info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Beatles' Defining Moment (Hint: It's Not 'Sgt. Pepper')
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Mack A. Damia
Jun 16, 2013, 2:06:57 PM6/16/13
to
Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
the group would become.
At the risk of a flood of calls and letters from angry fans, arguing
that the band's defining year was '65 or '67, Weekend Edition Sunday
decided to hear Fleming out. He spoke with host Rachel Martin.
So why 1963?
Well, I think people like to focus on [Sgt.] Pepper from '67, maybe
Rubber Soul from '65 or Revolver from '66. But if you wanted to know
what The Beatles liked, what they listened to, what they were trying
to become and, in large part, who they already were and who they would
be, the '63 BBC recordings would be your one-stop shopping
destination. When they tackled ... a crucial rock 'n' roll text like
Elvis' "That's All Right, Mama," you can hear that they keep elements
of the past — that burnished country tone that Elvis' band excelled at
— but they've added a sort of stomping, northern soul element to it.
So they're really overhauling the past.
So these guys were young then. They were at kind of this nascent stage
in their career. Yet they had the audacity to cover the king of rock
'n' roll, and black bluesmen from America. I mean, what was going on
with them?
There was a lot of temerity there, actually, for four skinny northern
white kids. A lot of times, British rock 'n' roll bands would look to
the States as the music here, being so legitimate. So to be 21, 22,
and think, well, let's have a go at Elvis, let's have a go at, in
another instance, Arthur Alexander, who was like "Lord R&B," basically
... You didn't really want to mess around with Arthur Alexander. And
they do a cover of Alexander's "Soldier of Love" that, if Alexander
was listening to it, he'd be like, "Oh my goodness — they've one-upped
me!" The groove The Beatles hit in this song is so deeply incised.
It's one of their earliest "big boy" moments.
How many sessions did they record at that time?
In '63 they did 40. This was a band — you know how everyone today
says, 'Oh, I'm busy'? You're not busy. You don't know how busy these
guys were. They were doing concerts, they did two albums that year,
they did singles, all sorts of appearances — and then they sandwich in
these BBC sessions. It became almost a clubhouse for them.
[One of those sessions includes] The Beatles' take on "Baby, It's You"
by The Shirelles. So they were getting inspiration from all corners of
the musical universe at the time.
It was everything from Broadway, pop schmaltz, R&B — and lots of
girl-group material, actually. You were supposed to be a hard guy if
you were from a place like Liverpool, but they loved doing girl-group
songs. And I think that sensibility informed their songwriting later.
They did, for instance, a cover of Little Eva's "Keep Your Hands Off
My Baby," which is kind of about slumber parties and pillow fights and
don't-steal-my-boyfriend. But Lennon, who always loved singing a song
about the "green beast," — jealousy — really lays into it with a
classic vocal. And they even start it off with this proto-hip-hop
beat.
So despite all of this, there will still be people who say you are
just dead wrong — that 1963 may have been significant, but how could
it be the most emblematic Beatles year? After all, bands evolve, they
change; I mean, in the final analysis, 1963 — why was this so seminal?
Well, The Beatles never really were in their present. Their present
was always them being in their future, in a sense — it was always
about evolving. And I think what we hear here for the first time with
this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
be obeyed. And they take on songs that you would never expect —
something like "I Just Don't Understand," an Ann-Margret torch song.
And in it we can hear something peaty, pungent ... It's very earthy,
yet at the same time the emotionalism is controlled. We'll hear this
grow up into "Eleanor Rigby" on Revolver, "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt.
Pepper ... I think, if we don't have The Beatles in the BBC sessions,
we don't later have The Beatles as we've come to think of them.
(Photos and video clips)
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/16/191705940/bbc-beatles-on-wesunt
--
ermitano
Jun 16, 2013, 3:09:36 PM6/16/13
to
Bbc album
Mack A. Damia
Jun 16, 2013, 3:40:01 PM6/16/13
to
Fattuchus
Jun 17, 2013, 12:37:37 AM6/17/13
to
On Jun 16, 2:06 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
> deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
> heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
> argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
> 1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
> set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
> at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
> the group would become.
