Good points, Green Lady.

Oh, yeah, as a few have pointed out, the harmonica, how refreshing, as you say, only heard on the occasional song, outside of blues...

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
Big Al

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
treaclefingers
The true birth of the 60s culturally right there whether your a Bond or Beatles fan. Stunning it's still significan't 60 years later.

Do you think in 1962 they were looking back fondly at the cultural impact of 1902? I'd wager if anything it was 1942...and maybe not too fondly at that.

Cultural Cringe moment. If you live in the USA, then indeed 1942 (pedantically December 1941) may well have significance.

But in the UK, whence Bond & Beatles, 1939 would be far more meaningful. (Arguably 1938 the year of the Munich "agreement" or even earlier years when you-know-who invaded/annexed other European nations - as I type it sounds familiar!)

(Important note. For many though, WW2 started in the mid-1930s with the Japanese invasion of China and the Nazi support of the insurgents attempting to overthrow the elected govt of Spain. There may be other skirmishes that I ought to mention...)

All like most people, you could argue the Second World War started when The United Kingdom declared war on Germany, after they invaded Poland. Isn't this mentioned in Fawlty Towers?

"You started it! You conquered Poland!"

- Doxa

More change between 1962-1970 than the 52-year period since then. Music, movies, fashion, etc. Most (but certainly not all) of it was positive.

Anyone who considers the Beatles as a mere boy band has lost their mind.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
More change between 1962-1970 than the 52-year period since then. Music, movies, fashion, etc. Most (but certainly not all) of it was positive.

Anyone who considers the Beatles as a mere boy band has lost their mind.

The term boy band was totally unknown in those early sixties. But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands. Screaming girls dominated the fan scene. Over time, mostly Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, etc. etc. became respected as makers of great music (some only one time hit makers though). Like always, taste remains personal, but a lot of very good music came out of the sixties, which inspired 70s musicians, etc.
Be honest, all those 60s bands just copied (adding a bit of their own) of USA 40s and 50s music.
Stating that "Love me do" and "Dr. No" changed the world .... rubbish.
Harmonicas were nothing new. Willy Dixon, Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, etc. recorded great harmonica based songs well before the 60s. Just like guys like Elmore James, etc. had already "invented" slide- and electric guitars.
The 60s had the advantage that the media means (again ... pirate radio stations; TV was still very primitive) developed quickly and they opened the doors to a lot, music and fashion f.i.
The real credit goes to the USA of the 50s. Europe (including Britain ) and the rest of the "young" world followed ...



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Elmo Lewis
More change between 1962-1970 than the 52-year period since then. Music, movies, fashion, etc. Most (but certainly not all) of it was positive.

Anyone who considers the Beatles as a mere boy band has lost their mind.

The term boy band was totally unknown in those early sixties. But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands. Screaming girls dominated the fan scene. Over time, mostly Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, etc. etc. became respected as makers of great music (some only one time hit makers though). Like always, taste remains personal, but a lot of very good music came out of the sixties, which inspired 70s musicians, etc.
Be honest, all those 60s bands just copied (adding a bit of their own) of USA 40s and 50s music.
Stating that "Love me do" and "Dr. No" changed the world .... rubbish.
Harmonicas were nothing new. Willy Dixon, Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, etc. recorded great harmonica based songs well before the 60s. Just like guys like Elmore James, etc. had already "invented" slide- and electric guitars.
The 60s had the advantage that the media means (again ... pirate radio stations; TV was still very primitive) developed quickly and they opened the doors to a lot, music and fashion f.i.
The real credit goes to the USA of the 50s. Europe (including Britain ) and the rest of the "young" world followed ...

Yes, all those innovations had happened in the USA - but the (mostly black) music in which they appeared was a small niche interest in the UK and didn't trouble the charts or the radio stations that most people listened to, though luckily a few scruffy kids in Liverpool and London were listening...

UK Pirate Radio hadn't started in 1962, though most teenagers listened to Radio Luxembourg. Things changed fast in the early 60s: what was true in 64 was unheard of in 62.

Love Me Do was important because it established the Beatles, and after them the other groups, who took those American innovations back to America and made them popular again.

Here is the UK chart in the week of the Beatles' debut. Lots of US hits and covers of US hits, but not the kind of US music that inspired the Beatles and the Stones:

[www.everyhit.com]

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Elmo Lewis
More change between 1962-1970 than the 52-year period since then. Music, movies, fashion, etc. Most (but certainly not all) of it was positive.

