The Beatles (1 Viewer)

[saintsfan]

Didn't want to start a whole new thread for a thought about the Beatles, but I wanted to get opinions from fans on the board.

I was talking to a buddy of mine yesterday who likes the Beatles, respects what they did, but doesn't think they are very good musicians. The problem I have with that it, IMO, it depends heavily on what you mean by "musician." For example, he likes to break down bands by going head to head, player for player and seeing who is better. IMO, and maybe it's because my favorite band is the Beatles, when you do it like that, you are really only measuring technical proficiency. You aren't taking into account songwriting and how the group fits with each other.

He loves the Stones, so he would do this:

Drums Charlie vs Ringo = Charlie

Lead Guitar Jones/Taylor/Wood vs George = Stones trio

Bass Wyman vs McCartney = He would actually give Macca the edge here

Rhythm Guitar Keith vs Lennon = Keith

Vocals = Mick vs Lennon/McCartney/Harrison = Beatles edge here again

OK, so if you do it that way, the Stones appear to be the better band. One problem with that. If you were starting a band tomorrow, I don't care how good you think the Stones lead guitarists and Keith Richards are, there is no way in hell you would take them over Harrison or Lennon. Why?? Because Harrison and Lennon are great song writers. In fact, members of the Rock and Roll HOF quite separate from being members of the Beatles. Both had outstanding solo careers and are complete song writers on their own. They don't need someone to write lyrics or melodies or music. They can do it all themselves. Keith comes up with the riffs and stuff, but he has really only had success when paired with Mick. As a rhythm guitarist he might be "better" than Lennon, but come on. Same with Harrison. I don't care how proficient Ron Wood is playing guitar, he's never dreamt of writing something like What Is Life or Something.

Do the same with the Who

Drums = Moon

Bass = Entwhistle (I like McCartney's style better, actually, but John was very technically good)

Guitars = Pete

Vocals = Beatles

Now, other than Pete Townsend, is there a single member of that band you would take before you would take George Harrison. You can find good bass players and guitar players. You can't find somebody who can write Here Comes The Sun.

So what do you think??

 

[Apple Jack]

Your buddy is wrong.

 

[saintsfan]

Your buddy is wrong.

About which part

 

[Ray Karpis]

Bands are more than just the sum of the individual parts.

No argument from me on your rationale.

"What makes a great band?" isn't answered by looking at technical skill of the individuals.

 

[Apple Jack]

Your buddy is wrong.

About which part

About the Beatles not being good musicians. I don't do the head to head thing with other bands, because I think it's irrelevant and impossible to quantify because everybody is within their own context if they're any good at what they do. Paul was probably the best in the band, and pretty much wrote the book on rock and roll bass.

 

[Controller]

Take it to another level, Saintsfan, and you can show hands down that the Beatles were better musicians:

Drummer: Charlie over Ringo

Drummer vocals: Ringo over Charlie

Bassist: McCartney over Wyman

Bassist vocals: McCartney easily over Wyman

Rhythm guitar: Keith over Lennon

Rhythm guitar voals: Lennon over Keith

Lead guitar: Stones trio over George

Lead guitar vocals: George over trio

Lead vocals: John/Paul over Mick

Without even getting into the "who's a better songwriter?" argument, it's 6-3 Beatles

 

[saintsfan]

Your buddy is wrong.

About which part

About the Beatles not being good musicians. I don't do the head to head thing with other bands, because I think it's irrelevant and impossible to quantify because everybody is within their own context if they're any good at what they do. Paul was probably the best in the band, and pretty much wrote the book on rock and roll bass.

Not only that, Paul was the only individual in almost ANY band that could legitimately go into a studio alone and come out with an album. He could, and did (Band On The Run, for example) play every part. Nobody in the Stones or the Who or probably any other band you can think of could do that.That's one of the other things that bothers me about this kind of comparison. In most cases, the Beatles have the most talented musician in either group. But nobody thinks of it that way.

 

[Abraham]

There are lots of people who play every instrument. At least there are now.

 

[Hastur]

There are lots of people who play every instrument. At least there are now.

Right off the top of my head, I think of Peter Tork and Prince.

 

[PIK95]

There are lots of people who play every instrument. At least there are now.

Right off the top of my head, I think of Peter Tork and Prince.

Most of Arcade Fire do it EVERY SHOW!

 

[Apple Jack]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

And if you multiply the total amount of instruments times his age it might be a new world record.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

And if you multiply the total amount of instruments times his age it might be a new world record.

