LETTERS  PCR #184      (September 29--October 5, 2003)

John Lewis comments on everything
Mack Beasley's final thoughts on the matter
Phil Frank rebukes Nolan's Iraq op-ed

Letters to the EditorWe welcome your feedback.

Hey Gang:
What's up? I heard a buzzing emanating from the letters Column over the last couple weeks so I thought I'd chime in.

1.) The Beatles - I love the band but I really had no use for them after Rubber Soul. The innocence of their early material is what helped sell the band.
2.) This one goes out to Phil. If you'd look up in the sky once in a while instead of burying your nose in a trash pile looking for snakes maybe you might be the next person to see a U. F. O. (LOL)  (Re: "Phil F. Rebukes Nolan's UFO Theory", last issue. Holey Moley!! THAT'S the "Phil Frank" who's been writing me??? I didn't think it was the same guy! Heck, I'll fill in his last name from now on--no more "Phil F"...LOL! Phil, BUDDY, where have you been??---Nolan)
3.) This one's for you, Nolan. Why are we in Iraq. (Re: "Iraq Revisited", PCR 183---N) Simple, it's a matter of Geography. Iraq and Afghanistan have opressed the peoples of their countries for years. Terrorism begins to grow and fester, spilling out into the rest of the world. Who sits right in between these two oppressed nations. Oh gee, it's Iran. They are growing, becoming more powerful. They also have screwed with us as well. You know; The Embassy, The Prisoners, Our dead soldiers displayed for us to see on television after a botched rescue attempt. Iran is moving into the nuclear age and could prove to be a real problem in the not-to-distant future. By controlling those "oppressed countries" on either side puts us in a good position to answer any call Iran might make. (Further bolstering what I said, which is our stated reasons for being over there now are lies---this is all about strategic initiatives. Positioning. Imperialism. Looking back, it's all obvious now. So, what, we couldn't handle the truth? And in what context does 9/11 belong now?---N)
4.) Iraq's illustrious leader; where is he??????????? We either offed him in that first attack or he opened a Stargate and got out of Dodge. Remember, that area of the world is highly mystical. Who knows what's under the sand out there.
5.) WMD'S- Where are they. Who knows. What he didn't use on his own people he probably took through the Stargate with him.

Anyway, keep up the good work guys. I look forward to reading the PCR every week. Have a good one. C-Ya!!!

John Lewis, The Creature From Clearwater
P. S. Where's the 1910 Fruit Gum Company when you need them. (LOL) Long live Snoopy and The Royal Guardsmen.


You and I could go back and forth on these issues forever, no problem, I have the time and the fact is I debate the issues because it's fun, not because I have any serious issues with you. (Re: the "Top Ten Albums of the '60s" debate which has raged here for the past 3 issues---N) I did enjoy repackaging your aggressive style and throwing it back at you.

Your absolutely right, Bob Dylan did tell John Lennon that Beatles music didn't have anything to say.... in 1965 (or thereabout) and John agreed and took the message to heart. Subsequent Beatles albums did offer more lyrical substance. Personally, I don't think every song has to have some deep significant message to be of value. Sometimes the music is great at face value regardless of what the message may be. Even Paul with his 'moon in June' stuff. The Beatles constantly reinvented their sound and messages. Sometimes just for fun (Octopus's Garden) other times because they had something to say. How many bands can do that successfully? Most groups are too terrified to change the formula that brought them any success. It seems obvious the band wasn't too afraid to have fun with the music. They didn't take themselves as serious as the rest of us did.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE BEATLES INVENTED EVERY SOUND OF THE '60s. What I did say was that had it not been for the Beatles the other bands would not have been an issue. The chances of Hendrix or Crimson being accepted in 1963 or 1964 would have been near impossible had it not been for the groundwork laid down by the Beatles. Thats simply the fact. The Beatles were so popular in the states that anything or anybody that had a british accent was an instant hit, thus the British Invation. Bands got airplay by virtue of being English and having long hair. The Beatles offered such a new sound and made so much money that most any bands with the Mersy beat were likely to be given a recording contract. Capitol records blew it so badly not signing the Beatles sooner (before VEE JAY) that no record company was ever gonna let that happen again! Thus thousands of other bands followed the Beatles success almost instantly. Hendrix a guy from Seattle had been around for some time before he was 'discovered' in England by Mickey Dolenze of the Monkees and brought to the states. It still took a while for his acceptance to arrive.

