Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BlueMeanie]

True. But I'd have a word with him about eathquakes and hereditary baldness.

And flatulence.

[Kevin]

On a serious note though, it shows how dominate the Beatlemania image is. Regardless of the music it's always the same set of images projected - never for instance the Pepper suits, which we "in the know" regard as equally iconic.  Beatlemania as a cultural phenomenom sometimes seems bigger than the music itself, and I wonder if in someway it's subconcsiously more important. (don't mean to sound like a pretentious tosser there.)

[harihead]

Beatlemania as a cultural phenomenom sometimes seems bigger than the music itself, and I wonder if in someway it's subconcsiously more important.

I'm not sure about "more important", but it is certainly a staggering cultural phenomenon.  I first got interested in the Beatles because of the Anthology series. I had never listened to their music and didn't know anything about them.  But when I saw those pictures of Beatlemania, I was just floored.  I couldn't believe what I was seeing, or that this really happened.  Yet it did happen-- only once on that scale.  I think that for people who don't listen to the Beatles, this is the image that they know and remember, simply because it is unique in history.

Er, what was the question?  

[raxo]

[...]Beatlemania as a cultural phenomenom sometimes seems bigger than the music itself, and I wonder if in someway it's subconcsiously more important. (don't mean to sound like a pretentious tosser there.)

I agree with Kevin ... a-gain!

I agree with Kevin.  
[...]
P.S. Everytime they are mentionated in the media the words "They changed the music history" are present and that is obviously refering to the time they appeared in history and what they made to be a novelty in their music birth and gurus in the next years for the music world. They will be the guys from Beatlemania more than the guys that made that great albums of psycodelia in the 66-67 and "get back" to the basis in the White Album, Get Back projet and Abbey Road.

from here: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/b-albums/m-1113498275/s-45/

[Kevin]

I know this is all hypothetical but.......
Elvis never toured outside the US so we'll never know about Elvismania.
But say it happened to someone else - Buddy Holly say in 62 (he doesn't die in this scenario.) The world goes crazy. Then along come The Beatles - still with the same songs - but without the prestige of "inventing" that mass mania. Would the music of those early years still hold such a place in our psyche?

[raxo]

[...]Would the music of those early years still hold such a place in our psyche?

Are we still talking about the music or the image? Because their image would re-main ... it's a historycal icon ... those modtops, I mean!  

[harihead]

^Elvismania

Now we're getting back to the original topic! Leaving aside the question of the world's psyche for a moment, I happen to believe that a great deal of an artist's creativity is based on the confidence he or she gets from positive feedback.  I don't think the Beatles would have been nearly as experimental or groundbreaking if they didn't have this Beatlemania phenomenon going on simultaneously.  I don't think George Martin would have been as supportive of their efforts if they were playing "catch up" to some other artist. People often talk about the amazing development in John and Paul's songs. It is amazing, but I think a lot of it comes down to confidence.  When you get good feedback as an artist, it encourages you to try still more things.  And then those things come across as original and fresh to the audience, so they respond positively.  It's a win-win!

Now to Kevin's point about the world's psyche: I really don't know.  There is something inherently happy about Beatles songs, that I think really appeals to a world in which too many people are jaded and cynical.  It's some light in the gloom.  I think this is still appealing, and still a good winning formula.  But would the Beatles be held up as the truly major artists that they are considered today?  That I don't know.  I think this acclamation was all part of the initial phenomenon that took everyone by surprise: the world, the fans, the Beatles.

[raxo]

[...]I don't think George Martin would have been as supportive of their efforts if they were playing "catch up" to some other artist. People often talk about the amazing development in John and Paul's songs. It is amazing, but I think a lot of it comes down to confidence.  When you get good feedback as an artist, it encourages you to try still more things.  And then those things come across as original and fresh to the audience, so they respond positively.  It's a win-win!
[...]

Sure it is   ... but they were very succesful from the very very start ... their first album was the one which spent more weeks at number 1 in UK (30 weeks) and Please Please Me -the single- was, at least, number 2 (if not 1) ... and so were their next albums and singles ... that was in spring of 1963, when they began to be somewhat famous in Britain ... but they'd rejected (but didn't regret it) How Do You It? and it was a number 1 too so they could have began to think that they were great composers too (and Sir George) at that early stage when they did it on their own (some of their songs covered by others were hits too in 1963!) ...

