lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 5, 2014 14:30:23 GMT -5
The CNN special is now on Youtube for all the fans inside and outside the US who didn't see it. It is pretty good I must say. Produced by Tom Hanks.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 5, 2014 19:34:53 GMT -5
Mick Jagger once admitted The Beatles were better than The Stones"; "The rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones, however, was not just about who had the more appealing lifestyle or the greater freedom of movement. It was also increasingly about talent, craft, and influence. And as the Beatles became more creatively ambitious in the mid-1960s, they started functioning a bit like generational pied pipers, inspiring the jealous admiration of their peers as well as legions of imitators. It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether Jagger might have envied the Beatles after all. That was the impression that a journalist on assignment for the American pop magazine Hullabaloo arrived at in the summer of 1966. The writer doesn’t identify himself by name, but on the eve of the Stones’ fifth American tour he got a chance to spend three days with the group. At first, they received him coolly. But on the second day, he at least shared a quick car ride with Jagger as the Stones traveled from their hotel to a press event that they held on a yacht, the SS Sea Panther, which was moored up at West Seventy-Ninth Street. En route, they passed an unusual poster advertisement: it was for a car rental company that boasted it was second best in the land. Only one other rent-a-car service was ranked higher. Jagger noticed the sign, then turned, unbidden, and said: 'That’s us . . . We have to be better because we’re only number two.' It seemed odd, this candid and somewhat forlorn admission. It wasn’t really Jagger’s personality to say such a thing. So the journalist said he peered back at Mick, looking for a sign that he was joking. But apparently he was not. He seemed deadly serious." Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487969/Mick-Jagger-admitted-Rolling-Stones-outshone-Beatles.html#ixzz2sUuQgWio Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 5, 2014 20:28:55 GMT -5
Mick Jagger once admitted The Beatles were better than The Stones"; "The rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones, however, was not just about who had the more appealing lifestyle or the greater freedom of movement. It was also increasingly about talent, craft, and influence. And as the Beatles became more creatively ambitious in the mid-1960s, they started functioning a bit like generational pied pipers, inspiring the jealous admiration of their peers as well as legions of imitators. It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether Jagger might have envied the Beatles after all. That was the impression that a journalist on assignment for the American pop magazine Hullabaloo arrived at in the summer of 1966. The writer doesn’t identify himself by name, but on the eve of the Stones’ fifth American tour he got a chance to spend three days with the group. At first, they received him coolly. But on the second day, he at least shared a quick car ride with Jagger as the Stones traveled from their hotel to a press event that they held on a yacht, the SS Sea Panther, which was moored up at West Seventy-Ninth Street. En route, they passed an unusual poster advertisement: it was for a car rental company that boasted it was second best in the land. Only one other rent-a-car service was ranked higher. Jagger noticed the sign, then turned, unbidden, and said: 'That’s us . . . We have to be better because we’re only number two.' It seemed odd, this candid and somewhat forlorn admission. It wasn’t really Jagger’s personality to say such a thing. So the journalist said he peered back at Mick, looking for a sign that he was joking. But apparently he was not. He seemed deadly serious." Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487969/Mick-Jagger-admitted-Rolling-Stones-outshone-Beatles.html#ixzz2sUuQgWio Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Not to be contrary, but I see no admission here from Mick that the Beatles were better. He owns up the obvious that the Beatles were bigger, but if anything he says they (have to be) better. In any event, the a Beatles were better, much better IMO, but I don't read this as any sort of statement by mick that the Beatles were in fact better.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 5, 2014 21:34:41 GMT -5
Mick Jagger once admitted The Beatles were better than The Stones"; "The rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones, however, was not just about who had the more appealing lifestyle or the greater freedom of movement. It was also increasingly about talent, craft, and influence. And as the Beatles became more creatively ambitious in the mid-1960s, they started functioning a bit like generational pied pipers, inspiring the jealous admiration of their peers as well as legions of imitators. It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether Jagger might have envied the Beatles after all. That was the impression that a journalist on assignment for the American pop magazine Hullabaloo arrived at in the summer of 1966. The writer doesn’t identify himself by name, but on the eve of the Stones’ fifth