Why the Beatles? (1 Viewer)

I still contend that Ringo is not all that. He played the parts John and Paul creatively told him or taught him to play. He had the right style for the songs, sure, but many other drummers, it seems, coulda done that. Neither an amazing musician myself nor a drummer I could be wrong. Have yet to be swayed. Anyone? That being said, this clip is a fun piece. ..
This video gave me new eyes to see the Beatles with.

mjp also makes a great point. I recall hearing him make a similar point on one of his podcast episodes - this idea that it does not make any sense to say that 'I could do that' or 'anyone could have done that' when referring to the work of an artist. I think about that statement often since hearing mjp make it, and it does make sense to me.

However I don't know if it totally offsets what Philly Dave is getting at, namely that the Beatles were not only a highly productive band - they were also a highly produced band. Not only in the sense that they were certainly feeding off of each other, but also in the sense that they quickly became an extremely lucrative investment opportunity for the record label and management team. It is not hard to imagine huge piles of money and ideas being thrown at their growth as musicians.

In that context, it does make some sense to say that 'anyone could have done that.' If somebody invested a few million dollars in me or any number of us here, we could probably do some pretty awesome things. Partly because we're not total losers, but also partly because money can buy really good teachers, really good equipment, it can get you into conversations with really creative people.

As usual I don't have a particular point of my own to make. More just wondering if it's okay to be like 'yes .. and yes.'
 
If somebody invested a few million dollars in me or any number of us here, we could probably do some pretty awesome things.
I don't know about that.

I've mentioned somewhere else about Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-hours-to-become-an-expert bit, and how people use the Beatles as an example of the truth of that idea. "They were great because they spent all that time playing in Hamburg and in the Cavern, they got the 10,000 hours in."

Well then, how do you explain Pete Best?

He was there in Hamburg and in the Cavern, and he played those hours with the other Beatles, and after all that, he still wasn't any good, so they had to get rid of him.

Some people have "it," and most others don't.
 
for the record mjp & others have convinced me that Ringo is right for the job and although I don't think Ringo is the greatest drummer ever (nobody's trying to convince me of that) I do think he's a good drummer and a perfect fit for the Beatles. I don't wanna hear another drummer's style on the Beatles songs.
 
It is not hard to imagine huge piles of money and ideas being thrown at their growth as musicians.
As for this point, from what I can tell by reading about a thousand books about The Beatles, the only thing thrown at them - creatively speaking - was as much studio time as they wanted. Piles of money don't make you creative. Too much money tends to have the opposite effect. Most things they were influenced by were readily available to anyone, on the radio or at the record store.

It could be argued that an ambitious and creative band could experience a similar kind of growth that The Beatles did with nothing more than a couple of tape decks in the basement of a house or a cheap rehearsal room somewhere.

You can see the same kind of growth and innovation that The Beatles experienced in the musical styles where there was no (or very little) money to be had: jazz, hip hop, reggae, punk rock. The founders, innovators and masters of those styles developed without piles of money or guidance. In fact, they often developed in communities and among people that lived in poverty.
 
[...the Beatles were not only a highly productive band - they were also a highly produced band. Not only in the sense that they were certainly feeding off of each other, but also in the sense that they quickly became an extremely lucrative investment opportunity for the record label and management team. It is not hard to imagine huge piles of money and ideas being thrown at their growth as musicians.
[... If somebody invested a few million dollars in me or any number of us here, we could probably do some pretty awesome things. Partly because we're not total losers, but also partly because money can buy really good teachers, really good equipment, it can get you into conversations with really creative people.'

I think Youth Culture is one, perhaps the only place where the wealthy and powerful trail behind, (even though it always ends up making more money for them in the end) but Credibility is the thing talented working class kids have, that's almost impossible for rich kids to succeed at. It's not something that can be manufactured; that has any lasting significance.

The Beatles for Sale album as early as December 1964, already shows the weariness they felt about being used as a commodity, a cash cow for business interests.
 
Great googly moogly, Eight Days a Week, Live at the Hollywood Bowl is absolutely crackling with energy. I give it 11 stars out of 10. Despite some of their live performance deterioration in 1966, this finds the lads at the absolute peak of their live game. It's not a perfect recording; there are some patches and George's guitar is down in the mix at times, but it absolutely rips. The vocals and harmonies are particularly strong. I had my doubts when this was announced, but it's delivering in spades.
 
Last edited:
I heard the song they pre-released from that, and even though it's been toned-down, the wall to wall shrieking and screaming is a bit much for me. It must have been a nightmare to sit in one of those audiences.

I mean, I would have gladly sat in one anyway, but I was only 5 years old the only time they played in Minnesota (in August of 1965) and the stadium was too far away for me to ride my bike to the gig.
 