Anyone who considers the Beatles as a mere boy band has lost their mind.

The term boy band was totally unknown in those early sixties. But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands. Screaming girls dominated the fan scene. Over time, mostly Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, etc. etc. became respected as makers of great music (some only one time hit makers though). Like always, taste remains personal, but a lot of very good music came out of the sixties, which inspired 70s musicians, etc.
Be honest, all those 60s bands just copied (adding a bit of their own) of USA 40s and 50s music.
Stating that "Love me do" and "Dr. No" changed the world .... rubbish.
Harmonicas were nothing new. Willy Dixon, Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, etc. recorded great harmonica based songs well before the 60s. Just like guys like Elmore James, etc. had already "invented" slide- and electric guitars.
The 60s had the advantage that the media means (again ... pirate radio stations; TV was still very primitive) developed quickly and they opened the doors to a lot, music and fashion f.i.
The real credit goes to the USA of the 50s. Europe (including Britain ) and the rest of the "young" world followed ...

Yes, all those innovations had happened in the USA - but the (mostly black) music in which they appeared was a small niche interest in the UK and didn't trouble the charts or the radio stations that most people listened to, though luckily a few scruffy kids in Liverpool and London were listening...

UK Pirate Radio hadn't started in 1962, though most teenagers listened to Radio Luxembourg. Things changed fast in the early 60s: what was true in 64 was unheard of in 62.

Love Me Do was important because it established the Beatles, and after them the other groups, who took those American innovations back to America and made them popular again.

Here is the UK chart in the week of the Beatles' debut. Lots of US hits and covers of US hits, but not the kind of US music that inspired the Beatles and the Stones:

[www.everyhit.com]

I agree (off course ) that a lot of the 1962 music was far away from what I thought was exiting. My mom loved Elvis for his great voice, my dad liked f.i. Buena Sera from Louis Prima and, believe it or not, they even liked Rock Around The Clock from Bill Heley and Let's Twist Again from Chubby Checker, so rock and swing had already entered our home . The 1962 hit list you showed to me was indeed dreadful (anyway, not my taste). After some very exciting years (1955-1960) in the USA, the music turned very commercial in a boring way with f.i. the early Beach Boys as an exception. Clearly even a fresh sounding, but still teeny bopper song like Love Me Do distinguished itself among the dreadfully boring "crap", but to lift that song a a time changer? Come on ....
I occasionally listen to The Beatles at the Beeb and compare it with The Stones at the Beeb, both with many not officially published songs in those days, and what was clear in those early days and still today is that The Beatles were a vocal band with simple instrumentation as filler, while the Stones were already a powerful instrumental band with Mick's voice as an "additional" instrument.
Well, taste is taste, but I still "admire" my early sixties taste



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
georgie48

But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands.

Nonsense.

The Beatles started as a group of lads interested in playing music together, and they served a (very) long apprenticeship playing the clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg.

"Boy Bands" are put together by money seeking managers. The totally best contemporary example was The Monkees. Plus, generally, members of Boy Bands don't play their own instruments.

Chalk & Cheese.

--
Captain Corella
59+ Years a Fan

Haha, the boy band argument continues. The older I get the more I realize forget trying to change someomes mind. Just ask Mick or Keith abouit it if you can.

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48

But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands.

Nonsense.

The Beatles started as a group of lads interested in playing music together, and they served a (very) long apprenticeship playing the clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg.

"Boy Bands" are put together by money seeking managers. The totally best contemporary example was The Monkees. Plus, generally, members of Boy Bands don't play their own instruments.

Chalk & Cheese.

I can live with your definition of boy bands! We used to call the Monkeys an artificially made up band (fake). In those days the term "boy band" wasn't used, as far as I remember.
What I meant to say was that the impact in the early sixties was very similar as today. A fast majority of screaming girls, who weren't so much interested in the music the young bands played, they were merely screaming for their attention (didn't Mick or Keith once say that Brian sometimes played "Popeye the Sailor Man" in between? Non of the audience noticed
For sure those early sixties bands worked their balls off. I know the history
They deserved all the fame they got.
But again, don't exaggerate the "impact" of Love Me Do. Songs like Hound Dog, Blue Suede Shoes, Tutty Fruity, Jail House Rock and the likes had a far, far bigger impact on the post WW 2 generation, including on all these music making lads in the UK (and around).



