DM's Beatles forums

Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: Strawberryfields67 on June 20, 2004, 03:25:08 PM

Title: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Strawberryfields67 on June 20, 2004, 03:25:08 PM
What do you all think the worst year for the Beatles was from 1962-70?
I think it was 1968. The White Album and Yellow Submarine? You've got to be kidding.
'69 was a great year for them. 2 words:Abbey Road.
'70 was a close second as worst year,but the solo albums and Let It Be make it all better.  :)
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Crazy Diamond on June 20, 2004, 03:55:29 PM
1962-1964
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Strawberryfields67 on June 20, 2004, 04:23:25 PM
By the way,I don't mean just musically. I mean succes and music.
Yeah,I'd agree with that Zep Fan,but they were crazy succesful those years,esecially '64.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on June 20, 2004, 05:07:01 PM
1970.

Everything crashed to the ground.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Bruno on June 21, 2004, 01:57:14 AM
1970
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on June 21, 2004, 03:22:50 AM
1970, of course....
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: number14 on June 23, 2004, 05:31:42 PM
I think 1970 alos though 1967 wasnt great either
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Wayne L. on June 23, 2004, 06:38:26 PM
1967....the death of their manager Brian Epstein was the beginning of the end along with the highly overrated Sgt. Pepper(personally speaking), Magical Mystery Tour movie which is mostly mediocre & the soundtrack with only a few great Beatles classics like the Lennon psychedelic masterpiece I Am The Walrus.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: The End on June 23, 2004, 10:26:47 PM
1980
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on June 23, 2004, 10:45:31 PM
[quote by=The_End link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=8 date=1088029607]1980[/quote]

I agree.  :'(
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: strutter84 on June 24, 2004, 05:36:28 AM
1980 by far.  With 2001 following shortly behind.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Crazy Diamond on June 24, 2004, 10:45:12 AM
[quote by=Wayne_L. link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=7 date=1088015906]1967....the death of their manager Brian Epstein was the beginning of the end along with the highly overrated Sgt. Pepper(personally speaking), Magical Mystery Tour movie which is mostly mediocre & the soundtrack with only a few great Beatles classics like the Lennon psychedelic masterpiece I Am The Walrus. [/quote]
SGT. PEPPER'S ISN'T OVERRATED.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on June 24, 2004, 11:02:23 AM
Depends really......it's a perfect 10, absolutely fabulous album, but I enjoy Rubber Soul, Abbey Road and Revolver more.....and the White Album is about tied with it.....so if it ends up in one of those best lists, ahead of the others, or at least three of them, it's kind of overrated. Otherwise, a rock classic that I love to death.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: John@work on June 24, 2004, 02:59:09 PM
[quote by=The_End link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=8 date=1088029607]1980[/quote]

I was going to say 1970, but I agree with 1980 more so.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: strutter84 on June 25, 2004, 05:41:29 AM
Am I the only one that thinks 2001 was a bad year?
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on June 25, 2004, 09:32:06 AM
It was awful, of course, but the prospect of the band ever reuniting had already been shattered in 1980.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: tkitna on June 25, 2004, 09:44:58 AM
[quote by=strutter84 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=14 date=1088142089]Am I the only one that thinks 2001 was a bad year?[/quote]

Depends on the wine! (joking). No Strutter, you are not the only person who thinks 2001 was a bad year.

This thread went to depressing matter fairly quick.

Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Soft_Guitar60 on July 07, 2004, 02:17:38 PM
[quote by=strutter84 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=14 date=1088142089]Am I the only one that thinks 2001 was a bad year?[/quote]

Nope, it was a bad year...very bad year.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Hannah on July 07, 2004, 02:28:35 PM
the worst years are the years with yoko.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 07, 2004, 07:18:11 PM
1970
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: dr.robert on July 07, 2004, 11:18:18 PM
1966. they were all sick of touring, they had the big hassle with  marcos,and lennons Jesus remark
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 07, 2004, 11:30:23 PM
they also recorded Revolver and Sergeant Pepper in 66
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 08, 2004, 01:58:00 PM
Pepper was recorded in Winter/Spring 67.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: The End on July 08, 2004, 06:53:09 PM
[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=22 date=1089295080]Pepper was recorded in Winter/Spring 67.[/quote]

Mostly, but recording sessions for When I'm 64 commenced 6th December 1966, and of course Strawberry Fields Forever (which was originally intended as a track on their new album) was started even earlier - 24th November 1966! :)
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: dr.robert on July 08, 2004, 07:24:00 PM
musically they were great in 1966,but  as a touring group they were done. they all seemed so weary and tired of everything that came with being a Beatle except recording.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 09, 2004, 01:24:40 AM
[quote by=The_End link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=23 date=1089312789]

Mostly, but recording sessions for When I'm 64 commenced 6th December 1966, and of course Strawberry Fields Forever (which was originally intended as a track on their new album) was started even earlier - 24th November 1966! :) [/quote]

Nevertheless, in spite of the hair-splitting, I stand by what I said.  SFF never made it to the LP (tho it was indended) and the Dec 66 start for 64 is so damned close to 67 as to beggar belief that you'd add that.

