Tell Me :
Talk
John knew ...........
ROCKMAN
Ethel knew ............
ROCKMAN
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
We're on different pages here, but disagreement is fine.Your posted definition of propaganda is completely in line with my take on the article. Music is subjective
but this article is focused on all the stuff that builds the myth, and it's myth that elevates the Beatles more than their music. Propaganda for sure.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but agree to disagree!
We do, Treacle, I always enjoy your posts.
Thanks! My regret in the discussion was using the word "spouting" which was unkind and did nothing to further my point, so I apologize unreservedly to MKjan for that.
No offense taken Treacle,
and thanks for your comment coffeepot man.
ROCKMAN
The Beatles were a Barbershop Quartet with mops.
I'd dare say being a Stone (except if you were Brian), would have been way more fun.
It's not the point...
It's about the binding task to recruit a left-handed bass player, and at which point this can affect the music...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 4, 2023 04:02
John knew ...........
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 4, 2023 04:45
Robert Plant foresees the future - from NME, 2021 - ....
Robert Plant suggests resolution to The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones feud
Macca-Stones
“I don’t think there’s any fighting,” he told Rolling Stone in a new interview.
“They’ve known each other since 1963. They love each other desperately.”
As for resolving the feud he said that McCartney “should just play bass with the Stones”.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From the Guardian, 2023:
> Come together: Paul McCartney confirmed to feature on new Rolling Stones song
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-04 04:49 by Hairball.
Robert Plant suggests resolution to The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones feud
Macca-Stones
“I don’t think there’s any fighting,” he told Rolling Stone in a new interview.
“They’ve known each other since 1963. They love each other desperately.”
As for resolving the feud he said that McCartney “should just play bass with the Stones”.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From the Guardian, 2023:
> Come together: Paul McCartney confirmed to feature on new Rolling Stones song
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-04 04:49 by Hairball.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 4, 2023 04:54
Ethel knew ............
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 4, 2023 22:05
Quote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.
You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.
I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.
Take away all the talk of awards and firsts. Yes a cultural phenomena, but it's based on hype and and for me, much of the music not worthy of it all. Do know that propaganda is not about "untrue".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 5, 2023 23:04
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.
You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.
I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.
Take away all the talk of awards and firsts. Yes a cultural phenomena, but it's based on hype and and for me, much of the music not worthy of it all. Do know that propaganda is not about "untrue".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
We're on different pages here, but disagreement is fine.Your posted definition of propaganda is completely in line with my take on the article. Music is subjective
but this article is focused on all the stuff that builds the myth, and it's myth that elevates the Beatles more than their music. Propaganda for sure.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 5, 2023 23:28
Back in April 2021 David Crosby weighed in with his opinion which some might view as controversial:
David Crosby says which one is better: Beatles or Rolling Stones:
Beatles vs. Stones
“The Beatles. Mainly because of the range of the stuff they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range that they did, but The Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do.
And The Beatles could sing harmony. The Stones can’t do that for squat, but The Beatles can do it really well. It’s a matter of personal taste, of course, but for me, Beatles, no question.”
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
David Crosby says which one is better: Beatles or Rolling Stones:
Beatles vs. Stones
“The Beatles. Mainly because of the range of the stuff they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range that they did, but The Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do.
And The Beatles could sing harmony. The Stones can’t do that for squat, but The Beatles can do it really well. It’s a matter of personal taste, of course, but for me, Beatles, no question.”
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 6, 2023 06:27
Of course Crosby would say that .....
They were suckin' on similar lolly-pop ...
Neither of 'em have the blues grind the Stones have ...
ROCKMAN
They were suckin' on similar lolly-pop ...
Neither of 'em have the blues grind the Stones have ...
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 6, 2023 12:26
Quote
Rockman
Of course Crosby would say that .....
They were suckin' on similar lolly-pop ...
Neither of 'em have the blues grind the Stones have ...
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 6, 2023 13:40
That “the Beatles had a wider group of influences” is laughable.
Ok, early rock and roll- check
Blues- 1 song and it’s the worst piece of feces I’ve ever heard.Lennons voice is sufficiently tortured but it sounds like amateur musicians playing.
If that was your “Blues playing “ you couldn’t be the warm up act at a local barbecue joint.
Country-Ringo singing “they’re gonna put me in the movies”? If you listen how the Stones melded the entire genre into their sound,Country Honk/ Honky Tonk Women, please,it’s just so far beyond that cutesy pop bullshit.
Reggae-oops you guys didn’t exist then.