Stevie Wonder may have something to say about that, but.....

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

And if you multiply the total amount of instruments times his age it might be a new world record.

Stevie Wonder may have something to say about that

Then I hope he doesn't see my post.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

And if you multiply the total amount of instruments times his age it might be a new world record.

Stevie Wonder may have something to say about that

Then I hope he doesn't see my post.

Nah, he's living for the city and doesn't have time for worrying 'bout a thing.

 

[Mohawk]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

And if you multiply the total amount of instruments times his age it might be a new world record.

Stevie Wonder may have something to say about that

Then I hope he doesn't see my post.

There's no chance Stevie would "see" your post, or anything else, sadly. Someone might tell him about it though!

 

[Fiddles]

Yellow submarine interactive iBook on ipad2 is becoming a big fav for my kids. It's FREE! Kinda weird how that movie went from my fav entertainment while dosed to sharing as a kids movie/book with my kids.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Yellow submarine interactive iBook on ipad2 is becoming a big fav for my kids. It's FREE! Kinda weird how that movie went from my fav entertainment while dosed to sharing as a kids movie/book with my kids.

Is that available on ipod touch?

 

[Godsbrother]

Take it to another level, Saintsfan, and you can show hands down that the Beatles were better musiciansrummer: Charlie over RingoDrummer vocals: Ringo over CharlieBassist: McCartney over WymanBassist vocals: McCartney easily over WymanRhythm guitar: Keith over LennonRhythm guitar voals: Lennon over KeithLead guitar: Stones trio over GeorgeLead guitar vocals: George over trioLead vocals: John/Paul over MickWithout even getting into the "who's a better songwriter?" argument, it's 6-3 Beatles

The Beatles would win that argument easily. They were also much more innovative than the Stones and were far more influential on other artists. I love the Stones and think they were great but they aren't even close to the Beatles

 

[Godsbrother]

Speaking of playing every instrument, Paul is doing it on the record he is making right now.

Paul has been doing this for years. I always thought when Paul formed Wings that he should have kept them out of the studio and just used them on stage (especially Linda)

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

Drummer: Charlie over Ringo

Why Charlie over Ringo?Other than "Paint It Black", where Charlie kills it, I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.Ringo is always heard on every Beatles song. "Rain" and "The End" are great examples of Ringo's skill.

 

[Godsbrother]

Drummer: Charlie over Ringo

Why Charlie over Ringo?Other than "Paint It Black", where Charlie kills it, I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.Ringo is always heard on every Beatles song. "Rain" and "The End" are great examples of Ringo's skill.

Agreed, Ringo doesn't get enoug credit. He was the first drummer that was elevated to equal status with the rest of the band. On stage Ringo was placed on a riser so he could be seen by the audience and was the rare drummer that did vocals. He was also responsible for popularizing the matching grip as nearly all drummers used a traditional grip before him. There is a list on the Internet that lists Ringo's innovations as a drummer.Other examples of fine drumming that come to mind are "Tell Me Why", "Ticket to Ride", and "A Day In the Life".

 

[Apple Jack]

Drummer: Charlie over Ringo

Why Charlie over Ringo?Other than "Paint It Black", where Charlie kills it, I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.Ringo is always heard on every Beatles song. "Rain" and "The End" are great examples of Ringo's skill.

While Ringo might be a better drummer than some people not too acquainted with music might think, if I had to choose, I'd take Charlie eight days a week. He does it all, but what he does best is swing, create a pocket, and serve the piece. Charlie's more from the jazz school of rock and roll drumming. Standing out isn't what it's about. But the whole Ringo is underrated thing is a myth, imo. Not among anybody I know and talk music with. It's all there on the recordings and the live performances. Anybody who doesn't think Ringo was a good drummer doesn't know what they're listening to. And some Beatles trivia...neither here nor there...arguably the most memorable drum track on a Beatles song, Ticket to Ride, was Paul's idea which he showed to Ringo and let him record.

 

[saintsfan]

The buddy that I started this thread about hates Ringo. My buddy is a drummer and thinks Ringo is terrible. Not really sure why.

I'm a bass player and don't know much about the technical aspects of drumming. To me, Ringo always serves the song and the fact that there are quite a few songs where if you remove the rest of the music and just listen to the drumming, you'd be able to identify the song means that Ringo is not just playing drum beat, but serving the song, means that he is pretty good.