:D
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 09, 2004, 11:10:50 PM
yeas, but the concept for the album and all that had already come.  pepper started in '66 Mr C
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 10, 2004, 12:31:41 AM
[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=26 date=1089414650]yeas, but the concept for the album and all that had already come.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 12:36:26 AM
I agree with Charlie, the concept didn't exist until the following year.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 12:43:41 AM
Quote
But I await the next volley :)

Ready, aim...wait for it...wait for it...FIRE

"In late 1966 Paul read about the new San Franciscan 'hippy' rock scene, through imported copies of US underground newsapers the 'Oracle' and the 'Berkely Barb'. Reading about the grandly named San Franciscan bands such as the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service and Country Joe and the Fish, Paul invented the idea of the Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (some sources say the actual name came from Beatles roadie Mal Evans"

from http://www.sgtpeppers.co.uk/story.html

Also, if you check the liner notes of the album, you'll notice that SPLHCB was the tird track recorded, hardly "well into recording" (yes, i know it was recorded in 67, but it was early 67 and they probably didnt want to work during the holiday season.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 12:51:09 AM
Check and mate. I think we got told.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:08:32 AM
ROWDY LOOK OUT! The volley was aimed at Mr C, you wrote your message while I was looking for evidence.  By the way you didn't get told, you got served.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 01:14:57 AM
Ouch, "you got served" is a far worse insult. I actually sat through the film of the same name....ugh.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:20:05 AM
i didnt, i'm working off the south park parody ;)
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 01:21:30 AM
I haven't seen that particular episode.....hope it was at least better than their awful "Passion" parody.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:22:31 AM
oh cmon that was hilarious.  Cartman as hitler and Gibson as a freak who enjoys being tortured.  classic stuff.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 01:24:53 AM
The Hitler thing was funny........but Gibson was just way too weird/goofy/crazy to make me laugh....and then the whole crapping thing at the end or whatever if I remember correctly, so useless. Too many on and off moments in a lot of the recent South Park episodes unfortunately.

At least we can always look back at the film as mankind's greatest comedic achievement. :)
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:29:58 AM
[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=29 date=1089420221]
Ready, aim...wait for it...wait for it...FIRE

"In late 1966 Paul read about the new San Franciscan 'hippy' rock scene, through imported copies of US underground newsapers the 'Oracle' and the 'Berkely Barb'. Reading about the grandly named San Franciscan bands such as the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service and Country Joe and the Fish, Paul invented the idea of the Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (some sources say the actual name came from Beatles roadie Mal Evans"

from http://www.sgtpeppers.co.uk/story.html

Also, if you check the liner notes of the album, you'll notice that SPLHCB was the tird track recorded, hardly "well into recording" (yes, i know it was recorded in 67, but it was early 67 and they probably didnt want to work during the holiday season.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 10, 2004, 01:31:28 AM
[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=29 date=1089420221]
Ready, aim...wait for it...wait for it...FIRE

"In late 1966 Paul read about the new San Franciscan 'hippy' rock scene, through imported copies of US underground newsapers the 'Oracle' and the 'Berkely Barb'. Reading about the grandly named San Franciscan bands such as the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service and Country Joe and the Fish, Paul invented the idea of the Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (some sources say the actual name came from Beatles roadie Mal Evans"

from http://www.sgtpeppers.co.uk/story.html

Also, if you check the liner notes of the album, you'll notice that SPLHCB was the tird track recorded, hardly "well into recording" (yes, i know it was recorded in 67, but it was early 67 and they probably didnt want to work during the holiday season.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:39:57 AM
[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=38 date=1089423088]

Points taken.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 10, 2004, 01:52:03 AM
[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=39 date=1089423597]

Of course i can lve with that, but in the spirit of debate...NEVER

You say you referenced Lewisohm, well I will now reference another respected source, Steve Turner's a Hard Days Write.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:54:26 AM
I think my source trumps Playboy.  They're not known for their hard-hitting journalism, more for the boobies.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 10, 2004, 01:55:54 AM
if you want to go to the source, listen to Paul's comments on Anthology, I'm checking them right now for the exact quote.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: broady on July 10, 2004, 03:58:15 AM
Playboy is a good source - let me see that magazine! *shifty eyes*
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 04:59:28 AM
You have the Australian version.......Outback Girls....

hmm....
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: broady on July 10, 2004, 05:05:26 AM
;D Need you say more?
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 10, 2004, 05:20:21 AM
[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=41 date=1089424466]I think my source trumps Playboy.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 10, 2004, 05:21:08 AM
[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=42 date=1089424554]if you want to go to the source, listen to Paul's comments on Anthology, I'm checking them right now for the exact quote.[/quote]


And what did you find then?
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 05:52:45 AM
Paul doesn't date when he heard of the San Francisco band names and all. Pretty sure.....but I could be wrong since I haven't watched it in a while...
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 10, 2004, 07:24:14 AM
As to the Anthology BOOK Paul is equally vague, with no dates mentioned.

