|
Post by sayne on Nov 11, 2013 11:56:14 GMT -5
GLEE is excellent for an hour's worth of quality family television watching. Questions raised by biting social issues explored in the show can be addressed right there by parents. I suspect that there were a lot of instances last night where parents(or grandparents) were singing along to the Beatle songs and their teenage kids were observing that thinking, "Man that is cool!" Except, here is the rub. There was a movie that came out a year or so ago called Perfect Pitch. It's about college glee. It's a really good movie. Anna Kendricks is a cutie. Anyway, the music is fun to listen to. Last night, my wife was looking up the songs performed in the movie in order to download them. I said to her, why don't you download the originals? She sort of took a double-take and said, "You know, you're right." That's the problem with Glee and such. It may expose people to Beatles songs, but perhaps not to the Beatles. We've all said that Beatles songs will live forever, but at what price? Obscurity of the group? I remember decades ago someone reported that they were at a kid's birthday party. There was music playing and the Beatles version of I Saw Her Standing There came on and the girls screamed, "Hey, that's a boy band playing a Tiffany song." Along those lines, Prince said that he did not want his song on Guitar Band because he didn't want to be part of people pretending to play guitar. He wanted people to play real instruments.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 11, 2013 12:47:39 GMT -5
Point well taken sayne. I was hoping that Glee would send kids to The Beatles, not send kids to iTunes just looking for Glee covers of Beatles!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 11, 2013 13:27:35 GMT -5
That's the problem with Glee and such. It may expose people to Beatles songs, but perhaps not to the Beatles. We've all said that Beatles songs will live forever, but at what price? Obscurity of the group? I remember decades ago someone reported that they were at a kid's birthday party. There was music playing and the Beatles version of I Saw Her Standing There came on and the girls screamed, "Hey, that's a boy band playing a Tiffany song." But it's not all either/or. Meaning, yes there will - and there ARE - youngsters who get into The Beatles, be it via GLEE or another source. Every generation there are always new fans. Less? Maybe so. But there always are enough, which is the main point. When I go to the FEST FOR BEATLES FANS 2014 in February to celebrate the 50th Anniversary, "I Can Bet" there will be plenty of young newbies in attendance who know and love The Beatles themselves. It doesn't matter how many or few there are worldwide; when they're with their own kind they are great in number. Who cares about the ones who think they're just a Tiffany-playing boy band?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 11, 2013 15:02:36 GMT -5
Al Sussman's forthcoming book addresses that topic. What do you First Generation Beatle fans think as to the JFK assassination and Beatles arrival? I have read some writers who think that was a huge connection for kids mourning a younger President but other writers point out that The Beatles' initial target American audience was largely pre-teens and early teenagers who have always been more apolitical so it would not have been such a big connection. Older high school and college kids were not in that very first wave of U.S. Beatles fans and they were the youth in a funk over the assassination. I was just under 13 months old on the assassination and just over 15 months old for first Ed Sullivan! I was 8 years old when Kennedy was killed and The Beatles came to America. I remember being pulled off the playground in Third Grade at lunch time (I lived in Tyler, Texas in Nov. 1963 just 70 miles from Dallas) by the nuns at my Catholic elementary school and we returned to our classrooms, which had little black & white tv's and we watched CBS breaking news until a little after 1PM, when Walter Cronkite announced the President had died. Then they sent us all home from school early that Friday. I remember going to church that night with my parents and then the following Sunday, we were getting ready for Sunday Mass and I had the TV on, and I witnessed the Oswald shooting by Ruby live as it happened. I called to my mother getting ready in the bedroom and said "Mom, they just shot the man on TV who shot President Kennedy on Friday." She thought I was making it up until she came out into the living room and saw it herself. We moved to New Jersey in Jan. 1964, and the weekend of Feb. 7-9, I was staying at my grandmother's apartment on 10th St. in Greenwich Village in NYC. My parents heard about the long-haired British band in town that weekend so Sunday night they had The Ed Sullivan Show on, and i was in the bedroom. My mom said "hey, get out here and see these long-haired guys from England on the TV!" So I came out from the bedroom, and just stared at the TV while they played. Something about the music just hit me funny and I could not stop watching them. They just looked so cool and sang so well. And I was only two months shy of my 9th birthday. Had to wait until my birthday in April to get my first album Meet The Beatles (which Paul personally signed for me when I met him at Carnegie Hall in 1991 at the dress rehearsal of Liverpool Oratorio), but the kid down the street had a couple of 45's of I Want To Hold your Hand and Please, Please Me, which we played over and over at my house after that first weekend in Feb. they were in NY. I was hooked for life. Never looked back.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 11, 2013 16:14:36 GMT -5
I don't remember the JFK assassination being a factor at all in my Beatlemania. They stood on their own as a force to be reckoned with.