American tour he got a chance to spend three days with the group. At first, they received him coolly. But on the second day, he at least shared a quick car ride with Jagger as the Stones traveled from their hotel to a press event that they held on a yacht, the SS Sea Panther, which was moored up at West Seventy-Ninth Street. En route, they passed an unusual poster advertisement: it was for a car rental company that boasted it was second best in the land. Only one other rent-a-car service was ranked higher. Jagger noticed the sign, then turned, unbidden, and said: 'That’s us . . . We have to be better because we’re only number two.' It seemed odd, this candid and somewhat forlorn admission. It wasn’t really Jagger’s personality to say such a thing. So the journalist said he peered back at Mick, looking for a sign that he was joking. But apparently he was not. He seemed deadly serious." Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487969/Mick-Jagger-admitted-Rolling-Stones-outshone-Beatles.html#ixzz2sUuQgWio Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Not to be contrary, but I see no admission here from Mick that the Beatles were better. He owns up the obvious that the Beatles were bigger, but if anything he says they (have to be) better. In any event, the a Beatles were better, much better IMO, but I don't read this as any sort of statement by mick that the Beatles were in fact better. Guess its all how you interpret the statement. But he does use the word "better" so I take that at face value.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 5, 2014 21:37:29 GMT -5
Not to be contrary, but I see no admission here from Mick that the Beatles were better. He owns up the obvious that the Beatles were bigger, but if anything he says they (have to be) better. In any event, the a Beatles were better, much better IMO, but I don't read this as any sort of statement by mick that the Beatles were in fact better. Guess its all how you interpret the statement. But he does use the word "better" so I take that at face value. This doesn't mean all that much to me but he uses thee ire "better" to refer to the stones.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 5, 2014 23:32:18 GMT -5
News From Steve;
Paul & Ringo taped their interview with David Letterman yesterday at an empty Ed Sullivan Theatre in NYC. To be aired Sunday night on CBS.
(Big question we are all asking; Are they hanging around NY until the weekend?)
And George Martin has sent a message from the UK;
February 5, 2014
A message from Beatles producer Sir George Martin sent to NYC FAB 50 producers Charles F. Rosenay, Daniel Levine, Patrice Samara and Dennis D'Amico will be read at the NYC FAB 50 events starting with the “Twist & Shout: New York Celebrates the Beatles” show Thursday at the Apollo Theater, NYCFAB50 announced in a media release Feb. 5.
The text of Martin's statement:
“I am amazed how quickly time passes and that the Beatles appeared in New York for the first time 50 years ago. Hard to believe – I feel like Rumpelstiltskin! The first record I produced with them – 'Love Me Do' was merely a warm up. 'Please Please Me' was the biggie that swept Britain in 1964 and paved the way for their debut in the USA. And when that happened it was like an exploding keg of dynamite.
“The wonderful people of America took the Beatles into their hearts and never let go. They were crazy days, and I remember being in New York and listening to the radio, and no matter where you turned the dial you would hear the Beatles singing. It was complete saturation, never before heard and never since. The Boys loved the USA and they loved performing there, but the world now demanded their attention, so they began an exhausting round of Europe and the States in an effort to satisfy the demand for their attention.
“The people of America have always been generous to those that they like, and the Beatles will always be grateful for that wonderful display of love and support they received back in the Sixties. Me too!”
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 6, 2014 12:18:10 GMT -5
From today's Wall St. Journal;
INVADING POWERS
by Jim Fusilli
Sociologists who study the 1960s attribute much to the Beatles' arrival in America 50 years ago this week. Some credit the cheeky, high-energy quartet with being just the boost the U.S. needed after having endured the assassination of its president. Others cite the band's seemingly instantaneous popularity as a sign of an emerging teenage consumer culture. Such claims obscure a more fundamental question: In February 1964, were the Beatles any good?
By the time the Beatles came to America to perform on "The Ed Sullivan Show," and at Carnegie Hall and the Washington Coliseum, they were already veteran performers. Since the summer of 1960, they had given live shows on an almost-daily basis, often several sets per night. Their stature was elevated by playing live for a national audience on the BBC beginning in March 1962, including on their own program, "Pop Go the Beatles." While the Carnegie Hall gig may have seemed unduly prestigious to those not yet converted to the band's style of rock and pop, the Beatles had already played the Royal Albert Hall twice in 1963. Shortly before leaving for the U.S., they had been at the Olympia Theatre in Paris for nearly three weeks, doing at least two sets a day.
