For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
NICOS
In April 1964 most groups were insignificant compare to the status of Beatles, the letter is from the 9th of April Stones released their first LP the 16th of April and they just released 3 singles "Come On" "I Wanna Be Your Man" Feb 1964 "Not Fade Away"
Singles released by the Beatles before the April 19641 My Bonnie / The Saints 1962, January 5
2 Love Me Do / P.S. I Love You 1962, October 5
3 Please Please Me / Ask Me Why 1963, January 11
4 From Me to You / Thank You Girl 1963, April 11
5 She Loves You / I'll Get You 1963, August 23
6 I Want to Hold Your Hand / This Boy 1963, November 297 Roll Over Beethoven / Please Mr. Postman 1963, December 98 I Want to Hold Your Hand / I Saw Her Standing There 1964, January139 Please Please Me / From Me to You 1964, January 3010 Sweet Georgia Brown / Nobody's Child 1964, January 3111 All My Loving / This Boy 1964, February 1712 Why / Cry for a Shadow 1964, February 2813 Twist and Shout / There's a Place 1964, March 2
14 Can't Buy Me Love / You Can't Do That 1964, March 1615 Do You Want to Know a Secret? / Thank You Girl 1964, March 23
Quote
Aquamarine
I agree with your general point, but--
Were all of those actually released in 1964? In different countries, surely? Because they sure weren't all singles in the UK.
Quote
treaclefingers
So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.
Just so we have it historically accurate.
Quote
swiss
Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.
Quote
swissQuote
treaclefingers
So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.
Just so we have it historically accurate.
Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
swissQuote
treaclefingers
So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.
Just so we have it historically accurate.
Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.
Shirley you jest.
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
I really don't think mr. Maurice would call the Stones or any other band "insignificant", and when I say this I mean he would never dare to say that to any of the bands that played the NME Poll concert.
But in the context (let's not forget it was a letter addressed to John Lennon) what it seems to me is that he wanted to say to the Beatles (especially John) how awesome they were, so they wouldn't need to worry about the other "insignificant" bands on the same bill.
Quote
CaptainCorella
Was the letter really addressed to John Lennon?
Quote
Cristiano RadtkeQuote
24FPS
Didn't they also share the Bill in '65 and '66?
1963: [life.royalalberthall.com]
Quote
stonehearted
<<Was the letter really addressed to John Lennon?>>
Yes, great point. Any contact to the Beatles from such an individual would be addressed to their manager or press agent, not one of the band members themselves.
Perhaps we could see a larger scan of the letter to view the full page--the top left seems to be addressing someone with the Empire Pool who was named John.
If Lennon had been actively involved in these negotiations and had been corresponding, we would have heard about long ago, and any such correspondences on Lennon's part would have been sold at auction by now.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
If true, this was a psychological move from the author, obviously to avoid reactions - hence it was addressed to John, whom he thought of as the band leader.
It looks like this was purely informational, and not part of any negotiations, since he refers to Epstein okaying this.
If authentic, this was a "put down any futurable flames"-letter.
Quote
24FPSQuote
Cristiano RadtkeQuote
24FPS
Didn't they also share the Bill in '65 and '66?
1963: [life.royalalberthall.com]
Thanks. So the Beatles & Stones shared a bill at least once in 63,64,65, and 66.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
DandelionPowderman
If true, this was a psychological move from the author, obviously to avoid reactions - hence it was addressed to John, whom he thought of as the band leader.
It looks like this was purely informational, and not part of any negotiations, since he refers to Epstein okaying this.
If authentic, this was a "put down any futurable flames"-letter.
I doubt it would be addressed to Lennon, because of the way the letter writer speaks of the Beatles in the third person. There would otherwise be references in the second person, such as "He has agreed for you to appear", etc.
It would be unconventional for organizers of events to contact band members themselves--that's what managers are for after all. Why would they take the time to send a letter to one of the four band members (wouldn't he address it to all four Beatles?) telling him something that the manager will already have told him long before the letter even arrives?
Again, a full-page scan of the letter would be preferable to clear this up.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Maybe John was worried because he earlier had gotten signals that the Beatles would not be headlining this thing? We don't know..
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
DandelionPowderman
Maybe John was worried because he earlier had gotten signals that the Beatles would not be headlining this thing? We don't know..
Yes, but if the letter had in fact been addressed to Lennon specifically I think the NME article linked in the OP would have mentioned it, no?