Skip to comments.Beatles collaborator Tony Sheridan dies aged 72
Posted on 02/17/2013 7:25:01 AM PST by the scotsman
'Tony Sheridan, the singer on the first ever singer credited to The Beatles, has died at the age of 72.
Sheridan died in Hamburg, Germany. Details of his death have yet to be released.
On his early 60s recording, Sheridans backing band was The Beatles. English-born Sheridan met The Beatles during their first visit to Hamburg in 1960. They would back him at his shows when they first left England before they were famous.
German producer Bert Kaempfert saw them live and suggested they record together. Kaempfert thought Sheridan was the star and placed The Beatles as his backing band on his recordings.
In total, they recorded seven songs together but only two with all four members. (Ringo had not joined the band at this time). John Lennon once said that more than seven songs were recorded but they have never been found.
Of these recordings, My Bonnie backed with The Saints was released as a single on Polydor Records. The sessions also produced Aint She Sweet and Cry For A Shadow, as well as three other songs.'
(Excerpt) Read more at noise11.com ...
As Maxwell Smart used to say “missed it by that much”.
Someone trashed those songs. Poor Sheridan.
On the ATCO 45 I have, John sings lead on Ain’t She Sweet. Tony sings lead on teh other side.
“singer on the first ever singer”
Silly guy. Everybody knows that the Beatles were Paul McCartney's old backup band.
I always thought it strange that the Beatles recorded a song [My Bonny] that had already been used as a gag on I Love Lucy. IIRC, every time Lucy sang the words “ocean” or “sea” she got squirted with a seltzer bottle.
It was the early 60’s. They probably had never heard of I Love Lucy. It was a different time. I would highly doubt American sitcoms were on British television.
The Beatles, weren't they that band Paul McCartney was in before Wings?
Sheesh, Motown was at its height at the same time produced and much better love songs and arrangements. Even the earlier Shirelles did soppy love songs better than, "Ps. I Love You". Think, "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?".
Although, I'll give the Beatles credit for their later arrangements/lyrics on Sargent Pepper's, it still had no soul. "Day in the Life"? What a lot of pretentious crap.
Ask yourself why every jukebox in every bar/club has so many Stones songs and few (if any) have Beatles.
Think, "Honky Tonk Woman" - one of the most classic rock songs of all time. Plus, "Gimme Shelter" was beyond anything Lennon,McCarthy could imagine. The intro lead is probably one of the best in rock history, not to mention the dueling guitar solos in the bridge.
Yes, the Stone's lyrics were darker and not to some tastes, but that and their natural feel for rock and rhythm&blues is what rock n roll is about. THEY were the natural progression from Chuck Berry, Little Richard, et al. The Beatles not so much.
"Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself...".
Beatles will always be the most important rock band ever....their cavern club perfomances and early live shows were full of pure rock, etc......
Songs like ticket to ride, day tripper, rain, helter skelter, yer blues, et al, were as good a rock tune(s) you’ll hear, and their classix like she loves , saw her standing there, i wanna hold your hand, were rock and pop mixed....if you wanna deny that fine, but it doesnt make it any less true.
Mick Jagger can’t sing.
The fact that he’s a “rock” singer, not a “pop” singer, is no excuse.
Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison could sing. Even Ringo could hum along.
That’s why the Beatles have sold gazillions more records than the Stones.
Here’s Meester Hitmaker Bert Kaempfert hisself! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUFvr2kcwYw
The Sandy Beckert show here in the NY area used Bert Kaempfert’s music as the show’s intro music.
That Happy Feeling and Afrikann Beat, if I recall.
Look up the history of the Stones in the UK. The US albums you mention are not what came out there in the same order with the same cuts. Still, your point is taken.
The real Paul's, not his replacement's, you might mention. In any case, now any hopes for a reunion are, as Bert Kaempfert would surely understand, kaput!
What the story doesn’t mention , I guess it assumes you know, is that Tony remained in Germany, and kept playing there. What (he played), I don’t know, but he probably met and knew the legendary Heino, as well as the legendary Freddy, a privilege to envy, for sure!
