You Ever Notice with The Beatles....
Uni
Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
Uni
Igor
Notice how numerous record companies didn't even TRY to promote them
until they started touring in the states and then everybody wanted a
piece of them, but by then it was too late for the other companies?
bip...@sbcglobal.net
Lola Rosanove
You fucking idiot. If that's what they owed their success to (as you
imply here) then why have no other groups been AS successful for AS long?
I thought I noticed a Beatle-phobic slant to your posts. Now it's clear.
Clear that you're an idiotic Uni-tard.
Eric Ramon
Bobby Jameson was also a superstar because of a publicity push.
Jan Dean
I noticed that.
Uni
Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
numerous R&B songs?
Ever notice they never had a TV show, because they were poor actors?
Ever notice while some groups were able to record a hit in one or two
Takes, it's took The Beatles MANY Takes to get it right, because they
were wonderful musicians?
Ever notice....
Uni
Uni
> Yes, "With the Beatles" was the name of their second LP in the UK.
>
> I noticed that.
:-)
Uni
Bradley
Listen to the Decca demo tapes they made. That's how The Beatles sounded
before Capital. Now listen to their first album. It was made AFTER George
Martin made them listen to the demo "How Do You Do It?" by The Dave Clark
Five. They copied the DC5 sound and became famous. That's why people thought
the DC5 sounded like The Beatles.
"Uni" <no.e...@no.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:47B78A67...@no.email.invalid...
Uni
> Uni,
>
> Listen to the Decca demo tapes they made. That's how The Beatles sounded
> before Capital. Now listen to their first album. It was made AFTER
> George Martin made them listen to the demo "How Do You Do It?" by The
> Dave Clark Five. They copied the DC5 sound and became famous. That's why
> people thought the DC5 sounded like The Beatles.
Very interesting!!! Yeah, lots of similar sounding groups from the UK,
but who came first!
Thanks!
Uni
Jan Dean
> Very interesting!!! Yeah, lots of similar sounding groups from the UK,
> but who came first!
No, the Beatles were formed before the Who.
Jan Dean
> Listen to the Decca demo tapes they made. That's how The Beatles sounded
> before Capital. Now listen to their first album. It was made AFTER
> George Martin made them listen to the demo "How Do You Do It?" by The
> Dave Clark Five. They copied the DC5 sound and became famous. That's why
> people thought the DC5 sounded like The Beatles.
That is simply amazing, that Mitch Murray had enough money to hire such
a hot group as the Dave Clark Five to record a demo for him.
I learn so much from reading this group.
Lola Rosanove
> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>> Uni wrote:
>>
>>> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the
>>> Mop Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
>>> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
>>> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of
>>> money?
>>>
>>> Uni
>>>
>>
>> You fucking idiot. If that's what they owed their success to (as you
>> imply here) then why have no other groups been AS successful for AS long?
>>
>> I thought I noticed a Beatle-phobic slant to your posts. Now it's
>> clear. Clear that you're an idiotic Uni-tard.
>
> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
> numerous R&B songs?
Their versions actually cut the originals in almost every case, you
stupid fuck. They had to cover R&B because their schedule was so fucking
hectic after people started demanding their time. Because of the songs
THEY WROTE. A Hard Days Night, 1964, all Lennon/McCartney.
Or are you saying the Stones, Hollies, Animals, etc. are also weak
because THEY covered R&B songs?
>
> Ever notice they never had a TV show, because they were poor actors?
And the acting by the four Beatles in A Hard Days Night is revered as
the greatest ever, almost universally, out of the gate, by rock
musicians with virtually no training whatsoever. You can't argue with
success, Uni-tard.
>
> Ever notice while some groups were able to record a hit in one or two
> Takes, it's took The Beatles MANY Takes to get it right, because they
> were wonderful musicians?
>
> Ever notice....
>
The Beatles actually applied what they call 'craft' to their studio
experiences, more than any artist previous or really since. Their first
album, recorded in less than a day notwithstanding. And THAT is still
recognized as one of the great debuts in rock history.
Folks, is this guy retarded? Seriously, is he?
Bradley
"Jan Dean" <jan...@surfcity.com> wrote in message
news:TfudnZ1y_KdbByra...@rcn.net...
Uni
Elementary, My dear Watson. The only place where Unit 4 + 2 does not
equal 6.
Uni :-)
Uni
> Uni wrote:
>
>> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>>
>>> Uni wrote:
>>>
>>>> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the
>>>> Mop Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol
>>>> Records, encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to
>>>> promote their songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would
>>>> make lots of money?
>>>>
>>>> Uni
>>>>
>>>
>>> You fucking idiot. If that's what they owed their success to (as you
>>> imply here) then why have no other groups been AS successful for AS
>>> long?
>>>
>>> I thought I noticed a Beatle-phobic slant to your posts. Now it's
>>> clear. Clear that you're an idiotic Uni-tard.
>>
>>
>> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
>> numerous R&B songs?
>
>
> Their versions actually cut the originals in almost every case, you
> stupid fuck. They had to cover R&B because their schedule was so fucking
> hectic after people started demanding their time.
Oh, I see. So, they initially had no time to write songs, so they
covered R&B tunes. But, later, they had ample time to write, since their
popularity became scarce, such as a White Album.
Uni
Lola Rosanove
> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>> Uni wrote:
>>
>>> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uni wrote:
>>> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
>>> numerous R&B songs?
>>
>>
>> Their versions actually cut the originals in almost every case, you
>> stupid fuck. They had to cover R&B because their schedule was so
>> fucking hectic after people started demanding their time.