"I started thinking about what would be a really mad name to call a band. ... I took an idea back to the guys in London: 'As we're trying to get away from ourselves --- to get away from touring and into a more surreal thing --- how about if we become an alter-ego band, something like, say, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts"?  I've got a little bit of a song cooking with that title.' "


*This confirms some of herecomesthesun's ideas.

"'Sgt. Pepper' is Paul, after a trip to America.... He was trying to put some distance between The Beatles and the public --- and so there was this identity of Sgt. Pepper"  - John Lennon, Anthology.


*Doesn't really say this was meant to be a concept album sort of reason, just a vague and 'trippy' thing to maybe play around with. IMO.

George Martin, Anthology: "Basically it was Paul's idea: he came in and said he had the song 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' and that he was identifying it with the band, with the Beatles themselves.  We recorded the song first, and *then* (emphasis mine) the thought came to make it an idea for the album.

*In other words, Pepper was recorded (in 1967) and THEN the idea of the alter-ego came into play.  In 1966 all Paul did was think of the trippy name.  And yes, When I'm 64 was recorded in December 1966.  But not for any concept except perhaps in keeping with the childhood theme that was *initially* the concept for Pepper (SFF and PL).

Again, going to the source:

In Many Years From Now (Miles/McCartney) it does confirm the Kenya/Nairobi flight (November 1966) being the one Paul came up with the idea, so obviously this is another example of imperfect memories contradicting themselves.

"Sgt. Pepper is often described as the first concept album, but it was not initially conceived as such.  There was never an intention to make a themed album, a 'northern' album, or present a mini-opera as the Who did later.  ... It freed them [the Pepper alter-ego idea] from their public image and allowed them to take a new, unfettered direction; it gave them the distance necessary to attempt something as extraordinary as 'A Day In The Life'.
Only later in the recording did Neil Aspinall have the idea of repeating the 'Sgt. Pepper' song as a reprise, and The Beatles and George Martin begin to use the linking tracks and segues to pull it all together, making it into more of a concept album."

*So this backs my contention that the concept (beyond the initial name) was come up with during the recording process and that that occurred in 1967.  It is too bad the dates and such are not more precise on these events.

Again, it really is a case of both proponents being somewhat right and being somewhat wrong.


Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Rowdy on July 10, 2004, 07:27:22 AM
Wow! Thanks for mentioning the Anthology book......I just remembered that the paperback version was coming out a while back. Lo and behold it's only 13 bucks at Amazon. I definitely have to get it. I saw the hardcover, which was fantastic looking, but I couldn't see spending sixty bucks, now it's reasonably priced.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: John Leppord on July 14, 2004, 09:46:05 PM
does this include the silver beatles? if it does  when they were in Hamburg was pretty bad, the hours they had to do were outrageous

(John Lennon,Paul McCartney,George Harrison, Peter Best, Stuart Sutcliffe)
     guitar              guitar                  guitar              drums          bass
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Taxgirl on July 15, 2004, 04:32:08 PM
[quote by=strutter84 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=14 date=1088142089]Am I the only one that thinks 2001 was a bad year?[/quote]

No you are not... :'(

I'd say 1980 and 2001 both were bad years.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: on July 15, 2004, 04:39:05 PM
1980.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on July 22, 2004, 01:17:34 AM
[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=49 date=1089444254]As to the Anthology BOOK Paul is equally vague, with no dates mentioned.

"I started thinking about what would be a really mad name to call a band. ... I took an idea back to the guys in London: 'As we're trying to get away from ourselves --- to get away from touring and into a more surreal thing --- how about if we become an alter-ego band, something like, say, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts"?
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on August 01, 2004, 03:12:11 AM
[quote by=John_Leppord link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=51 date=1089841565]does this include the silver beatles? if it does
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Wonderwall on August 01, 2004, 07:49:45 AM
I would say 1970 because the Beatles as a group were over.. officially from a performing/recording standpoint.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Indica on August 01, 2004, 01:27:09 PM
1970..
But in a way, I dont think the Beatles would have suited the 70's with the prog rock boom etc.

Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Mairi on August 01, 2004, 07:34:37 PM
1970.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: ringorama on August 01, 2004, 09:27:36 PM
1970, 1980, 2001 all bad years in their own ways.
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Indica on August 01, 2004, 10:38:36 PM
1980 - a terrible year for all.


Such a waste.

Never has Human Nature been brutally highlighted as a dangerous tool towards itself.




" all you need is Love"
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Billy Shears on August 06, 2004, 07:41:11 PM
i miss george......just knowing he was around made you feel ok to be yourself...now, it's kinda like taking a walk to your best friends house, but sadly, he's never home....
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: Strawberryfields67 on August 07, 2004, 02:08:24 AM
Wow,I had no idea this topic would be so popular.   :-/
Title: Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
Post by: SieLiebtDich on December 02, 2004, 05:50:18 AM
1980 :-(