Mr.Segment
Tennalaga Class
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Location
- Oslo
Yes, his ongoing story of his youth is worth the admission price alone. Oddly enough I much more enjoy reading about, and wathcing, The Beatles, more so than listening to their music.
The Beatles In Mono - vinyl box set
- Thread starter bosshoss
- Start date
Yes, his ongoing story of his youth is worth the admission price alone. Oddly enough I much more enjoy reading about, and wathcing, The Beatles, more so than listening to their music.
Ned
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Location
- Litchfield County
OK, now that the fire is lit, may I add a little wood of my own to the blaze ?
I never got the whole Beatles thing either. I find most people enamored with them either came from a household with few if any records in 1964 or view them long after they had broken up & went their own ways
There is no doubt the stars aligned just the right ways on many fronts for the Beatles rise & popularity. The decimation of the adult male population in England from WWII and the subsequent rise of their "youth culture" with a facination for American culture. Lets not forget the astute licensing deals struck up by Pye International, London America & EMI to bring so much great music from the US for release in the UK & in turn leaving a strong impression on the emerging UK bands. It was actually easier to score rather obscure US music in working class town of the UK in the early 1960s than it was in the US. The lack of racial barriers in the UK no doubt has a lot to do with this. England being such a smaller place was also key to the attention a band like the Beatles could get quickly. They made a huge impact in the UK in a very short time in part due to live radio exposure, something that had drifted into the past in the US with the decline of the big band era.
The rise of "youth culture" in the US was hit square in the face with "The British Invasion", when most of the great music being made here was still on local labels with no distribution beyond the hometowns of the artists themselves. People tend to forget that incredible stuff was being recorder here in the early 1960s, almost all of it beneath the radar scan of popular radio. The rise of Japanese electronics & department store hifi sets didn't hurt either. Take a newly emerging baby boom with disposable income, still too young to drink or drive a car & records & comic books seem to fill the void.
EMI & the George Martin machine certainly didn't hurt either, and the "old boy" network amongst the music publishers & peddlers was ripe for new composers - all this was falling together @ the same time. Hard to believe today that EMI didn't feel they could sell Beatles records in the US & pretty much passed them off to second & third division players like Vee Jay, Tollie & Swan to sink or swim. Ever wonder what would have happened if Vee jay didn't go belly up & had controlled the Beatles contract for several years? I doubt they would have ever gained the exposure they did in the states.
The exposure on the Ed Sullivan Show was the shyrocket to fame here. All the money in the world (well, almost all the money) couldn't get them that much attention so quickly. It was so safe , it was painful to watch & still is today. The head shaking & matching suits looked more music hall & less rock & roll to my eyes. I was brought up to thing that rock & roll has a sense of rebellion and non-conformity to it - and that did not come across on the Sullivan show. It looked scripted & rehearsed. "Beatlemania", that well crafted economic machine was underway overnight. I don't think too many of you saw it first hand, but it was the blueprint for Don Kirshner's dream that followed close behind - and just as silly.
Like I said, they never really did it for me. To me, they were too polished, dull & played it safe. Their playing always lacked "feel", they never hit "it" for my ears. However, in the eyes of the public they could do no wrong. Ever listen to them do shame to "Roll Over Beethoven", I think their rock & roll credentials were never in place. For all the chatted over Rubber Soul, go listen to Eight Miles High or Why? by the Byrds. For me they were Sunday morning music, while the Animals, Kinks & the Rolling Stones were for Saturday night. I always gravitated towards the raw stuff that had drive & feel, something to my ears was not a feature of George Martin's Beatles.
They did mature as songwriters in time & that is how I see them, not as a rock & roll band per se. Their live recordings sound rather bland & dull to my ears. I'd put Holland - Dozier - Holland, Smokey Robinson , and to some extent ever Bacharach & David above them for crafting great pop records in the same time period. They do deserve a chapter in any book on popular music, but they are not the entire book.
If everybody that is moved by the Beatles was exposed to Hank Williams, Bella Bartok, Dmitri Shostakovich, Charles Mingus, the great John Coltrane / Eric Dolphy 1961 band, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Elmore James, B.B. King and hundreds of great soul & R&B 45s before hearing the Beatles I wonder what the impact would have been.
The Beatles were no "Immaculate Conception" & I just wonder if each person that reads this forum was a teenager in 1964 with the options available from current music @ the time or music from the past just how dynamic the impression the Beatles have on them today would have been @ the time ?