>
> Oh, I see. So, they initially had no time to write songs, so they
> covered R&B tunes. But, later, they had ample time to write, since their
> popularity became scarce, such as a White Album.
>
> Uni
>
Yes, the White Album was a definite sign of The Beatles waning
popularity. I mean, Sergeant Pepper (the UK predecessor) was #1 for 15
weeks, Abbey Road, released the next year, was only #1 for 17. And
judging by the fact that this double album was #1 for 8 weeks, and has
sold almost 20 million copies thus far, it's clear that the White
Album's unpopularity continues unabated.
Ever notice how very single point you made to begin this thread was
totally inaccurate? Try, you ignorant fuck.
Mister Charlie
"Bradley" <bjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vLudndXKcu4wCCra...@comcast.com...
> Uni,
>
> Listen to the Decca demo tapes they made. That's how The Beatles sounded
> before Capital. Now listen to their first album. It was made AFTER George
> Martin made them listen to the demo "How Do You Do It?" by The Dave Clark
> Five. They copied the DC5 sound and became famous. That's why people
> thought the DC5 sounded like The Beatles.
>
usual trove of misinformation.
Uni is trolling for attention, pure and simple. A little pipsqueak with a
big mouth.
Mister Charlie
"Lola Rosanove" <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b79c15$0$1110$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Uni likes to play that way so people will notice. Uni is a tard, alright,
but on purpose. Pathetic.
>
Bradley
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b7c662$0$9963$8ebe...@news.megabitz.net...
Uni
Why as them, ask me.
The Beatles used their "craft" in the recording studio to learn songs
written for them. They had their short time on the charts, unlike Elvis,
who was more mature and outlasted their immaturities.
Uni
>
elaich
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> Yes, the White Album was a definite sign of The Beatles waning
> popularity. I mean, Sergeant Pepper (the UK predecessor) was #1 for 15
> weeks, Abbey Road, released the next year, was only #1 for 17. And
> judging by the fact that this double album was #1 for 8 weeks, and has
> sold almost 20 million copies thus far, it's clear that the White
> Album's unpopularity continues unabated.
Well, the same record buying public that made "Winchester Cathdral" a
number one hit determined those numbers also. I don't rely on the record
buying public to tell me what I like. I don't like much from any of those
Beatles albums.
Lola Rosanove
The issue isn't personal taste. Uni stated that the Beatles popularity
was waning by the time of the White Album. The absurdity of this
assertion has been disproved by me. Nothing to do with personal taste.
Lola Rosanove
Who wrote songs specifically for the Beatles?
Also, I see you never read Guralnick's Elvis bio, which gives the lie to
your Elvis maturity statement. The Beatles music got MORE refined and
intricate with time. Elvis' less so. You fucking idiot wankstain.
As for their short time on the charts, in that short time they outsold
every other artist on the planet. Including Elvis. In fact, they ground
his sales records into fine little bits.
Let's put it this way, fucknut. The Beatles had 5 #1 albums AFTER THEY
BROKE UP!
Uni
I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity began
to diminish. A year later, their producer committed suicide, popping a
bottle of sleeping pills. Probably felt depressed for what he helped create!
Uni
Uni
> elaich wrote:
>
>> Lola Rosanove <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:47b7b488$0$6495
>> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, the White Album was a definite sign of The Beatles waning
>>> popularity. I mean, Sergeant Pepper (the UK predecessor) was #1 for
>>> 15 weeks, Abbey Road, released the next year, was only #1 for 17. And
>>> judging by the fact that this double album was #1 for 8 weeks, and
>>> has sold almost 20 million copies thus far, it's clear that the White
>>> Album's unpopularity continues unabated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the same record buying public that made "Winchester Cathdral" a
>> number one hit determined those numbers also. I don't rely on the
>> record buying public to tell me what I like. I don't like much from
>> any of those Beatles albums.
Whoops, have to edit this quickly, before I'm called some other F word,
by an immature participant!...
> I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity began
> to diminish. A year later, their manager committed suicide, popping a
Lola Rosanove
> elaich wrote:
>> Lola Rosanove <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:47b7b488$0$6495
>> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, the White Album was a definite sign of The Beatles waning
>>> popularity. I mean, Sergeant Pepper (the UK predecessor) was #1 for
>>> 15 weeks, Abbey Road, released the next year, was only #1 for 17. And
>>> judging by the fact that this double album was #1 for 8 weeks, and
>>> has sold almost 20 million copies thus far, it's clear that the White
>>> Album's unpopularity continues unabated.
>>
>>
>> Well, the same record buying public that made "Winchester Cathdral" a
>> number one hit determined those numbers also. I don't rely on the
>> record buying public to tell me what I like. I don't like much from
>> any of those Beatles albums.
>
> I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity began
> to diminish.
Really? So Sgt Pepper was unpopular? The White Album? Abbey Road?
1962-1966? 1967-1970? Anthologies 1,2, and 3? "1"?
Their three biggest selling albums came after 1966, and you somehow say
their popularity was diminishing?
Uni
You ever notice their TV performances disappeared with their drug
tainted albums? Maybe they couldn't perform "live", with all the studio
help they received.
Uni
Uni
They should have changed their name to The Spaced Out Cadets:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/madonna-b.mp3
Uni
Lola Rosanove
> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>> Uni wrote:
>>
>>> elaich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lola Rosanove <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:47b7b488$0$6495
>>>> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>> I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity
>>> began to diminish.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really? So Sgt Pepper was unpopular? The White Album? Abbey Road?
