Did the Beatles Sell Out?
James Kelly
early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
the fans. Respond.
dave prokopy
->When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
->early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
->Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
->ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
->the fans.
that was john's argument in the early seventies, during his "anti-beatle"
phase. he seemed to regret how they went from being this prototypical
"punk" band into these tame pop singers. he has a point, to a degree.
but as for "selling out," perhaps that's true, IF that's has far as you
look at it (i.e., hamburg -> early beatlemania). however, the beatles
revolutionized and changed the face of pop/rock music, there's no doubt
about that. so how can you say that a band "sold out" to something that
they themselves help create?
--
-=- dave prokopy -=- pro...@iquest.net -=- http://www.iquest.net/~prokopy -=-
-=- david....@launchpad.unc.edu -=- gan...@aol.com -=-
-=- "they say i got brains, but they ain't doin' me no good" -wilson/asher -=-
David Harlan
David Harlan <dha...@unllib.unl.edu>
Serials Cataloger, Nebraska Newspaper Project
209N Love Library * University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0410 USA
(402) 472-2517
fax (402) 472-5131
On Sun, 27 Aug 1995, James Kelly wrote:
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
> early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
> Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
> ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
> the fans. Respond.
>
Your statement is true at face value, although they certainly acted "in
an animated fashion" in Hamburg! But your subject line is "Did the
Beatles sell out?" Any answer to that requires some qualification and
allowance for the realities of the times. This was 1962, after all.
They would not have gotten a chance at a recording contract in those days
without the suits and ties, in England anyway. Even in the US there were
almost no exceptions to that dress code (possibly Gene Vincent?). Little
Richard looked outrageous with his hair and eye makeup, but he wore suits
too.
None of this had anything to do with an artist's music--it was
packaging, pure and simple. John Lennon had his say about it (and much
else) in the famous 1970 Rolling Stone interviews. However, he was
intelligent enough to see that that was the way the game had to be played
if he wanted to get beyond Merseyside and Hamburg clubs. If this is
selling out, so be it. The Beatles were in no position to do otherwise
if they wanted a recording contract *at that time and place*. Early
pictures of the Rolling Stones and the Animals show them in suits and
ties too.
Richard Bell
The Beatles didn't sell out. Silly
"The Who Sell Out"
R. Bell
rich...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Chris
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
>early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
>Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
>ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
>the fans. Respond.
in history to do it backwards...Yeah, they sold out at first but
by the time it was all over they were playing by there own rules!
Has anyone else ever done that? THEY SHOULD.
-(CJW) I dig a pygmy
Rauk Conley
>
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
>early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
>Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
>ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to
please
>the fans. Respond.
Brian Epstein commercialized the group, sure but that was to get the
contract and distribution afforded by EMI, but sell out...Never!, ...
remember it was the Beatles that distributed the Hippy message accross
the planet more than any others, while this involved all aspects of Pop
culture media, It was not a sell-out...My definition of sell-out is a
comprising of integrity, which the Beatles never did. In 1964 integrity
in pop music was unheard of, people did not write thier own songs, sesson
players were used, etc., but the Beatles managed to largely resist that
trend despite the suits..anyway the suits were cool, eh...I still have a
Beatle Jacket, it's unlicenced but still way chic.(collarless w/ velvet
trim!)....It is my understanding that the animated moves to please the
fans evolved from the German experience...
RAUK CONLEY PYD...@prodigy.com
...nothing to get hung about...JL
Littledan2
Others may disagree, but i think that REM sold out by recording singles
like Stand, The One I Love and Shiny Happy People to be a major label
band, but they used their increased popularity to record Automatic for the
people and release an anti-single like Drive. Not that I put them on any
level near the Beatles, but they refused big money (unlike the Stones) to
use It's the End of the World in Windows 95 commercials.
Little Dan
greg mably
James.E....@nd.edu (James Kelly) wrote:
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
> early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
> Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
> ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
> the fans. Respond.
In Lennon's opinion they did sell out. But he also felt alot of his Beatle
songs were "garbage".
My opinion is that they did sell out, but redeemed themselves when they
went studio.
ca...@best.com
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
>early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
>Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
>ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
>the fans. Respond.
Well, duh!
(Paul says John used to *brag* about how commercial they were and say to Paul
things like "Now let's write ourselves a swimming pool".)
What's cool is that even though they did go commercial, they still made GREAT
music (I've never heard ANYONE do the old rock-n-roll repertoire as well as they
do on the BBC CD).....and went on to make a bunch of truly innovative recordings
...and really, they could have prostituted their art much more than they did.
(Artists today typically prostitute themselves much more.)
Jeff
Lawrence Dunn
>(Paul says John used to *brag* about how commercial they were and say to
Paul
>things like "Now let's write ourselves a swimming pool".)
>
>What's cool is that even though they did go commercial, they still made
GREAT
>music (I've never heard ANYONE do the old rock-n-roll repertoire as well
as they
>do on the BBC CD).....and went on to make a bunch of truly innovative
recordings
>....and really, they could have prostituted their art much more than
they did.
>(Artists today typically prostitute themselves much more.)