By 1964, the Beatles were a tight quartet who could play pop, rock 'n' roll, rockabilly and R&B with equal force and efficiency. They had studied their predecessors—their repertoire included compositions by Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, Gerry Goffin and Carole King, Buddy Holly, Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, Carl Perkins, Little Richard and Smokey Robinson, among others—but had developed their own sound: John Lennon and Paul McCartney gave the group two versatile, easily differentiated vocalists; and George Harrison, who contributed a third voice to the vocal harmonies, was a lead guitarist with a feel for several styles. Mr. McCartney wasn't yet the exceptional bass player he would become; for the most part, Lennon provided color and support as a rhythm guitarist. But with the savvy, rock-solid Ringo Starr on drums, they were built on a platform of driving rhythm.
What distinguished the group, though, was its songwriting. From its first recording session in 1958 as the Quarrymen, the group knew original material would improve its chances for success. When the Beatles entered EMI Studios on Abbey Road on June 6, 1962, to audition for producer George Martin, they performed their own songs, along with the 1940s Latin standard "Bésame Mucho." Returning three months later, they cut "Love Me Do," a simple sing-along that Mr. McCartney wrote when he was 16. In late November, they recorded "Please, Please Me," written mostly by Lennon and influenced by Holly. It was the band's first No. 1 hit in the U.K. The album of the same name, the bulk of which was recorded live at EMI on Feb. 11, 1963, also topped the U.K. charts. So did the quartet's next album, "With the Beatles," issued Nov. 22, 1963, the day of the Kennedy assassination.
Thus, when the Beatles turned up for the Feb. 9 "Ed Sullivan Show," the group may have been new to America, but they were hardly newcomers to live performance. Their first two albums, with different track lists than the U.K. versions, had been available in the U.S. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was this country's No. 1 hit during the week of their arrival.
The Beatles opened their Ed Sullivan performance with Mr. McCartney's "All My Loving," which displayed the group's many talents in well under three minutes. The meticulous, syncopated arrangement found Lennon playing triplets on rhythm guitar while Mr. McCartney, who sang lead, offered a walking bass line and Mr. Starr altered his accents on his snare drum as his cymbals sizzled. After adding tidy country licks on the turnarounds, Harrison played an eight-bar interlude at the bridge with nods to rockabilly. A cleverly crafted pop gem, "All My Loving" was delivered with confidence and an infectious élan born of experience.
After performing "Till There Was You" from the Broadway musical "The Music Man"—perhaps as a bone thrown to Sullivan's traditional viewership—they played another compact gem: the Lennon-McCartney composition "She Loves You." As on the recording, the live reading was driven by Mr. Starr. Two- and three-part harmonies delivered the lead vocal, which built to the twin hooks: "woos" and "yeah, yeah, yeah!" Lennon played folk chords on electric guitar, thus enriching the midsection and freeing Harrison to add colorful filigrees. In front of more than 70 million viewers, the quartet knew they were on their game: At the midway point, Lennon, who had been relatively static in contrast to Mr. McCartney's bubbly exuberance, exchanged a smile with Harrison. High on his platform, Mr. Starr continued to bob behind the cymbals. His fills and the rumble of his kick drum and toms made the performance. (The Feb. 9 appearance on the Sullivan show is available on DVD; portions can be found on YouTube.)
The Beatles returned in the second half of the show with the Berry-influenced "I Saw Her Standing There" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand," but by then notice had been served. America's teens knew the Beatles could make hit records, but now the Sullivan audience saw that the band could deliver the hits live with authority and charm. Two years after Mr. Starr joined them, the Beatles were what they had set out to be: a self-contained group capable of writing, arranging and performing increasingly challenging and ever-engaging rock and pop of the highest caliber.
Were they any good? Oh yes. And they were going to get better.