>> 1962-1966? 1967-1970? Anthologies 1,2, and 3? "1"?
>>
>> Their three biggest selling albums came after 1966, and you somehow
>> say their popularity was diminishing?
And of course, no response. Except for the following, odd gambit....
>>
>
> You ever notice their TV performances disappeared with their drug
> tainted albums? Maybe they couldn't perform "live", with all the studio
> help they received.
>
> Uni
>
So you judge popularity not by record sales but by TV appearances? In
this regard, Topo Gigio was more popular than the Rolling Stones. Is
that your assertion?
Or have you conveniently forgotten all the poorly researched, idiotic
assertions you began this thread with?
Hey Jude, Revolution, Hello Goodbye, All You Need is Love. All seminal
moments of television. Moments that still resonate today. I'm starting
to think you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Mister Charlie
> NOT UNTURE. Why don't you look it up for yourself?
I don't need to, I know my Beatle facts. Anyone here can tell you you're
wrong. I suggest YOU read a book or two.
Uni
> Uni wrote:
>
>> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>>
>>> Uni wrote:
>>>
>>>> elaich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lola Rosanove <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:47b7b488$0$6495
>>>>> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>>>
>
>>>> I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity
>>>> began to diminish.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? So Sgt Pepper was unpopular? The White Album? Abbey Road?
>>> 1962-1966? 1967-1970? Anthologies 1,2, and 3? "1"?
>>>
>>> Their three biggest selling albums came after 1966, and you somehow
>>> say their popularity was diminishing?
>>
>
> And of course, no response. Except for the following, odd gambit....
>
>
>>>
>>
>> You ever notice their TV performances disappeared with their drug
>> tainted albums? Maybe they couldn't perform "live", with all the
>> studio help they received.
>>
>> Uni
>>
>
> So you judge popularity not by record sales but by TV appearances? In
> this regard, Topo Gigio was more popular than the Rolling Stones. Is
> that your assertion?
Never caught Topo Gigio having to redo his performances, dropping a
hideous church sounding organ opening. Hurry, Stones, re-record it so
those "Classic Rock" radio stations will play it and think you're so
wonderful...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/timeonmyside.mp3
Uni
Uni
> "Bradley" <bjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GMednWEz2I2VQSra...@comcast.com...
>
>>NOT UNTURE. Why don't you look it up for yourself?
>
>
> I don't need to, I know my Beatle facts.
Maybe you should buy a Dion facts book. No need to, I'll teach you! :-)
Uni
Igor
> Lola Rosanove wrote:
> > Uni wrote:
>
> >> Mop Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> >> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> >> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of
> >> money?
>
> >> Uni
>
> > You fucking idiot. If that's what they owed their success to (as you
> > imply here) then why have no other groups been AS successful for AS long?
>
> > I thought I noticed a Beatle-phobic slant to your posts. Now it's clear.
> > Clear that you're an idiotic Uni-tard.
>
> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
> numerous R&B songs?
>
>
> Takes, it's took The Beatles MANY Takes to get it right, because they
> were wonderful musicians?
>
> Ever notice....
>
Ever notice your ignorance?
Jan Dean
> NOT UNTURE. Why don't you look it up for yourself?
Even if we accept that the Dave Clark Five played on the Murray demo,
how do we know what the Dave Clark Five sounded like in 1962?
. . . or that the performance on the demo influenced the Beatles sound?
. . . or that any perceived change in the Beatles sound from and after
the Decca audition tape may be attributable to factors having nothing to
do with the Dave Clark Five -- such as having Ringo Starr replacing Pete
Best?
Isn't it largely accepted now, even by fans of the Dave Clark Five, that
Dave Clark Five recording sessions were secretive and that Clark brought
in outside musicians in lieu of the actual group members to play on the
records?
Do you hear any substantial difference between the style in the Beatles'
recording of Buddy Holly's Crying, Waiting, Hoping on the Decca audition
tape on January 1, 1962 and in their recording of the same song for the
BBC on July 16, 1963 -- after they listened to the Murray demo?
Lola Rosanove
> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>> Uni wrote:
>>
>>> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> elaich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lola Rosanove <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:47b7b488$0$6495
>>>>>> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity
>>>>> began to diminish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? So Sgt Pepper was unpopular? The White Album? Abbey Road?
>>>> 1962-1966? 1967-1970? Anthologies 1,2, and 3? "1"?
>>>>
>>>> Their three biggest selling albums came after 1966, and you somehow
>>>> say their popularity was diminishing?
>>>
>>
>> And of course, no response. Except for the following, odd gambit....
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You ever notice their TV performances disappeared with their drug
>>> tainted albums? Maybe they couldn't perform "live", with all the
>>> studio help they received.
>>>
>>> Uni
>>>
>>
>> So you judge popularity not by record sales but by TV appearances? In
>> this regard, Topo Gigio was more popular than the Rolling Stones. Is
>> that your assertion?
>
Nice straw man, fucktard.
Once again, please show us evidence that the Beatles popularity was
diminishing after 1966. I have shown conclusively that this is not so.
Let's see it. Don't ask one of your meaningless rhetorical questions
that lead nowhere. Show us proof, or admit you're wrong.
elaich
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> The issue isn't personal taste. Uni stated that the Beatles popularity
> was waning by the time of the White Album. The absurdity of this
> assertion has been disproved by me. Nothing to do with personal taste.
Their popularity wasn't waning, but their image was changing. Maybe that's
what Uni was trying to say. I didn't see they original post - I have Uni
killfiled.
