It was 60 years ago today...

#21
Loved them!!
Read up and you'll see who their influences were.
So we would have been fine but not the same without them.

At the time I favored the Dave Clark 5.
They were harder edged to me! :)

Not downplaying their affect!!

I don't agree that John was it. They together were the magic. The ten thousand hours they put in playing in Germany had them ready when time called.

A band can do amazing things that a creative genius and a backup band can't do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Wobble, bonin in the boneyard and 47th Street
#22
I think it was "the perfect storm" of people, and not just the four boys, but producers, managers and others behind the scene. Plus the timing, and a whole lot of circumstances that came together in just the right way. It all coincided in this multiverse at the right time. In all of the other dimensions of time and space, it never quite came together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB and 47th Street
#23
Way to BE, micguy!
It might have been Peter Noone who ruled the world! :thumbsup:


All kidding aside...I was 9 when the Beatles played Ed Sullivan...10 when I heard my first song by The Supremes...11 when the 4 Seasons broke out...12-13 when Herman's Hermits started their String of hits over here...AND Herman's Hermits had a guy with GLASSES!
I'm way too young to remember Buddy Holly, but by gawd I remember the tall, gawky Hermit with the glasses! :thumbsup::roflmao:
IMG_0968.jpg

Yo! Derek!
 
Last edited:
#25
mcarp555 said:
People forget that the Beatles' first album in the UK, Please Please Me, was #1 for six straight months. It was only replaced by their next album, With The Beatles. A lot of great bands in the Sixties, but they all walked through a door the Beatles opened. And a huge number of American musicians came about solely from watching them that night in '64 on the Ed Sullivan Show.
Click to expand...
^^^This.
 
#26
J Wilson said:
I love all four of them. But in every band, there's the dog, 'the man', that runs it, kicks it in the ass, and as talented as they all were, with out JW Lennon, we'd have never heard of them. Later, when they were rich and growing into men and it all blew apart, it was over. But back in the 'suits' days, John was the man.
Click to expand...
It was Brian Epstein, not Lennon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Wobble
#29
Oddly said:
On the British Invasion topic, it's always been my impression (admittedly speaking from the other side of the Atlantic and as more a Stones fan) that The Stones were almost as big a deal as the Beatles.
I'd love to hear from those with experience of those early days.

As for what ifs, you already had Elvis and Sun Studios, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Motown and Stax ... it's not as if there wasn't already some great music around anyway.
Click to expand...

micguy said:
If it werent for the Beatles taking the role of "nice" pop musicians, forcing the Rolling Stones into the "naughty" role, We'd all be talking about Mick and Keith in the same vein that we currently talk about John and Paul. Or maybe it would have been Herman's Hermits. Nah, I'm going with Mick and Keith.
Click to expand...
I love the Stones' prime period of '68-'72. But if the Beatles had never happened, when would the Stones have started writing original songs? With respect to Brian Wilson (and Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, who weren't part of the scene in the '60s for obviously different reasons), the Beatles were the ones who really changed the paradigm of artists primarily performing songs written by others. The Stones might have remained a blues cover band for a good bit longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HaphAsSard, mcarp555 and 47th Street
#30
I respectfully must say that it is pointless to try to compare Beatles and Stones! Look at the breath taking musicsl development the Fab Four went through in less than a decade!
George Martin has said that they really COULDN'T write any better that "Please, please me" in the beginning. A handful years later, they deliver Sgt Pepper. (As mentioned, they really pushed the envelope of recording technique as well!)
Stones was, is (decades later!) and probably will remain a charismatic but basic blues rock band, nothing more. Great songs, minimal development.
 
#32
AlexanderB said:
I respectfully must say that it is pointless to try to compare Beatles and Stones! Look at the breath taking musicsl development the Fab Four went through in less than a decade!
George Martin has said that they really COULDN'T write any better that "Please, please me" in the beginning. A handful years later, they deliver Sgt Pepper. (As mentioned, they really pushed the envelope of recording technique as well!)
Stones was, is (decades later!) and probably will remain a charismatic but basic blues rock band, nothing more. Great songs, minimal development.
Click to expand...

Your point is valid, assuming you think Sgt. Pepper is better than Please Please Me.
Personally I think the Beatles were at their best in their early days.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassngtr and Son of Wobble
#33
Oddly said:
Your point is valid, assuming you think Sgt. Pepper is better than Please Please Me.
Personally I think the Beatles were at their best in their early days.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Click to expand...

While I am no big Beatles fan, it is hard to argue that other bands of the time did manage to BOTH be hugely successful while still really expand the complexity and refinement of pop music.

That said, my (moderate!) interest in the Beatles is mainly "academic". If anything, most days I (like you) also like the simplicity of the first LPs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldDog52
#35
GregC said:
I love the Stones' prime period of '68-'72. But if the Beatles had never happened, when would the Stones have started writing original songs? With respect to Brian Wilson (and Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, who weren't part of the scene in the '60s for obviously different reasons), the Beatles were the ones who really changed the paradigm of artists primarily performing songs written by others. The Stones might have remained a blues cover band for a good bit longer.
Click to expand...

A lot of the Beatles early recordings are covers. Granted, those didn't end up as singles, but they did a bunch of covers early on.
 
#37
OldDog52 said:
My offering to this discussion:

Click to expand...


You can already see how professional they were. As soon as they got the nod Paul counted it in and they hit the first note really together. Paul works the camera well and overall they did a tight job. Ringo had only been with them at that stage for around a year.

Prior to the Beatles there weren't many bands that wrote their own songs and as others have said, it'd be interesting to see how long it took Mick and Keith to start writing songs without the Beatles having such success with their own songs. Also, what might have happened if Mick and Keith didn't have Andrew Oldham push them into writing their own stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldDog52
#39
micguy said:
A lot of the Beatles early recordings are covers. Granted, those didn't end up as singles, but they did a bunch of covers early on.
Click to expand...
Even starting on the first album, though, the majority of the songs were originals. 8 of 14 on the first two albums, and covers were pretty rare after that. And of course, the Stones' second single was written by John and Paul.

The Stones, on the other hand, had no more than four originals on an album until Aftermath in '66.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcarp555, 47th Street and OldDog52
#40
This is about Lennon and McCartney, right? In my opinion, one had the attitude and the other had the technical skill. Simplified, of course, but it's how I see it, and why after the band split up neither one had quite the same level of success. Along with Ringo and George, the whole is more than just the sum of the parts.

It's like the Skeksis and the Mystics, before the Shard was put back into the Dark Crystal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAG, GregC, OldDog52 and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back