I am in the midst of reading Tim Riley's bio on Lennon. He suggests
> Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
> deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
> heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
> argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
> 1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
> set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
> at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
> the group would become.
that their defining moment (although he does not use those exact
words) was in December 1960 when they
performed at the Litherland Town Hall. The Beatles had just come back
from their grueling stay in Hamburg and were even billed as a band
from Hamburg. The audience became
so crazed by the performance, they stormed the stage. I believe those
were the first hints of Beatlemania.
Tim
Jun 17, 2013, 1:16:13 AM6/17/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
they say, is history.
Stephen X. Carter
Jun 17, 2013, 7:35:32 AM6/17/13
to
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
<tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
>were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
>Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
>to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
>Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
>strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
>Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
>and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
>October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
>they say, is history.
You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
<tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
>were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
>Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
>to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
>Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
>strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
>Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
>and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
>October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
>they say, is history.
that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
John.
No matter. We'll know the real answer when Mark Lewisohn's new book(s)
come out later this year.
<http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
Fattuchus
Jun 17, 2013, 9:54:06 AM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 7:35 am, Stephen X. Carter <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>
> <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
> >they say, is history.
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
> John.
Has Paul ever addressed this question?
> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
> >they say, is history.
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
> John.
whosbest54
Jun 17, 2013, 12:23:38 PM6/17/13
to
In article <1fvrr8df3b9dungm6...@4ax.com>,
mybaco...@hotmail.com says...
<snip possible copywrite violation, all that's needed is the link>
>
>http://www.npr.org/2013/06/16/191705940/bbc-beatles-on-wesunt
>
The headline with 'defining moment' was likely written by someone else
who thinks a year is a moment and 1963 was definitive. LOL
Defining year or moment? Just a gimmick to get a reader's attention.
There is no defining year or moment, unless one wants to say the moment
John and Paul met was the most important starting moment.
The interview uses "emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year". That depends on
one's definition of what Beatle-esque is. They evolved, so there
really isn't one phase that the most "Beatle-y", unless you happen to
like one phase more than others. The author being interviewed
obviously liked what they were doing in 1963.
Like so many other things, like flavors and music, it's all a matter of
personal taste/opinion and there is no "right" answer. One could skip
the whole thing and forget about the essay they're promoting, but why
not just read it online for free.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-year-the-
beatles-found-their-voice/309314/>
whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm
Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html
mybaco...@hotmail.com says...
<snip possible copywrite violation, all that's needed is the link>
>
>http://www.npr.org/2013/06/16/191705940/bbc-beatles-on-wesunt
>
The headline with 'defining moment' was likely written by someone else
who thinks a year is a moment and 1963 was definitive. LOL
Defining year or moment? Just a gimmick to get a reader's attention.
There is no defining year or moment, unless one wants to say the moment
John and Paul met was the most important starting moment.
The interview uses "emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year". That depends on
one's definition of what Beatle-esque is. They evolved, so there
really isn't one phase that the most "Beatle-y", unless you happen to
like one phase more than others. The author being interviewed
obviously liked what they were doing in 1963.
Like so many other things, like flavors and music, it's all a matter of
personal taste/opinion and there is no "right" answer. One could skip
the whole thing and forget about the essay they're promoting, but why
not just read it online for free.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-year-the-
beatles-found-their-voice/309314/>
whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm
Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html
Robin Ferry
Jun 17, 2013, 12:37:17 PM6/17/13
to
a series of defining moments; they redefined themselves several
times.
whosbest54
Jun 17, 2013, 12:59:05 PM6/17/13
to
In article <20130617-1...@whosbest54.news.shared-secrets.com>,
whosb...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.invalid says...
><http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-year-the-
>beatles-found-their-voice/309314/>
>
I guess he's promoting his upcoming first book, as noted at the end of
the article.
Is it really true that the original BBC tapes are gone? That wasn't my
understanding.
whosb...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.invalid says...
><http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-year-the-
>beatles-found-their-voice/309314/>
>
I guess he's promoting his upcoming first book, as noted at the end of
the article.
Is it really true that the original BBC tapes are gone? That wasn't my
understanding.
hislop
Jun 17, 2013, 1:33:52 PM6/17/13
to
On 17/06/2013 4:06 AM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>
> Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
> deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
> heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
> argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
> 1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
> set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
> at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
> the group would become.
