Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAC
Most of us from the "older" generation will remember this historic date, when the Beatles made their first American debut on The Ed Sullivan Show. I was talking to some buddies the other day on this topic, and it really makes one feel old when I realized that it happened 43 years ago. Geez!
I can stil remember us siblings sitting around the ol' black n white waiting in anticipation.
In preparation for their appearance, the CBS Television office on West-Fifty-Third Street in New York was overwhelmed by more than 50,000 requests for tickets to a studio that held 703. During their appearance, the Beatles sang five songs in the following order: All My Loving, Till There Was You, She Loves You, I Saw Her Standing There, and I Want To Hold Your Hand. On this night, 73 million people watched The Beatles. Their appearance had such an impact that most normal activities in America came to a standstill watching their performance. Criminal activity in most of the major cities and towns in America was put on hold, and getting a taxi or bus in New York was almost impossible, until their performance was over. Mass hysteria resulted wherever the Beatles appeared, and Beatlemania was created. Can you imagine 73 million people watched? That's a lot of people. But, I must say that when I see the films of that amazing performance today, it is just as exciting. Oh, and for the girls who watched - do you remember when the camera was focused on John Lennon when The Beatles sang Till There Was You? The television stations superimposed the words, "Sorry Girls, He's Married," over Lennon.
http://www.iamthebeatles.com/images/Edsull.jpg
Thanks GAC. That pic is my new Avatar.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
I wasn't around to enjoy that yet, but in the last five years or so I have probably listened to the Beatles more than any other band. The thing that strikes me about them is that while they were a tremendous pop band, they were also a GREAT BAND, with tremendous songwriting and musicianship.
That just doesn't seem to happen these days with pop music. But then, I'm not too familiar with all the junk that did not have the staying power to last like the Fab Four's music.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
I can understand why the younger generation sometimes say "What was the big deal?" My teens have done so. I guess one had to be there (growing up) and experience Beatlemania to really get a firm grasp on what went down. I remember my parents dropping my sister and I off at the theater downtown when A Hard Days Night premiered. It was a madhouse, with the line wrapped all the way around the block. And I still remember sitting in the theater and listening to all these teenage girls screaming their heads off. I wanted to turn around and strangle some of them. ;)
I've been a die hard Beatlemaniac ever since.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Man I can't stand the Beatles.
That date might as well be December 7th, to me.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Highlifeman21
Man I can't stand the Beatles.
I think you've already made everyone on this forum aware of that fact. :lol:
Quote:
That date might as well be December 7th, to me.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Beatles "opened the doors" to, and influenced, alot of the bands you probably currently listen to.
To those of you THAT DO like the Beatles, this is a good site that gives a lot of background info and interesting stuff behind their songs/albums. Neat to browse.
http://www.iamthebeatles.com/
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAC
I think you've already made everyone on this forum aware of that fact. :lol:
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Beatles "opened the doors" to, and influenced, alot of the bands you probably currently listen to.
To those of you THAT DO like the Beatles, this is a good site that gives a lot of background info and interesting stuff behind their songs/albums. Neat to browse.
http://www.iamthebeatles.com/
Thanks for the link.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
I remember it as vividly as you do.
I run an email list for both sides of my family and I remember being at my maternal grandma's house with most of my cousins (lots of people - added quite a number to that 73 Million), but I couldn't figure out these years later why we were all their in February. I posed the question to the family list and my one cousin who is adopted shot right back and said it was probably to see me, that was right around when her parents had adopted her.
I often tell folks who dismiss the Beatles importance to rock & roll music to take a look at the Top 10 in the month or so prior to their arrival. The change is dramatic. Ironically, while they severely hampered the careers of many American groups or artists, they likewise reintroduced the music of those artists in their original form. Check out the Beatles performing Little Richard or Chuck Berry versus Pat Boone. Check out early Elvis versus the movie star singer Elvis. The rawness that is in Rock today is because they brought back the edge to that music - Paul McCartney learned his screaming directly from Little Richard. Rock wasn't going to be "white bread" anymore. And they, and the other British invasion bands, opened the doors to the harder rock that came quite quicly. Just a bit more than two years later and you've got folks like Jimi Hendrix playing unbelievable music.
Here's a link to a Wikipedia article about the Beatles record sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bea...rldwide_charts
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redsmetz
I remember it as vividly as you do.
I run an email list for both sides of my family and I remember being at my maternal grandma's house with most of my cousins (lots of people - added quite a number to that 73 Million), but I couldn't figure out these years later why we were all their in February. I posed the question to the family list and my one cousin who is adopted shot right back and said it was probably to see me, that was right around when her parents had adopted her.