Technically, I've heard other drummers say that he does things wrong, like starts his fills in the wrong spots and stuff, but to me, that's pure feel because it always come out OK. I like the way he can switch effortlessly between different time signatures. Also, on I Feel Fine, he kind of plays like a latin thing, until the bridge, where he goes to straight 4/4. I can't imagine that's easy to do. A garage hack is going to have trouble with that one, I would think.

A couple years back, my band and I did Beatles music for a benefit show. Several songs, the drummer had problems with. Switching the time signatures was difficult for him and Ticket To Ride was difficult because it's so unique. We did work them out, but I can tell you, he didn't think Ringo was a hack after playing those songs.

 

[saintsfan]

Drummer: Charlie over Ringo

Why Charlie over Ringo?Other than "Paint It Black", where Charlie kills it, I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.

Ringo is always heard on every Beatles song.

"Rain" and "The End" are great examples of Ringo's skill.

While Ringo might be a better drummer than some people not too acquainted with music might think, if I had to choose, I'd take Charlie eight days a week. He does it all, but what he does best is swing, create a pocket, and serve the piece. Charlie's more from the jazz school of rock and roll drumming. Standing out isn't what it's about. But the whole Ringo is underrated thing is a myth, imo. Not among anybody I know and talk music with. It's all there on the recordings and the live performances. Anybody who doesn't think Ringo was a good drummer doesn't know what they're listening to. And some Beatles trivia...neither here nor there...arguably the most memorable drum track on a Beatles song, Ticket to Ride, was Paul's idea which he showed to Ringo and let him record.

or everywhere????

 

[Apple Jack]

The truth the matter is that some people just don't know feel. You can give them all the chops in the world but they just don't have that ability. It's something that ultimately doesn't even really have to do with music. It's psychological. And people who are hung up on technique and tend to think of Neil Peart (for example) as the best drummer EVER...they often can't access what we're talking about. Don't get me wrong, Neil is great and can play with feel, but more often than not, he's overplaying and heavy-handed. Which is why he takes lessons from jazz guys like Freddie Gruber and Peter Erksine. And anybody who thinks that there is a place where you're "supposed" to start a fill? They're immediately off on the wrong foot.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Why Charlie over Ringo?

I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.

That's why Charlie was so great - he didn't stand out. He was like Al Jackson, Jr (to me, the greatest drummer in rock history) - lay the foundation and stay the hell out of the way.That being said, Ringo's drumming on "Ticket To Ride" may be the best in history (and set the text for "heavy metal" drumming). It fits the song, yet still stands out. Only Al, Jr on "Hold On (I'm Coming)" was better.

Guys like Moon & Bonham had songs written to serve their talents. And they were also great.

Dudes like Peart (& a bunch of jazz drummers) mean nothing to me - I can appreciate the art, but there's no "feel" to what they do.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why Charlie over Ringo?

I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.

That's why Charlie was so great - he didn't stand out. He was like Al Jackson, Jr (to me, the greatest drummer in rock history) - lay the foundation and stay the hell out of the way.That being said, Ringo's drumming on "Ticket To Ride" may be the best in history (and set the text for "heavy metal" drumming). It fits the song, yet still stands out. Only Al, Jr on "Hold On (I'm Coming)" was better.

Guys like Moon & Bonham had songs written to serve their talents. And they were also great.

Dudes like Peart (& a bunch of jazz drummers) mean nothing to me - I can appreciate the art, but there's no "feel" to what they do.

Wow. Seriously? Jack DeJohnette, Elvin Jones, Max Roach? They're all feel. Not beholden to the one and three or two and four or constricted with the traditional rock 4/4 construct. The good jazz guys are flying and completely playing by feel. I've noticed you and I on the same page with quite a bit, but this is a head scratcher to me.Keith Moon and Bonham were huge jazz heads and were constantly picking from it and employing it into their respective bands. Keith Moon worshiped Gene Krupa.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Why Charlie over Ringo?

I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.

That's why Charlie was so great - he didn't stand out. He was like Al Jackson, Jr (to me, the greatest drummer in rock history) - lay the foundation and stay the hell out of the way.That being said, Ringo's drumming on "Ticket To Ride" may be the best in history (and set the text for "heavy metal" drumming). It fits the song, yet still stands out. Only Al, Jr on "Hold On (I'm Coming)" was better.

Guys like Moon & Bonham had songs written to serve their talents. And they were also great.