And I say that coming from a family where JFK was revered and we spent that entire weekend of the assassination glued to the TV.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 11, 2013 16:14:54 GMT -5
Double post
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 11, 2013 17:05:09 GMT -5
Interesting observations so far, thanks gang! I sometimes wish I was eight years older so I could have experienced The Beatles(and remember JFK's assassination) but that would mean today I'd be eight years older so while it would have been cool up front, I think I will enjoy 51 a little longer!
I guess another question to ask was by February 1964, was television still devoted to the assassination non-stop? Were the regular programs still interrupted or had TV gone back it its regular schedule? If life was moving on then maybe the connection between the two are not as great as some assert.
I am certain that The Beatles provided more lighthearted news from lots of heavy stuff going down in that period, the post-assassination investigation being one of them.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 11, 2013 17:11:02 GMT -5
Remember, we didn't have the 24-hour news cycle we have today.
There was not non-stop reporting of the JFK assassination 2-3 months later. I don't remember when the warren Commission was established, but to my recollection, there wasn't a lot of residual reporting about the assassination by February 1964.
The Beatles were a phenomenon unto themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 11, 2013 19:01:59 GMT -5
Al Sussman's forthcoming book addresses that topic. What do you First Generation Beatle fans think as to the JFK assassination and Beatles arrival? I have read some writers who think that was a huge connection for kids mourning a younger President but other writers point out that The Beatles' initial target American audience was largely pre-teens and early teenagers who have always been more apolitical so it would not have been such a big connection. Older high school and college kids were not in that very first wave of U.S. Beatles fans and they were the youth in a funk over the assassination. I was just under 13 months old on the assassination and just over 15 months old for first Ed Sullivan! I don't think the correlation is as big as some people would like to think. Yeah, the country was devastated. I saw that clearly because at the time, I lived in Massachusetts. The state adored them. (True story: I once had a choice of going to a parade where JFK would be or going to see a Three Stooges movie. I chose the movie. My sister chose the parade. She's now head political writer for the S.F. Chronicle.) But the Beatles happened because of what they were, not because of the country. At least that's my view.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 11, 2013 19:24:21 GMT -5
I don't think one thing had anything to do with the other either. Although Kennedy and the Beatles had similar hairstyles. I had the same hairstyle back then too. Hair combed down over the forehead. The Beatles and Kennedy both wore some pretty sharp new style suits.
I had just turned eight years old and was in school. I didn't get to see the news story but it was announced on our pa and I did get to go home. I had a hard time believing that someone would kill President Kennedy. He seemed like such a nice guy. He was the only president I'd ever known. Johnson seemed so old. (When Nixon won, well that's another story.)
We'd heard about the Beatles being on Sullivan and it seemed like we had heard some of their songs on the radio before I Want to Hold Your Hand. We wanted to stay home from church and see them so bad. Hell, they were more popular than Christ. And they were pretty darn good!
Some stories just sound good and they stick. I heard Ringo telling the "No hubcaps stolen" story, not long ago. Apparently he didn't know that it started as a dig on the Beatles fan base, the type that would normally be out stealing hubcaps. George Martin was telling the old "Already had a drummer hired before he heard Ringo play" story just the other day.