The not a dry seat in the house aspect is certainly present, but the energy in the playing is great. Indeed, my ears are a bit fatigued, and I may not listen to this very often, but I was impressed with the quality of the playing. I'd recommend giving it a try at some point. The upside is worth the downside; you know, methinks and a propos and all that cal. :rolleyes:
 
the wall to wall shrieking and screaming is a bit much for me. It must have been a nightmare to sit in one of those audiences.
My aunt saw them back on Sept 2, 1964 at Convention Hall, part of the Civic Center here & thought it was living hell, all the screaming and horrible audio, bugged her right out. Lovely woman but she is also a neurotic to say the least

640902-beatles-philadelphia-poster_01.jpg
 
saw most of the new concert tour doc on the weekend on tv.

came in after it started but it was fantastic!

kind of confused cause i thought it was just in theatres on the weekend but i did see it.

edit - just checked the guide and it's on again wednesday night.
 
Last edited:
It's streaming on Hulu (in the U.S. anyway). Watched it over the weekend. Wasn't much new info or footage there. Some of the black and white footage was colorized, which was lame.

8days.jpg
 
don't be so jaded...

yeah, the colorized stuff was stupid. kills the whole vibe.

but c'mon man, it's the beatles!

it was fab macca!
 
It was fab, yes, okay.

Just fab stuff I've already seen, along with fab stories I've already heard.

I think that fucking Lewisohn book is ruining everything Beatles for me. Everything else falls short and seems inconsequential and incomplete.
 
I almost bought that a couple of years ago, but I don't really like large format gimmicky things like that. I feel like I'd have to build a special table - or room - just to read it. I'm interested to see what the "new edition" is like when it comes out though.
 
I saw Ron Howard's Doc last Thursday at my local cinema, the running time was about 3 hours long! I thought they must have unearthed some amount of new footage etc. but the first hour was spent watching V.I.Ps/or something like it, arrive down at the London venue, not so good. Not anything majorly new to reveal, but watching them move from Birth of a Phenomenon to the Anti Christs for there Jesus comment and back again was enjoyable.The best bit came after the credit roll, with a 30 min remastered (or something) film of the 1965 Shea Stadium concert. I think it should have been part of the programme.
 
I took delivery of a box set on Friday that I just added to my online records database: Day By Day, The Complete "Get Back" Sessions.

Well, it's actually a 3 box set. 76 discs. It's supposedly every inch of tape recorded for Get Back, which was eventually released as Let It Be.

Ridiculous? Yes.
Excessive? Oh yeah, absolutely.
Fascinating? Hell yeah! Depending on your mental state, I suppose.

If you have to ask, "Why The Beatles?," this set isn't going to make any god damned sense.

It barely makes sense even if you love The Beatles...

gb1-jpg.10361

gb2-jpg.10362
 
I've never purchased any Beatles collectibles, but compared to a lot of crap you see for around the same price, a near fine signed copy of A Spaniard in the Works for $7,500 doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. Am I crazy?
 
But books are cool, right? That's a big reason we're all here. I know he wasn't a "book" writer, but to me that's what makes it unique. And he's not like all those other rockers who decided to do paintings and poems later in their careers. This is 1965 -- when the Beatles are in the heart of it. A cancelled check, a limited edition Lennon print signed by Yoko, a fan magazine with three of the Beatles signatures -- that just feels like trash to me. We'll, not trash, but in no way... legitimate... what's the correct word?
 
"Parnes and Fury agreed to sign Lennon’s band, which had taken the name Long John and the Silver Beatles just before the audition, on the condition that it replace Sutcliffe, whose bass playing was rudimentary."

Let's make something nice and sparklingly clear: Sutcliffe's bass playing wasn't rudimentary, it simply wasn't.
 
So I look forward to the re-ish but I bet if I looked enough I could find boots of most of the outtakes.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read past the video so I didn't see that there was a reissue in the works. "Remixed," no thanks. "34 previously unreleased recordings," I don't know whether to say thanks or no thanks...

There isn't much Sgt. Pepper stuff on the bootlegs that I've heard, so it might be something. But at what point is it overkill? (Don't ask Bob Dylan that question.)
 
I just picked up the 6-disc Pepper box at Newbury comics. So far, so good. I have little interest in remixes although I'll eventually give them a listen. I'm listening to the unreleased (*partial cough*) tracks on CD 3 and so far so good. What amazes me is how pedestrian some of the work is and how it eventually became so much more dynamic in the final releases. Martin surely had something to do with that, but it's more than that. There's a certain vitality in the vocals on the released takes/mixes that goes beyond the ordinary.

Good instrumental version of Getting Better spinning now...
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm just going to go ahead and sound like a total idiot: Listening now to CD #2 of the Pepper box and I have to admit, I'm strangely fascinated by tracks 13 and 14 which are, respectively, hummed and multi-piano takes on the final chord of A Day in the Life. Track 12 is a keeper too, as it's just the orchestral rush that leads up to the final chord with a bit of Lennon vocal due to mic bleed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top