Dudes like Peart (& a bunch of jazz drummers) mean nothing to me - I can appreciate the art, but there's no "feel" to what they do.

Wow. Seriously? Jack DeJohnette, Elvin Jones, Max Roach? They're all feel. Not beholden to the one and three or two and four or constricted with the traditional rock 4/4 construct. The good jazz guys are flying and completely playing by feel. I've noticed you and I on the same page with quite a bit, but this is a head scratcher to me.Keith Moon and Bonham were huge jazz heads and were constantly picking from it and employing it into their respective bands. Keith Moon worshiped Gene Krupa.

Sorry. I'm too dumb to catch the nuances. I'd rather have a drummer pop the one hard than play in 1/64 time.

 

[pantherclub]

The Beatles hit it even bigger

America was the holy grail of pop music back then, still is but back then, even more so. Rock and roll started in America and every artist who hit it big in England wanted to go to America. Only one problem, no British artist, or artist from any other country for that matter, had ever really been successful in America. Big time British artists would go to America and be 4th on the billing behind Fabian or some other star of the moment.

With this in mind, the Beatles really didn't want to go to America unless they had a #1 hit on the charts. George Martin had tried, unsuccessfully to get Capital Records, which was owned by EMI, to release "Please Please Me", "From Me To You", and "She Loves You". The answer was always the same, basically, you silly British people don't know anything about the American market. It won't fly here. Because Capital refused to release them, George Martin allowed Vee Jay and Swan Records to release Beatles music. Because these labels were so small, however, they didn't make a huge dent in the market.

Nevertheless, the news from Europe was so overwhelming, basically, that the Beatles were a huge phenomenon, that Capital had to start to take notice. Vee Jay and Swan started selling a decent number of records and their was a buzz surrounding the Beatles. Finally, when George Martin went to Capital with " I Want To Hold Your Hand", Capital couldn't refuse. In a few weeks time, Capital would wonder what took them so long. "I Want To Hold Your Hand" shot to the top of the American charts. Before setting foot in America, the Beatles were the country's biggest group.

So, what was so different about "Hand" as opposed to the singles before it? Not much, actually. To my ears, it sounds slightly inferior to "Please Please Me" and "She Loves You", but it is still a very well written, catchy pop song with tricky harmonies and great guitar playing by George. It grabs you immediately, kind of like "She Loves You." What made it different was that it was the first single release in America on a major label, therefore, the public at large, who before were mostly unaware of the Beatles, were now aware of them. "Hand" was the song that broke the American market and for that, it will always be one of the most influential records in the history of pop music. Today, pop music is a world wide music. In 1964 it wasn't...until the Beatles made it so.

The Beatles came to America and played on the Ed Sullivan show in February 1964. The 10 minutes that the Beatles were on TV, there was no reported crime. Even the criminals took time out to watch the Beatles. It was, at that time, the largest TV audience to ever watch a show. If you go by the percentage of the audience, it probably is STILL in the top 10 of all time, I would guess. It was one of those "where were you when..." moments. By April 1964, the Beatles occupied the top 5 spots in the American charts and the top two albums. Neither had ever been done before and haven't been done since.

Next...The strange case of the Capital Albums

Everyone, this is my last post for today. I have to go to Mass and play my Hofner bass for the parish community. I will probably post my next entry tomorrow afternoon/evening. Will be working on location tomorrow. Anyway, hope you are enjoying our Magical Mystery Tour. Feel free to comment, good or bad.

First airplay in America was in early December 1963 on WWDC-AM in Washington. DJ Carroll James remembers: a Washington D.C. teenager, 15-year-old Marsha Albert, mailed in a request to her local radio station and got the Beatles played on the air. That was only the beginning of a series of events.Albert would later remember, "I wrote that I thought they would be really popular here, and if he (James) could get one of their records, that would really be great." In response to her request, Carroll James imported a copy of the Beatles' newly-released single in Britain, 'I Want To Hold Your Hand,' and let Albert announce it on the air. The response that followed was a large number of phone requests from listeners as the song began to gain quick and strong popularity in the Washington D.C. market. Due to the response, the song was moved into heavy rotation on WWDC. Capitol Records was forced to take notice. This was an early sign of the possiblity that the Beatles could in fact catch on in America -- a fact that Capitol was finding increasingly difficult to ignore.