OK, I've slammed your sacred Beatles as I have over dinners, pints of ale & card games for the last 40 something years with friends. Just my opinions, time to become your punching bag !
Ned
Frantic
G45 Legend
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
Ned
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Location
- Litchfield County
Did 10 paragraphs exceed your attention span, or do you just go into shutdown whe someone doesn't agree with your opinions ?
Ned
Ned
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Location
- Litchfield County
boring
Thank you for your very thorough & insightful appraisal of my posting. We all know how prized your comments are on this forum.
Ned
eargasm!
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
I would never consider your opinion invalid, Ned. It's just probably the only time I've ever disagreed with you on music and I disagree 200 percent. As Dylan said, the combination of harmonies and chord progressions were just outrageous. The Byrds personnel changed their entire musical direction because of them and just about any 'garage band' that's interviewed cites their emergence as the single most pivotal occurrence in music. I own the Isley Brothers of Twist and Shout, but The Beatles absolutely smoke their version. Their records still sound vibrant and urgent to this day for me. The Stones will always be a singles band to me. Most of their albums up until Aftermath or Between the Buttons just don't stand up as complete listens to me. Don't misinterpret me as dismissing them , but they just don't hold water to The Beatles in my opinion. I agree the Beatles were no 'Immaculate Conception', but at the same time, but they were able to make their influences into a singular sound that is easily identifiable and at the same time damn near impossible to duplicate. It's certainly a subject that has come up before, but the lack of 'garage bands' attempting the Beatles was because their music was deceptively complex. I did see it first hand as well, but when you see how it evolved from England to America it's obvious it wash;t scripted or rehearsed. It's the spontaneity of the whole phenomenon that adds to the mixture. The were brilliant songwriters and in my opinion far superior to the Motown machine, which is to my ears the real 'Don Kirshner' carefully crafted cookie cutter deal.
eargasm!
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
The funny thing is Ned, it's 50 years on and the hype is long over. My daughter heard all I was listening to while she was growing up, and it was The Beatles that resonated and stuck..And same goes for my granddaughter. In the end we all have our personal likes and dislikes. Like explaining to someone why you would rather have mushrooms than pepperoni on your pizza. It's personal. But the Beatles were and are that good and they continue to sell astonishing amounts of records to new listeners because they are that good. Some things are just plain unexplainable and The Beatles fall in that category.
Ned
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Location
- Litchfield County
We may disagree, but I do respect your opinions. Just because we see things differently it doesn't make the other persons opinion wrong. We all have different backgrounds & tastes probably formed when we were young. The Beatles just have never done it for me, and I seem to be in the minority.
Ned
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Households without records still had the radio, though
In general I would agree with that, with a very few exceptions. They never really interested me as a rock n roll band. Their credentials were based on pop music.
All that music is great in its own way, but it was not aimed directly at the young audience which was waiting for something completely new, and all its own. That's what the Beatles did brilliantly.
No way! Your experience and opinion is valued here Ned.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Location
- The shores of southern CT
Mark points out a very important aspect. It isn't really about "the band" , no matter who it might be - it is the songs.
My personal tastes were formed by the songs i had heard as a child / pre-teen and teenager.
I never gravited toward the band aspect, meaning, if you like a few songs by said band, then you (by default of mass consensus) must like the band.
With the Beatles, it was all about the songs for me. In 1975, I liked less and less of Top 40. Album oriented rock was too boring for me- long songs that really went nowhere except to show off musical virtuosity. Beatles music was fresh to my ears, and provided the gateway into other groups and performers of the era.
I can't say I am a card carrying Beatles fan, but I enjoy most of the pre'67 recordings. After that, it gets very spotty. One can say the group is over-exposed, and that argument is very solid. You can't avoid them as they are still revered by pop culture in a way matched by no other act from the 60s . Only the bands lumped into the classic rock category have over-exposure power (Led Zep, Who, etc.)
I can say perhaps the only group that lasted at least 3-4 years which I do like (just about everything recorded) is the Monkees. I know Ned hates them with a passion. I like the songs, no matter who played on the Monkees recordings. However, you can flush the horrific mistake "D.W. Washburn" down the toilet. Also the Bobby Fuller Four, thanks to the treasure trove of reissues and unissued material.
My personal tastes were formed by the songs i had heard as a child / pre-teen and teenager.
I never gravited toward the band aspect, meaning, if you like a few songs by said band, then you (by default of mass consensus) must like the band.