It's a good story. Let's keep it!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Nov 11, 2013 19:46:25 GMT -5
That's the problem with Glee and such. It may expose people to Beatles songs, but perhaps not to the Beatles. We've all said that Beatles songs will live forever, but at what price? Obscurity of the group? I remember decades ago someone reported that they were at a kid's birthday party. There was music playing and the Beatles version of I Saw Her Standing There came on and the girls screamed, "Hey, that's a boy band playing a Tiffany song." But it's not all either/or. Meaning, yes there will - and there ARE - youngsters who get into The Beatles, be it via GLEE or another source. Every generation there are always new fans. Less? Maybe so. But there always are enough, which is the main point. When I go to the FEST FOR BEATLES FANS 2014 in February to celebrate the 50th Anniversary, "I Can Bet" there will be plenty of young newbies in attendance who know and love The Beatles themselves. It doesn't matter how many or few there are worldwide; when they're with their own kind they are great in number. Who cares about the ones who think they're just a Tiffany-playing boy band? In 1984, Tiffany and Julian Lennon were never in the same picture together...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 11, 2013 21:42:00 GMT -5
Interesting observations so far, thanks gang! I sometimes wish I was eight years older so I could have experienced The Beatles(and remember JFK's assassination) but that would mean today I'd be eight years older so while it would have been cool up front, I think I will enjoy 51 a little longer! As I so often say, it's all the same -- sure you'd be 8 years older today, but it's not like you would have been cheated; you'd still have gotten 59 years but it would just be spent during better times!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 21, 2013 17:27:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 21, 2013 19:39:08 GMT -5
Here's an article that explores the "connection" between grief over the assassination and the birth of Beatlemania. Perfect timing. On the way home from work I was listening to the radio and a caller on a talk show said he was 10 when JFK was assassinated and he recalls it very vividly. "But --", he added, "-- the 'mourning period' was not very long because then only a few months later, The Beatles came on the scene". I'm sure there are some fans who are old enough and say they feel no connection... however, I am sure that PART of The Beatles' success in America as a whole had a little to do with cheering the country up in the wake of the gloom from JFK's murder. Even John Lennon said in some interview I recall: "Well, The Beatles haven't come around again because the Sixties haven't come around again: you have to have a president shot, you have to have --- " (etc, etc)...
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2013 22:45:10 GMT -5
The JFK assassination and then the Beatles was the historical context of how the 60s unfolded. But I doubt there was much of a cause and effect between the two events. Beatlemania was mostly just the rise of the Baby Boomer generation coming of age. Millions of affluent white kids with disposable income in their pockets.
I was in the 2nd grade when JFK got shot. My mom took me out of school that day because she thought the Russians were going to bomb us at any moment . By the next day I had forgotten all about it. When "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah" came on my transistor radio a couple months later and I went nuts over it, it had nothing to do with JFK getting his brains blown out At least not to me. And probably not to the other millions of little Beatlemaniacs either.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 21, 2013 22:47:46 GMT -5
The JFK assassination and then the Beatles was the historical context of how the 60s unfolded. But I doubt there was much of a cause and effect between the two events. Beatlemania was mostly just the rise of the Baby Boomer generation coming of age. Millions of affluent white kids with disposable income in their pockets. I was in the 2nd grade when JFK got shot. My mom took me out of school that day because she thought the Russians were going to bomb us at any moment . By the next day I had forgotten all about it. When "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah" came on my transistor radio a couple months later and I went nuts over it, it had nothing to do with JFK getting his brains blown out At least not to me. And probably not to the other millions of little Beatlemaniacs either. Yep!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 21, 2013 22:48:32 GMT -5
Here's a companion article: link
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 21, 2013 22:56:48 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that link, sayne. I agree with Benmont Tench.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2013 23:26:27 GMT -5
Re Sayne's link. One thing people forget. Beatlemania was truly a teenybopper phenonenom. Or more to the point, a pre-teenybopper phenonenom. Look at the audience shots during the Hard Days Night period. Its little kids. Most of whom didnt even know who Lyndon Baines Johnson was.
Most of the older kids, the high school kids, were more Elvis Presley fans who looked down on the Beatles as kid stuff. At least thats my memory.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 21, 2013 23:30:45 GMT -5
This JFK thing setting the stage for The Beatles to really help heal a mourning country goes way beyond just selected individual memories.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2013 23:36:56 GMT -5
This JFK thing setting the stage for The Beatles to really help heal a mourning country goes way beyond just selected individual memories. Well that's certainly true. And its certainly all inter-connected as part of the cultural zeitgeist. But to quote Paul McCartney: "I was there!" Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2013 23:47:55 GMT -5
I mean, Keith Richards has said that one of his earliest memories was listening to the German bombs dropping on England and that's what inspired him to get into rocknroll. So I guess you can always take the long view, historically.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2013 23:55:29 GMT -5
But -- and you know me I always got a but -- if the "mourning of JFK" was such a crucial factor for the spread of Beatlemania in America, why had that exact same mania already spread in England?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 22, 2013 0:03:20 GMT -5
But -- and you know me I always got a but -- if the "mourning of JFK" was such a crucial factor for the spread of Beatlemania in America, why had that exact same mania already spread in England? First, why didn't The Beatles become big when they were first heard in America in late '63 (pre-Kennedy) when 'She Loves You' got released in September '63 on Swan Records, and when Jack Paar first showed the clip of them? Remember the record companies weren't very interested? Second, the mania in England - big as it was - was still not as huge as it was in America. Third, there is no telling if Beatlemania would have been *as* huge in the US if not for the state of the country at the precise time.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 22, 2013 0:21:50 GMT -5
I have no rebuttal. Beatlemania was an act of God. That was meant to happen. For a myriad of reasons.