'I Want To Hold Your Hand' was released by Captiol Records in the States on December 26th 1963. It reached #1 on the American Cashbox charts on January 17th, and was #1 on the American Billboard charts by February 1st where it remained the top song for eleven straight weeks. On the week of April 4th 1964, the Beatles would occupy all five of the Top Five positions on the Billboard charts -- a feat which has never been surpassed or duplicated by anyone before or since.

Following the huge success of their February 9th appearance on the Ed Sullivan show, the Beatles traveled through the snow by train to Washington D.C. on February 11th. Disc jockey Carroll James had the opportunity to chat with the Beatles in a remote radio broadcast trailor before their performance at Washington Coliseum, their first concert in America. James takes a moment during the interview to introduce the Fab Four to Marsha Albert.

Also, please note, it's Capitol Records, with an "O" like the CapitOl Building...

How did Marsha Albert know about the Beatles?

 

[saintsfan]

Why Charlie over Ringo?

I can't think of another song where his drumming stands out.

That's why Charlie was so great - he didn't stand out. He was like Al Jackson, Jr (to me, the greatest drummer in rock history) - lay the foundation and stay the hell out of the way.That being said, Ringo's drumming on "Ticket To Ride" may be the best in history (and set the text for "heavy metal" drumming). It fits the song, yet still stands out. Only Al, Jr on "Hold On (I'm Coming)" was better.

Guys like Moon & Bonham had songs written to serve their talents. And they were also great.

Dudes like Peart (& a bunch of jazz drummers) mean nothing to me - I can appreciate the art, but there's no "feel" to what they do.

That's too blanket a statement to make, IMO. Lots of those guys were great drummers.Rock and Roll doesn't really require the kind of stuff that jazz does, but rock guys have been taking little pieces here and there.

Ringo has great feel and let's face it, with Lennon and McCartney writing the songs, the drummer doesn't need to do much but serve the song. Both George and Ringo did that tremendously well, probably sacrificing their own reputations in the process. However, and here is the key, George and Ringo HATED all that flashy stuff. To them, it was all about the song, and that's why the Beatles were who they were. If you concentrate all of your energies on the song, people will remember that song and THAT'S how you become legendary.

My buddy thinks Alex Van Halen is a much better drummer than Ringo. Personally, I don't hear it, but I'm not a drummer. But I tell you this much, when Alex does his solo in concert, people go to the bathroom, me included and I'm a musician. People would rather hear little things within the context of a song. Nobody wants to hear a 10 minute drum solo. It's the song that's important.

 

[saintsfan]

And a note on Keith Moon. Love Keith. The guy brought something truly unique to the Who, but let's face it, he would NEVER have worked in a group like the Beatles. His sense of time was not real good. Live At Leeds might be the best live album ever, but Moon is all off. The band is keeping up with him, instead of the other way around.

Ringo might not have Moon's flash, but his sense of time was very good and made the recording process, I would assume, much easier.

 

[saintsfan]

Just to add to my last thoughts in this thread. Happy Birthday to the Dark Horse. I don't care how good you think the lead guitarist is in your favorite band. I would't trade this guy for anybody.

What is our life without you, George??

 

[saintsfan]

I was watching Nickelodeon with my 6 year old last night, and Big Time Rush had a video of them signing We Can Work It Out from their movie. I'm not going to put a link to the video here because, well, it offends me as a Beatles fan. I mean, Beatles on Auto Tune is not my idea of a tasteful tribute.

However, it does underscore one point. These songs are now almost 50 years old and people still want to cover them and hear them. Nobody else has that much staying power, IMO.

 

[Apple Jack]

I was watching Nickelodeon with my 6 year old last night, and Big Time Rush had a video of them signing We Can Work It Out from their movie. I'm not going to put a link to the video here because, well, it offends me as a Beatles fan. I mean, Beatles on Auto Tune is not my idea of a tasteful tribute.However, it does underscore one point. These songs are now almost 50 years old and people still want to cover them and hear them. Nobody else has that much staying power, IMO.

Plenty of people from before the Beatles are still being covered.

 

[saintsfan]

I was watching Nickelodeon with my 6 year old last night, and Big Time Rush had a video of them signing We Can Work It Out from their movie. I'm not going to put a link to the video here because, well, it offends me as a Beatles fan. I mean, Beatles on Auto Tune is not my idea of a tasteful tribute.However, it does underscore one point. These songs are now almost 50 years old and people still want to cover them and hear them. Nobody else has that much staying power, IMO.

Plenty of people from before the Beatles are still being covered.