Punk-nope, been gone for years by then too
Dance/funk/disco- nothing there
Jazz-anything? we had a jazz drummer for about 60 years so…..do the bugs have a jazz influenced piece of music I can compare to the second half of CYHMK?
WTF are we talking about then? vaudeville? show tunes, opera? again GTFOH
Ok, early rock and roll- check
Blues- 1 song and it’s the worst piece of feces I’ve ever heard.Lennons voice is sufficiently tortured but it sounds like amateur musicians playing.
If that was your “Blues playing “ you couldn’t be the warm up act at a local barbecue joint.
Country-Ringo singing “they’re gonna put me in the movies”? If you listen how the Stones melded the entire genre into their sound,Country Honk/ Honky Tonk Women, please,it’s just so far beyond that cutesy pop bullshit.
Reggae-oops you guys didn’t exist then.
Punk-nope, been gone for years by then too
Dance/funk/disco- nothing there
Jazz-anything? we had a jazz drummer for about 60 years so…..do the bugs have a jazz influenced piece of music I can compare to the second half of CYHMK?
WTF are we talking about then? vaudeville? show tunes, opera? again GTFOH
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 6, 2023 17:38
Quote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.
You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.
I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.
Take away all the talk of awards and firsts. Yes a cultural phenomena, but it's based on hype and and for me, much of the music not worthy of it all. Do know that propaganda is not about "untrue".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
We're on different pages here, but disagreement is fine.Your posted definition of propaganda is completely in line with my take on the article. Music is subjective
but this article is focused on all the stuff that builds the myth, and it's myth that elevates the Beatles more than their music. Propaganda for sure.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but agree to disagree!
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 6, 2023 19:36
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MKjan
The cheerleading, the excessive rhetoric to continue the myth. Peel that away
and the Beatles pretty much remained a childish novelty. Awards are meaningless.
A band that doesn't perform or tour is not a band.A few songs by them I like, but there are many other bands I prefer. This article is more fuel for the machine,
the big Beatle hype machine.
You're really not saying anything. They were a cultural phenomenon, tour-de-force, and that continues today. It's not about whether they are performing or touring, that's not what the article is about.
I'm not suggesting your definition of a band is valid or not. It's just not relevant at all to the article, which you said is propaganda, which I don't see. Point to the actual parts of the article that ring untrue, that's what I'm asking because you haven't actually given any examples.
Take away all the talk of awards and firsts. Yes a cultural phenomena, but it's based on hype and and for me, much of the music not worthy of it all. Do know that propaganda is not about "untrue".
Actually, now you're spouting propaganda:
prop·a·gan·da
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
SO...I think what you're talking about is marketing, or hype?
So yes, I would agree that they were overly-hyped and benefited from that. They without a doubt were uber-talented and unique, but that with the looks and the attitude, and BEING FIRST certainly gave them the advantage.
Stunning that 60 years since it all started it hasn't let up, ever. Amazing.
But yeah, they aren't my faves, though they are for sure top 10.
We're on different pages here, but disagreement is fine.Your posted definition of propaganda is completely in line with my take on the article. Music is subjective
but this article is focused on all the stuff that builds the myth, and it's myth that elevates the Beatles more than their music. Propaganda for sure.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but agree to disagree!
We do, Treacle, I always enjoy your posts.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
coffeepotman
()
Date: March 6, 2023 19:59
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 6, 2023 20:03
Quote
coffeepotman
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Thanks! My regret in the discussion was using the word "spouting" which was unkind and did nothing to further my point, so I apologize unreservedly to MKjan for that.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 6, 2023 20:37
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
coffeepotman
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Thanks! My regret in the discussion was using the word "spouting" which was unkind and did nothing to further my point, so I apologize unreservedly to MKjan for that.
No offense taken Treacle,
and thanks for your comment coffeepot man.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 7, 2023 18:06
Quote
MKjanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
coffeepotman
Thank you both for a civilized discussion, if only all disagreements ended this way
Thanks! My regret in the discussion was using the word "spouting" which was unkind and did nothing to further my point, so I apologize unreservedly to MKjan for that.
No offense taken Treacle,
and thanks for your comment coffeepot man.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 8, 2023 06:59
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 8, 2023 14:41
Never heard before about the Remains, but an interesting little garage band they seemingly been. I listened their last single "Don't Look Back", and it sounded alright. Wiki gave a funny Stones reference:
In 2007, Epic/Legacy reissued the Remains' 1966 album, which was reviewed by rock journalist Mark Kemp in Paste magazine (June 2007): "Had these Boston bad boys stuck it out beyond their 1966 debut, we might today be calling them—and not the Stones—the World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band. As it is, the Remains most certainly are America's greatest lost band."