Mr. Fusilli is the Journal's rock and pop music critic. Email him at jfusilli@wsj.com or follow him on Twitter @wsjrock.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Feb 6, 2014 17:44:46 GMT -5
And George Martin has sent a message from the UK; February 5, 2014 A message from Beatles producer Sir George Martin sent to NYC FAB 50 producers Charles F. Rosenay, Daniel Levine, Patrice Samara and Dennis D'Amico will be read at the NYC FAB 50 events starting with the “Twist & Shout: New York Celebrates the Beatles” show Thursday at the Apollo Theater, NYCFAB50 announced in a media release Feb. 5. The text of Martin's statement: “I am amazed how quickly time passes and that the Beatles appeared in New York for the first time 50 years ago. Hard to believe – I feel like Rumpelstiltskin! The first record I produced with them – 'Love Me Do' was merely a warm up. 'Please Please Me' was the biggie that swept Britain in 1964 and paved the way for their debut in the USA. And when that happened it was like an exploding keg of dynamite. Ok, he's 87 years old, but surely someone read this before it was released: "Please Please Me" didn't sweep Britain in 1964, it was early '63. Also, it wasn't the song that paved the way for their debut in the USA. One might argue it was "She Loves You" but the credit is normally given to "I Want To Hold Your Hand." Yeah, I know, no big deal in the grand scheme of things. The sentiments behind the statement are excellent. JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 6, 2014 17:55:25 GMT -5
Anybody going to the Apollo tonite?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 6, 2014 21:12:21 GMT -5
From today's Wall St. Journal; INVADING POWERS by Jim Fusilli Sociologists who study the 1960s attribute much to the Beatles' arrival in America 50 years ago this week. Some credit the cheeky, high-energy quartet with being just the boost the U.S. needed after having endured the assassination of its president. Others cite the band's seemingly instantaneous popularity as a sign of an emerging teenage consumer culture. Such claims obscure a more fundamental question: In February 1964, were the Beatles any good? By the time the Beatles came to America to perform on "The Ed Sullivan Show," and at Carnegie Hall and the Washington Coliseum, they were already veteran performers. Since the summer of 1960, they had given live shows on an almost-daily basis, often several sets per night. Their stature was elevated by playing live for a national audience on the BBC beginning in March 1962, including on their own program, "Pop Go the Beatles." While the Carnegie Hall gig may have seemed unduly prestigious to those not yet converted to the band's style of rock and pop, the Beatles had already played the Royal Albert Hall twice in 1963. Shortly before leaving for the U.S., they had been at the Olympia Theatre in Paris for nearly three weeks, doing at least two sets a day. By 1964, the Beatles were a tight quartet who could play pop, rock 'n' roll, rockabilly and R&B with equal force and efficiency. They had studied their predecessors—their repertoire included compositions by Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, Gerry Goffin and Carole King, Buddy Holly, Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, Carl Perkins, Little Richard and Smokey Robinson, among others—but had developed their own sound: John Lennon and Paul McCartney gave the group two versatile, easily differentiated vocalists; and George Harrison, who contributed a third voice to the vocal harmonies, was a lead guitarist with a feel for several styles. Mr. McCartney wasn't yet the exceptional bass player he would become; for the most part, Lennon provided color and support as a rhythm guitarist. But with the savvy, rock-solid Ringo Starr on drums, they were built on a platform of driving rhythm. What distinguished the group, though, was its songwriting. From its first recording session in 1958 as the Quarrymen, the group knew original material would improve its chances for success. When the Beatles entered EMI Studios on Abbey Road on June 6, 1962, to audition for producer George Martin, they performed their own songs, along with the 1940s Latin standard "Bésame Mucho." Returning three months later, they cut "Love Me Do," a simple sing-along that Mr. McCartney wrote when he was 16. In late November, they recorded "Please, Please Me," written mostly by Lennon and influenced by Holly. It was the band's first No. 1 hit in the U.K. The album of the same name, the bulk of which was recorded live at EMI on Feb. 11, 1963, also topped the U.K. charts. So did the quartet's next album, "With the Beatles," issued Nov. 22, 1963, the day of the Kennedy assassination. Thus, when the Beatles turned up for the Feb. 9 "Ed Sullivan Show," the group may have been new to America, but they were hardly newcomers to live performance. Their first two albums, with different track lists than the U.K. versions, had been available in the U.S. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was this country's No. 1 hit during the week of their arrival. The Beatles opened their Ed Sullivan performance with Mr. McCartney's "All My Loving," which displayed the group's many talents in well under three minutes. The meticulous, syncopated arrangement found Lennon playing triplets on rhythm guitar while Mr. McCartney, who sang lead, offered a walking bass line and Mr. Starr altered his accents on his snare drum as his cymbals sizzled. After adding tidy country licks on the turnarounds, Harrison played an eight-bar interlude at the bridge with nods to rockabilly. A cleverly crafted pop gem, "All My Loving" was delivered with confidence and an infectious élan born of experience. After performing "Till There Was You" from the Broadway musical "The Music Man"—perhaps as a bone thrown to Sullivan's traditional viewership—they played another compact gem: the Lennon-McCartney composition "She Loves You." As on the recording, the live reading was driven by Mr. Starr. Two- and three-part harmonies delivered the lead vocal, which built to the twin hooks: "woos" and "yeah, yeah, yeah!" Lennon played folk chords on electric guitar, thus enriching the midsection and freeing Harrison to add colorful filigrees. In front of more than 70 million viewers, the quartet knew they were on their game: At the midway point, Lennon, who had been relatively static in contrast to Mr. McCartney's bubbly exuberance, exchanged a smile with Harrison. High on his platform, Mr. Starr continued to bob behind the cymbals. His fills and the rumble of his kick drum and toms made the performance. (The Feb. 9 appearance on the Sullivan show is available on DVD; portions can be found on YouTube.) The Beatles returned in the second half of the show with the Berry-influenced "I Saw Her Standing There" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand," but by then notice had been served. America's teens knew the Beatles could make hit records, but now the Sullivan audience saw that the band could deliver the hits live with authority and charm. Two years after Mr. Starr joined them, the Beatles were what they had set out to be: a self-contained group capable of writing, arranging and performing increasingly challenging and ever-engaging rock and pop of the highest caliber. Were they any good? Oh yes. And they were going to get better. Mr. Fusilli is the Journal's rock and pop music critic. Email him at jfusilli@wsj.com or follow him on Twitter @wsjrock. This is a surprisingly accurate and insightful article, thanks for sharing!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 7, 2014 11:41:53 GMT -5
If you have a spare Million Dollars lying around; In today's Wall St. Journal; A large piece of stage backdrop autographed by the Beatles during their first live U.S. concert 50 years ago is headed to auction, where it could draw $800,000 to $1 million. Face caricatures accompany the signatures that the Fab Four penned between sets of their historic Ed Sullivan appearance on Feb. 9, 1964, which they opened with "All My Loving" in front of 700 screeching fans in the audience and 73 million television viewers. The owner of the 4-foot-by-2-foot plastic wall section is Andy Geller, a longtime Beatles collector and television and film voice-over performer. It is being sold April 26 in New York City through the Dallas-based auction house Heritage Auctions. A stagehand, Jerry Gort, was responsible for getting the band members to sign the back-of-the-wall section known as a hardwall traveler, which is rolled back and forth to reveal the next act. It's believed to be the largest Beatles autograph. "It was a spur of the moment thing," Mr. Gort, now 81 years old, said in a telephone interview from his Calabasas, Calif., home. "They came down from stage right from their dressing rooms, I gave them a marker and asked them to sign the wall." The band signed vertically from the bottom up: John Lennon; Paul McCartney, who scribbled "Uncle Paul McCartney"; George Harrison; and Ringo Starr. Mr. Starr couldn't reach the top so "I put my arms around him and lifted him," said Mr. Gort. The wall is being sold with a signed letter from Mr. Gort and a letter of authenticity from noted Beatles autograph expert Frank Caiazzo. The priciest Beatles collectible is John Lennon's hand-painted Rolls Royce Phantom V, which sold at a 1985 auction for $2.23 million. The most expensive Beatles hand-written lyric is for "All You Need is Love," auctioned for $1.25 million in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Feb 7, 2014 12:18:45 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 7, 2014 16:42:30 GMT -5
Just an observation; 1) When The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll HOF, Paul was the only no show. Yoko was there to represent John. 2) Two weeks ago when The Beatles received their Lifetime Grammy, Paul chose that moment to be unavailable due to "rehearsing with his band" for the upcoming show. Yoko and Olivia were there with Ringo to accept the award. 3) If not for the encouragement of his "American musical friends", Paul said he was not really inclined to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. 4) He did at least let Ringo drum on HIS song from HIS album "New" on the Grammy Show. 5) I assume he joined Ringo for some Beatle songs on the upcoming special. 6) The interview with Ringo and Letterman on the stage of The Ed Sullivan Theatre was done to a dark empty house.