I don't think they had to wait till the end of the summerof 1963 and She Loves You's success [size=9](which has its own innovative points)[/size] to have confidence (I think that it was but that time when the Guymania phenomenon began tho it was on the headlines in autumn) ...

[Kevin]

They certainly always had a real positivity about them. Even downer songs like I'm A Looser manage to be jaunty. Yesterday, even though it's full of regret, manages to sound upbeat. Eleanor Rigby, which should be all doom and gloom, gets you humming along. In fact the only Beatles wrist-slitter I can think of is Yer Blues (good on you John - nothing like a happy relationship with a good woman to give the world a positive slant)
And when you look at those "I'm a star" affected pictures of the acts that preceeded them their laughing unaffected image is very appealing. The music and the image probably go hand in hand. The Stones wouldn't have had such appeal dressed in suits.
I agree about the feedback thing. If nothing else the cash Beatlemania brought in gave them a leaverage in the studio denied to other bands.

[Kevin]

Sure it is   ... but they were very succesful from the very start ... their first album was the one which spent more weeks at number 1 in UK (30 weeks) and Please Please Me -the single- was, at least, number 2 (if not 1) ... and so were their next albums and singles ... that was in spring of 1963, when they began to be somewhat famous in Britain .

Definately their rise in Britain was natural - no hype needed. But I'm always a bit suspicious of the US thing. Their singles bombed when the audience were unaware of the image. All that hype, the rumours of Capitol planting the screaming girls, the whole "The Beatles are coming" thing engineered by the marketting people.

[raxo]

Definately their rise in Britain was natural - no hype needed. But I'm always a bit suspicious of the US thing. Their singles bombed when the audience were unaware of the image. All that hype, the rumours of Capitol planting the screaming girls, the whole "The Beatles are coming" thing engineered by the marketting people.

No hype nowhere ... I was answering to the comment about their confidence and Guymania ... and how Sir George could have seen them after few months of working ... they were invited by the Queen to play in the Royal Royal Variety Performance 8 monts after their first album was released so they had to feel very confidence ... enough to even say what John said in the intro to Twist And Shout   ...

... anyway, their success in US was not born in a dark night ... people surely knew they were very successful in UK or at least the radio DJs would surely announced it when they introduced I Want To Hold Your Hand ... the promo was huge, y'know ... if the rest of Europe was begining to know them it was obvious that their success in US was a matter of time (more sharing the language  ) ... the sice of it it's another thing ... of their US success, I mean! :

[Kevin]

. In fact the only Beatles wrist-slitter I can think of is Yer Blues (good on you John - nothing like a happy relationship with a good woman to give the world a positive slant)
.

Though thinking about it he was probably just parodying the doom and gloom of Blues music

[Kevin]

No hype nowhere ... I was answering to the comment about their confidence and Guymania ... and how Sir George could have seen them after few months of working ... they were invited by the Queen to play in the Royal Royal Variety Performance 8 monts after their first album was released so they had to feel very confidence ... enough to even say what John said in the intro to Twist And Shout   ...

Good points. Just for the record, I don't think the Queen writes out the invite list. She endures those concerts more than anything I think - like opening hospitals or watching hours of Belineze folk dancing. Pinky and Perky were on the cast list as well (singing wooden pig-puppets)
The John comment (I take it it's the rattle jewelery thing.) For years I'd only seen it written down, and I thought it was very off the cuff and witty. But when I hear him actually say it he's quite hesitant and you can tell it's premeditated and rehearsed, which takes a little of the shine off.
Am I sounding negative? It's just that it's too easy going on about the good things all the time. It works my brain more to go "but..." I really do love and admire them you know.

[raxo]

[...]Just for the record, I don't think the Queen writes out the invite list. [...]

Of course, it was a way of talking   ... but that event was very significant ...

[...]
The John comment (I take it it's the rattle jewelery thing.) For years I'd only seen it written down, and I thought it was very off the cuff and witty. But when I hear him actually say it he's quite hesitant and you can tell it's premeditated and rehearsed, which takes a little of the shine off.
[...]

He's obviously hesitant (that smile at the end! ) ... and because it was premeditated it's more important and meaningful to me than if it would have been one of those John's improptus ... it means that they had confidence and not that they only had confidence just at that very moment of the intro to the song ... it's definetelly the[size=9](ir)[/size] sign, if you know what I mean!  