The Stones probably never knew how lucky they've been...
By the way, that of calling it quits before making it big, well... that's one of the funniest reasons I have heard of: wittnessing what fame can do to The Beatles...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-08 14:44 by Doxa.
In 2007, Epic/Legacy reissued the Remains' 1966 album, which was reviewed by rock journalist Mark Kemp in Paste magazine (June 2007): "Had these Boston bad boys stuck it out beyond their 1966 debut, we might today be calling them—and not the Stones—the World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band. As it is, the Remains most certainly are America's greatest lost band."
The Stones probably never knew how lucky they've been...
By the way, that of calling it quits before making it big, well... that's one of the funniest reasons I have heard of: wittnessing what fame can do to The Beatles...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-08 14:44 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 8, 2023 21:17
Wow, and interesting story for this band, and yet 58 years later, little Remains.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 8, 2023 22:21
Quote
lem motlow
That “the Beatles had a wider group of influences” is laughable.
Ok, early rock and roll- check
Blues- 1 song and it’s the worst piece of feces I’ve ever heard.Lennons voice is sufficiently tortured but it sounds like amateur musicians playing.
If that was your “Blues playing “ you couldn’t be the warm up act at a local barbecue joint.
Country-Ringo singing “they’re gonna put me in the movies”? If you listen how the Stones melded the entire genre into their sound,Country Honk/ Honky Tonk Women, please,it’s just so far beyond that cutesy pop bullshit.
Reggae-oops you guys didn’t exist then.
Punk-nope, been gone for years by then too
Dance/funk/disco- nothing there
Jazz-anything? we had a jazz drummer for about 60 years so…..do the bugs have a jazz influenced piece of music I can compare to the second half of CYHMK?
WTF are we talking about then? vaudeville? show tunes, opera?
again GTFOH
The Beatles were a Barbershop Quartet with mops.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: March 8, 2023 22:22
Being a Beatle wasn't fun anymore in 1966.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 8, 2023 22:41
All the sugar in them Jelly Babies
musta cranked their skulls big time ....
ROCKMAN
musta cranked their skulls big time ....
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 9, 2023 07:16
Joe Pesci, 1968
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 9, 2023 07:51
Quote
ds1984
Being a Beatle wasn't fun anymore in 1966.
I'd dare say being a Stone (except if you were Brian), would have been way more fun.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: March 10, 2023 01:39
This one is new to me part one..............
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: March 11, 2023 01:25
Part two...................
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 13, 2023 01:33
The Beatles’ First-Ever Recording Is 1 of the Most Valuable Records in the World, and Paul McCartney Didn’t Get It Back Until 1981
by Hannah Wigandt, March 10, 2023
"The double-sided single is “the rarest record in the world.”
It’s estimated to be worth somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000".
BEATLES
The Beatles‘ first-ever recording is one of the most valuable records on the planet, and Paul McCartney only got it back in 1981. The little shellac disc contains a cover of Buddy Holly’s “That’ll Be the Day” and their own “In Spite of All the Danger.” It doesn’t seem like much. However, it embodies The Beatles’ early days. The single recording was integral to their transformation into one of the best rock ‘n’ roll bands.
How The Beatles’ first-ever recording came to be
In the summer of 1958, The Beatles were called The Quarry Men. It was John Lennon, Paul, George Harrison, drummer Colin Hanton, and Paul’s school friend, piano player John “Duff” Lowe. The Quarry Men, who would become The Beatles in four years, wanted to make their first-ever recording. In his book The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present, Paul wrote that he and the band found an ad for a little recording studio owned by Percy Phillips in Kensington, Liverpool. It cost only five pounds to record something on shellac. They split the price and set out to Phillips’ recording studio, which turned out to be a small room with a microphone. The soon-to-be Beatles then waited their turn to make their first-ever recording. They rehearsed it once and only had one shot at recording it. They chose “That’ll Be the Day” as the A-side. Their “self-penned epic,” “In Spite of All the Danger,” was the B-side. Paul and John had a few songs by then, but Paul admits they weren’t very good. “In Spite of All Danger” was one of their better tunes. The most important thing to know about “In Spite of All the Danger” is that it is the only “McCartney-Harrison” writing credit on record. “This was really before we understood writing credits,” Paul explained. “George made up the solo but some of it did come from John. It was the first song we ever recorded, the first thing on which our names appeared, the first official recording of what later became The Beatles.”
