Posted on 09/08/2009 9:10:09 AM PDT by JoeProBono
Introduction this week of the new video game "The Beatles: Rock Band" reminds us of an odd fact about these music artists who were once widely considered to be the definition of avant garde: the Beatles have often been, really, one beat behind.
Believe it or not, up until now music by the Beatles has not been available for sale on the Internet. With "The Beatles: Rock Band," players will be able to download up to 45 songs that they can perform with the Fab Four in such reproduced settings as "The Ed Sullivan Show," Shea Stadium and the Abbey Road recording studio. The first full album will be available for download on Oct. 20 ("Abbey Road"), then "Sgt. Pepper's Loney Hearts Club Band" and "Rubber Soul" in November and December....
The Beatles were also woefully behind at the Grammys during the Fab Four's heyday. Again, the reason was a fierce fight, but one that couldn't be blamed on the lads from Liverpool. They were spurned by the conservative music establishment, which quickly came under attack for refusing to hail the rock revolution.
Back in those days, the likes of Henry Mancini, Tony Bennett, Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand and Roger Miller swept the top awards. After the Grammys in 1964 — during the peak of Beatlemania — this was Variety's headline: "Beatles play 2d Fiddle in Grammys to Bossa Nova, Barbra, Mancini & Miller." The article reported, "The Beatles may have swamped the music business during 1964, but that fact was not reflected in the Grammy award ceremonies."
(Excerpt) Read more at goldderby.latimes.com ...
The Grammys suck. It’s political not merit based. Look at the spoken word winners for the past 20 years.
Still brings a wry smile to my face. Also they have really been showing a lot Beatles stuff on VH1 this past week to promote the release of the Rock Band...
They couldn’t carry Ray Coniff’s jock...
<><><><><><><><
Or Mozart’s, for that matter.
But how ‘bout we stay in the same arena. Ray Coniff and the Anita Kerr singers being compared to the Beatles? It’s not even apples and oranges. More like apples and mosquito repellant.
"Beatlemania" may have been at its peak in America in 1964 but those first 4 albums were packed with cover tunes. The highpoint came later and even then they weren't acknowledged.
http://www.amazon.com/Hotel-California-True-Life-Adventures-Mitchell/dp/0470127775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252430892&sr=1-1 Worthwhile read for anybody interested in the Geffen thing and the whole California mysic scene coming of age. Adds perspective to the meaning of the song Hotel California as well...
Or the Roof Top Singers...
Big deal.
The grammies as with all awards shows are simply too political.
I’m almost 56 and was never an Eagles fan. Then I saw their Farewell I tour DVD. I was blown away. I now own both their DVD concerts and all their vinyl. That Melbourne concert is amazing. Joe Walsh is a hoot and the musicianship, light show and arrangements are absolutely outstanding.
I'm getting a feeling we are getting out of a "dead time" in pop music similar to the one Michael Jackson got us out of when "Sailing" By Christopher Cross won song of the year.
That song grates on me, although Dr. Hook did a great cover of it. And you KNOW what song I'm talking about. :)
>>The grammies as with all awards shows are simply too political.<<
That’s been my take since I was about 30, when I started paying attention. That was around 1980. I stopped watching award shows in the mid-80’s.
They didn’t win?
It must have been racism!!!!
oh, wait........
/s
Yes, I see the difference.
I had forgotten that.
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.