>
> At the risk of a flood of calls and letters from angry fans, arguing
> that the band's defining year was '65 or '67, Weekend Edition Sunday
> decided to hear Fleming out. He spoke with host Rachel Martin.
>
> So why 1963?
>
I've been over this type of thing before. The Beatles had a number of
>
>
> Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
> deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
> heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
> argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
> 1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
> set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
> at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
> the group would become.
>
> At the risk of a flood of calls and letters from angry fans, arguing
> that the band's defining year was '65 or '67, Weekend Edition Sunday
> decided to hear Fleming out. He spoke with host Rachel Martin.
>
> So why 1963?
>
general periods to my reckoning.
Up to A Hard Days Night they were self conscious of trying be
successful, so would pour their hearts out in some of their songs, She
Loves You, From Me To You and on. With A Hard Days Night that was at
its apotheosis with their success.
Then they had their tired period, where they were far less inclined to
pour their hearts out (in a happy way), Especially on Beatles For Sale,
and Help.
Then they find their studio selves, Rubber Soul and Revolver.
Then they change course by stopping touring, then they start to pour
their hearts out again. Sgt Peppers is largely an album for everyone,
their peers and such, then they try to do an entertaining TV movie, they
perform live for satellite broadcast.
Then they become the studio Beatles and not doing much to pour their
hearts out. They considered a few songs about the theme of Revolution
at one point, but never went beyond just the songs.
Then they become the pissed off Beatles who do their recordings then
want to break up.
So I have 6 general periods. Each period of putting their hearts out can
be their most Beatlish, 63 and 67. But there is also important studio
work through all periods. But they are all Beatlish periods so it's a
stupid argument.
Mack A. Damia
Jun 17, 2013, 2:27:22 PM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:23:38 -0500, whosbest54
<whosb...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1fvrr8df3b9dungm6...@4ax.com>,
>mybaco...@hotmail.com says...
>
><snip possible copywrite violation, all that's needed is the link>
Thanks for the laugh.
<whosb...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1fvrr8df3b9dungm6...@4ax.com>,
>mybaco...@hotmail.com says...
>
><snip possible copywrite violation, all that's needed is the link>
--
WillyShears
Jun 17, 2013, 3:05:22 PM6/17/13
to
It's more than just the music, it's what was happening in my life
at the time, etc.
Willy
Eric Ramon
Jun 17, 2013, 4:00:10 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 4:35 am, Stephen X. Carter <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>
> <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
> >they say, is history.
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
> John.
>
here's Paul on the subject
> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
> >they say, is history.
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
> John.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrtpMFPkVoE
Stephen X. Carter
Jun 17, 2013, 10:07:36 PM6/17/13
to
Confirms what I wrote, and that the other poster is full of.....
thewalruswasdanny
Jun 17, 2013, 10:22:54 PM6/17/13
to
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
>
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
>
> John.
Danny
Tim
Jun 17, 2013, 11:12:36 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 4:35 am, Stephen X. Carter <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>
>
> <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
> >they say, is history.
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
> John.
>
> No matter. We'll know the real answer when Mark Lewisohn's new book(s)
> come out later this year.
> <http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
linkie no workie as expected
> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
> >they say, is history.
>
> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
> John.
>
> No matter. We'll know the real answer when Mark Lewisohn's new book(s)
> come out later this year.
> <http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
You must know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence your credible
excerps seem very noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
typing out of your ass must be a habit you adopted some time ago.-ps -
what researchers with what Beatles historic backgrounds? Rest my case.
RichL
Jun 17, 2013, 11:25:47 PM6/17/13
to
"Tim" <tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9708692d-23d0-4b6f...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
news:9708692d-23d0-4b6f...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 17, 4:35 am, Stephen X. Carter <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>>
>> <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
>> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
>> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
>> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
>> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
>> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
>> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
>> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
>> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
>> >they say, is history.
>>
>> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
>> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
>> John.
>>
>> No matter. We'll know the real answer when Mark Lewisohn's new book(s)
>> come out later this year.
>> <http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
>
> linkie no workie as expected
It works fine for me.