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Yes, I'm often bemused by the Beatles' labelling as a 'boyband', when they quite clearly do no fit the recognised definition!

So many cool songs predate Love Me Do, that are better imo. The Beatles came just when teeny boppers needed some out of control hysteria. Well done,lads.Thank God for the great British bands that soon followed.

Quote
MKjan
So many cool songs predate Love Me Do, that are better imo. The Beatles came just when teeny boppers needed some out of control hysteria. Well done,lads.Thank God for the great British bands that soon followed.

Absolute nonsense! 'Teenybopper'? The Stones had plenty of screeching fans, too!

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Elmo Lewis
More change between 1962-1970 than the 52-year period since then. Music, movies, fashion, etc. Most (but certainly not all) of it was positive.

Anyone who considers the Beatles as a mere boy band has lost their mind.

The term boy band was totally unknown in those early sixties. But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands. Screaming girls dominated the fan scene. Over time, mostly Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, etc. etc. became respected as makers of great music (some only one time hit makers though). Like always, taste remains personal, but a lot of very good music came out of the sixties, which inspired 70s musicians, etc.
Be honest, all those 60s bands just copied (adding a bit of their own) of USA 40s and 50s music.
Stating that "Love me do" and "Dr. No" changed the world .... rubbish.
Harmonicas were nothing new. Willy Dixon, Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, etc. recorded great harmonica based songs well before the 60s. Just like guys like Elmore James, etc. had already "invented" slide- and electric guitars.
The 60s had the advantage that the media means (again ... pirate radio stations; TV was still very primitive) developed quickly and they opened the doors to a lot, music and fashion f.i.
The real credit goes to the USA of the 50s. Europe (including Britain ) and the rest of the "young" world followed ...

Yes, all those innovations had happened in the USA - but the (mostly black) music in which they appeared was a small niche interest in the UK and didn't trouble the charts or the radio stations that most people listened to, though luckily a few scruffy kids in Liverpool and London were listening...

UK Pirate Radio hadn't started in 1962, though most teenagers listened to Radio Luxembourg. Things changed fast in the early 60s: what was true in 64 was unheard of in 62.

Love Me Do was important because it established the Beatles, and after them the other groups, who took those American innovations back to America and made them popular again.

Here is the UK chart in the week of the Beatles' debut. Lots of US hits and covers of US hits, but not the kind of US music that inspired the Beatles and the Stones:

[www.everyhit.com]

I agree (off course ) that a lot of the 1962 music was far away from what I thought was exiting. My mom loved Elvis for his great voice, my dad liked f.i. Buena Sera from Louis Prima and, believe it or not, they even liked Rock Around The Clock from Bill Heley and Let's Twist Again from Chubby Checker, so rock and swing had already entered our home . The 1962 hit list you showed to me was indeed dreadful (anyway, not my taste). After some very exciting years (1955-1960) in the USA, the music turned very commercial in a boring way with f.i. the early Beach Boys as an exception. Clearly even a fresh sounding, but still teeny bopper song like Love Me Do distinguished itself among the dreadfully boring "crap", but to lift that song a a time changer? Come on ....
I occasionally listen to The Beatles at the Beeb and compare it with The Stones at the Beeb, both with many not officially published songs in those days, and what was clear in those early days and still today is that The Beatles were a vocal band with simple instrumentation as filler, while the Stones were already a powerful instrumental band with Mick's voice as an "additional" instrument.
Well, taste is taste, but I still "admire" my early sixties taste

I agree with your description of the Beatles, at least in their early days, as more focused on vocals and the Stones on instrumentation, and you are mistaken in thinking (as you seem to) that anything I have said means that my 60s taste preferred the Beatles! But their arrival on the scene was significant, and their success opened the door for a lot of new "beat groups" - some good, some rather cheesy.

Quote
Big Al
Yes, I'm often bemused by the Beatles' labelling as a 'boyband', when they quite clearly do no fit the recognised definition!

There were of course no boybands in the 60s, but early in their careers the Beatles (and other British groups) occupied the same kind of showbiz niche that boybands did later, even though they were very different in the way they started. In the 50s and 60s that kind of cynically artificial act tended to be a solo artist, like Larry Parnes's stable of handsome young male singers.

Although 'Love Me Do' is not a big song in the Beatles pantheon, it does have something. John's harmonica sets it apart. The drums are kind of stupid, the singing and lyrics insipid, but the harmonica has just that little emotional twist, and pop novelty, to make it stand out. I don't know if it's blues, but it works.