Thanks for making my point. Not an ounce of soul in the bunch - bubble gum music. And yes, their early Cavern days were cool, but covers of Berry, Richard, and Bill Haley and the Comets. The Stones did the same thing on their first album and took it to the next level on their second. The Beatles were still doing Partidge Family pop until later. Again, kudos for their later arrangements, but not rock n roll. And bad on the Stones for His Majestie's mess.
Even the Police did a simple blues progression on, "Every Breath You Take", which is arguably their biggest hit.
All's fair in love, war, and rock n roll. But find me a classic rock radio station that plays the Beatles in constant rotation.
"Imagine All The People (being bored to tears while We Hold our Hands).
Called himself the 5th Beatle. Considering how many “5th Beatles” there were at the time...Pete Best, George Martin, Brian Epstein, Billy Preston, Eric Clapton... I was unimpressed with his story and just assumed he was using his tangential Beatles connection to carve out a lounge lizard career.
You don't have to be Tommy Lee (Motley Crue) all over his giantic kit to make your point. However, when Ginger Baker (Cream) and John Bohham (Led Zepplin) emerged with their original beats/styles, a new day appeared for drummers. Sorry, got off point.
Jagger and Richards wrote rock songs that people will be tapping their foot to and dancing to for years beyond this conversation, as Beatle fans do their intellectual gymnastics about their complex arrangements and how influential they were.
The Beatles early stuff was bubble gum - the Stones early stuff were rhythm&blues with many covers of Muddy Waters, Bo Didly, and other blues greats until they expanded on that on their second album. The Beatles may have claimed those legends as their influence, but they sure didn't show it in their recordings - the Stones did from day one.
It would have been interesting to see what the Beatles could have done if they hadn't broken up (thinking Styx or Rush). I doubt as many classics as the Stones - again, too much intellect and too little soul. This debate will go on past our time, however, I enjoy it. Thanks for your input.
Sheridan and The Beatles “My Bonnie”...
...goes a long way in explaining your analysis.
Dock of the Bay
In the winter of 1967, Redding again recorded at Stax. One new song was "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay", which was written with Cropper while they were staying with their friend, Earl "Speedo" Sims, on a houseboat in Sausalito. Redding was inspired by the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and tried to create a similar sound against the label's wishes. His wife Zelma disliked its atypical melody. However, Redding wanted to expand his musical style...
When it comes to "feel" and soulful R&B... you can't get much better than Otis. Whatever Jagger does, it can't be confused with genuine R&B.
We got I Love Lucy, and several of the classic sitcoms of the period. To be honest, many of them werent popular, as we found the likes of Ozzie and Harriet or The Andy Griffith Show far too saccharin and cutesy for the British sense of humour.
The favourite then (and remains so) was ‘Bilko’/’The Phil Silvers Show’, which British viewers, critics and comedians loved and still do. It far better suited our cynical sense of humour.
British TV in the 50’s and 60’s showed plenty of US tv, from drama to pop music, cop shows to sci fi.
British TV from the mid 50’s to now, has always shown plenty of US tv, a lot of it primetime (or peaktime as we used to say). Far more than than the reverse.
Oops, the ole memory is failing. You're right, I got the chronology screwed up. The following is the correct according to US album releases, aside from a couple of cover singles (Little Red Rooster and Come On) that had success in the UK:
Englands's Newest Hit Makers
12 X 5
The Rolling Stones, Now! (American version that had "Satisfaction".
I still stand by my point that the Stones had early soul even if a year later and different clubs. Whereas the Beatles were bubble gum in their early days. Even Muddy Waters complimented the Stones on their efforts at Decca Records, so the story goes.
Some, not saying you, can argue all day about what rock n roll is. I know what it is because I started listening to Elvis, Berry, Richard, Jerry Lee, et al at the young age of 5 in 1955. I've watched it progress through the '60's (some good stuff - Motown absolutely); into the '70s's (disco sucked, but Aerosmith and Black Sabbath and soft-rock was cool); into the '80's, which is my favorite decade with all the one hit wonders and into the early '90's.
After that, the music died with the repeat of classic rock riffs/rap/club crap and all the dance contortions that pop singers need to make their music interesting. I'm sure I'm missing some good artists. Problem is...where do I find them?
Me and SO are so happy we grew up in the age of true Rock N' Roll.