Uni
He's just saying that so you'll be his friend :-)
Yeah, boy, The Beatles sure did look like bums, in THE END!
Uni
Steve Carras
> On Feb 16, 11:58 am, Uni <no.em...@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the Mop
> > Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> > encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> > songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
>
> > Uni
>
> until they started touring in the states and then everybody wanted a
> piece of them, but by then it was too late for the other companies?
Notice how they never started a lot of their biggest hits with an
instrumental intro?
Notable exceptions: "I Shoulda Know Better" [1964], "Strawberry
Fields' [1967],
"All You Need Is Love' [1967], "I Am The Walrus" [1967], "Lady
Madonna" [1968],
"Revolution (single, not "Revolution No.9", whatever that is),[1968],
"Birthday" [1968]
,'Get Back' [1969], "Something"/'Come Together' [1969], & "Let it
Be" [1970].
---You can't stop the beat
Steve Carras
>
You sure getting a lot of dates, aren't you?
---You can't stop the beat
Uni
He must be employed at EMI-Capitol. Doesn't like anything bad being said
about The Beatles. But, then again, the Capitol Records engineers didn't
like The Beatles! How did one put it, "a group of egotistic".. whatevers.
Uni
Lola Rosanove
Good idea. Actually, someone here emailed me with the facts about ol'
UniTard, and it has been enlightening, even if he/she/it has not. Sorry
for picking on a retarded guy, folks.
Carry on.
Bradley
Oh, there's the DC5 with their #1 hit Over and Over. A short bio, what's
that they say? "The DC5 worked with songwrite Mitch Murray for a short while
and recorded his hit 'I Like it' before Gerry and the Pacemakers..." Hummmm
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b866d5$0$14984$8ebe...@news.megabitz.net...
ppint. at pplay
chac...@hotmail.com "Lola Rosanove" revealed:
> Uni wrote:
>> Lola Rosanove wrote:
>>> Uni wrote:
>
>>>>I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity
>>>>began to diminish.
>>>
>>>Really? So Sgt Pepper was unpopular? The White Album? Abbey Road?
>>>1962-1966? 1967-1970? Anthologies 1,2, and 3? "1"?
>>>Their three biggest selling albums came after 1966, and you somehow
>>>say their popularity was diminishing?
>
>And of course, no response. Except for the following, odd gambit....
>
>>You ever notice their TV performances disappeared with their drug
>>tainted albums? Maybe they couldn't perform "live", with all the
>>studio help they received.
>
>In this regard, Topo Gigio was more popular than the Rolling Stones.
>Is that your assertion?
>
>Or have you conveniently forgotten all the poorly researched, idiotic
>assertions you began this thread with?
>
>Hey Jude, Revolution, Hello Goodbye, All You Need is Love. All seminal
>moments of television. Moments that still resonate today. I'm starting
>to think you simply don't know what you're talking about.
>
- love, a ppint. happy to have even half a shop open again
[please drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g",
should you wish to cc. to, or email, me]
--
[a] - "I like rhetorical questions;
I usually get them right."
- joann l.dominik on afp, 6/95
Uni
Yeah, a retard who can get you flustered over four mop heads :-)
Uni
>
> Carry on.
>
Lola Rosanove
Uni, I'm really sorry. I know you have a touch of the Down Syndrome, so
I'll just congratulate you on admitting that you're retarded. YOU'RE A
WINNER!! Pat pat on the head! Good job!
Uni
Hey, Lola bird, if you see BobbyM around, tell him I said hello!!!!! :-)
Uni
Lola Rosanove
bip...@sbcglobal.net
> "Lola Rosanove" <chach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47b79c15$0$1110$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
> > Uni wrote:
> >> Lola Rosanove wrote:
> >>> Uni wrote:
>
> >>>> Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> >>>> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> >>>> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of
> >>>> money?
>
> >>>> Uni
>
> >>> imply here) then why have no other groups been AS successful for AS
> >>> long?
>
> >>> I thought I noticed a Beatle-phobic slant to your posts. Now it's clear.
> >>> Clear that you're an idiotic Uni-tard.
>
> >> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
> >> numerous R&B songs?
>
> > fuck. They had to cover R&B because their schedule was so fucking hectic
> > after people started demanding their time. Because of the songs THEY
> > WROTE. A Hard Days Night, 1964, all Lennon/McCartney.
>
> > Or are you saying the Stones, Hollies, Animals, etc. are also weak because
> > THEY covered R&B songs?
>
> >> Ever notice they never had a TV show, because they were poor actors?
>
> > greatest ever, almost universally, out of the gate, by rock musicians with
> > virtually no training whatsoever. You can't argue with success, Uni-tard.
>
> >> Ever notice while some groups were able to record a hit in one or two
> >> Takes, it's took The Beatles MANY Takes to get it right, because they
> >> were wonderful musicians?
>
> >> Ever notice....
>
> > experiences, more than any artist previous or really since. Their first
> > album, recorded in less than a day notwithstanding. And THAT is still
> > recognized as one of the great debuts in rock history.
>
> > Folks, is this guy retarded? Seriously, is he?
>
> but on purpose. Pathetic.
He is so obviously a troll. What drives one to become a troll like
Uni has become? Probably the same thing that drives university
killers.
Mister Charlie
> Ok, I'll read a book or two. My first try is "Billboard's Book of #1 hits"
> Oh, there's the DC5 with their #1 hit Over and Over. A short bio, what's
> that they say? "The DC5 worked with songwrite Mitch Murray for a short
> while and recorded his hit 'I Like it' before Gerry and the Pacemakers..."