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tim
>>
>> <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, July 6, 1957. John (aged 16) and his band the Quarrymen
>> >were performing at a fête at St. Peter's Woolton Parish Church in
>> >Liverpool. Paul (aged 15) was wheeling around on his bicycle - hoping
>> >to pick up girls - and heard the Quarrymen play. A mutual friend named
>> >Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John. Paul whipped out the guitar
>> >strapped to his back and played "Twenty Flight Rock" and "Be-Bop-a-
>> >Lula", among others. John was impressed that Paul could tune a guitar
>> >and "looked like Elvis", and John said that he "dug him." That
>> >October, Ivan told Paul that John wanted him in the band. The rest, as
>> >they say, is history.
>>
>> You think that Paul just happened to be there? Researched accounts say
>> that Ivan took Paul along specifically in order to introduce him to
>> John.
>>
>> No matter. We'll know the real answer when Mark Lewisohn's new book(s)
>> come out later this year.
>> <http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
>
> linkie no workie as expected
>
> You must know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence your credible
> excerps seem very noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
> typing out of your ass must be a habit you adopted some time ago.-ps -
> what researchers with what Beatles historic backgrounds? Rest my case.
Huh? English, please.
> You must know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence your credible
> excerps seem very noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
> typing out of your ass must be a habit you adopted some time ago.-ps -
> what researchers with what Beatles historic backgrounds? Rest my case.
Nil
Jun 17, 2013, 11:41:26 PM6/17/13
to
On 17 Jun 2013, Tim <tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:
>> <http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
>
> linkie no workie as expected
>
> You must know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence your credible
> excerps seem very noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
> typing out of your ass must be a habit you adopted some time
> ago.-ps - what researchers with what Beatles historic backgrounds?
> Rest my case.
You can't blame him for your own computer problems.
The link works just fine.
rec.music.beatles:
>> <http://www.thebeatlesbiography.com/>
>
> linkie no workie as expected
>
> You must know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence your credible
> excerps seem very noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
> typing out of your ass must be a habit you adopted some time
> ago.-ps - what researchers with what Beatles historic backgrounds?
> Rest my case.
The link works just fine.
Tim
Jun 17, 2013, 11:57:01 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 8:25 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Tim" <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
You must not know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence any credible
> > excerps seem noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
> "Tim" <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > excerps seem noticably missing? Thus I can only conclude that
Tim
Jun 18, 2013, 12:04:22 AM6/18/13
to
On Jun 17, 8:41 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2013, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Does now - my bad!
> On 17 Jun 2013, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Tim
Jun 18, 2013, 12:06:26 AM6/18/13
to
On Jun 17, 8:25 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Tim" <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
You must not know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence, any credible
written excerps do seem noticably missing from the site that is now
available to moi. Thus I can only conclude that typing out of your ass
must be a habit you adopted some time ago.-ps - what researchers with
what Beatles historic background,.
Stephen X. Carter
Jun 18, 2013, 4:49:28 AM6/18/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT), Tim
<tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You must not know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence, any credible
>written excerps do seem noticably missing from the site that is now
>available to moi. Thus I can only conclude that typing out of your ass
>must be a habit you adopted some time ago.-ps - what researchers with
>what Beatles historic background,.
OK, Troll.
<tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You must not know Mark Lewishon personally. And hence, any credible
>written excerps do seem noticably missing from the site that is now
>available to moi. Thus I can only conclude that typing out of your ass
>must be a habit you adopted some time ago.-ps - what researchers with
>what Beatles historic background,.
a) The link worked perfectly.
b) Yes. I'll admit to having met Mark twice, and corresponded (letter
and email) about 10 times in the last 20 years. I have sent him rare
things that I have come across over the years.
Perhaps my expectation that everyone who reads rec.music.beatles knows
about Mark was wrong.
Here's a link that works:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lewisohn>
It's a measure of the respect that everyone has for him that EMI/Abbey
Road allwed him full access to the mater tapes of all of the Abbey Road
recording sessions.
Mark does not accept secondary sources. He only works with primary
sources. For example when he was doing one of his books he went to the
(UK) Newspaper Library and checked every issue of the local scottich
newspapers to get the actual dates of the tour the Silver Beatles did
with Johnny Gentle.
Another example, which I guess we'll see in his forthcoming book, will
be how he tracked down the TRUE story about Mimi running to the
maternity hospital through a Blitz..
truss...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2013, 10:25:19 PM6/19/13
to
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:06:57 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well, The Beatles never really were in their present. Their present
>was always them being in their future, in a sense � it was always
>about evolving. And I think what we hear here for the first time with
>this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
>be obeyed. And they take on songs that you would never expect �
>something like "I Just Don't Understand," an Ann-Margret torch song.