With the Beatles, it was all about the songs for me. In 1975, I liked less and less of Top 40. Album oriented rock was too boring for me- long songs that really went nowhere except to show off musical virtuosity. Beatles music was fresh to my ears, and provided the gateway into other groups and performers of the era.
I can't say I am a card carrying Beatles fan, but I enjoy most of the pre'67 recordings. After that, it gets very spotty. One can say the group is over-exposed, and that argument is very solid. You can't avoid them as they are still revered by pop culture in a way matched by no other act from the 60s . Only the bands lumped into the classic rock category have over-exposure power (Led Zep, Who, etc.)
I can say perhaps the only group that lasted at least 3-4 years which I do like (just about everything recorded) is the Monkees. I know Ned hates them with a passion. I like the songs, no matter who played on the Monkees recordings. However, you can flush the horrific mistake "D.W. Washburn" down the toilet. Also the Bobby Fuller Four, thanks to the treasure trove of reissues and unissued material.
soundog III
Tennalaga Class
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Location
- New York
I've become more of an engaged fan over the past ten years or so than i had been for decades previous. I definitely rebelled against them in the mid 60's, favoring all the usual suspects ex- the fabs... A person I knew once remarked he never again had to listen to a Beatles song, if he wanted to hear it all he had to do was think it. So I suppose over-familiarity skewed my reaction to them. Revisiting their catalog nowadays brings to mind a trawl through some long neglected (by me at any rate) treasure trove, with surprises & revelations being revealed anew at most every turn. Excepting Mr. Moonlight, of course...
Here's a pic of the lads in their prime, circa late 1964. They were hitting on all cylinders then...
Here's a pic of the lads in their prime, circa late 1964. They were hitting on all cylinders then...
beccabear67
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Location
- Canada
I went through most of the '80s and part of the '90s fairly sick of The Beatles, but really it was sick of certain songs that still got too much exposure. A friend copied their run of CDs (I had a boycott on buying because of Michael Jackson having gotten control of most of the catalog) and I discovered all the non-hit album tracks which really were fab and showed a lot of variety and thought, plus were recorded really well.
Anyway, there was this small time semi-desperate combo from nowhere near London (and thus doomed) who grabbed a lifeline doing the grueling Hamburg thing that was pretty new. They got to back the closest thing to England having a Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran in Tony Sheridan who had relocated to Germany and got the whole British rocker thing off the ground there. Some local kids asked for their record at the local NEMS shop and so on... when they turned up in the press outside of Merseyside they were thought a novelty that looked like the Temperance Seven, nobody from out of London could be taken seriously could they? No different than a bunch of kids rehearsing in a garage, but people liked them and their songs, it was real people power that got them off the ground. Billy Fury had hid his accent, all that came out of Liverpool that sold records up to this point was Bernard Cribbins. The Beatles themselves played up their comedic routines and even signed to Parlophone, known as a comedy label, with the producer of experimental novelty numbers and The Goons with Peter Sellers!
The people knew something real when it hit them. Elvis was real (at least until he was made over into a plastic Hollywood version of himself) and The Beatles were real. If there was a secret advantage it was not knowing what they were supposed to be and do, which would've been to have been like most all the other plastic Elvis pop idol mannequins London and Larry Parnes and all that lot knew how to sell. They really knocked down the doors just by doing their own thing, and Brian Epstein could only ever smooth them out part way, but that was hardly what made people dig their scene. Nobody could predict anything about them, not what they might say or record, never that they'd interest America when Cliff Richard had failed. It was that people were sick of the manufactured imitative bland pop that was really behind their success. The albums still sell and still speak for themselves, some of it optimistic and positive, but much of it minor key mixing sour in with the sweet like real life does, and led the way for Animals, Stones, Kinks, Pretty Things and all. Which isn't to say Motown never happened or anything else, above all they were fans themselves and often used the attention they got to draw attention to what others were doing that they listened to and liked themselves. No more of the usual this star vs. that star horserace competition business for them (it was foisted on them at times anyway).
I wasn't there either, but I believe it was the people who loved The Beatles, oh yes they did.
Anyway, there was this small time semi-desperate combo from nowhere near London (and thus doomed) who grabbed a lifeline doing the grueling Hamburg thing that was pretty new. They got to back the closest thing to England having a Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran in Tony Sheridan who had relocated to Germany and got the whole British rocker thing off the ground there. Some local kids asked for their record at the local NEMS shop and so on... when they turned up in the press outside of Merseyside they were thought a novelty that looked like the Temperance Seven, nobody from out of London could be taken seriously could they? No different than a bunch of kids rehearsing in a garage, but people liked them and their songs, it was real people power that got them off the ground. Billy Fury had hid his accent, all that came out of Liverpool that sold records up to this point was Bernard Cribbins. The Beatles themselves played up their comedic routines and even signed to Parlophone, known as a comedy label, with the producer of experimental novelty numbers and The Goons with Peter Sellers!