Is it me or does Paul seem to really have no interest in accepting awards given to The Beatles nor really enjoying celebrating this big anniversary too much in the public eye with his lone surviving bandmate?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Feb 7, 2014 19:39:24 GMT -5
Just an observation; 1) When The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll HOF, Paul was the only no show. Yoko was there to represent John. 2) Two weeks ago when The Beatles received their Lifetime Grammy, Paul chose that moment to be unavailable due to "rehearsing with his band" for the upcoming show. Yoko and Olivia were there with Ringo to accept the award. 3) If not for the encouragement of his "American musical friends", Paul said he was not really inclined to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. 4) He did at least let Ringo drum on HIS song from HIS album "New" on the Grammy Show. 5) I assume he joined Ringo for some Beatle songs on the upcoming special. 6) The interview with Ringo and Letterman on the stage of The Ed Sullivan Theatre was done to a dark empty house. Is it me or does Paul seem to really have no interest in accepting awards given to The Beatles nor really enjoying celebrating this big anniversary too much in the public eye with his lone surviving bandmate? and he's back in London
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Feb 7, 2014 19:44:50 GMT -5
On Access Hollywood Paul was interviewed and he has now bought into the theory that The Beatles pulled America out of its post-Kennedy funk as he said The Beatles made America realize that, "it was okay to party again." That last bit Paul's exact quote. I have trouble with that concept(or the similar concept that Kennedy's assasination enabled The Beatles to get so big in the U.S.) as the original U.S. Beatles fans were elementary and junior high kids who were not the Americans in the deepest grief over the assasination of President Kennedy. Those Americans in profound grief or funk were older and they weren't the Americans The Beatles primarily brought joy to. I believe that the JFK assassination (and many other factors which have been cited) were all part of the formula. I think there is absolute merit to the theory that "the Beatles' timing was perfect for America in 1964". For one thing, don't forget that The Beatles' music was not taking hold before Kennedy was killed, in earlier 1963. The Vee Jay records and "She Loves You" really did not make a splash at first. Also - I have indeed heard many older people today who were of the elementary and junior high ages from that time, commenting on radio talk shows this past November on the JFK 50th anniversary, also adding in that YES, they were in a funk after Kennedy's assassination - and many of them added: "-- and then The Beatles arrived and helped take us out of the depression". It's wrong to speak for everybody in this case. Yes, I know there have been people who say "I wasn't affected by the Kennedy murder" -- however, don't forget that many did say they felt the country was in a state of misery after November '63 and that The Beatles brought joy again. There are fans of the time who do say this - enough of them, at any rate, to add credibility to the theory. One other thing to consider is that the youth of 1963 were different than today's. If you watch actual footage from the JFK assassination of 1963. you will see young school kids crying and in grief. Back in those days more school-aged pupils revered the president of their country than occurs today. And whether they felt more of a kinship with their presidents back then or not, it's a truth that young people were not nearly as accustomed to witnessing such violent public murders like they are in today's climate. Wow, this IS very hard to believe. [ Entertainment is man's way of getting out of a funk. Remember how the first concert after 9-11 was too soon, and very sad, then, a month later, NY Police and Fireman raised their fists as music heroes like the Who, Paul and Billy Joel picked up the spirits. The most appropriate song of the night was "Won't Get Fooled Again" and everyone knew it. Miss you Ox!!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 7, 2014 20:14:34 GMT -5
Just an observation; 1) When The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll HOF, Paul was the only no show. Yoko was there to represent John. 2) Two weeks ago when The Beatles received their Lifetime Grammy, Paul chose that moment to be unavailable due to "rehearsing with his band" for the upcoming show. Yoko and Olivia were there with Ringo to accept the award. 3) If not for the encouragement of his "American musical friends", Paul said he was not really inclined to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. 4) He did at least let Ringo drum on HIS song from HIS album "New" on the Grammy Show. 5) I assume he joined Ringo for some Beatle songs on the upcoming special. 6) The interview with Ringo and Letterman on the stage of The Ed Sullivan Theatre was done to a dark empty house. Is it me or does Paul seem to really have no interest in accepting awards given to The Beatles nor really enjoying celebrating this big anniversary too much in the public eye with his lone surviving bandmate? and he's back in London Well, it's left to us fans to celebrate this historic weekend. It seems clear what is left of the band feels no desire to embrace or revel in what clearly was one of the highest watermarks of the band's history. A taped special done 3000 miles away with a group of artists who were chosen for ratings and weren' t even alive for the most part 50 years ago represent television's salute to a band that used the medium back then to break into the hearts and minds of more than 70 million people, many of whom were so inspired by what they saw that they formed their own musical groups that went on to change the face of pop music in one of the most colorful and controversial decades in American History. The Beatles truly now only belong to the ages. Paul & Ringo seem very comfortable with that.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Feb 7, 2014 20:39:03 GMT -5