> Hummmm
Which has no bearing on claiming they did the demo for How Do You Do It.
Read closer next time.
Walter Traprock
> On Feb 16, 11:58 am, Uni <no.em...@no.email.invalid> wrote:
> > Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the Mop
> > Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> > encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> > songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
> >
> > Uni
>
> Notice how numerous record companies didn't even TRY to promote them
> until they started touring in the states and then everybody wanted a
> piece of them, but by then it was too late for the other companies?
Have you noticed that this thread is actually more interesting than what
makes up rec.music.beatles?
Bill Kawalec
"Uni" <no.e...@no.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:47B892E...@no.email.invalid...
As Reggie Jackson once said, it' ain't bragging if you can back it up.
Bradley
"the group also recorded demo discs for songwrite Mitch Murray that included
"I Like It" and "How Do You Do It"......
Why don't YOU try to read closer next time!!!!!!!!
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b91567$0$9955$8ebe...@news.megabitz.net...
modern
> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the Mop
> Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
>
> Uni
>
I thought it was because Murray the K took it upon himself to promote I
Want To Hold Your Hand.
If you are trying to put down the Beatles it's an odd thing to do.
modern
> On Feb 16, 11:03 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 11:58 am, Uni <no.em...@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the Mop
>>> Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
>>> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
>>> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
>>> Uni
>> Notice how numerous record companies didn't even TRY to promote them
>> until they started touring in the states and then everybody wanted a
>> piece of them, but by then it was too late for the other companies?
>
> Notice how they never started a lot of their biggest hits with an
> instrumental intro?
> Notable exceptions: "I Shoulda Know Better" [1964],
That was a single? Flip side wasn't it.
JanDean
> Ok, let's try http://dc5bitsandpieces.com/#/biography/4521087995
>
> "the group also recorded demo discs for songwrite Mitch Murray that
> included "I Like It" and "How Do You Do It"......
>
> Why don't YOU try to read closer next time!!!!!!!!
Good Lord, man.
When are you going to cite Lewisohn's Chronicle?
Mister Charlie
and of all the sites about DC5 and Mitch Murray I found, -none- mentioned
How Do You Do It. I had gone to this site you furnish but it will not load
properly for me, so I don't know what their claim is or how they back it up.
Even the 2CD History of The Dave Clark 5 which has extensive historical
notes ONLY mentions I Like It.
Seems to me whoever wrote your fan site made an assumption and posted it
without any particular evidence. You should look around at more than one
source.
Nevertheless, I suppose given their proximity to the other tunes they cut
that a vague possibility does exist. So I will consider that there is a
slight chance, certainly not a fact, that they might have cut that demo.
Unless you can provide something more definitive that is about as good as I
can do.
"Bradley" <bjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YZmdndL0P7ar1iTa...@comcast.com...
Jan Dean
> One site does not a fact make. I -did- do a search on this factoid of yours
> and of all the sites about DC5 and Mitch Murray I found, -none- mentioned
> How Do You Do It. I had gone to this site you furnish but it will not load
> properly for me, so I don't know what their claim is or how they back it up.
>
> Even the 2CD History of The Dave Clark 5 which has extensive historical
> notes ONLY mentions I Like It.
>
> Seems to me whoever wrote your fan site made an assumption and posted it
> without any particular evidence. You should look around at more than one
> source.
Um . . . jeez!
Again, what does Lewisohn have to say about this?
I heard a RUMOR he's somewhat of an authority.
"The Complete Beatles Chronicle"
2005 reprint
Index "Dave Clark Five"
Uni
Well, of course; look who started it! :-)
Good to see you around, Walt! Stereo ROCKS!
Uni
Uni
> Ok, let's try http://dc5bitsandpieces.com/#/biography/4521087995
>
> "the group also recorded demo discs for songwrite Mitch Murray that
> included "I Like It" and "How Do You Do It"......
>
> Why don't YOU try to read closer next time!!!!!!!!
Whoa, knocking down Charlie!!
Uni
Uni
Why? Who actually liked them? That's right, kids and the record companie$!
Uni
Uni
> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the Mop
> Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
>
> Uni
>
The Beatles were just a bunch of nobodies. Music wasn't good enough to
impress anyone. Not great musicians, couldn't even write decent songs,
until some rich person hired writers, passed tons of Payola, hired OTHER
musicians to help, THEN they magically became "popular"! Ha!
Uni
Uni
And, plus, they HAD to be brought to the US. You know why? Because their
"sound" was very common already in the UK!!!! They would have fallen on
their face if they stayed there!
Uni
>
> Uni
>
Jan Dean
>
> The Beatles were just a bunch of nobodies.
They only succeeded because a Nowhere Man,
sitting in his Nowhere Land,
made all their Nowhere Plans for them.
Jan Dean
> And, plus, they HAD to be brought to the US. You know why?
Because if not, the Filipinos would have killed them?
Uni
No, no drugs there!
Uni
Steve Carras
> elaich wrote:
> > Lola Rosanove <chach...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:47b7b488$0$6495
> > $4c368...@roadrunner.com:
>
> >>Yes, the White Album was a definite sign of The Beatles waning
> >>popularity. I mean, Sergeant Pepper (the UK predecessor) was #1 for 15
> >>weeks, Abbey Road, released the next year, was only #1 for 17. And
> >>judging by the fact that this double album was #1 for 8 weeks, and has
> >>sold almost 20 million copies thus far, it's clear that the White
> >>Album's unpopularity continues unabated.