The people knew something real when it hit them. Elvis was real (at least until he was made over into a plastic Hollywood version of himself) and The Beatles were real. If there was a secret advantage it was not knowing what they were supposed to be and do, which would've been to have been like most all the other plastic Elvis pop idol mannequins London and Larry Parnes and all that lot knew how to sell. They really knocked down the doors just by doing their own thing, and Brian Epstein could only ever smooth them out part way, but that was hardly what made people dig their scene. Nobody could predict anything about them, not what they might say or record, never that they'd interest America when Cliff Richard had failed. It was that people were sick of the manufactured imitative bland pop that was really behind their success. The albums still sell and still speak for themselves, some of it optimistic and positive, but much of it minor key mixing sour in with the sweet like real life does, and led the way for Animals, Stones, Kinks, Pretty Things and all. Which isn't to say Motown never happened or anything else, above all they were fans themselves and often used the attention they got to draw attention to what others were doing that they listened to and liked themselves. No more of the usual this star vs. that star horserace competition business for them (it was foisted on them at times anyway).
I wasn't there either, but I believe it was the people who loved The Beatles, oh yes they did.
buckeyebeat
Tennalaga Class
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
One of the first rock records I heard was the Beatles' I Feel Fine / She's a Woman 45. Probably 1966-ish. Along with the Beatles VI US LP.
From my experiences in talking to musicians over the past 40 years, when the Beatles broke in the US they completely changed the game. Older working bands were generally thinking either "wow - where do these guys come up with that and how are we gonna compete?" or "that's terrible, we'll just keep playing the same surf rock (or R&B) chords we've been playing for the past two years and show them gay Brits...."
There were teens who did not like the Beatles for most the reasons already mentioned - image, sound, etc. The Boomers old "Beatles vs Stones" joke did not come from nowhere. Apart from that there was an emerging culturally conservative movement among 1960s teens that directly led to the modern day US evangelical movement. Back then it included the occasional record burning.
Remember though, the Beatles saved us from the great folk music campus takeover. The Beatles were the first pop/rock band that folkies, and music snobs, appreciated. That led to the end of the Kingston Trio and the beginning of the Byrds, electric Dylan, etc.
The Rolling Stones were marketed just as much as a teenybopper band as the Beatles in 1964 - deliberately, as to present a foil - clean cut vs scruffy (to use terms of that time). Their fan base was mainly screaming girls.
My vote for most "overexposed" 1960s band is the Velvet Underground. I love 'em, but I've been a fan since the mid 1970s (before punk). But man, people have been carrying on about them like they were the greatest thing ever x100. I once heard a comment that the VU probably inspired more bad bands than any other group. On the other hand, the Beatles probably inspired more good bands than any other group.
The Beatles will always stand apart from all other 1960s bands. I don't see this changing until maybe we all long dead and everyone who was alive when they were is gone. I think, maybe, one of the things that Joey D was suggesting that really, why can't we just enjoy the music, and not relive the same old battles.
From my experiences in talking to musicians over the past 40 years, when the Beatles broke in the US they completely changed the game. Older working bands were generally thinking either "wow - where do these guys come up with that and how are we gonna compete?" or "that's terrible, we'll just keep playing the same surf rock (or R&B) chords we've been playing for the past two years and show them gay Brits...."
There were teens who did not like the Beatles for most the reasons already mentioned - image, sound, etc. The Boomers old "Beatles vs Stones" joke did not come from nowhere. Apart from that there was an emerging culturally conservative movement among 1960s teens that directly led to the modern day US evangelical movement. Back then it included the occasional record burning.
Remember though, the Beatles saved us from the great folk music campus takeover. The Beatles were the first pop/rock band that folkies, and music snobs, appreciated. That led to the end of the Kingston Trio and the beginning of the Byrds, electric Dylan, etc.
The Rolling Stones were marketed just as much as a teenybopper band as the Beatles in 1964 - deliberately, as to present a foil - clean cut vs scruffy (to use terms of that time). Their fan base was mainly screaming girls.