>
>Jeff
We may be getting to the nub here. Quite often, ultimately, the "selling
out" process may start when an artist thinks that by grabbing the
commercial brass ring, he can leverage the (desired) increased popularity
into increased influence or independence (or both). Bob Dylan in the
early and mid 1960s showed every sign of exploiting the machinery every
bit as much as it tried to exploit him. REM's progress, cited by one
poster, may have exhibited a little more calculation. But there, too,
once they hit the toppermost, they've done what they wanted.
There are tons of bands that just want to be big stars and never get a
clue once they're there what to make of it. The Beatles went for it. At
a time when going for it, if you were in the biz, was what you did as an
existential fact of life. They had to figure out once they got there
what to do with it. IMHO, they didn't do all that badly. To accuse them
of not having some revolutionary or faux bohemian attitude toward making
it is sort of silly.
-----------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE DUNN "Burn down the disco,
JSR...@prodigy.com Hang the blessed D.J."
Steve
JSR...@prodigy.com (Lawrence Dunn) writes:
> We may be getting to the nub here. Quite often, ultimately, the "selling
> out" process may start when an artist thinks that by grabbing the
> commercial brass ring, he can leverage the (desired) increased popularity
> into increased influence or independence (or both). Bob Dylan in the
> early and mid 1960s showed every sign of exploiting the machinery every
> bit as much as it tried to exploit him. REM's progress, cited by one
> poster, may have exhibited a little more calculation. But there, too,
> once they hit the toppermost, they've done what they wanted.
>
> There are tons of bands that just want to be big stars and never get a
> clue once they're there what to make of it. The Beatles went for it. At
> a time when going for it, if you were in the biz, was what you did as an
> existential fact of life. They had to figure out once they got there
> what to do with it. IMHO, they didn't do all that badly. To accuse them
> of not having some revolutionary or faux bohemian attitude toward making
> it is sort of silly.
The ultimate selling out is when an artist sells his songs to advertise
corn flakes or something. At least the Beatles didn't allow that.
***steve a. porter spo...@traveller.com***
Bryan D. Woolley
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
>early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
>Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
>ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
>the fans. Respond.
In my opinion, they realized that to make it on a bigger
scale, they'd have to make their image a little more
main stream. I mean, if you think about it, Leather
was kind of a 50's thing, as were the DA haircuts that
they had at the beginning of the Hamburg tours.
It was time to get current with the times.
I don't think that that is selling out. I think it has
to do with not wanting to play Hamburg clubs forever, and
doing what it takes to get off of that roller coaster.
If they would've "sold out", you'd have never seen them
smoking or drinking as you did in interviews. They also
wouldn't have been as truthful or witty in interviews.
They would've smiled and answered questions untruthfully
to tell people what they wanted to hear.
They were still rebellious and disrespectful, though
not to the degree of the Stones, but enough where they
were still cool. Although a lot of parents liked them,
MORE didn't. "all that long hair!" "long haired wierdos"
(oh wait, that's from the Monkees!)
So in answer to your question, I'd say sort of but not
really. I think John felt that they'd sold out, but
he later realized that that had to be done to get out
of the cellars and bars of Liverpool and Hamburg.
Bryan
NO EMAIL PLEASE
________________________________________________________
I'm not a rock star, but I play one on the weekends!
-------------------------------------------------------
Seltaeb225
James.E....@nd.edu (James Kelly) writes:
> When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
>early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
>Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
>ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to
please
>the fans. Respond.
Since your question was answered by many, I'll say something else. You
could also called a sell-out a crouwd-pleaser, that is one who plays what
the public want to hear, NOT what they want to play. Well, if this is what
you mean by selling out, the answer is most definitely NO! I'm talking
about the music, not the suits. I
It was more that the crowd wanted to hear what the Beatles played,
_not_ the beatles played what the crowd wanted to hear. How do you explain
their strange and experimental stuff. Esp. John Lennon. Would a sell-out
make albums like "2 Virgins" "Life W/ The Lions" "The Wedding Album" or
cuss in his songs (ie Working Class Hero)???
Brian Harvey
legitimately complain that when the Beatles became world-wide hits
they didn't play intimate club dates in the Cavern any more. But
musically, they went from being one more cover band (albeit a great
one) to having the freedom to focus on their own new material.
That's a sellout? I'd rather watch them do "She Loves You" wearing
a tie than "Money" in a leather jacket, thank you.
I think the whole notion of selling out is silly when applied to
artists (as opposed to politicians). Selling out is when you really
owe the people something important and you are bribed to do something
else instead. But what is called "selling out" for musicians is
really "making music that a lot of people want to hear." I've never
understood what's so bad about that.
David Harlan
images, too) not being used to sell things like corn flakes. He may
deserve more credit than we realize for the fact that while the Beatles'
names and images were used on a lot of products, no veneer of tackiness
has stayed with the Beatles for it. He insisted that they not endorse
shoddy goods, and they didn't. Philip Norman's book, _Shout!_, goes into
this in some detail.