The Beatles did borrow from others, who doesn't? Do you think just maybe others borrowed from the Beatles? As far as I know, thats the way all music (art) works. If the Floyd sessions down the hall gave John an idea and he ran with it and had success as the Beatles, then Roger Waters should have thanked him for paving the way for Pink Floyd's future successes as well. I do agree Pink Floyd was the master of the "Inner Space" sound. Their one of my top five all time favorite bands.

As for the Fab Four having so much success. That seems to be what you really have an issue with. Maybe you think they were given too much. I know this, when the Beatles arrived, the world stopped and took notice. Everthing was the Beatles at that time, school lunch boxes, Beatles wigs, Saturday morning cartoons, Beatle boots, etc, etc. I've never seen anything like it since. They were only together for 7 years as a known band. During that brief period they dramatically influenced what was to become the identity of the 1960's, the music the fashions and the arts and to some degree the politics of the times. As a side issue, could care less about their individual efforts, it was as a band that they mattered.

One of the benefits many of us received, being a fan of the "British Invasion" was in developing an interest in what inspired the British sound. Most all the bands (to include Lonnie Donnigan and his Skiffle Band) would mention various American blues or country artist. That's why many of us wanted to know more about the history of our own music, blues or any other. Personally I like Stevie Ray a lot more than Tampa Red, the point is, it was the Beatles and even Elvis that provided the interest in this old music for most of us. They deserve all the accolades they ever received.

As to the commercial success of a band being a sell-out. Again I don't agree entirely. It seems that when a band (Metallica) gets a dose of commercial success with a new CD, the band somehow looses many of their original fans. When Enter Sandman came out, I thought it was a killer tune but many of the bands fans felt betrayed because the band had the gall to want more success and change their sound a bit on their latest release. As long as the band remains poor and plays in small venues thats fine but let them evolve and grow and... "holy crap, those miserable bastards are selling out"!!! Some people only like bands who remain in their cult phase and then have the integrity to fade away honorably. Better yet, they should die like a rock stars are supposed to...that is... plane wreck, drug overdose or gunshot. All of these choices are better than being accepted by millions, "My God I'm not a fringe individualist anymore, screw that band"

One more thing Terence, what the hell does a song lasting for more than five minutes or not having and extended guitar solo have to do with anything? If you mean do the Beatles songs go on and on aimlessly like an Allman Bros tune then you got me there, I wasn't aware that the longer the song and more mindless the guitar the better the band was. If your referring to commercial play how come all those Mudhoney and Pixies tunes you like (that were under five minutes) didn't get more airtime?

Some of us do our homework, sport.

Mack [Beasley]


I think your nocturnal lifestyle has somewhat limited you to a world view that is missing something. (Re: "Iraq Revisited", PCR #183---N)  You don't see the light !!! Actually, the confusion about the world (Iraq) and what we are up against can be simply understood by walking in their shoes. Picture this: You live in a world of extreme discipline. Suddenly with the aid an education and satellite TV you are bathed in a world of free thought and to your view, extreme decadence. You acknowledge it is fast-paced and exciting so you see it is extremely dangerous to your way of life. It has to be stopped!! After all, we are God's (Allah's) chosen people. We must secure our morality from the evil empire weighing heavily down upon our just necks. The lives of a few for the lives of many? Of course! The future of a great nation, THE nation of La. Unquestionably!

So who's right and who's wrong? If the landslide of evil education and the decadence of western society threatens all you hold dear, especially your very salvation and that of your children ANY means must be employed to stop it!

Now imagine our government looking for a way to hold back the tide of such an all out war against what our president aptly name, our "freedom" Politically correct to the end. We then must use ANY means to repel this serious threat. They mean to destroy all we hold dear and important!! Should we lie? YES!! Should we paint ideas in ours and others nations minds what these devils look and think like? Unquestionably!! (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) This is the real reason all this junk is happening. As far as who's right, who's wrong, are there WMD'S, did we get all the bad guys, etc. These aren't the real points anyway. This is about OUR way of life. And about THEIR way of life. And now the OPINIONS have it. Which way is the right way?

Phil F.

Ummm.....OK. Hard to tell when you're kidding or not Phil! The point I was trying to make originally was simply the weak, inconclusive evidence supporting the war and subseqent occupation of Iraq. I know why they hate us, my god it's obvious. Are they out to destroy us, so we must destroy them first? Well, that's not how we've done things in the past, Phil, we're usually attacked first. And we were. Just not by whom we're at war with right now. That's my problem. ---Nolan

To send an email to Letters to the Editor write to: Crazedfanboy1@aol.com.  Any emails sent to this address will be assumed intended for publication unless you specifically instruct me not to. I can and do respond privately, if that is your preference. Frequently, it's both ways.---Nolan

Back to top

Closing this browser window will return you to the homepage