Hardly. The Stones are right behind the Beatles with sales, besides Dylan and Elvis and the old Vegas crooners.
The test of time is who wants to listen to who and when. Again, I challenge anyone to give me radio call letters that play the Beatles over the Rolling Stones. Other than wedding receptions, the Beatles music is defunct, while the Stones' classics live on in every jukebox in America and possibly the world.
Just curious, did you ever like Motown as in the Supremes, Temptations, Four Tops, Miracles, etc.?
BTW, I mean no slight to you, I find this Beatles vs Stones debate interesting...always have. So what's your take on Cream or the James Gang?
Actually not. It was a simple sidebar to another poster about how bad Jagger is as a singer. I simply agreed and tried to show him another mediocre musician (Watts) although sometimes does things right. You mistook my reply for being percussion centric. I actually do know something about music than just pounding on drums. I'm also a rhythm guitar player - I know notes, chords and pitch. What I didn't know is the below, and have trouble believing it.
"Dock of the Bay In the winter of 1967, Redding again recorded at Stax. One new song was "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay", which was written with Cropper while they were staying with their friend, Earl "Speedo" Sims, on a houseboat in Sausalito. Redding was inspired by the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and tried to create a similar sound against the label's wishes. His wife Zelma disliked its atypical melody. However, Redding wanted to expand his musical style. When it comes to "feel" and soulful R&B... you can't get much better than Otis."
"Whatever Jagger does, it can't be confused with genuine R&B."
Agreed. Redding, Pickett, Gaye, Wilson, Cooke are the originals. My point was that the Stones stayed closer to those roots in their early recordings than the Beatles, who always claimed that was their roots but recorded bubble gum.
"I Want to Hold Your Hand". Please, not even close - reminds me of Bobby Sherman. Love it if you will...it made me want to kick my car radio two lanes over.
You're obviously a child.
Backing Tony would have been a great gig for the Beatles, they could have cornered the German market, which remains strong for Anglo-American bands to this day, and they would not have had to replace Pete Best, nor would they have met Yoko and Linda, who not only killed them figuratively as well as one of them literally, but what’s tragic, insisted on singing out of tune backups on their records.!
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info! :)
“The Stones are right behind the Beatles with sales,”
I googled that one. 200 million vs. 1.5 billion seems to be the internet consensus, anyway.
KRTH 101 in Los Angeles plays both Stones and Beatles — but more Beatles. And there’s a weekend FM show here that plays nothing but the Beatles for three hours. I forget the call letters, though.
Love the Motown. But the Beatles “Twist & Shout” is a Motown remake, and I think it’s better. I also think their versions of “Rock ‘N Roll Music” and “Roll Over, Beethoven” are big improvements over Chuck Berry’s.
Also, speaking of underrated, Ringo on drums. And Paul on bass. The Beatles rhythm section played, well, melody, at least on some songs. Like “Come Together.”
I don’t know enough about Cream or the James Gang to comment, so I better just be quiet now.
I was not implying that the Beatles were influenced by I Love Lucy. It’s the fact that the song is mundane and was considered appropriate for a sitcom gag ten years before the Beatles recorded it.
I'm 63 and was rocking to Elvis when I was five years old. I know something about rock n roll being in 3 rock bands. I already admitted that the Beatles did better arrangements, but they are not the band you hear on classic radio stations. Sorry, your boys were pop; the Stones were and always have been rock n roll, plus R&B.
No, "I [don't] Want to Hold Your Hand". I'd rather you be "Under my Thumb". Just joshing...
Okay, we're in the same bracket.
Sorry, your boys were pop; the Stones were and always have been rock n roll, plus R&B.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "pop", but it sounds like your dementia is worse than mine. Sure, for about a year or two (1964-65) the Beatles were the first "boy band" after Brian Epstein cleaned them up for public display, but other than that? You don't know what you missed.
The Beatles cut their teeth covering Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Johnny Burnette, Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, etc. The Beatles were also a brawling gang who routinely found themselves spilling blood in bars and on the street. (The Beatles' original bass player, Stu Sutcliffe, died apparently from the effects of a kick to the head.) Lennon once took the stage naked, with a toilet seat from the bathroom wrapped around his neck. I once read an interview with Jagger where he said he and the Stones were in a bar with the Beatles and he admitted to being intimidated - - he said you never knew when the fists were going to start flying.
Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure what your definition of "pop" is, but I am pretty sure 'I Am The Walrus', 'Polythene Pam', 'A Day In The Life', 'Tomorrow Never Knows', 'She Said She Said', 'Strawberry Fields', and 'Revolution', etc., etc., don't qualify.
Look, I love the Stones. I even bought 'Sticky Fingers' on a trip to London in April 1971 and brought it back to the US a week before the LP was released here. I was the star of the neighborhood for a week! By the way I STILL have my 45 collection, and yeah, it's loaded with Beatles and Stones records. And I STILL have 'Their Satanic Majesty's Request' with that old-fashioned 3-D cover, and I STILL have the monoraul Sgt. Pepper's album I traded a Frank Zappa LP for.
So, although I have always been a big fan of both the Beatles and the Stones, I have to laugh at any comparison. The Stones were the reliable workmen who produced a whole lot of truly great stuff; the Beatles were the incomparable geniuses who produced a whole lot of masterpieces.
My opinion, of course.
Also remember, the Stones’ first hit was a cover of The Beatles’ “I Wanna Be Your Man.”
Oh what I would have given to hear the Beatles do a cover of "Cuban Pete."
Wow, got that one wrong.
"KRTH 101 in Los Angeles plays both Stones and Beatles but more Beatles."
If KRTH is the same as I remember, they play everything even as far back as Jerry Lee or The Platters. It is an oldies station if I remember correctly. That's their thing. Classic rock stations rotate the Stones, Led Zepplin, The Who, and such with little Beatles.
"Love the Motown. But the Beatles Twist & Shout is a Motown remake, and I think its better. I also think their versions of Rock N Roll Music and Roll Over, Beethoven are big improvements over Chuck Berrys."
I agree about "Twist and Shout" (Isly/Ink Brothers?) and "Rock n Roll Music" (Berry). Great covers. But again, they were remakes and when the Beatles first started doing their own stuff, it just didn't compare to the Stones originals at the time. The Beatles were bubble-gum whereas the Stones kept to their R&B roots and writing lyrics that got them kicked off some stations and even the Ed Sullivan show.
"Also, speaking of underrated, Ringo on drums. And Paul on bass. The Beatles rhythm section played, well, melody, at least on some songs. Like Come Together."
Will also agree with Ringo's drums on that one. Interesting absorbing beat. Also, thought they rocked on "Back in the USSR". Again, I admitted that Charlie Watts of the Stones is a one act drummer. But he often has put the right fill in the right songs. Watts is a minimalist - think less is more sometimes. I wish the Stones had a better drummer on certain songs. Not The 80's big hair bands where they were all over the kit just to show would they could do, but just some more.
Again, my point was who gets your foot tapping more and whose original songs are heard and requested more often in niteclubs? And whose songs are backing soundtracks on movies? I've lost track how many times I've heard "Gimme Shelter" in different movies. When's the last time you heard "Day in a Life" or "Come Together" or "Back in the USSR". Being a sound guy, I listen to soundtracks on movies and watch the credits. I've even hear early Stones originals and rarely Beatles.
Yes, the Stones kept writing and producing more catchy songs long after the Beatles broke up, so some could say an unfair comparison.
I will always have "Sympathy For the Devil". If you want to see the Stones in their best form, check out, "Bridges to Babylon" DVD.
Last thought: The guitar and voice intro to "Gimme Shelter" has to be one of the most genius intros in the history of rock. Think I saw it as number 3 or 4 in a survey for rock intros. I could live on that song alone - I never grow tired of it. As the Stones say, "It's Only Rock n Roll, But I Like It". Or as Joan Jett says, "I Love Rock n Roll...".
"It was a throwaway. The only two versions of the song were Ringo and the Rolling Stones. That shows how much importance we put on it: We weren't going to give them anything great, right?" - John Lennon (1980)
But ELO's version is the best.
Boy, you set the guitar bar pretty low.
But I would expect that of someone who claims "the Beatles were the most overrated rock band ever."
Actually, the Beatles songs you listed would be considered popular music and not true rock n roll, as western music has subdivided since the 40's. BTW, the Stones also did their thing with the early blues and R&B artists. Muddy Waters even complimented them for their covers.