>
> > Well, the same record buying public that made "Winchester Cathdral" a
> > number one hit determined those numbers also. I don't rely on the record
> > buying public to tell me what I like. I don't like much from any of those
> > Beatles albums.
>
> I would say, after their hit "Paperback Writer", their popularity began
> bottle of sleeping pills. Probably felt depressed for what he helped create!
>
Also in between they were bigger than Jesus. They were exiled from
stage after that. (But they got better. They discovered Sgt.Pepper,
went on a magical mystery tour, made their next album white and went
to Abbery road).
modern
Someone can say they don't like the Beatles, but to have a vendetta
against them is just strange. These kind of posts make me uncomfortable
discussing 60s music on this newsgroup. Maybe you should consider how
much you blanket others with your own views.
You seem stressed from spending so much time on this newsgroup.
Mister Charlie
"Jan Dean" <jan...@surfcity.com> wrote in message
news:Mf-dnR6iC_awYiTa...@rcn.net...
Yeah, if I owned it I might. Let the one who made the claim quote it. Or
you can stop being so oblique and just do so yourself.
Mister Charlie
> Uni wrote:
>
>
>> And, plus, they HAD to be brought to the US. You know why?
>
> Because if not, the Filipinos would have killed them?
LOL. Ok, that was funny.
modern
Lookingglass
"modern" <iden...@position.net> wrote
>
> But they treated everybody like that.
Nah! They treated me very nicely when I was there. I even saw LET IT BE for
the first time in the Philippines.
Tim
> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
> numerous R&B songs?
This was a great way for journeymen musicians to refine thet craft,
aye?
>
> Ever notice they never had a TV show, because they were poor actors?
Like they ever even wanted or needed to be Monkees??
>
> Ever notice while some groups were able to record a hit in one or two
> Takes, it's took The Beatles MANY Takes to get it right, because they
> were wonderful musicians?
No, they just had the luxury, after their initial success, of screwing
around doing "various takes for fun" before laying down the cut that
they could've done several cuts into recording a new song. Skuse the
hell out of them for having some fun!!
>
> Ever notice....
Yes, I notice the lengths you're willing to go to to disparage the
greatest music act of the past century. You keep trying though and
keep on coming up short.
Lola Rosanove
The question is "why?" Why is this doofus, who shows so little knowledge
in what he DOES pretend to know, so afraid of the most successful act of
the 60's by any real measure?
modern
as John Lennon said.
Mister Charlie
"Lola Rosanove" <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47bb9d92$0$24082$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
The quickest way to get attention is to piss on the giant's shoes and then
run away. Uni's long time M.O.
Jan Dean
> Yeah, if I owned it I might. Let the one who made the claim quote it. Or
> you can stop being so oblique and just do so yourself.
>
"Oblique" is a drag!
THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION IS CLAIMED AS 'FAIR USE' UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 107.
(Begin quote)
Interesting information has recently come to light about the Beatles'
recording of 'How Do You Do It'. Most surprising is the discovery that
they considerably re-arranged Mitch Murray's composition. George Martin
had mailed the group an acetate-disc of the original demo and they must
have spent some time adapting it to suit their particular style. (Taped
and cut at Regent Sound Studios in Denmark Street, central London, in
summer 1962, the demo was sung by another aspiring songwriter Barry
Mason, backed by the then unknown London group the Dave Clark Five. It
was intended to interest Adam Faith and, as a consequence, was performed
in a light, skipalong style.) Later, when the Beatles' recording was
passed over and the song was given instead to Gerry and the Pacemakers,
it was their re-arrangement which Gerry copied, not Murray's original.
(End of quote)
Copyright Mark Lewisohn 1992.
What do we learn from the above?
(1) That the Dave Clark Five did in fact play on Murray's demo.
(2) That the Beatles REJECTED the musical style of the demo and adapted
the song to THEIR musical style, and rejected the style of the demo.
(3) That Gerry & the Pacemakers' hit version was influenced by the
Beatles recording and not by the Dave Clark Five.
Source: The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn, pages 77 and 78.
Jan Dean
>
> Also in between they were bigger than Jesus. They were exiled from
> stage after that. (But they got better. They discovered Sgt.Pepper,
> went on a magical mystery tour, made their next album white and went
> to Abbery road).
Their going to Abbery Road was definitely an aberration.
Mister Charlie
Thank you.
Now I know, and (pay attention now Uni, this is how it's done:)
I apologize to Bradley for disbelieving his original assertion.
>
>
>
>
>
Uni
You rock! :-)
Uni
Uni
Probably because I love the music and have a CD collection that will top
them all!
Next question, nosey?
Uni
Uni
Maybe. But I like sharing the tunes I like and hopefully an artist will
respond. Like the Gerry & The Pacemaker one - I just got the CD. It's an
UK import from 1991!
Uni
>
modern
the original version of Love To Love?
Lola Rosanove
Good to know. Poor tard. What he doesn't know about music could fill a
barn, it seems.
Duncanmusic
>
> - Show quoted text -
How many CDs is that UNI? More than 20,000?
Peter Altschuler
> Uni wrote:
> > modern wrote:
> >> Uni wrote:
>
> >>> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the
> >>> Mop Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> >>> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> >>> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of
> >>> money?
>
> >>> Uni
>
> >> I Want To Hold Your Hand.
> >> If you are trying to put down the Beatles it's an odd thing to do.
>
> > Why? Who actually liked them? That's right, kids and the record companie$!
