Is Sir Paul losing his wig?
Posted on 11/06/2009 7:27:22 AM PST by BenLurkin
SIR PAUL McCARTNEY admits THE BEATLES weren't much cop when they first formed.
Realising they sounded average at best, Macca wasn't surprised in 1962 when record label Decca refused to sign the band - who went on to become the biggest of all time.
In an interview with Xfm's IAN CAMFIELD, he said: "We obviously weren't that good. We were formulating it all.
"You wouldn't have thought we were that great. You'd have turned us down if you were a record company. And they did - Decca turned us down!"
Soon after Decca snubbed the Fab Four, producer GEORGE MARTIN signed them to EMI's Parlophone label and the band - prior to sticksman RINGO STARR's arrival - signed up to play a 48-night residency in a Hamburg, Germany, club.
It was during this formative era that they honed their sound and learned the art of wowing crowds.
Macca said: "When we first went to Hamburg, and there'd be no-one in the club.
Now the Monkeys on the other hand...
Millions and millions of fans over a 45-year span would disagree with you.
Macca?
He was referring to pre-Hamburg days.
Apparently, they weren’t.
The Hamburg gig was offered to other Liverpool bands first.
The Beatles were down the list, and really had no gigs, except for Pete Best’s basement.
When they returned, they had ‘the look’, a much tighter sound, and a single, “My Bonnie”.
Even now, when I hear “A hard days night,” I get a rush of
happiness. The movie is so much fun to watch also.
I agree. Still can’t stand to listen to them.
ahem, that would be the “Monkees”....
Their first recorded single: “My Bonnie(lies over the ocean).”
Very forgettable
Is Sir Paul losing his wig?
Well, George Martin did a horrible job on the Live and Let Die OST.
>>Millions and millions of fans over a 45-year span would disagree with you.<<
That is because art is subjective.
I’m in a couple of bands and have been a bass player and lead/background vocalist playing all genres since around 1998. I never thought the beatles were that “good”. One of my current bands plays the Ting Tings. They are not that good either. But their songs are infectious and a ton of fun to play, listen to and dance to. And they are definitely a “new” sound. And that is what it’s about.
Plus, they did a lot of things that had never been done before. I did not like them when they were popular, but I do now. My favorite album is Rubber Soul.
Oh, and to get a feeling of what I was talking about re the Ting tings, check out one of the ones we do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r23cm7bL9E
I think it’s obvious that Ringo made the difference.
I’ve always felt they were way over-rated. The Stones were, and are, superior to the Beatles in every concept of the word - with the sole exception of dollars.
Opinions are like...well, you know.
They did have some junk (e.g. “Mr. Moonlight”, “Yellow Submarine”, “Revolution #9”, “The Long and Winding Road”) though, mixed in with the good stuff.
I despise misleading headlines, regardless of what news source is writing them.
Best? Hard to define and to determine.
Most Popular? By a long shot, no argument there.
But there was a time when because of their popularity they put out music which was certainly not the 'best'.
So, the earthshaking revelation here is that a band got better the more they played. Astounding!
Amazing quality in such a short time frame and unheard of today when "musicians" using auto-tune require years to make an album. See mikey jackson, the overrated pedophile.
Yeah yeah yeah, Those ting things are much better than the Beatles. Yeah Right. That is so totally pathetic that it demands a response. Probably the best is “there’s apparently no accounting for taste.” Me. 11-6-2009. Feel free to quote me. ;-)
Damn straight!
And The Who were superior to The Stones.
Enter Sir George Martin. He changed EVERYTHING.
Boy, they sure were mediocre. Glad it is said outloud.
Monkees!!
"I'm Lookinmg Through You" is about Paul's failing relationship with Jane Asher (sister of Peter Asher). Jane was certainly more bab-a-licious than his eventual wife.
Pink Floyd
Blind Faith
Cream
Jimi Hendrix
Stones
Van Morrison (more so for his body of work and not his work in the 60's)
Procol Harem
Snicker.
Whenever I hear “Dear Prudence”, I can still see the Blueghost gunships rising out of Chu Lai.
>>Yeah yeah yeah, Those ting things are much better than the Beatles.<<
I strongly disagree. The Beatles were much better - eventually.