and he's back in London Well, it's left to us fans to celebrate this historic weekend. It seems clear what is left of the band feels no desire to embrace or revel in what clearly was one of the highest watermarks of the band's history. A taped special done 3000 miles away with a group of artists who were chosen for ratings and weren' t even alive for the most part 50 years ago represent television's salute to a band that used the medium back then to break into the hearts and minds of more than 70 million people, many of whom were so inspired by what they saw that they formed their own musical groups that went on to change the face of pop music in one of the most colorful and controversial decades in American History. The Beatles truly now only belong to the ages. Paul & Ringo seem very comfortable with that. well said and I think we all need to live with that and be thankful they at least did something for us musically to watch.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 7, 2014 20:59:59 GMT -5
I know the board here is interested in how the Beatles hype plays with the non-Beatle normal people. I friend at work who is a Beatles fan got a text from his daughter asking him if he would tape Sunday's Beatles Special for her. I asked if she was a Beatles' fan and he said "No!?". He was surprised about the interest. He hadn't heard much about the special or paid much attention. On a side note, today I was talking with one of the college student workers in our office and he had a letter addressed to Lagos. He said "LA-gos", like La La land. I said Lagos (with the hard a) and "it's in Africa". He said "Africa, I'm not sure", thinking I was asking him. I said "No, it is Africa. I know Lagos because that's where Paul McCartney recorded Band on the Run". He said "Hmm, interesting". He's a young black, seemingly well-read intellectual man probably not even 20 yet. I thought he might not know who Paul was much less the song Band on the Run but he apparently knew both. uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Banned_On_The_Run
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 7, 2014 21:31:11 GMT -5
Up to the Minute has been running a different Beatles' story every night all this week. They did the stories with Vince, the guy who stood in for George on Sullivan, the nerdy "screamer" girl, and last night, a story of the booking of the Beatles for Sullivan (interview with Ringo). After this last bit, they had an interview with Douglas Brinkley, one of their in-house talking heads. He said Elvis, Bob Dylan and the Beatles were in a pantheon all their own. Anne-Marie Green (gorgeous eyes), the anchor for the show, seemed like she was into them. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 7, 2014 21:50:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Feb 9, 2014 6:48:29 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 9, 2014 8:34:55 GMT -5
Joe, It was chaos yesterday at the Fest! Most people I've seen at one in years! My phone died as I forgot to charge it! I'll be there today and will try and call you and meet up! Apologies! Kevin
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 9, 2014 8:46:56 GMT -5
Klaus Voorman is going to be interviewed on CBS News Sunday Morning today.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 9, 2014 9:14:15 GMT -5
Joe, It was chaos yesterday at the Fest! Most people I've seen at one in years! My phone died as I forgot to charge it! I'll be there today and will try and call you and meet up! Apologies! Kevin OK, Kevin -- and thanks for reminding me now to charge my own phone before I hit the Fest! Yesterday I met OldFred and anyoneanyhow .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 9, 2014 14:36:43 GMT -5
The Beatles arrival to the U.S. in February 1964 was a big deal to those in North America(Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico) but what does this anniversary mean to our friends in the U.K., Australia and Europe? Is there any celebrations or anniversary shows on the B.B.C. for instance? The Beatles were on the cover of our Sunday newspaper insert, Parade Magazine has yet just another remembrance of today's big anniversary here. Vectisfabber or any other Brit, were your countrymen estatic and proud when The Beatles went big in the U.S. or were you sad, feeling like you lost them for yourselves. I seem to remember reading other bands would get kind of nationalistic when their rival bands were in the States touring, like if the Beatles were gone the Stones would say to the effect, "Well Britain we haven't abandoned you!" LOL, was that going on? Of course, all British bands were going over to the U.S. after The Beatles so smart fans could see through those abandonment claims!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Feb 9, 2014 18:44:14 GMT -5