David Harlan <dha...@unllib.unl.edu>
Serials Cataloger, Nebraska Newspaper Project
209N Love Library * University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0410 USA
(402) 472-2517
fax (402) 472-5131
On 30 Aug 1995, Steve wrote:
> In article <42207f$1r...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>
> JSR...@prodigy.com (Lawrence Dunn) writes:
>
> > We may be getting to the nub here. Quite often, ultimately, the "selling
> > out" process may start when an artist thinks that by grabbing the
> > commercial brass ring, he can leverage the (desired) increased popularity
> > into increased influence or independence (or both). Bob Dylan in the
> >
> > There are tons of bands that just want to be big stars and never get a
> > clue once they're there what to make of it. The Beatles went for it. At
Kevin Barnes
>
> ->When the Beatles played for eight hours straight in Hamburg in the
> ->early Sixties, they were loud, rebellious and disrespectful. When the
> ->Beatles signed their major record deal, they started wearing suits and
> ->ties and made all possible efforts to act in an animated fashion to please
> ->the fans.
>
> that was john's argument in the early seventies, during his "anti-beatle"
> phase. he seemed to regret how they went from being this prototypical
> "punk" band into these tame pop singers. he has a point, to a degree.
> but as for "selling out," perhaps that's true, IF that's has far as you
> look at it (i.e., hamburg -> early beatlemania). however, the beatles
> revolutionized and changed the face of pop/rock music, there's no doubt
> about that. so how can you say that a band "sold out" to something that
> they themselves help create?
>
> --
Another thing you have to consider is that the Beatles went along
with Epstein's changes because they *wanted* the money, fortune, and
fame. That rebellious Hamburg band, though good, didn't have the
clout to perform an act of original songs-- They were a cover band.
Following Epstein's advice allowed them to explore their creativity
and become the band we know today. Listen to the "Hamburg Tapes."
Then listen to "Revolver." If they sold out, I'm glad they did!
Besides-- What is all this "selling out" crap anyway? I have heard
this term for years, and it seems as though any band that actually
becomes successful has to wear this label. What's the alternative?
Starving? Working at K-mart for extra income? All "selling out"
really means is that an act is becoming so popular that they can't
play in dives anymore because the seating capacity is too small.
Thus, their early fans take a negative attitude and claim that the
band has "sold out" because they are too "good" to play dives. It's
a no-win situation for the band.
Dennis Alstrand
: Another thing you have to consider is that the Beatles went along
: with Epstein's changes because they *wanted* the money, fortune, and
: fame. That rebellious Hamburg band, though good, didn't have the
: clout to perform an act of original songs-- They were a cover band.
: Following Epstein's advice allowed them to explore their creativity
: and become the band we know today. Listen to the "Hamburg Tapes."
: Then listen to "Revolver." If they sold out, I'm glad they did!
Cheers to Kevin!! An absolutely excellent paragraph. I've tried to
form the same thoughts into words, but never have been able to.
I, too, would choose Revolver over the Hamburg stuff. While I can
see the point that The Beatles live act was more exciting then, who
can say how long they would have kept that up at that level. Two things are
for sure---few of us would have heard of them, and there would be no
rec.music.beatles.
--
________________________________________________
|Dennis Alstrand alst...@mayfield.hp.com |
|================================================|
|Hewlett-Packard Response Center (415) 691-3499 |
|================================================|
|100 Mayfield Ave. 37M Mountain View, CA 94043 |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
Yousuf Zafar
>Kevin Barnes (kevin_l...@ccmail.census.gov) wrote:
>
>: Another thing you have to consider is that the Beatles went along
>: with Epstein's changes because they *wanted* the money, fortune, and
>: fame. That rebellious Hamburg band, though good, didn't have the
>: clout to perform an act of original songs-- They were a cover band.
>: Following Epstein's advice allowed them to explore their creativity
>: and become the band we know today. Listen to the "Hamburg Tapes."
>: Then listen to "Revolver." If they sold out, I'm glad they did!
>
>Cheers to Kevin!! An absolutely excellent paragraph. I've tried to
>form the same thoughts into words, but never have been able to.
>I, too, would choose Revolver over the Hamburg stuff. While I can
>see the point that The Beatles live act was more exciting then, who
>can say how long they would have kept that up at that level. Two things are
>for sure---few of us would have heard of them, and there would be no
>rec.music.beatles.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with selling out...unless it
constricts or compromises your musical integrity. In the
Beatles case, it seemed to enhance it.
Kenneth Lahey
commercial?
Yousuf Zafar
>Yeah but what do you call Ringo with the monkees in the pizza hut
>commercial?
>
So what?? Did it compromise his musical integrity at all? I
don't think so.
Unknown
>Yeah but what do you call Ringo with the monkees in the pizza hut
>commercial?
d_r...@smcvax.smcvt.edu
>Yeah but what do you call Ringo with the monkees in the pizza hut
>commercial?
>
Whoa! Selling out is harsh! I'd call it an error in judgement on the part of
Ringo, and the three Monkees. Not selling out.
Diana :)
OCEAN DIG
Pizza Hut spot is absurd. These guys have nothing to prove...they've given
most of their lives to the public and if they want to have some fun, so
what? I don't think they did it for the money....
THartman