Lorne Greene's "Ringo" single sleeve we never saw!

[Taliesyn]

This post is regarding the recent discussion of Lorne Greene's "Ringo"
and the possible Beatlemania tie-in. So here's the picture sleeve design
of Lorne Greene's "Ringo" single that was originally rejected by RCA.
Well okay, it was never submitted . . .

My newseader won't let me paste the photo address as one line, it breaks
it. However, it still works for me in when I double-click it. If she don't,
simply copy the two lines and paste as one line in your browser.

http://s1171.photobucket.com/albums/r549/Taliesyn4/?
action=view&current=Ringo45F.jpg

-Taliesyn (idle hands are creative hands)

[BobbyM]

That's cute; perhaps this will get the entire link:
<http://s1171.photobucket.com/albums/r549/Taliesyn4/?action=view&current=Ringo45F.jpg>

[Dean F.]

I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record had a lot to do with its title.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Sep 16, 8:20 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record had a lot to do with its title.

Even if so, that does not make it "Beatle related."

Besides, everybody I know who liked the Beatles, hated Greene's
record. It's not like Beatles fans liked that record, so the only
thing the title may have done was to get it noticed amid hundreds of
other new releases that were sent to radio stations at that time.
People still had to like it for it to sell. I imagine it was big with
the same crowd that later liked Barry Sadler.

[Taliesyn]

"Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:444bdda0-473d-430d...@googlegroups.com:

> I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record had a
> lot to do with its title.
>

Several things came together here: Lorne Greene's Bonanza was riding the
crest of TV popularity in 1964 (#1 TV program), so he's already a known
name; the record's Beatle-sounding title may or may not have helped getting
it noticed (playlisted) by radio stations. And once it got on the air, it
was sure to be a hit since it was a darn, catchy little western drama right
on our radios.

None of his follow-up singles were anywhere near as catchy, so I definitely
wouldn't blame the lack of a Beatle-sounding "George", "Paul" or "John" in
their titles. ;-)

Lorne Greene was Canadian and so he also recorded a version of "Ringo" in
French:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZV6LOkPqP4

Here's the actual Canadian French-language single on eBay:

(double-click or copy and paste both lines in your regular browser)

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/LORNE-GREENE-Ringo-Francais-Du-Sabe-Sand-RCA-57-
5623-Canada-French-/120897130995?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item1c2607d1f3

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Sep 16, 9:02 pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:
> "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote innews:444bdda0-473d-430d...@googlegroups.com:

>
> > I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record had a
> > lot to do with its title.
>
> Several things came together here: Lorne Greene's Bonanza was riding the
> crest of TV popularity in 1964 (#1 TV program),

The number one TV program of the 63-64 TV season was the Beverly
Hillbillies. Bonanza was #2.

Bonanza was the #1 TV show for the 64-65 season. Bewitched was number
two.

[Taliesyn]

The Bloomfield Bloviator <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in
news:52da24c6-4417-4965...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 16, 9:02 pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:444bdda0-473d-430d-9988-f1
> eb0e3...@googlegroups.com:

>>
>> > I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record had
>> > a lot to do with its title.
>>
>> Several things came together here: Lorne Greene's Bonanza was riding
>> the crest of TV popularity in 1964 (#1 TV program),
>
> The number one TV program of the 63-64 TV season was the Beverly
> Hillbillies. Bonanza was #2.
>
> Bonanza was the #1 TV show for the 64-65 season. Bewitched was number
> two.
>

And his "Ringo" was a # 1 hit in December 1964, which came during his #1
television season (October 1964 - October 1965). Technicality.

[BobbyM]

On 17-Sep-12 9:37 AM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:20 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record had a lot to do with its title.
>
> Even if so, that does not make it "Beatle related."
>
> Besides, everybody I know who liked the Beatles, hated Greene's
> record.

In what year was that, Bruce? You know we're talking 1964 here.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

Yes. And everybody I know who liked the Beatles in 1964 also hated the
Lorne Greene record. I'm not saying I knew this in 1964, this
knowledge was gained in later years, when discussing how things were
in 1964.

[Taliesyn]

The Bloomfield Bloviator <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in

news:e2a03dca-36f0-458c...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

No one I recall hated it. We thought it was a cool song, perfectly in line
with his smash TV hit Bonanza, which was a MUST watch every week, along
with Sullivan, of course!

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Sep 16, 9:52 pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote innews:e2a03dca-36f0-458c...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 9:23 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-Sep-12 9:37 AM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 16, 8:20 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record
> >> >> had a
> > lot to do with its title.
>
> >> > Even if so, that does not make it "Beatle related."
>
> >> > Besides, everybody I know who liked the Beatles, hated Greene's
> >> > record.
>
> >> In what year was that, Bruce?  You know we're talking 1964 here.
>
> > Yes. And everybody I know who liked the Beatles in 1964 also hated the
> > Lorne Greene record. I'm not saying I knew this in 1964, this
> > knowledge was gained in later years, when discussing how things were
> > in 1964.
>
> No one I recall hated it. We thought it was a cool song,

Not surprising, with the dorks that you hung around with.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

Would this also be "Beatle Related?"

http://www.garagehangover.com/images/JohnPaulTIP45Walkin.jpg

[BobbyM]

On 9/17/2012 3:01 PM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
> Would this also be "Beatle Related?"
>
> http://www.garagehangover.com/images/JohnPaulTIP45Walkin.jpg
>

Why not? It's a couple of Jewish guys (I assume the writers are the
artists) who are hoping their record gets played on the radio & the
deejay says, "Here's a new one by John & Paul." & the mad rush to the
record store begins by the Beatlemaniacs, eager to jump on anything they
think is by The Beatles. Maybe they'll think it's something that was
cut before they made it big.