This is incorrect. Ann Margaret's song was To Know Him Is To Love Him.
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well, The Beatles never really were in their present. Their present
>was always them being in their future, in a sense � it was always
>about evolving. And I think what we hear here for the first time with
>this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
>be obeyed. And they take on songs that you would never expect �
>something like "I Just Don't Understand," an Ann-Margret torch song.
I JUst Dont Understand was an old blues song by someone else.
Eric Ramon
Jun 20, 2013, 2:04:17 AM6/20/13
to
On Jun 19, 7:25 pm, trusso11...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:06:57 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:06:57 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>
Understand".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDagZECOhJc
I can't find any mention of her ever doing "To Know Him is to Love
Him", which was a big hit for the Teddy Bears.
hislop
Jun 21, 2013, 11:59:30 AM6/21/13
to
was too young to choose. I think it's a type of peak for The Beatles.
The ultimate album when they were trying to make it, after that they
looked for different directions.
hislop
Jun 21, 2013, 12:03:46 PM6/21/13
to
On 20/06/2013 12:25 PM, truss...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:06:57 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Well, The Beatles never really were in their present. Their present
>> was always them being in their future, in a sense � it was always
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:06:57 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Well, The Beatles never really were in their present. Their present
>> about evolving. And I think what we hear here for the first time with
>> this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
>> be obeyed. And they take on songs that you would never expect �
>> this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
>> something like "I Just Don't Understand," an Ann-Margret torch song.
>
>
> This is incorrect. Ann Margaret's song was To Know Him Is To Love Him.
> I JUst Dont Understand was an old blues song by someone else.
What? I have always known Ann Margret had released this song earlier.
>
>
> This is incorrect. Ann Margaret's song was To Know Him Is To Love Him.
> I JUst Dont Understand was an old blues song by someone else.
From Wikipedia:
"She scored the minor hit "I Just Don't Understand" (from her second
LP), which entered the Billboard Top 40 in the third week of August 1961
and stayed six weeks, peaking at #17.[4] The song was later covered in
live performances by The Beatles and was recorded during a live
performance at the BBC."
If I say To Know Him Is To Love Him was a Phil Spector song by The
Teddybears do I make you wrong?
Marcus
Jun 21, 2013, 9:22:44 PM6/21/13
to
On Monday, June 17, 2013 12:37:17 PM UTC-4, Robin Ferry wrote:
> The great thing (or A great thing) about the Beatles is that they had
>
> a series of defining moments; they redefined themselves several
>
> times.
Yes, indeed they did.
> The great thing (or A great thing) about the Beatles is that they had
>
> a series of defining moments; they redefined themselves several
>
> times.
IMO, their biggest "defining moment" took place on February 9, 1964 on the stage of the Ed Sullivan Show.
That's when they became world wide stars.
Message has been deleted
hislop
Jun 26, 2013, 11:14:08 AM6/26/13
to
On 26/06/2013 2:44 AM, poisoned rose wrote:
There was something I was referring to, the way they try and be liked
with their songs, which is quite obvious in their early days. I should
have used that phrase, 'trying harder to be liked'. It seems to me they
were doing that again in 1967, but obviously very cynical in 1968
onwards, but not absolutely that way which would be silly.
That's my point, John's unhappy lyrics on Beatles For Sale and Help!.
> hislop<takecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Up to A Hard Days Night they were self conscious of trying be
>> successful, so would pour their hearts out in some of their songs
>>
>
>> Up to A Hard Days Night they were self conscious of trying be
>> successful, so would pour their hearts out in some of their songs
>>
>> Then they had their tired period, where they were far less inclined to
>> pour their hearts out
>>
>> pour their hearts out
>>
>> Then they change course by stopping touring, then they start to pour
>> their hearts out again.
>>
>> their hearts out again.
>>
>> Then they become the studio Beatles and not doing much to pour their
>> hearts out.
>
> You're leaning awfully hard on that one metaphor, ain't ya?
>> hearts out.