Just an observation; 1) When The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll HOF, Paul was the only no show. Yoko was there to represent John. 2) Two weeks ago when The Beatles received their Lifetime Grammy, Paul chose that moment to be unavailable due to "rehearsing with his band" for the upcoming show. Yoko and Olivia were there with Ringo to accept the award. 3) If not for the encouragement of his "American musical friends", Paul said he was not really inclined to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. 4) He did at least let Ringo drum on HIS song from HIS album "New" on the Grammy Show. 5) I assume he joined Ringo for some Beatle songs on the upcoming special. 6) The interview with Ringo and Letterman on the stage of The Ed Sullivan Theatre was done to a dark empty house. Is it me or does Paul seem to really have no interest in accepting awards given to The Beatles nor really enjoying celebrating this big anniversary too much in the public eye with his lone surviving bandmate? It should have always been the Beatles getting the Kennedy Center Honors, rather than Paul. Maybe they didn't get it 'cause neither Ringo or Paul would have wanted it or shown for it.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Feb 9, 2014 18:49:48 GMT -5
Too bad he didn't round up more acts from the 60's and 70's for The Beatles Tribute Special. If the Letterman segment from New York is being added to the special, maybe there will be interviews with old rockers from the 60's whom The Beatles influenced? Or some fans that attended the first Ed Sullivan Show? Or were out at JFK Airport to greet The Beatles? Or hung out around The Plaza that weekend, or were at The Peppermint Lounge where The Beatles went to celebrate after the first Ed Sullivan Show? Yes, as I said of my report of the taping, there should have been more about the ViSIT, rather than the Beatles. I've told about the clips that they did show, but there were none with reporters, taxi drivers, the airline crew, train station people, hotel staff, etc. What about teens, teachers, and parents AFTER the show? That would be interesting, too. Maybe they will have added more from what was shown at the taping. I'm sure it will look better on TV than what I saw live (not to say it was not good seeing it live).
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 10, 2014 11:15:32 GMT -5
I got the feeling from mostly Paul's comments on stage last night during the CBS Special but also the fact that the entire musical career of The Beatles was celebrated that we are not going to get Paul and Ringo reuniting every year for the next six years at every anniversary. For instance, it doesn't seem there will be a reunion of sorts for the 50th Anniversary of Shea Stadium in August of 2015. I wonder if SPLHCB will be an exception in 2017? That was kind of a big deal way back in 1987 on the 20th anniversary. It is still hard for me to grasp that Pepper was only 20 years old in 1987 as it seemed to me 50 years old back then! Today, things from 1994 seem like yesterday. Of course, I was only four years old in June of 1967 so those early years go so slow and once we get old the time flies.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 11, 2014 10:48:42 GMT -5
Well, we are post-February 9 and in my survey of my local friends and co-workers, not one single person watched The Beatles CBS Special. My Rock fan law partner said Friday he was going to watch it on his new home theater system which is sweet but he forgot. Family-wise, my youngest stepson and his fiancé watched it with no prompting from me as I got some neat texts from them during the show. My oldest stepson watched it after my prompt, telling him it was on in two minutes. He and his wife watched some of it. My buddy Sly Rose watched it and texted me throughout but he doesn't count, he is a hardcore Beatles fan. AMC's The Walking Dead beat it in ratings Sunday night so zombies are more popular than aging beetles. From my neck of the woods, no new Beatlemania 2014 except with us already in the club. I will go look at Billboard to see if there were any gains on the charts. My conclusion was the only buzz was among us fans either by the CBS Special or those at NYC Beatlefest. The rest of America had the cold weather and zombies on their mind.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 11, 2014 11:05:52 GMT -5
Well, we are post-February 9 and in my survey of my local friends and co-workers, not one single person watched The Beatles CBS Special. I just talked to my mom down in Florida, and she watched it. She never cares about The Beatles. Which is as it should be, and why not? The Walking Dead is a hot, new, current program. The bottom line is, will anyone be watching The Walking Dead in primetime 50 years from now? I just heard on the radio that the CBS Special did very high ratings, even if they did not top The Olympics and The Hottest New (Walking Dead) Series On TV . And why should the CBS Special be expected to exceed those events? In the end, it did very impressive ratings considering the competition, so much so that the Beatles special will be re-aired tomorrow night. Gee whiz, John.. you're always looking for that controversial angle.
|
|