I didn't miss anything...I was in my teens during the British invasion. I heard and saw the Beatles, but when the Stones came months later, I saw a raw garage band with the soul to last. Like I said to an earlier poster, it's probably unfair to compare the two since the Stones continued producing after the Beatles broke up.
We all wonder what the Beatles could have done if not disbanded. Personally, between Lennon's self-absorbed peace thing with Ono, and McCartney's big ego, I doubt they could have written the rock classics on your "Sticky Fingers" and following recordings that have so many classic rock songs.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about who is the better rock band. This debate will go on long after we're gone. Still, isn't it great that we grew up in the heyday of Rock and Roll and R&B. Thanks for the conversation because, "It's Only Rock n Roll, But I Like It".
Okay, guess so many movie directors and soundtrack producers are wrong along with me and millions on numerous surveys who say so. Sorry, Richards uses such simple notes (in a simple progression) and the singer does such a simple haunting melody. Sometimes less is more - I even love Charlie Watts' basha, basha, basha, basha into the first verse, even though he's not a good drummer.
What? Do you need Metallica or Rush all over the frets to make you happy? I'm not talking about virtuosity. Give me a better intro to set up the feel of the song. I'm open to better. Name one, not including the intro to "Come Sail Away" by Styx. Go ahead...if good, I won't argue.
Forgot about that and I agree, especially with their string intro. A highly under-rated band and their only big hit with a simple progression if I remember correctly, "Don't Bring Me Down"?
Trying to remind some that the best rock songs can be as simple as massaging simple blues chord arrangements. Don't think they're getting it. Didn't everyone love, "Every Breath You Take" by the Police? One more time, sometimes less is better.
Good drummers on great rock songs are famous for doing it at the right time, so are great guitar players. Ever notice a pause on the drums while the rest keep going? It adds suspense to the song. Even Ginger Baker of Cream would do it. John Bonham of Zepplin did in "Whole Lot of Love" even during the verses. Eric Clapton is famous for his expertise, but few realize the pauses he does between his notes.
Can't believe I got crap for suggesting the intro to "Gimme Shelter" is not one of the greatest intros for the song/beat/tempo. Unless you need flash, there could have not been a better intro.
To say the least. Been listening to a lot of their stuff recently....'Eldorado' is an absolutely brilliant masterpiece. I must admit I don't care for "Out of the Blue" or "Disco-very" as much as I did back in the day...but their earlier stuff is great.
I agree with you on ‘Gimme Shelter’. Great intro.
My all-time favorite intro remains Alvin Lee at Woodstock, probably mostly for nostalgic reasons.
How about two?
Live in Cook County Jail, by B. B. King.
Track 3: "How Blue Can You Get?"
New Year's, 1969-70.
Live at the Fillmore East, by Band of Gypsies.
Track 1: "Who Knows?"
Both of those blow doors on the opening for Gimme Shelter, which is pretty much a minor modification off the song's basic three chord progression, palm-muted, and played on, I'm guessing, a Tele straight through maybe a Fender Twin with some reverb on it.
McCartney . . . the Beatles' bass player, ripping through a multitude of bizarre chord formations up and down the neck and fingerpicking the opening to Blackbird. Or how about John Lennon's Epiphone Casino feeding back before he cooks off the signature line of I Feel Fine, the first time distortion was used as an intentional part of a recording's palette?
Any Robert Johnson recording.
Johnny Marr's incredible droning effect on the Smith's How Soon Is Now?
More? Joe Moretti's work on Johnny Kidd's Shakin' All Over AND on Vince Taylor's Brand New Cadillac, the latter covered decades later by the Clash.
You get the point.
And I'm a Stones fan. Keith is a riff master in open tuning. His best lick opening by far can be found in Can't You Hear Me Knocking.
Proud to say Moretti is a Scot.
Nice to see an American who knows Johnny Kidd and the Pirates. One of the two great UK pop/rock bands pre-Beatles.
The other of course being The Shadows.
It is widely held that there are two great British rock and roll records pre-Beatles (ie 1956-1962): Shakin All Over and the first in 1958 being Cliff Richard and ‘Move It’:
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.