The Beatles’ first-ever recording is valuable, but Paul only got it back in 1981
When The Beatles’ recorded their first-ever recording, they only received one copy. However, the five musicians happily shared the disc, with the deal that they’d each have it for a week. Paul wrote, “We’d play it for all our relatives and say, ‘Look at this. This is what we did.’ We were quite thrilled just to hear ourselves on a record because we’d never really done that before.” Paul, John, George, and Hanton each had the 10-inch 78 rpm record for a week. However, when Lowe received it, he accidentally kept it for the next 23 years. Paul said he and the rest of the group “more or less forgot about it” after each of them had had the record for a week. There wasn’t much more to do with it after that. They didn’t have promoters or managers to play it to. The soon-to-be Beatles only made their first-ever recording for themselves and their families. Paul got the only copy back in 1981 and made a few copies for friends and family. He revealed the original is virtually unplayable now because the shellac would wear out. “It’s said to be one of the most valuable records in the world, but really, for me it’s about the memories in those grooves,” Paul said. Paul is right. The Beatles’ first-ever recording is extremely valuable. According to Mental Floss, Lowe did call the then-famous Beatles to tell them he still had their first recording, but his call was never returned. Mental Floss also claims that Paul had to buy it off Lowe for an undisclosed price. He then pressed 50 more copies for friends and family and gave them out as Christmas presents. He also gave George and Ringo Starr copies. The double-sided single is “the rarest record in the world.” It’s estimated to be worth somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000.
‘In Spite of All the Danger’ isn’t John’s ‘cry for help’
Paul also explained where The Beatles’ first-ever recording came from. Many believe “In Spite of All the Danger” is a “cry for help, that it somehow reflects John’s angst about everything.” That angst escalated when his mum Julia died only days after the group recorded the song and its A-side. However, John wasn’t initially involved in the song’s creation. Paul wrote, “I realize that many of our songs, especially the very old ones, are thought to come from me, as in ‘I Saw Her Standing There,’ which did start with me, with John helping me fix a couple of lines. It’s true that while some of these songs did start from me, and others began with John or us collaborating.” Fans have been able to hear The Beatles’ first-ever recording since the 1990s when the group released the two songs on The Beatles Anthology discs. However, the only original copy is still in Paul’s possession, nestled somewhere safe where he can treasure those groves for the rest of his life.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
by Hannah Wigandt, March 10, 2023
"The double-sided single is “the rarest record in the world.”
It’s estimated to be worth somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000".
BEATLES
The Beatles‘ first-ever recording is one of the most valuable records on the planet, and Paul McCartney only got it back in 1981. The little shellac disc contains a cover of Buddy Holly’s “That’ll Be the Day” and their own “In Spite of All the Danger.” It doesn’t seem like much. However, it embodies The Beatles’ early days. The single recording was integral to their transformation into one of the best rock ‘n’ roll bands.
How The Beatles’ first-ever recording came to be
In the summer of 1958, The Beatles were called The Quarry Men. It was John Lennon, Paul, George Harrison, drummer Colin Hanton, and Paul’s school friend, piano player John “Duff” Lowe. The Quarry Men, who would become The Beatles in four years, wanted to make their first-ever recording. In his book The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present, Paul wrote that he and the band found an ad for a little recording studio owned by Percy Phillips in Kensington, Liverpool. It cost only five pounds to record something on shellac. They split the price and set out to Phillips’ recording studio, which turned out to be a small room with a microphone. The soon-to-be Beatles then waited their turn to make their first-ever recording. They rehearsed it once and only had one shot at recording it. They chose “That’ll Be the Day” as the A-side. Their “self-penned epic,” “In Spite of All the Danger,” was the B-side. Paul and John had a few songs by then, but Paul admits they weren’t very good. “In Spite of All Danger” was one of their better tunes. The most important thing to know about “In Spite of All the Danger” is that it is the only “McCartney-Harrison” writing credit on record. “This was really before we understood writing credits,” Paul explained. “George made up the solo but some of it did come from John. It was the first song we ever recorded, the first thing on which our names appeared, the first official recording of what later became The Beatles.”