I just finished a book called Hotel California about the Laural Canyon crowd of the mid 60’s and their antics over the next 15 years. A VERY good read.
The beatles did some amazing stuff and were fairly talented on their instruments as well. They did a lot of experimenting and much of it worked very well. Like many though, their claim to fame was they did it first. And that really does have value.
My point about the ting tings is that pop music is not about being good, necessarily. It is about being POPular. And much of rock cannot hold a candle, quality wise, to many other genre’s for raw quality, e.g. classical music.
But that is really an apple to oranges comparison. It is like asking which is better, a hummer or a corvette?
Some of the more popular Beatles music is no more complicated than the popular Ting Tings songs, btw. It is one reason I use them as an example.
And (spoken in a Yorkshire accent): "Naw a bad-loookin' bird, oither, mate!"
But if it weren't for The Beatles, those bands don't happen.
I was stumped, too. Wikipedia to the rescue:
Macca (or “Macker” in Ireland) is a common British nickname for somebody whose surname begins with the Gaelic prefix Mac or Mc (meaning “son of”). It is similar in form to Gazza, Hezza and similar nicknames that arose during the 1990s and early 21st century.
People frequently referred to as Macca include:
* Sir Paul McCartney, musician...
The Tremeloes are still together and still in the biz, too.
>>The Stones were, and are, superior to the Beatles in every concept of the word - with the sole exception of dollars.<<
I never did, and still don’t, like the Stones. I have played most of their stuff and although it is considered “classic”, and some people really get into it, I just don’t get it. I don’t think I ever will.
For context, I’m 56.
Now Paul is a pretty amazing musician, of course bass, but not a bad guitarist in his own right, he played all the instruments on his first solo album.
>>But if it weren’t for The Beatles, those bands don’t happen.<<
There is truth there. I have a documentary on dvd called Standing in the Shadow of Motown”. As a musician myself, I am not impressed with the technical abilities of the Funk Brothers. But they ARE the the ones that did it first. And that has value. A LOT of value.
The Zombies were great too.
Paul lived 'upstairs' with the Ashers which was a step up socially and financially for Paul.
Peter Asher was the Peter part of the duo of "Peter & Gordon". Peter was frustrated because all their hits were written by Paul (he thought they were riding on the Beatles coat-tails) so...Paul wrote one under an alias to satisfy Peter.
The song was Woman which turned out to be one of their biggest hits.
Same with Hendrix, players could claim to play better than Jimi did, but if it wasn’t for Jimi, you’d never hear of them.
Patty Boyd was Married to George Harrison but Eric Clapton fell in love with her while he was teaching George how to play "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (uncredited, btw) and Pattie's sister Jenny married Mick Fleetwood of Fleetwood Mac.
"Patricia Anne "Pattie" Boyd (born 17 March 1944) is an English model and photographer, and the former wife of both George Harrison and Eric Clapton. She was the inspiration for love songs written by both musicians, most notably Harrison's "Something" (however, Harrison claimed to write it for Ray Charles), "For You Blue", and Clapton's "Layla", "Wonderful Tonight," and "Bell Bottom Blues."
But one must realize that the Beatles came to a point in their career were it was physically impossible to preform well live.
For us mere mortal musicians to relate to their performance circumstances, imagine playing live standing next to a jet engine running at full power with no hearing protection.
However when they were in the studio they were far above all of the bands at that point in time up until Wilson hit the scene. This is due to their popularity and the influence of George Martin.
Their popularity allowed them unlimited studio time.
They were all talented musicians but there were certainly better musicians during that time but they mostly did not have those other two elements to work with: Unlimited Studio Time and George Martin.
The third element none of those other bands had that cemented the Beatles spot in history was the writing team of John and Paul.
When you consider ALL of those factors its no mystery why the Beatles are considered number one.
Its also no mystery why such has never been duplicated. (Sales Figures, Sting of hits and Domination of the market and domination of the news cycle all at once.)
Brad Paisley has had 10 straight number one singles BUT he does not Dominate the news cycle nor the Market like the Beatles did.
Its doubtful if the Beatles phenomenon will ever be duplicated because the circumstances are different today. The music business was totally different and in its infancy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.