymore, they didn't give a shit.

BEATLES = BUNCH OF PANZIES, oh I'm so scared, there's a civil war there , I won't play, boofuckin hoo. Ill just play to screaming teenies who cry when I sing because they think about their 15 min long relationships with their pimplefaced shithead boyfriends.

 

Right, GnR was willing to play in practical war zones, with their safety unable to be gaurenteed, and risk their lives to bring the music to "the people". ?They were on the front lines of the Gulf War, singing "Welcome to the Jungle" outside Baghdad, right (Of course, confronted with a malfunctioning ear monitor...Axl screamed like a baby and headed for the hills)?. ?You keep right on believing that. ?It ain't true, but..whatever get's you through the night, big guy. ?The Beatles did what they could do in the era they were in. ?It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. ?GnR had MANY more opportunities, 20+ year later. ?If you can't grasp that concept, simple as it is, I think that speaks VOLUMES about whatever you might add to this discussion. ?Really....to compare touring in the two eras really is comparing appleseeds to jet airplanes.

And the Beatles weren't touring in the 70's. ?Early to Mid 60's. ?Again, with the history.

And if you REALLY knew your history, I wouldn't have to keep explaining to you WHY, during that time frame, the Beatles weren't touring Central America or other politically charged areas of the world. ?You'd have known already. ?You said there was no reason why they couldn't have toured those areas. ?You were incorrect. ?There WERE reasons. ?You might not like the reasons..but they exist all the same. ?Oh, and if you were born in Costa Rica, you know they have no army....and you SHOULD know that, in the 60's, the US AND the UK were advising all it's citizens to stay out of Central America. ?All of it. ?You SHOULD know this because it had a pretty profound effect on the Costa Rican economy, in particular.

Pssshhhhaaawwww. ?Get off MY high horse? How about you crack a book so I don't have to keep doing research FOR you, eh? ?

Err, what are you trying to prove by putting words in my mouth :-) Of course I know Costa Rica has no army, I never said the contrary :-) I don't care what the US and the UK were advising, they practically created all the mess, mostly the US though. It was still possible to tour there if you had a set of balls, regular balls, not even big ones. (and the beatles didn't have)

60's, 70's, shmellys, they were all fucked up, even the 80's. That don't change the fact that the beatles were pussies, how about all those bands who went to play for the US troops in vietnam ??

you're so right, you do know how to kick in the ass cuz everyone doesn't wanna tell the truth about it but i will :

the most important countries of Latin America are :

-Venezuela
-Mexico
-Panama
-Colombia
-Puerto Rico(USA Area)
-Chile
-Argentina
-Brazil

...if you think about other countries in Latin America they've not been so rich like
us to buy tickets to see a' amazing band like GNR BUT they're great persons like us all !!!!?
...so these rich countries were fine in 1962 although most people know that Argentina, Panama n' Chile had Serious political problems some times, example : Argentina-1977, Chile-1973 n' Panama-1989 but should it mean the Beatles couldn't play over there BEFORE? ? well the correct answer is : they didn't play over Latin America cuz those times they knew they just had fans in New york city, New York city, New York City, New York City n' U.K so that's what i call a real famous band? ? ...so that means the Beatles sucks more than ever cuz they have tried to be famous like GOD when a simple baby might notice their music ain't cost a thing from the start! if you buy their albums something so fucking wrong is happenin' into your mind dudes!

oh this is for someone who said Paul isn't the Beatles : dude step down for once, don't try to protect those fucking suckers cuz Paul is a' ex-Beatles member n' the guy is supposedly famous like GOD so why he couldn't play in South America yet? cuz over here no one is so fucking nuts to spend money buyin' his tickets? ...got it??

sorry Jarmo, I can't resist.

AxlRoseVen, you have got to be the dumbest son of a bitch I have ever had the displeasure of encountering on this board. Your posts make about as much sense as a pornstar with morals. For the last time, shut the fuck up and find another place to post. I'd say, the Britney Spears message board. You will be pleased to know that there are other people with a second grade reading/writing level there also.

[FlashFlood]

maybe they didnt want to tour there because everybody in south america smells like tacos.

[AxlRoseVen]

hey electricmage what's wrong with you?...Folk!, you just hate me cuz you always sing "let it be" when you hide alone in your room but that's your problem n' not mine!? if you can't stop bein' a Beatles fan so call your Dr soon but don't insult me this way again! cuz i'm not offending nobody in here
 ... now i'll open your eyes up once again to make you see why the Beatles shouldn't be the rock band number 1! :? ?
-The Beatles are an overrated boyband from the 60's for 12 year old girls, who had a very cunning PR crew behind them with a lot of shit into their poor minds so those bunch of white boys from the suburbs who got chosen by the industry to make billions,that's it!
-? ?? I DON'T HATE GAYS CUZ WE'RE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, we're all sons of GOD, we're all must be respected but the beatle manager was a bussines gay who did know how to get millionaire contracts in UK n' USA , the Beatles were famous suddenly cuz their ex-manager was in love with Paul so the guy did his best to take these british boys out of England that time, that's the reason why they didn't have many problems to be rich n' famous those times when England was really living bad momemts,If you don't believe me yet let me tell ya : there's a Beatles movie that shows what i'm talkin' about!, i mean it shows the way their ex-manager was in love with Lennon n' Paul when he saw them for the first time while they were playin' in 1961 in Liverpool so this shit is just dumb and noone who knows about shit votes for the fucking beatles!, who the fuck even bought beatle song anyways!!!!!? ?? . noone because the beatles were shit and that's all axl rose is better than any of the bealtes cause he actaully knows about the music and what the fuck to sing. can the beatles sing?. no!, because they're crap just like crap. can Axl sing the Beatles songs? yes cuz he has a' amazing voice but could the Beatles sing n' play songs like Locomotovie, Coma n' don't cry? No!, because they ain't amazing like GNR
-Did gnr have to sleep with their manager to be famous like the Beatles? NO THEY DIDN'T! so that makes a great difference between these rock bands!
-so something ain't right with that, first off, someone can say : the beatkles were OK. not too bad, not particularly good. but better than GNR??? wtf are u thinkin??? john lennon was an overrated peace lovin' treehuggin turd. he couldn't write shit. ...'imagine'?? wtf is that all about john?? c'mon get a grip!!!? ? . r u ppl seriously belivin' that john lennon was a better song writter than axl??? omfg. that is weird.? ?? ?
-axl pulls off masterpieces like sweet child o'mine, november rain, estranged and these are just the slower ones with superb lyrical content!!!!!? ? . when u take into account the faster, heavier songs like 'jungle and coma, 'city and mr. brownstone etc etc... it puts thing into perspective. after all.............
 ? -so Peace, don't kill each other cuz this world is for us all n' please remember :? 'WHAT THE WORLD REALLY NEEDS IS GNR!!!!'?