I often tell folks who dismiss the Beatles importance to rock & roll music to take a look at the Top 10 in the month or so prior to their arrival. The change is dramatic. Ironically, while they severely hampered the careers of many American groups or artists, they likewise reintroduced the music of those artists in their original form. Check out the Beatles performing Little Richard or Chuck Berry versus Pat Boone. Check out early Elvis versus the movie star singer Elvis. The rawness that is in Rock today is because they brought back the edge to that music - Paul McCartney learned his screaming directly from Little Richard. Rock wasn't going to be "white bread" anymore. And they, and the other British invasion bands, opened the doors to the harder rock that came quite quicly. Just a bit more than two years later and you've got folks like Jimi Hendrix playing unbelievable music.
Exactly. In the early 60's you had performers like Bobby Darin, Gene Pitney, Everly Brothers, Lou Christie, Ricky Nelson, Del Shannon, Dee Clark and a slew of solo "crooners" dominating the airwaves. It was one of the reasons that Decca turned down the Beatles (bands were on their way out they said).
Lennon stated that Elvis "died" when he went into the military, and he wasn't the same when he got out.
There was that "gap" IMO between the time R n R came out in the 50's and the British Invasion. And I'm not knocking those performers listed above. I even like listening to some of them still today. But they weren't adding anything new or revolutionary to rock music. It seemed more regressive then progressive. It's what made the British Invasion so spectacular. They seemed to take what they had learned/followed from the "roots" of their 50's American counterparts, who so heavily influenced them and built on that foundation.
The Beatles were a very progressive band.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAC
I think you've already made everyone on this forum aware of that fact. :lol:
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Beatles "opened the doors" to, and influenced, alot of the bands you probably currently listen to.
To those of you THAT DO like the Beatles, this is a good site that gives a lot of background info and interesting stuff behind their songs/albums. Neat to browse.
http://www.iamthebeatles.com/
My question to all Beatles fans would be this: Do you really think Led Zepplin would have happened without the Beatles?
I do enjoy pop music, and all things being said, the Beatles seem to be about as much pop as anyone out there. Paul McCartney is the biggest Beatle I respect as a musician, followed by George Harrison. I think Ringo Starr is quite possibly one of the most overrated drummers of all time, and John Lennon may have been one of the original primadonna front-men to pave the way for existing and future primadonna front-men.
Unfortunately, music is too subjective to really have a "best" band of all time, due to far too many genres.
My second question to all Beatles fans would be this: What impact do you really think the Beatles had on music?
Great link btw, GAC. It's interesting to get into the mind of bands to see exactly the origin of some of their inspiration.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Highlifeman21
I do enjoy pop music, and all things being said, the Beatles seem to be about as much pop as anyone out there. Paul McCartney is the biggest Beatle I respect as a musician, followed by George Harrison. I think Ringo Starr is quite possibly one of the most overrated drummers of all time, and John Lennon may have been one of the original primadonna front-men to pave the way for existing and future primadonna front-men.
I LOVE the Beatles and I definitely think that the face of music would be different without them. but this paragraph is still a very fair assessment and you've clearly formed an educated opinion about them. Nothing I'd disagree with here at all...their music just happens to appeal to me despite all of that.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
I was 4 1/2 and remember sitting around our Maganox console with TV (B&W) in the center flanked by big speakers. On top of those speakers were a turntable on one and a radio on the other... we kids were not allowed to touch the radio or turntable w/o permission. But back to the Beatles appearance... What GAC failed to mention (or I didn't notice) was that pretty much everybody watch The Ed Sullivan Show (or "shew" as Ed would pronounce it). On my street (which is really a court) when the weather was nice and people had their screen doors open, you could sit in the middle of the street and listen to the show.
My oldest sister liked John, second oldest liked George (even tried playing the sitar because George like Ravi Shankar (sp?), I liked Paul... and everbody else liked Ringo... The music didn't come as a shock to my parents, since they heard it blaring for months before, but they did remark how nice they looked.
Another thing about the popularity of the Beatles that sometimes does not get mentioned... their appearance on Ed's show came less than 3 months after JFK's assasination. Even though the President was in his 40s, he was still considered by my older sisters' and others as someone who was young and fresh. It was as though the Beatles timed their trip to the USA at the right time along with the release of their albums. The youth of this country needed new icons and they were it. So it wasn't just the music it was the changing of a culture.
Re: Sunday February 9, 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Highlifeman21
My question to all Beatles fans would be this: Do you really think Led Zepplin would have happened without the Beatles?.... My second question to all Beatles fans would be this: What impact do you really think the Beatles had on music?
