[bossbirdta]

Fifty years ago this very evening......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqrauzHPpwE

[MikeNoun]

That video makes me nauseous! I guess the person that uploaded it had to make it wavy in order to prevent copyright infringement. The original video is crystal clear and steady.

People remember this night like they remember the July 1969 moon landing, or the JFK assassination. Everyone remembers where they were and who they watched this show with.

It's the night that changed America, the night that changed music, the night that changed the world.

Speaking of nausea, George Harrison was sick as a dog during this performance. He had the flu when they arrived in New York, and was ordered to stay in bed at the hotel. Their biggest moment of their career almost didn't happen. Ed Sullivan said that if Harrison didn't go on stage, Sullivan himself would put on a Beatle wig and stand in for him. Harrison being very ill is the reason he isn't in the photos of the Beatles sightseeing around New York before the Sullivan appearance. To George's credit, no one could tell that during this performance he was close to passing out.

[J.D.]

The stones. Lol

[PonchoV8]

It sure shows how trite pop music was even back then. But people actually played instruments.

Regarding the moon landing, as a child growing up around the space program at Cocoa Beach the televised landing/walk wasn't nearly as memorable as an in person witness of a night launch of just about any rocket from The Cape. "Hey they're launching another rocket tonight in a few minutes. Let's go out in the back yard and watch."

[MikeNoun]

The Beatles were not trite back then. When you see their 1964-1966 performances, people think they're corny, a bit lightweight. But in 1963-1964, no one saw anything like this before.

There were no bands on the charts back then, and by that I mean ROCK bands. The Beatles were the first rock band, and became the blueprint for every band that followed in the 60's and beyond.

The Beach Boys were popular in America in 1963, but they had very little musical talent, just a great songwriter in Brian Wilson, and of course great harmonies. All the other singing groups of the day were lead singers with a backup band (Elvis, Sam Cooke, Tony Bennett, The Four Seasons, Bobby Darin, etc).

The Beatles were a group. All four could sing, three of them (John, Paul, George) were lead singers. With two guitar players, bass, drums, harmonies, exceptional song writing, long hair, thick accents, sharp humor, the world was waiting for something like this.

[Stuart]

The thing that amazes me is I can remember an event that happened a half century ago. I was only eight years old so I wasn't too impressed at the time, but my older sister was pretty excited about watching the Ed Sullivan show that night.

[MikeNoun]

Time really flies Stuart! I can remember all the media hype back in 1984 when they had a "It was 20 years ago today" (Sgt Pepper lyric) to celebrate The Beatles 1964 arrival. Geez, now we're celebrating the 50th anniversary. Man, do I feel old.

[73T/A]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

The Beatles were not trite back then. When you see their 1964-1966 performances, people think they're corny, a bit lightweight. But in 1963-1964, no one saw anything like this before.

There were no bands on the charts back then, and by that I mean ROCK bands. The Beatles were the first rock band, and became the blueprint for every band that followed in the 60's and beyond.

The Beach Boys were popular in America in 1963, but they had very little musical talent, just a great songwriter in Brian Wilson, and of course great harmonies. All the other singing groups of the day were lead singers with a backup band (Elvis, Sam Cooke, Tony Bennett, The Four Seasons, Bobby Darin, etc).

The Beatles were a group. All four could sing, three of them (John, Paul, George) were lead singers. With two guitar players, bass, drums, harmonies, exceptional song writing, long hair, thick accents, sharp humor, the world was waiting for something like this.

The Beatles are great,but as John Lennon said,"before Elvis there was nothing".Elvis kicked the door down for everybody else to follow.

[MikeNoun]

I agree, Elvis was the first, he broke down the barriers for rock and roll.

McCartney, Harrison, and especially Lennon, all idolized Elvis. But it was the music of Buddy Holly that swayed them the most. In fact, the name "Beetles" was in tribute to the Crickets, and Lennon changed the "e" to an "a" as a play on words (promoters back then hated the name Beatles, they thought it was corny and immature, and thought they should change it). Buddy Holly was the prototype for a rock and roll musical group, as he played guitar (rhythm and lead), wrote his own songs (which really blew the minds of Lennon and McCartney when they found this out), and Buddy had what would become the prototype for a rock group; two guitars, bass, and drums.

The Beatles brought out the rock group format that Buddy Holly started, with two guitars, bass, and drums. The difference was that The Beatles had 3 lead singers, plus a drummer who could sing when required.