IMO a record doesn't have to include a member of the Beatles or even be
about the Beatles to be Beatles' related. As long as there's a tie in
to the Beatles in some way, it's related. Some are distant relatives,
but relatives nonetheless.

[Taliesyn]

The Bloomfield Bloviator <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in
news:e2a03dca-36f0-458c...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 16, 9:23�pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17-Sep-12 9:37 AM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 16, 8:20 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record
>> >> had a
> lot to do with its title.
>>
>> > Even if so, that does not make it "Beatle related."
>>
>> > Besides, everybody I know who liked the Beatles, hated Greene's
>> > record.
>>
>> In what year was that, Bruce? �You know we're talking 1964 here.
>
> Yes. And everybody I know who liked the Beatles in 1964 also hated the
> Lorne Greene record.

Not surprising, with the dorks that you STILL hang around with.

And by the way, you keep using that fake "everybody I know... also hated"
line. It's getting tiring. Drop it, we know it's invented.

> I'm not saying I knew this in 1964,

You were too young to even wipe your ass properly in '64 to know its true
appreciation at the time.

> this knowledge was gained in later years, when discussing how things
were in 1964.

Hahahhahah... like 2012, two minutes ago. You just made that up now.
My God, you're lame!

[Michael Black]

And not just because neither were seen as "hip" but both songs were more
like speaking a story with music in the background.

Michael

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Sep 17, 7:22 am, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote innews:e2a03dca-36f0-458c...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 9:23 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-Sep-12 9:37 AM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 16, 8:20 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I'm guessing the tremendous success of that Lorne Greene record
> >> >> had a
> > lot to do with its title.
>
> >> > Even if so, that does not make it "Beatle related."
>
> >> > Besides, everybody I know who liked the Beatles, hated Greene's
> >> > record.
>
> >> In what year was that, Bruce?  You know we're talking 1964 here.
>
> > Yes. And everybody I know who liked the Beatles in 1964 also hated the
> > Lorne Greene record.
>
> Not surprising, with the dorks that you STILL hang around with.
>
> And by the way, you keep using that fake "everybody I know... also hated"
> line. It's getting tiring. Drop it, we know it's invented.

Eat dick, dork.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

So, you agree that Beatles fans did not like the Lorne Greene record,
thank you.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

I don't see it like that, and I don't think that people who collect
"Beatles Related" records own a copy of the Lorne Greene record. They
collect records about the Beatles, and versions of Beatles songs, and
records that one or more of them are supposed to have guested on,
stuff like that.

Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUqOUcKVUBw

They may own the John & Paul because there were some people who
claimed that it was Lennon and McCartney in disguise, even though it
sounds nothing like them. Once people knew for sure that it was not
Lennon and/or McCartney, nobody wanted the record anymore. I still
have a copy I can;t sell.

[Jan Dean]

I liked the Beatles and Lorne Greene's Ringo.
I even liked the flip side, a vocal version of the T.V. theme Bonanza.

[BobbyM]

I brought it up "Ringo" half-jokingly but in 1964 it was Beatles'
related, whether you believe it or not. Sure, everyone knew there was
no real relationship between the song & the Beatles, but the title & the
girls in the song repeatedly singing "Ringo" was enough for a tie-in at
the time. Now, I don't think that relationship exists today but neither
does Beatlemania except for some hangers on; & as you've found out, most
of them are now wise enough now not to be duped by the likes of a John &
Paul record.

But they still might buy one of those barking dog records :>)
http://franklarosa.com/vinyl/Exhibit.jsp?AlbumID=67

[BobbyM]

On 9/18/2012 12:59 AM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:37 am, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/17/2012 3:01 PM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:> Would this also be "Beatle Related?"
>>
>>> http://www.garagehangover.com/images/JohnPaulTIP45Walkin.jpg
>>
>> Why not? It's a couple of Jewish guys (I assume the writers are the
>> artists) who are hoping their record gets played on the radio & the
>> deejay says, "Here's a new one by John & Paul." & the mad rush to the
>> record store begins by the Beatlemaniacs, eager to jump on anything they
>> think is by The Beatles. Maybe they'll think it's something that was
>> cut before they made it big.
>>
>> IMO a record doesn't have to include a member of the Beatles or even be
>> about the Beatles to be Beatles' related. As long as there's a tie in
>> to the Beatles in some way, it's related. Some are distant relatives,
>> but relatives nonetheless.
>
> I don't see it like that, and I don't think that people who collect
> "Beatles Related" records own a copy of the Lorne Greene record. They
> collect records about the Beatles, and versions of Beatles songs, and
> records that one or more of them are supposed to have guested on,
> stuff like that.

Bruce, you can argue the point all you like. You can get a thousand
Beatlemaniacs to say they & their clique didn't like the record. I
never said Beatlemaniacs rushed to buy the record - & I'll gladly
concede that many or maybe even most Beatlemaniacs didn't like the
record; I can't say one way or the other because I only knew a couple of
Beatlemaniacs & I never asked them. I merely said the song was Beatles'
related but you want to change the parameters of that relationship. It
had a tie-in if for nothing else than for disk jockeys to have fun with.
But that's something you wouldn't be aware of. Wiki, which you accept
when it suits you, even mentions a tie-in. I guess you set up arguments
to keep threads going, but you have a tendency to start an argument &
twist a person's words to make it seem as though they have said
something they didn't say just so you can appear to win your own
argument. Why should that person even bother? It's an argument that
person will never win because the parameters will forever change. No mas!

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

It's not Beatles related.

[Jeff]

I have to agree for once with Bloomfield. The song is not Beatles
related, cause this Ringo song isn't about Ringo Starr.