>
There was something I was referring to, the way they try and be liked
with their songs, which is quite obvious in their early days. I should
have used that phrase, 'trying harder to be liked'. It seems to me they
were doing that again in 1967, but obviously very cynical in 1968
onwards, but not absolutely that way which would be silly.
That's my point, John's unhappy lyrics on Beatles For Sale and Help!.
M C hammered
Jun 28, 2013, 3:21:03 PM6/28/13
to
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:06:57 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
>
> deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
>
> heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
>
> argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
>
> 1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
>
> set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
>
> at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
>
> the group would become.
>
>
>
> At the risk of a flood of calls and letters from angry fans, arguing
>
> that the band's defining year was '65 or '67, Weekend Edition Sunday
>
> decided to hear Fleming out. He spoke with host Rachel Martin.
>
>
>
> So why 1963?
>
>
>
> Author Colin Fleming is an avowed Beatles superfan, but he has one
>
> deeply held opinion about the band that other fans might find
>
> heretical. In an essay in this month's issue of The Atlantic, Fleming
>
> argues that the Fab Four's most emblematic, "Beatle-esque" year was
>
> 1963, before they'd even made it big in the States. His evidence? A
>
> set of sessions that John, Paul, George and Ringo recorded that year
>
> at the BBC, which Fleming argues are the quintessence of everything
>
> the group would become.
>
>
>
> At the risk of a flood of calls and letters from angry fans, arguing
>
> that the band's defining year was '65 or '67, Weekend Edition Sunday
>
> decided to hear Fleming out. He spoke with host Rachel Martin.
>
>
>
> So why 1963?
>
>
>
> Well, The Beatles never really were in their present. Their present
>
> was always them being in their future, in a sense — it was always
>
>
> about evolving. And I think what we hear here for the first time with
>
> this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
>
> be obeyed. And they take on songs that you would never expect —
> about evolving. And I think what we hear here for the first time with
>
> this group is, there was no "can't." There were no rules that had to
>
>
> something like "I Just Don't Understand," an Ann-Margret torch song.
>
> something like "I Just Don't Understand," an Ann-Margret torch song.
>
> And in it we can hear something peaty, pungent ... It's very earthy,
>
> yet at the same time the emotionalism is controlled. We'll hear this
>
> grow up into "Eleanor Rigby" on Revolver, "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt.
>
> Pepper ... I think, if we don't have The Beatles in the BBC sessions,
>
> we don't later have The Beatles as we've come to think of them.
>
>
>
> (Photos and video clips)
>
>
>
> http://www.npr.org/2013/06/16/191705940/bbc-beatles-on-wesunt
>
>
>
> --
Now foke's, eberone got there own erpinion of what the Beatle's definerin momint was. It's a subjective thing. An ya gotta erspeck dat. Ya just gotta. Who can judge anotha man's subjectrive experiance? Hmm?
>
> yet at the same time the emotionalism is controlled. We'll hear this
>
> grow up into "Eleanor Rigby" on Revolver, "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt.
>
> Pepper ... I think, if we don't have The Beatles in the BBC sessions,
>
> we don't later have The Beatles as we've come to think of them.
>
>
>
> (Photos and video clips)
>
>
>
> http://www.npr.org/2013/06/16/191705940/bbc-beatles-on-wesunt
>
>
>
> --
But I Mista Charlie, speakerin as a forma DeeJay an meeta of famous people, would like to posit dat the Beatles definerin momint was, widdout questium, "Revolutchim Numba Nine". For many reasons, some obvious some ubscua. The obvious one's include the songs majestic scope an scollaship. In this erspeck, it truely erveals the YOKE'S influence, because John, a beetle fer Gobskates, had nebba soured to such heights. (Beetle, many of em have no wings, though John somtimes had a HEAD with wings...and this is what leddim to the Yoke.)
Now also this song is the Beatle's definerin momint because a like, its musiciamship. Not a note outta place (mush as we find in Yokes music). Its strucksha is quite simply impeckerble. Finely, fer the icing on the cake, Revolutchim 9 is the definerin moment because a Yoke's appearance in the song, where she speaka's of...you guessed it...her favorite subjeck at the time....BECOMERIN NAKED. Icin on the cake people...or IS that icing? Its certinly gooey and wet.
Nuff said
Nuff said in a articlit an scollaly fashim
Nuff said
0 new messages