You're right. None of them sell in the vicinity of what the Beatles still sell, however.

 

[saintsfan]

Last night, I was working on learning Nowhere Man for this band I am in. One of our girls who sing has a good voice for the song, so I want to learn the song since it's always been a personal favorite of mine.

I discovered something pretty cool. Musicians will probably be the only ones that appreciate this, but here it goes. The key of the song is E Major. In the key of E Major, you usually will have an A Major chord as well, and the song does. However, I discovered something cool. On the line "making all his nowhere plans for nobody", on the word "nowhere", John doesn't play an A Major, he plays an A minor, which is technically the wrong chord for a song in E Major. It's not an accident because he does it later. It creates a slight dissonance when you sing it, which I think is kind of cool.

This is one of the reasons why I laugh when people try and tell me that the Stones were better than the Beatles because they were more "rebellious." On the surface, that might be true. Of course, the Stones were also marketed that way on purpose to be sort of the anti-Beatles, but in terms of songwriting and music, the Stones music is as conventional as you can get. It's basically blues music with blues progressions. Meanwhile, the Beatles had no rules. They threw together strange chords in strange orders and sung impeccible harmonies over those unreal melodies. Musically, the Beatles were the revolutionaries. The Stones were the followers.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

It was forty-five years ago today--actually yesterday--Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.

 

[saintsfan]

Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the only known footage of the Beatles playing in the Cavern.

August 22, 1962 the Beatles played Some Other Guy on the Cavern stage. It was captured by Granada Television. Here is the link Some Other Guy

If Dr Emmett Brown showed up with the Delorian and asked me where I wanted to go, it would probably be to the Cavern. 1961 maybe. When the Beatles came back from the first Hamburg trip. If that footage existed it would, IMO, change the entire perception of the early Beatles.

 

[jwb]

Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the only known footage of the Beatles playing in the Cavern.

August 22, 1962 the Beatles played Some Other Guy on the Cavern stage. It was captured by Granada Television. Here is the link Some Other Guy

If Dr Emmett Brown showed up with the Delorian and asked me where I wanted to go, it would probably be to the Cavern. 1961 maybe. When the Beatles came back from the first Hamburg trip. If that footage existed it would, IMO, change the entire perception of the early Beatles.

Yea, everything I've read about the early days paints them in a very different light than the "wholesome, lovable moptop" image that was marketed to the public.

 

[zamboni]

Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the only known footage of the Beatles playing in the Cavern.

August 22, 1962 the Beatles played Some Other Guy on the Cavern stage. It was captured by Granada Television. Here is the link Some Other Guy

If Dr Emmett Brown showed up with the Delorian and asked me where I wanted to go, it would probably be to the Cavern. 1961 maybe. When the Beatles came back from the first Hamburg trip. If that footage existed it would, IMO, change the entire perception of the early Beatles.

Good stuff.On another note, I hope the originally scheduled The Beatles: The Lost Concert finally gets released to theaters later this summer. Was slated for release this past May, but postponed.

 

[Apple Jack]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

 

[saintsfan]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

Plus you could stick around for the semi-riot per wiki:After Ringo's appearance at the Cavern Club performance as a full Beatle, Pete Best's fans were upset at his sacking, holding vigils outside Best's house and fighting at the club, shouting 'Pete forever! Ringo never!' George Harrison received a black eye from one of the fans.

 

[Apple Jack]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

I guess I've seen enough good bar bands playing '50s covers to not really think too much of that. It's a bit like being a deadhead and bypassing Harper College, the Fillmore West, Winterland, etc. to see Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions at Magoo's. I'd want to see them in full stride, not when they were still cutting their teeth. But if the Delorean screwed up and dumped me in Hamberg or the Cavern, I would certainly not complain.

 

[saintsfan]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

I guess I've seen enough good bar bands playing '50s covers to not really think too much of that. It's a bit like being a deadhead and bypassing Harper College, the Fillmore West, Winterland, etc. to see Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions at Magoo's. I'd want to see them in full stride, not when they were still cutting their teeth. But if the Delorean screwed up and dumped me in Hamberg or the Cavern, I would certainly not complain.

It's just different. I've heard every Beatles recording I could possibly get my hands on. The only thing I haven't seen or heard is the Beatles as a bar band. Their live reputation in Liverpool flies directly in the face of many now who think they weren't a good live band. I'd love to hear for myself. Maybe I'd be disappointed, but I don't think so.

