Just heard Robert Elms and Neil Innes debating not the legacy of the Beatles – see reissues, video games, tribute bands and all – but whether they were any good. Inevitably the discussion turned to the subject of Innes’s own contribution, and he came up with a comment that stumped all present: “The Beatles would not have been the Beatles without the Rutles.”
Magnificent stuff. The author is not only dead, he’s rotting.
PS: Two more excellent posts on the ubiquity of the Fabs, from Art of Fiction and Betty Utility. Because rumours of the death of blogging are premature.
PPS: And this, from John Harris.
5 comments:
You see, this makes me a bit of a neanderthal, but I just don't get the Beatles.
I'm wiv the twazmuppetmeister... pleasant but over-rated popsters with the odd highlight (A Day in the Life) but not in the same league as Dylan or the Stones.
Neil Innes, though, is sheer genius. The fact that he saw no Royalties for his brilliant pastiche is an affront to natural justice. What a shame Viv Stanshall isn't still around to take the piss.
PS You were brilliant on Sky TV...I recorded it whilst away. Awesome cool nerve on live TV, a complete natural.
Must dash before I turn into a stalker....
Elms has been on this Beatles schtick for as long as I can remember.
He is a fraud who loves to present himself as controversial but is, in fact, as conventional and whitebread as Alan Titchmarsh.
Neil Innes, on the other hand, is an Englishman to rank with Nelson, Darwin and Jimmy Saville.
Beatles are the best. They were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union, too.
Elms is a visionary. Who else saw the genius in Spandau Ballet at the time?
You and your kind are stumbling out of the limelight, Roland, given the current hype.
You're too kind, Roger. Stalk away.
But did Alan Titchmarsh have it off with Sade, Spart? Actually, he probably did.
But they also helped the Americans lose in Vietnam, Geoff. Crazy days.
Post a Comment