[Kevin]

I think we just hear it differently. That kind of respectful irreverance is a very english tradition, and they were expected to be cheeky-chappy working class lads. It was a very english show-bizz thing to do, and John looks as nervous as hell (but I know I digress and focus on John - who imo always looks uncomfortable when in the public glare and you're talking about the band as a whole.)
Yes, they must have been confident - but they didn't have much under their belts and they and everyone else expected their bubble to burst sooner than later.
Pinky and Perky didn't go on to greatness.   Mind, they are the most famous wooden pig-puppets in the world, and somewhere in the universe that must count for something.

[harihead]

Pinky and Perky didn't go on to greatness.  

truly, this is a great tragedy.

However, speaking of the Beatles' rise in America, I don't think it was so much a matter of hype as the peculiar niche markets that America has. What the Beatles' recordings went out on were tiny little labels that didn't have any distribution.  I assume that America worked then pretty much the way that it works today; if you don't get the promotion, you don't get the airplay.  If you don't get the airplay, you don't get the sales.  If you don't get the sales, you won't get any promotion money or airplay! It's interesting that the markets in which the Beatles were introduced by a few rogue DJs (Washington DC, Chicago, New York) generated sales and led Capitol to increase its first pressing of "I want to hold your hand" by about 200%-- fortunately!

I think the Beatles were exposed to a national audience in England much sooner than they were in America-- right at the time that "please please me" was going towards number one-- simply because England had a much more unified mass media system.  In America, the Beatles had no national exposure for their first four records. The Ed Sullivan show gave them that exposure, and then their records took off nationally.  Fortunately, Capitol had pressed enough that they could support the boom.  I don't know what these little labels did; they must've been pressing round-the-clock!

[raxo]

I think we just hear it differently. That kind of respectful irreverance is a very english tradition, and they were expected to be cheeky-chappy working class lads. [...]

Then I hope I'm the only one who has haerd it in that way   ...

[...]It was a very english show-bizz thing to do, and John looks as nervous as hell (but I know I digress and focus on John - who imo always looks uncomfortable when in the public glare and you're talking about the band as a whole.)[...]

Yep, I'm talking about the idea of that comment at the end of their performance (Twist And Shout ued to be the last number so ...) ... John uncomfortable?! Even when he was kidding looks so ... something like this  ::

[...]
TPlWBKKm21Q
[...]

from here: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/b-songs/m-1149075215/s-45/

[...]
Yes, they must have been confident - but they didn't have much under their belts and they and everyone else expected their bubble to burst sooner than later.
[...]

Yep, they had to tell that too ... but by late 1963 it was too soon to say if they'd have more success or not ... they were still number 1 with their first album and with their last singles and there was no sign of a failure on the shore: they were conquering Sweden and the hearts of the English people (or so it's been said since then)!    

[Kevin]

OK. maybe not always so uncomfortable.

[Bobber]

John had intended to say "f***ing jewelry", but was persuaded against doing so by Paul McCartney and the group's manager Brian Epstein.
I think I once read somewhere that John just wanted to say something rebellious. This was the best he could come up with. I disagree with raxo: because it was rehearsed, it seems to have lesser meaning and it was probably the reason why he was nervous about it. I would have been more 'typical John' if it had come up as an impromptu thing. Now it seems to be a more reasonable thing instead of coming from the heart.

[BlueMeanie]

I think the Beatles were exposed to a national audience in England much sooner than they were in America-- right at the time that "please please me" was going towards number one-- simply because England had a much more unified mass media system.  

They were on national radio (BBC) before they even had a record deal. 8th March 1962, to be precise!

John had intended to say "f***ing jewelry", but was persuaded against doing so by Paul McCartney and the group's manager Brian Epstein.
I think I once read somewhere that John just wanted to say something rebellious. This was the best he could come up with. I disagree with raxo: because it was rehearsed, it seems to have lesser meaning and it was probably the reason why he was nervous about it. I would have been more 'typical John' if it had come up as an impromptu thing. Now it seems to be a more reasonable thing instead of coming from the heart.

Im glad he didn't. That would definately have been the end of The Beatles. Swearing on live TV in 1964 would have caused an outrage. And in front of The Big Cheese!

And it looked rehearsed to me. You see him glance over to Paul just before he says it.