>
> > Uni
>
> Someone can say they don't like the Beatles, but to have a vendetta
> against them is just strange. These kind of posts make me uncomfortable
> discussing 60s music on this newsgroup. Maybe you should consider how
> much you blanket others with your own views.
> You seem stressed from spending so much time on this newsgroup.
The myopia is really astounding. The Beatles were a phenomenon
throughout Europe before they came to the States, and it was Ed
Sullivan more than anyone else who recognized the band's appeal. When
their first record ("Please Please Me") arrived here, it didn't
exactly shoot up the charts and, when Murray "the K" Kaufman played it
on his Record Review Board, it scored a poor third out of five. Though
Kaufman became associated with the group early on, his involvement
only began after he was approached by Brian Epstein, who was hoping to
capitalize on Kaufman's top-of-the-ratings popularity in New York,
which was then the top music market in the nation. Sullivan was the
catalyst for the band's nationwide success, since TV carried the band
into virtually every home in America. And, unlike so many acts that
are engineered into popularity through marketing, the Beatles were a
true fan-driven phenomenon. Any DJ who rejected them did so at his own
peril... with the possible exception of the jocks in the South who
fueled the anti-Beatles sentiment following Lennon's "We're more
popular than Jesus" remark. Yet the band's innovations and
inventiveness (with a great deal of help from George Martin), their
combination of English music hall tradition ("Penny Lane," "Martha My
Dear," et al.) with new combinations of nearly-poetic lyrics ("Eleanor
Rigby," "She's Leaving Home") and music (sitars, synthesizers, etc.)
kept them interesting and surprising -- with or without help from
their label (before establishing their own), their distributor, or
their promoters.
Ken Whiton
*-* In Article 47bc69b4$0$8633$4c36...@roadrunner.com,
*-* Lola Rosanove wrote
*-* About Re: You Ever Notice with The Beatles....
> Mister Charlie wrote:
>> "Lola Rosanove" <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:47bb9d92$0$24082$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> The question is "why?" Why is this doofus, who shows so little
>>> knowledge in what he DOES pretend to know, so afraid of the most
>>> successful act of the 60's by any real measure?
>> The quickest way to get attention is to piss on the giant's shoes
>> and then run away. Uni's long time M.O.
> Good to know. Poor tard. What he doesn't know about music could fill
> a barn, it seems.
A barn? More like the Grand Canyon, ... or the Mariana Trench.
Ken Whiton
FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: kenw...@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)
Bradley
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47bbb77e$0$15005$8ebe...@news.megabitz.net...
Uni
> apology accepted and the REJECTION by the Beatles noted!
I didn't hear an apology. I'd rather hear something like:
"Dear Bradley, please forgive me for being a little smacked behind. I
apologize".
Don't stand their lip service! :-)
Uni
Uni
> *-* On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:52:11 -0500,
> *-* In Article 47bc69b4$0$8633$4c36...@roadrunner.com,
> *-* Lola Rosanove wrote
> *-* About Re: You Ever Notice with The Beatles....
>
>> Mister Charlie wrote:
>>
>>> "Lola Rosanove" <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47bb9d92$0$24082$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>
>>>> The question is "why?" Why is this doofus, who shows so little
>>>> knowledge in what he DOES pretend to know, so afraid of the most
>>>> successful act of the 60's by any real measure?
>>>
>
>>> The quickest way to get attention is to piss on the giant's shoes
>>> and then run away. Uni's long time M.O.
>>
>
>> Good to know. Poor tard. What he doesn't know about music could fill
>> a barn, it seems.
>
>
> A barn? More like the Grand Canyon
What are you guys..... err, forgive me, things talking about? Where
they'll have enough room to bury my CD collection? Grand Canyon? Yeah,
possibly. Actually, the Library Of Congress will probably want it!
Uni
Ken Whiton
*-* In Article 47BEB812...@no.email.invalid,
*-* Uni wrote
*-* About Re: You Ever Notice with The Beatles....
> Ken Whiton wrote:
>> *-* Lola Rosanove wrote
>>> Mister Charlie wrote:
>>>> "Lola Rosanove" <chac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47bb9d92$0$24082$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> The question is "why?" Why is this doofus, who shows so little
>>>>> knowledge in what he DOES pretend to know, so afraid of the most
>>>>> successful act of the 60's by any real measure?
>>>> The quickest way to get attention is to piss on the giant's shoes
>>>> and then run away. Uni's long time M.O.
>>> Good to know. Poor tard. What he doesn't know about music could
>>> fill a barn, it seems.
>> A barn? More like the Grand Canyon, ... or the Mariana
>> Trench.
> What are you guys..... err, forgive me, things talking about? Where
> they'll have enough room to bury my CD collection?
That too. Especially considering that burial would be the proper
disposition of it.
> Grand Canyon?
> Yeah, possibly. Actually, the Library Of Congress will probably want
> it!
Only if they're looking for a bad example, ... or a selection of
coasters to put under their drinks.
jab...@googlemail.com
wrote the piece about the DC5 doing the original demos of "How Do You
Do It" and "I Like It". The info came straight from the horses mouth
so to speak...it was from an interview I did with Mitch Murray in
1997. Mitch still has those 2 demos.
thanks,
JB
P.S. How are you doin Bradley, long time no hear.
John
On 18 Feb, 17:45, "Mister Charlie" <widi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One site does not a fact make. I -did- do a search on this factoid of yours
> and of all the sites about DC5 and Mitch Murray I found, -none- mentioned
> How Do You Do It. I had gone to this site you furnish but it will not load
> properly for me, so I don't know what their claim is or how they back it up.