If any of the atheists on this board want to take issue with me for the aforementioned statement I'm more than willing to argue about it.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 22, 2013 0:41:53 GMT -5
And yes, when I start using words like "myriad" that's a tell tale sign I've been drinking too much. Good night to Joe and Sayne and Scousette and all the cool cat Beatlemaniacs everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 22, 2013 4:00:36 GMT -5
Great articles scousette and sayne. I am in the camp that the connection is tiny and that The Beatles would have made it big in the U.S. regardless. The majority of people mourning President Kennedy's assassination were not Beatles' fans but adults.
Like Ace said, younger kids were certainly sad or in shock on November 22, 1963 but by February 1964 the kids had bounced back. Short attention spans or memories.
There s some connection no doubt but not what Mr. Bangs opined in my opinion. That would marginalize The Beatles talents and skills.
Today, November 22, 2013 is a huge day though. I cannot believe it has only been 50 years but indeed it has been as I am 51 and was sitting on my dad's lap as a mere baby when Jack Ruby shot Oswald and it is said my young dad nearly dropped his first child as he bounced out of his chair upon seeing that shooting live on TV.
My dad was a school principal on November 22, 1963, and he paddled a boy who cheered my dad's announcement to the students that President Kennedy had been killed. I met that guy at a restaurant in 1991 and he cheerfully reminded my dad of that and said he deserved it! Remember, corporal punishment was commonplace in our schools in 1963.
I was a young lawyer and I admonished my dad for violating that kid's right of free speech but my dad looked at me like he raised an idiot and reminded me the importance of being a good citizen and of loyal opposition where one doesn't wish the death upon a political opponent but rather work within the system for change and always have our President's back in times of national emergency.
I have to remind myself of that now and then. Look at the hatred spewed towards President Obama by his opponents and I bet many adults, and some in high positions, would cheer harm befalling him just like that boy did in my dad's class. That's not right.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 22, 2013 6:54:56 GMT -5
I have no rebuttal. Beatlemania was an act of God. That was meant to happen. For a myriad of reasons. If any of the atheists on this board want to take issue with me for the aforementioned statement I'm more than willing to argue about it. I will join you in this, Ace! This statement of yours is something I have always maintained myself. God gave us The Beatles. And Paul McCartney's talent (for example) is a God-given one, his ability to effortlessly come up with so many wonderful songs. The phenomenon of The Beatles was orchestrated by His hand. (And it coming right after the horrors of Kennedy's assassination probably was no coincidence) .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 22, 2013 6:59:26 GMT -5
I am in the camp that the connection is tiny and that The Beatles would have made it big in the U.S. regardless. Well, not's not blow my saying the Kennedy thing had some affect too out of proportion; for while I think it's obvious that the JFK killing played a part in the excitement of The Beatles' arrival, I do think the Beatles would have made it big anyway in February 1964. (Though it would be interesting for someone to attempt to explain why the first US releases of their music in September 1963 largely fell on deaf ears! -- Even when George visited the US in 1963 he said the people didn't know them) .
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Nov 22, 2013 7:39:27 GMT -5
I have no rebuttal. Beatlemania was an act of God. That was meant to happen. For a myriad of reasons. If any of the atheists on this board want to take issue with me for the aforementioned statement I'm more than willing to argue about it. I wouldn't if I were you because you've then got to explain ever other act of god and some of them don't make any sense. Take, for example, the violent murder of a 40 year old man leaving a 5 year old innocent child without a father. The murderer now believes in the resurrection of Christ so he has a place in heaven. The murdered man on the other hand questioned this belief and even though he urged people to be peaceful, loving and non-violent he now resides in hell.
|
|