The Beatles’ first-ever recording is valuable, but Paul only got it back in 1981
When The Beatles’ recorded their first-ever recording, they only received one copy. However, the five musicians happily shared the disc, with the deal that they’d each have it for a week. Paul wrote, “We’d play it for all our relatives and say, ‘Look at this. This is what we did.’ We were quite thrilled just to hear ourselves on a record because we’d never really done that before.” Paul, John, George, and Hanton each had the 10-inch 78 rpm record for a week. However, when Lowe received it, he accidentally kept it for the next 23 years. Paul said he and the rest of the group “more or less forgot about it” after each of them had had the record for a week. There wasn’t much more to do with it after that. They didn’t have promoters or managers to play it to. The soon-to-be Beatles only made their first-ever recording for themselves and their families. Paul got the only copy back in 1981 and made a few copies for friends and family. He revealed the original is virtually unplayable now because the shellac would wear out. “It’s said to be one of the most valuable records in the world, but really, for me it’s about the memories in those grooves,” Paul said. Paul is right. The Beatles’ first-ever recording is extremely valuable. According to Mental Floss, Lowe did call the then-famous Beatles to tell them he still had their first recording, but his call was never returned. Mental Floss also claims that Paul had to buy it off Lowe for an undisclosed price. He then pressed 50 more copies for friends and family and gave them out as Christmas presents. He also gave George and Ringo Starr copies. The double-sided single is “the rarest record in the world.” It’s estimated to be worth somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000.
‘In Spite of All the Danger’ isn’t John’s ‘cry for help’
Paul also explained where The Beatles’ first-ever recording came from. Many believe “In Spite of All the Danger” is a “cry for help, that it somehow reflects John’s angst about everything.” That angst escalated when his mum Julia died only days after the group recorded the song and its A-side. However, John wasn’t initially involved in the song’s creation. Paul wrote, “I realize that many of our songs, especially the very old ones, are thought to come from me, as in ‘I Saw Her Standing There,’ which did start with me, with John helping me fix a couple of lines. It’s true that while some of these songs did start from me, and others began with John or us collaborating.” Fans have been able to hear The Beatles’ first-ever recording since the 1990s when the group released the two songs on The Beatles Anthology discs. However, the only original copy is still in Paul’s possession, nestled somewhere safe where he can treasure those groves for the rest of his life.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: March 13, 2023 05:28
Before he lost possession of the record he made a photographic copy (of the labels) and created reproductions of the record (to frame and sell). We bought one as a wedding present to two Beatle Fan friends.
The reproduction was carefully made so that the grooves in no way copied, or could be represented as being copied from the original. It did look good. Last time I saw the present it was in the background of a photo of my two married friends... with Mark Lewisohn.
There was also a spoken voice narrative of the story that came on a CD with the record. (Stress: unplayable, and even if it had been it would not have been the famous tracks).
A about the time John Lowe sold the record back to Paul he (John) lived near me in North Somerset. And strangely for some years I had unknowingly at the time worked in the same place as his first wife.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
The reproduction was carefully made so that the grooves in no way copied, or could be represented as being copied from the original. It did look good. Last time I saw the present it was in the background of a photo of my two married friends... with Mark Lewisohn.
There was also a spoken voice narrative of the story that came on a CD with the record. (Stress: unplayable, and even if it had been it would not have been the famous tracks).
A about the time John Lowe sold the record back to Paul he (John) lived near me in North Somerset. And strangely for some years I had unknowingly at the time worked in the same place as his first wife.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
OT: Beatles tribute band with left-handed bass player...
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: March 22, 2023 20:54
Some Beatles tribute bands have a left-handed bass player
Brings some questions
Is this a non-negotiable requirement?
Do some right-handed bassists reinvent their playing, if that is possible?
See here, there are plenty...
[www.guitarandbeyond.com]
Brings some questions
Is this a non-negotiable requirement?
Do some right-handed bassists reinvent their playing, if that is possible?
See here, there are plenty...
[www.guitarandbeyond.com]
Re: OT: Beatles tribute band with left-handed bass player...
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 22, 2023 21:02
I could have fun seeing an Elvis impersonator. For some reason it feels sad to see a 'Fab Four'. There's some Will Lee group that does Beatle songs live that we never got to hear on stage. They don't pretend to be 'Beatles'. Jeff Beck performing A Day In The Life was amazing. Seeing a Fab Four feels like being on a discount cruise ship.
Re: OT: Beatles tribute band with left-handed bass player...
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: March 22, 2023 21:05
Quote
24FPS
I could have fun seeing an Elvis impersonator. For some reason it feels sad to see a 'Fab Four'. There's some Will Lee group that does Beatle songs live that we never got to hear on stage. They don't pretend to be 'Beatles'. Jeff Beck performing A Day In The Life was amazing. Seeing a Fab Four feels like being on a discount cruise ship.
It's not the point...
It's about the binding task to recruit a left-handed bass player, and at which point this can affect the music...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.