What many people don't realize is that The Beatles were hard rock, VERY hard rock, compared to other acts of the day. The Beatles were the bad boys of rock and roll, until their manager decided their stage act needed to be cleaned up in order to make it big.

[PonchoV8]

I don't dispute that it was time...long past time for a new beginning. But I disagree. Those lyrics and music are trite and sugar pop.

It doesn't take anything away from the period. For instance look at Sabbath and what they did, forging new ground. But listen to the riffs and music and from THIS PERSPECTIVE ONLY, it was simplistic. Simple is good. They're each also outstanding musicians and (like the Fab also were) an incredible band together.

[bird72]

I look at two Beatles. I don't play the first few albums, but Revolver is a masterpiece, Rubber Soul is good also. So the latter Beatles were another thing, and trite doesn't come to mind for me, but everyone's MPG varies....

[Bob Dillon]

Yeah yeah yeah, YEAH!

Yup, remember it well.

[PonchoV8]

Originally Posted by bird72

I look at two Beatles. I don't play the first few albums, but Revolver is a masterpiece, Rubber Soul is good also. So the latter Beatles were another thing, and trite doesn't come to mind for me, but everyone's MPG varies....

Same opinion here. I'm talking about the first songs. But look at Shake It Up Baby later in the video. I don't consider it trite, but simple and raw. One of the best vocal bridges in history. I hope to not be misunderstood.

[MikeNoun]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree, there are a few of their songs that are trite. But no worse than "Hound Dog", or "Be-Bop-A-Lu-La", "Splish Splash", "Peggy Sue", or countless other songs that made it to the top. The difference was that Lennon and McCartney wrote their own stuff, and that was absolutely ground breaking at the time. There was no other rock group that wrote their own material, with the exception being Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys, and Buddy Holly.

Their early songs did have Lennon and McCartney teething a bit, but then they found their groove quickly with "Please Please Me" and "I Saw Her Standing There". They were more interested in song publishing at that time, thinking they would be the next Goffin-King or Rogers-Hammerstein. But things changed rapidly after 1963.

[TempestFugit]

It was the best of times it was the worst of times.

It was was a musical convergence in a societal event horizon.

You had to be there to really understand it, but I guess ("It's like trying to tell a stranger about Rock & Roll.")


Interesting to hear it dismissed as trite fifty years later.



From "I want to hold your hand" to Within you without you in a few years.


We were talking-about the space between us all
And the people-who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth-then it's far too late-when they pass away.
We were talking-about the love we all could share-when we find it
To try our best to hold it there-with our love
With our love-we could save the world-if they only knew.
Try to realize it's all within yourself
No-one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small,
And life flows ON within you and without you.
We were talking-about the love that's gone so cold and the people,
Who gain the world and lose their soul-
They don't know-they can't see-are you one of them?
When you've seen beyond yourself-then you may find, peace of mind,
Is waiting there-
And the time will come when you see
we're all one, and life flows on within you and without you

[Half-Inch Stud]

Ringo's TALENT rivals Keith Moon's ability to make clapped-out songs stand again for an interesting listen. Really.

Too bad Lennon dissed Jesus.

[72projectbird]

I cant stand them

[TempestFugit]

Too bad about a lot of things about Lennon. I wonder what changes maturity would have made to him. I like to think that he wasn't finished evolving but we'll never know.

I was surprised to see Bob Dylan doing an America themed commercial for a french owned company on the Super Bowl.

[PonchoV8]

EDIT: I always appreciated Ringo the most as a person. I didn't care a lot for John. I don't care a much about Paul now.

Originally Posted by TempestFugit

You had to be there to really understand it, but I guess ("It's like trying to tell a stranger about Rock & Roll.")


Interesting to hear it dismissed as trite fifty years later.



From "I want to hold your hand" to Within you without you in a few years.

No one dismissed it. You just made that part up.

First live concert for me was Alice Cooper when I was about 8, which was my favorite artist at the time. So, no I wasn't 'there' in 1964, but I was a Beatles fan even as a kid. That's how much things changed in that amount of time.

[TempestFugit]

Yeah, bad choice of word... I didn't mean specifically what you said, but what others I have heard say about the Beatles and their impact is interesting to me.

I think 'Trite' made me say that... I think of their earliest stuff more as pure and simple yet with evolving musical overtones.... I find all their stuff interesting in context...

Doo Wop was also trite, if you will, or simple, but beautiful in it's simplicity and in context.