>
> Even the 2CD History of TheDave Clark 5which has extensive historical
> notes ONLY mentions I Like It.
>
> Seems to me whoever wrote your fan site made an assumption and posted it
> without any particular evidence. You should look around at more than one
> source.
>
> Nevertheless, I suppose given their proximity to the other tunes they cut
> that a vague possibility does exist. So I will consider that there is a
> slight chance, certainly not a fact, that they might have cut that demo.
> Unless you can provide something more definitive that is about as good as I
> can do.
>
> "Bradley" <bjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YZmdndL0P7ar1iTa...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Ok, let's tryhttp://dc5bitsandpieces.com/#/biography/4521087995
>
> > "the group also recorded demo discs for songwrite Mitch Murray that
> > included "I Like It" and "How Do You Do It"......
>
> > Why don't YOU try to read closer next time!!!!!!!!
>
> > "Mister Charlie" <widi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:47b91567$0$9955$8ebe...@news.megabitz.net...
>
> >> "Bradley" <bjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Qb6dncW2pJDqICXa...@comcast.com...
> >>> Ok, I'll read a book or two. My first try is "Billboard's Book of #1
> >>> hits" Oh, there's the DC5 with their #1 hit Over and Over. A short bio,
> >>> what's that they say? "The DC5 worked with songwrite Mitch Murray for a
> >>> short while and recorded his hit 'I Like it' before Gerry and the
> >>> Pacemakers..." Hummmm
>
> >> Which has no bearing on claiming they did the demo for How Do You Do It.
>
> >> Read closer next time.
>
> >>> "Mister Charlie" <widi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:47b866d5$0$14984$8ebe...@news.megabitz.net...
>
> >>>> "Bradley" <bjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:GMednWEz2I2VQSra...@comcast.com...
> >>>>> NOT UNTURE. Why don't you look it up for yourself?
>
> >>>> I don't need to, I know my Beatle facts. Anyone here can tell you
> >>>> you're wrong. I suggest YOU read a book or two.- Hide quoted text -
Uni
> If I can just butt in....the "Bits and Pieces" site is mine and I
> wrote the piece about the DC5 doing the original demos of "How Do You
> Do It" and "I Like It". The info came straight from the horses mouth
> so to speak...it was from an interview I did with Mitch Murray in
> 1997. Mitch still has those 2 demos.
Well, tell him to fork 'em over!!!!
Uni
Bradley
I have to ask - did you get to listen to those demos????
<jab...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1ef52f23-1bc6-477d...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
jab...@googlemail.com
at his home on the Isle Of Man. Although I spoke to him for about an
hour mainly regarding his work with the DC5 I never got to hear the
actual demos. Mitch did tell me that the demo with Barry Mason singing
can be heard on the video version of the Beatles anthology.
JB
zos...@gmail.com
> Bradley wrote:
> > NOT UNTURE. Why don't you look it up for yourself?
>
> how do we know what the Dave Clark Five sounded like in 1962?
>
> . . . or that the performance on the demo influenced the Beatles sound?
>
> . . . or that any perceived change in the Beatles sound from and after
> the Decca audition tape may be attributable to factors having nothing to
> do with the Dave Clark Five -- such as having Ringo Starr replacing Pete
> Best?
>
> Isn't it largely accepted now, even by fans of the Dave Clark Five, that
> Dave Clark Five recording sessions were secretive and that Clark brought
> in outside musicians in lieu of the actual group members to play on the
> records?
>
> Do you hear any substantial difference between the style in the Beatles'
> recording of Buddy Holly's Crying, Waiting, Hoping on the Decca audition
> tape on January 1, 1962 and in their recording of the same song for the
> BBC on July 16, 1963 -- after they listened to the Murray demo?
Where could I listen to these two versions?
BobbyM
news:aba44284-e1ab-4e83...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
I think the Decca version is only available on boots, one of which is not
surprisingly called "The Decca Demos". The 2d is on the official "Live at
the BBC" CD but first appeared on boots also.
BobbyM
"BobbyM" <massey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fqahou$c3f$1...@aioe.org...
I put the booted version here (for a couple of days):
http://www.zshare.net/audio/82904391dcca0a/
The other is easily obtained commercially and otherwise so I won't bother
with that one.
Jeff
> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the Mop
> Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of money?
>
> Uni
Didn't Brian Epstein buy 10,000 copies of Beatle records, to put them
on the charts?
Jeff
> Lola Rosanove wrote:
> > Uni wrote:
>
> >> Notice how numerous record companies TRIED to make something of the
> >> Mop Head Four (AKA The Beatles), and it wasn't until Capitol Records,
> >> encouraged (you know, pay to play), radio stations to promote their
> >> songs, so they would become "famous" and Capitol would make lots of
> >> money?
>
> >> Uni
>
> > imply here) then why have no other groups been AS successful for AS long?
>
> > I thought I noticed a Beatle-phobic slant to your posts. Now it's clear.
> > Clear that you're an idiotic Uni-tard.
>
> Ever notice their song writing skills were weak, so they had to cover
> numerous R&B songs?
Not true. If their songs were weak, then why were they so successful?
>
> Ever notice they never had a TV show, because they were poor actors?
They had no time for a TV show.
>
> Ever notice while some groups were able to record a hit in one or two
> Takes, it's took The Beatles MANY Takes to get it right, because they
> were wonderful musicians?
The Beatles were perfectionists.
>
> Ever notice....
Yep.
>
> Uni