 

[Bogart]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

I guess I've seen enough good bar bands playing '50s covers to not really think too much of that. It's a bit like being a deadhead and bypassing Harper College, the Fillmore West, Winterland, etc. to see Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions at Magoo's. I'd want to see them in full stride, not when they were still cutting their teeth. But if the Delorean screwed up and dumped me in Hamberg or the Cavern, I would certainly not complain.

It's just different. I've heard every Beatles recording I could possibly get my hands on. The only thing I haven't seen or heard is the Beatles as a bar band. Their live reputation in Liverpool flies directly in the face of many now who think they weren't a good live band. I'd love to hear for myself. Maybe I'd be disappointed, but I don't think so.

Just make sure you have time to tell John to stay away from The Dakota. (and maybe stay away from anyone named Yoko. )

 

[Godsbrother]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

I guess I've seen enough good bar bands playing '50s covers to not really think too much of that. It's a bit like being a deadhead and bypassing Harper College, the Fillmore West, Winterland, etc. to see Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions at Magoo's. I'd want to see them in full stride, not when they were still cutting their teeth. But if the Delorean screwed up and dumped me in Hamberg or the Cavern, I would certainly not complain.

It's just different. I've heard every Beatles recording I could possibly get my hands on. The only thing I haven't seen or heard is the Beatles as a bar band. Their live reputation in Liverpool flies directly in the face of many now who think they weren't a good live band. I'd love to hear for myself. Maybe I'd be disappointed, but I don't think so.

Anyone that doesn't think the Beatles were a good live band should watch/listen to the NME Poll Winners Concerts from 1963-1966. These concerts featured the top bands in Britain at the time (Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, The Animals, The Hollies, Yardbirds, etc.) on the same stage and the Beatles were clearly the class of the bunch.

 

[Apple Jack]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

I guess I've seen enough good bar bands playing '50s covers to not really think too much of that. It's a bit like being a deadhead and bypassing Harper College, the Fillmore West, Winterland, etc. to see Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions at Magoo's. I'd want to see them in full stride, not when they were still cutting their teeth. But if the Delorean screwed up and dumped me in Hamberg or the Cavern, I would certainly not complain.

It's just different. I've heard every Beatles recording I could possibly get my hands on. The only thing I haven't seen or heard is the Beatles as a bar band. Their live reputation in Liverpool flies directly in the face of many now who think they weren't a good live band. I'd love to hear for myself. Maybe I'd be disappointed, but I don't think so.

Anyone that doesn't think the Beatles were a good live band should watch/listen to the NME Poll Winners Concerts from 1963-1966. These concerts featured the top bands in Britain at the time (Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, The Animals, The Hollies, Yardbirds, etc.) on the same stage and the Beatles were clearly the class of the bunch.

I've never heard anybody suggest the Beatles weren't a good live band. I've always known them to be great live. They just suffered sometimes from bad PAs and screaming 14 year olds girls so loud that they had trouble hearing themselves.

 

[Godsbrother]

That's an odd first stop with the time machine. They were just a bar band playing covers at the time.

They were the Beatles before anybody knew who they were.Yeah, it's not exactly witnessing the birth of Christ, but as a Beatles fan, it would be one of the places I would want to go.

I guess I've seen enough good bar bands playing '50s covers to not really think too much of that. It's a bit like being a deadhead and bypassing Harper College, the Fillmore West, Winterland, etc. to see Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions at Magoo's. I'd want to see them in full stride, not when they were still cutting their teeth. But if the Delorean screwed up and dumped me in Hamberg or the Cavern, I would certainly not complain.

It's just different. I've heard every Beatles recording I could possibly get my hands on. The only thing I haven't seen or heard is the Beatles as a bar band. Their live reputation in Liverpool flies directly in the face of many now who think they weren't a good live band. I'd love to hear for myself. Maybe I'd be disappointed, but I don't think so.

Anyone that doesn't think the Beatles were a good live band should watch/listen to the NME Poll Winners Concerts from 1963-1966. These concerts featured the top bands in Britain at the time (Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, The Animals, The Hollies, Yardbirds, etc.) on the same stage and the Beatles were clearly the class of the bunch.

I've never heard anybody suggest the Beatles weren't a good live band. I've always known them to be great live. They just suffered sometimes from bad PAs and screaming 14 year olds girls so loud that they had trouble hearing themselves.

True. There are tons of Beatles live performances recorded but most of them suffer from poor sound.