My vote for most "overexposed" 1960s band is the Velvet Underground. I love 'em, but I've been a fan since the mid 1970s (before punk). But man, people have been carrying on about them like they were the greatest thing ever x100. I once heard a comment that the VU probably inspired more bad bands than any other group. On the other hand, the Beatles probably inspired more good bands than any other group.
The Beatles will always stand apart from all other 1960s bands. I don't see this changing until maybe we all long dead and everyone who was alive when they were is gone. I think, maybe, one of the things that Joey D was suggesting that really, why can't we just enjoy the music, and not relive the same old battles.
Frantic
G45 Legend
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
Exactly, that and it seems that anyone who starts blasting the Beatles always end by trying to pick a fight. Boring as it gets.
beccabear67
Ikon Class
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Location
- Canada
Oh yeah, and they had to fight right off to release one of their own songs instead of the one chosen for them and written by a professional song writer (which was How Do You Do It). A lot of people will say how their example made it that bit easier for artists to get their own creations taken seriously. I just had to listen to There's A Place from their first LP to remind myself that there really was something more and different to Beatles music. We had that one around on the b-side of a single and so many things about it still haunt me.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
"I Feel Fine" is a killer. And very difficult to play properly on guitar, though George and John both managed to pull it off live, to pefection. While singing perfect harmony vocals. They were excellent musicians, technically.
It was going from the beginning. I remember a listeners poll, held on Sydney commercial radio around 1965, where the listeners had to vote who was better, the Beatles or Stones. The result was Beatles 86%, Stones 14%. There was no contest for popularity.
That's true. I don't remember many boys liking the Stones until they brought out Satisfaction, and especially Jumpin Jack Flash. Before that, They definitely were regarded as kind of girly-men, by a lot of my 10 year old friends. That's obviously not universally true. The Beatles however were more like normal men, only from Mars.
Agreed. The first time I ever heard them was on this sampler LP called "Underground". It had a whole side of Mothers Of Invention, and a whole side of Velvet Underground including "Waiting For My Man" which knocked me out and I played 100 times at least. It came out in 1972, so that's how long I've been a fan. But the mainstream adulation these days is way over the top.
soundog III
Tennalaga Class
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Location
- New York
Regarding the VU I adore essentially everything about them. Doesn't bother me a bit that other folks are keen to talk 'em up. Their pedigree / legacy is minimally as intact and inviolable as that of any of their contemporaries.
Follows a few bits of real time reportage potentially supportive of my premise; choose the soundtrack of your choice to accompany the visuals--->
Wanna talk 'punk' attitude? Here's a pic from early 1964. Conrad & DeMaria are the fellow Primitives...
Spring 1965 , first photo session, Angus already appearing a bit detached.
NYC late spring 1968. The brain trust en route to another productive day of changing the world.
Ah, so THIS is how they managed the WL/WH sound. Note the band channeling an Es Shades / Children Of The Night aura.
The new 1969 Matrix tapes that will be included in the imminent reissue of VU 3rd LP may well serve to keep the cauldron percolating for a while yet.
Follows a few bits of real time reportage potentially supportive of my premise; choose the soundtrack of your choice to accompany the visuals--->
Wanna talk 'punk' attitude? Here's a pic from early 1964. Conrad & DeMaria are the fellow Primitives...
Spring 1965 , first photo session, Angus already appearing a bit detached.
NYC late spring 1968. The brain trust en route to another productive day of changing the world.
Ah, so THIS is how they managed the WL/WH sound. Note the band channeling an Es Shades / Children Of The Night aura.
The new 1969 Matrix tapes that will be included in the imminent reissue of VU 3rd LP may well serve to keep the cauldron percolating for a while yet.
If I were to pick my all-time top 3 favorites, The Beatles and The Velvets would likely be among them (along with Bob Dylan). Love the VU pics, a couple of which I'd not seen yet!
To return to the origins of this topic, I saw a mono White Album in a store this weekend and nearly bought it. My equipment is far from audiophile, so unless the mono vs. stereo difference is extreme, I'm not that interested (have seen so many reissues padded with both mixes that I'm kind of over it...). But I heard someone, maybe Stan Denski, say that it was pretty significant on the White Album. True? Any others where the effect is dramatically different?
To return to the origins of this topic, I saw a mono White Album in a store this weekend and nearly bought it. My equipment is far from audiophile, so unless the mono vs. stereo difference is extreme, I'm not that interested (have seen so many reissues padded with both mixes that I'm kind of over it...). But I heard someone, maybe Stan Denski, say that it was pretty significant on the White Album. True? Any others where the effect is dramatically different?
