George hardly ever looked happy on pictures, especially in the later years. Of course their image was important and they knew that. They even used it.
To add: I do think that building their image was more something that was a job for others to do. Epstein for instance. But I always feel that The Beatles themselves were in charge of their music.
The Beatles such cheecky people when they did there session for Please Please me & George Martin wanted to do How do you do it. What about when George Martin said to John, "are you trying to teach me my buisness?" Lennon replies, "no sir, i'm trying to teach you our buisness". They did have buisness people around them but they were all in charge of the music & ideas!
It's been a Hard Days Night & i've been working like a dog!
The Beatles were on the BBC news twice this morning about the downloads. first as a feature, then in the headlines (3rd behind the Iraq parliament bomb and the Norwegian boat capsizing, but ahead of a major drug bust of a Rasta 2temple" in london - seven bloody kilos!). Interesting that even when the talking point was Hey Jude the images they played relentlessly were moptops getting of a plane (seems to be the iconic image on TV) and moptops playing with their hair.
Interesting that even when the talking point was Hey Jude the images they played relentlessly were moptops getting of a plane (seems to be the iconic image on TV) and moptops playing with their hair.
All this mess in the world that happens. Thank god we have the Beatles!!!! They brought & still do bring so much happiness to people!!!
It's been a Hard Days Night & i've been working like a dog!
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.)
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?
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
[...]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. [...] 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.
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?
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.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
[...]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 (which has its own innovative points) to have confidence (I think that it was but that time when the Guymania phenomenon began tho it was on the headlines in autumn) ...
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.
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.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Bobber
Male
Female
Logged
They brought & still do bring so much happiness to people!!! 