And yes he was inspired to play it because of Delbert McClinton on Bruce Chanel's 'Hey Baby', but John's part was wholly original. It's like saying Brian could have been inspired by the flute part on 'You've Got To Hide Your Love Away' when he did 'Ruby Tuesday'. If I remember the story correctly, John was supposed to sing lead vocal on 'Love Me Do', but they couldn't do double track, or wouldn't, at the time they recorded it.

I had read somewhere that Love Me Do was important because at the time very few pop bands wrote and played their own material, so Love Me Do was one of the first self-contained songs by a pop band.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Elmo Lewis
More change between 1962-1970 than the 52-year period since then. Music, movies, fashion, etc. Most (but certainly not all) of it was positive.

Anyone who considers the Beatles as a mere boy band has lost their mind.

The term boy band was totally unknown in those early sixties. But in retrospect The Beatles (basically all other young, mostly British bands) started of as boy bands. Screaming girls dominated the fan scene. Over time, mostly Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, etc. etc. became respected as makers of great music (some only one time hit makers though). Like always, taste remains personal, but a lot of very good music came out of the sixties, which inspired 70s musicians, etc.
Be honest, all those 60s bands just copied (adding a bit of their own) of USA 40s and 50s music.
Stating that "Love me do" and "Dr. No" changed the world .... rubbish.
Harmonicas were nothing new. Willy Dixon, Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, etc. recorded great harmonica based songs well before the 60s. Just like guys like Elmore James, etc. had already "invented" slide- and electric guitars.
The 60s had the advantage that the media means (again ... pirate radio stations; TV was still very primitive) developed quickly and they opened the doors to a lot, music and fashion f.i.
The real credit goes to the USA of the 50s. Europe (including Britain ) and the rest of the "young" world followed ...

Yes, all those innovations had happened in the USA - but the (mostly black) music in which they appeared was a small niche interest in the UK and didn't trouble the charts or the radio stations that most people listened to, though luckily a few scruffy kids in Liverpool and London were listening...

UK Pirate Radio hadn't started in 1962, though most teenagers listened to Radio Luxembourg. Things changed fast in the early 60s: what was true in 64 was unheard of in 62.

Love Me Do was important because it established the Beatles, and after them the other groups, who took those American innovations back to America and made them popular again.

Here is the UK chart in the week of the Beatles' debut. Lots of US hits and covers of US hits, but not the kind of US music that inspired the Beatles and the Stones:

[www.everyhit.com]

I agree (off course ) that a lot of the 1962 music was far away from what I thought was exiting. My mom loved Elvis for his great voice, my dad liked f.i. Buena Sera from Louis Prima and, believe it or not, they even liked Rock Around The Clock from Bill Heley and Let's Twist Again from Chubby Checker, so rock and swing had already entered our home . The 1962 hit list you showed to me was indeed dreadful (anyway, not my taste). After some very exciting years (1955-1960) in the USA, the music turned very commercial in a boring way with f.i. the early Beach Boys as an exception. Clearly even a fresh sounding, but still teeny bopper song like Love Me Do distinguished itself among the dreadfully boring "crap", but to lift that song a a time changer? Come on ....
I occasionally listen to The Beatles at the Beeb and compare it with The Stones at the Beeb, both with many not officially published songs in those days, and what was clear in those early days and still today is that The Beatles were a vocal band with simple instrumentation as filler, while the Stones were already a powerful instrumental band with Mick's voice as an "additional" instrument.
Well, taste is taste, but I still "admire" my early sixties taste

I agree with your description of the Beatles, at least in their early days, as more focused on vocals and the Stones on instrumentation, and you are mistaken in thinking (as you seem to) that anything I have said means that my 60s taste preferred the Beatles! But their arrival on the scene was significant, and their success opened the door for a lot of new "beat groups" - some good, some rather cheesy.

By no means, Green Lady. You would not be on this site if you weren't a Stones fan. And yes, off course the Beatles were pulling the first car filled with young (mostly) British bands. No discussion on that. And ... apart from the first two, I do have all Beatles CDs (including The Beeb) in my collection. And I can have serious discussions with Beatles fans, because I know their music. But to me the Rolling Stones were the big revelation, whenI heard them in early 1964, the Beatles were merely a hype, who nevertheless deserve the credit of opening "the gate"



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town