No. And here's why. In the early 60's there were a slew of English bands that were popular in England. Some, maybe, were even more talented musically then the Beatles. But it was the English youth who were drawn to the Beatles and basically "crowned" them #1 in England. So they basically "won" out over the other bands, and were "chosen" because of their popularity, to be the "guinea pigs" to test America. And while the Beatles were hugely popular in England, they, and other English bands were scared to death of venturing to the American market. If you flop there, your career was basically over. They wouldn't even agree to go to America until they had a #1 there, which was "From Me To You". But even on the initial trip over there they were filled with doubts and skepticism. They had no idea what was waiting for them at that airport. It opened the doors for other British bands. Everything hinged on whether the Beatles made it or not. Once they did, then it raised awareness and interest from the American music industry in other British bands who wanted to capitalize on this newfound interest.
So if the Beatles failed, then yeah, the American music industry most likely would not have focused attention on British bands such as the Stones, Kinks, Animals, Who. And there probably wouldn't have been a Led Zep. If the most popular band in England couldn't make it in America, then why would any of the others? It would be a bad investment/risk.
Rock'n'roll music was hardly ten years old, but already its youthful audience had demonstrated one of its most noticeable characteristics, one, which still continues today -a short attention span, coupled with an insatiable appetite for something new. Early rock's first hero, Bill Haley, seemed too old, Elvis Presley's stint as a GI seemed to have made his music soft, Jerry Lee Lewis was in disgrace for marrying his 13 year old cousin, Little Richard had got religion, Chuck Berry was in prison, Buddy Holly was dead, and the new stars who had risen seemed less exciting and flamboyant.
The American music scene was ripe for the pickin' so to speak - aching and yearning for something new and unique to wake them up out of their "duldrums". And then there was that nasty thing called the Kennedy assassination that really shocked the culture.
The British youth culture, in the 50's, was totally dominated by American trends and styles. And just as those American 50's rock n rollers heavily influenced British youth - maybe more so then it did American youth - now those British youth (bands) were exercising their influence on the American music scene. That's why you saw a rise in "Beatle-like" bands here in America. You might not have had American bands like the Byrds, Doors, etc. For the first time since rock n roll was born, America wasn't totally predominant.
The British Invasion's most impressive achievements - was that Britain would henceforth be taken seriously as an inventive and trend-setting source of popular music. It was not just a musical explosion either, but a cultural one. And it was the Beatles leading the way.
Quote:
I do enjoy pop music, and all things being said, the Beatles seem to be about as much pop as anyone out there.
I can understand some saying that TODAY after all that is out there. I've had some say that the early Beatle songs, like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" were nothing more then teeny bopper/pop songs with little relevance. And there is some truth to that, but again, at that time they were quite "different" and revolutionary in the sense and comparison to what was being done and put out at that time. I still love pulling out "Meet The Beatles" and listening to it at times because it's "fresh" and unique. Maybe not now; but it was then. Again - I guess one had to be there and experience it to understand.
But if the Beatles hadn't been a progressive band, then yeah, they probably would have been history after 2-3 years. That "uniqueness" or novelty would have worn off. They would have been left in the "wake" - just as those 50's performers were - in what they had started. But as you follow the Beatles musically you see them changing, and their music really evolving, from the first album, through Rubber Soul and Revolver, to Sgt Pepper, the White album, and then Abbey Roads. It was the reason they quit touring -to focus on the music.
Quote:
But Paul McCartney is the biggest Beatle I respect as a musician, followed by George Harrison. I think Ringo Starr is quite possibly one of the most overrated drummers of all time, and John Lennon may have been one of the original primadonna front-men to pave the way for existing and future primadonna front-men.
While most Lennon-McCartney songs weren't really Lennon-McCartney songs, when they did collaborate it was magical. They needed each other, and bounced off one another. There was a friendly kind of competitive nature to their songwriting. When Paul wrote "Yesterday", Lennon said "I knew I had to come up with something better. It motivated me." Separate they weren't as "powerful", and one can see that in their solo work. Still some solid, good music; but they created this "monster" called the Beatles, and fans always saw them as that (including myself for many years), and never gave their solo work much credit. It was always -"It's not as good as when they were the together". As McCartney once said - "It's hard to match what the Beatles did. Even when you're a former Beatle."
When the Beatles broke up McCartney went into a HUGE depression/funk for almost a year. His wife Linda, later on, revealed that Paul retreated to their farm in Scotland, drank heavily, and ranted how he couldn't do it without John. McCartney always had self-confidence issues. He always felt he needed someone at his side to support him and bounce off of. Lennon too. That's why it's interesting that both of these men replaced the other with woman (Yoko, Linda).
Ringo never was considered a very good drummer. Not terrible, but simply capable. George basically got screwed and held back in most's opinion.
McCartney is one heck of a bass player, and Lennon was one of the best rhythm guitarist I ever heard. I never realized that until I listened to an interview with John Fogerty several years back and he said the very same thing. I then started listening to John's parts in a lot of their songs, and agree IMO. In fact, I like listening to their music and focusing on Paul's, John's, and George's playing.
Here is an interesting tidbit - Paul played lead guitar on George's "Taxman".
