Thread View: rec.music.beatles
49 messages
49 total messages
Started by "The Aegis"
Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:01
paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "The Aegis"
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:01
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:01
14 lines
426 bytes
426 bytes
1. letting his wife join and sing in wings 2. 'ebony and ivory' 3. his forays into classical music 4. his lame interviews for beatles anthology 5. his muzaky tendencies after beatles breakup 6. his meanness to harrison 7. his beating up of stu sutcliffe 8. 'she's leaving home' 9. his letting michael jackson beat him in the beatles copyright auction 10. give my regards to broadstreet. 11. magical mystery tour the movie.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: rforman61@msn.co
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:50
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:50
7 lines
168 bytes
168 bytes
Just curious, are you familiar with his forays into classical, or you just don't like the idea of it? And where/when/how exactly was he "mean to" George? richforman
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: chartnav@gmail.c
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:09
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:09
8 lines
372 bytes
372 bytes
Switching Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon for "his" songs was pretty lame. Silly Love Songs was one of the worst (if not #1 stinker) songs ever. On the other hand I thought Magical Mystery Tour was kind of fun and She's Leaving Home is not a bad song.IMHO the best thing Paulie ever did was Long Tall Sally-a song he didn't write but does a great job on the vocals.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "SavoyBG@aol.com
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:50
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:50
9 lines
252 bytes
252 bytes
chartnav@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the best thing Paulie ever > did was Long Tall Sally-a song he didn't write but does a great job on > the vocals. Why would you want to listen to that when you can listen to the vastly superior Little Richard version?
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "thursday@9"
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:57
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:57
6 lines
349 bytes
349 bytes
In a category of "Cover songs that are better than the originals", I think that the Beatles version of 'Long Tall Sally' would certainly be one that could go either way. I would lean towards the fabs on this one, but I still love the original. I think 'Twist & Shout' however would certainly crush the original. The Beatles made that songs theirs.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "DanKaye"
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:59
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:59
7 lines
232 bytes
232 bytes
I would put this one on there: Not playing at Bangla Desh concert I agree with all except She's Leaving Home - great song; and MMT the movie; he was trying something different at least, and hey, we got some great songs out of it.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "Dean F."
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:55
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:55
11 lines
167 bytes
167 bytes
"The Aegis" wrote in message: > 2. 'ebony and ivory' Oh god, yes! Not to mention his godawful duets with Michael Jackson, "The Girl Is Mine" and "Say Say Say."
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "Tono"
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:12
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:12
11 lines
259 bytes
259 bytes
"The Aegis" <aegisigea@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1134158478.251813.208820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > 7. his beating up of stu sutcliffe I thought Lennon did that? Or did Sutcliffe sustain two beatings? (No wonder he quit the group.)
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "wa2ise"
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:20
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:20
8 lines
345 bytes
345 bytes
MMT the movie was an early form of music video. You could cut it up into several music videos. As a full length movie it tended to drag though. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What did Santa Claus say at the house of ill repute? "Ho ho ho!" :-)
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Yourimageunreals
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:03
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:03
10 lines
252 bytes
252 bytes
>>7. his beating up of stu sutcliffe Where did you hear this? Jeff -- Do you like Classical music? Have a listen to this Fantastic classical guitarist. MARGARET SLOVAK: New Wings http://cdbaby.com/cd/slovak2?cdbaby9a72e89f77787215c443a5ef5a2af54
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: traalfaz2@aol.co
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:23
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:23
7 lines
192 bytes
192 bytes
<< 10. give my regards to broadstreet. >> hey any time you can get John Paul Jones to grace the silver screen, it can't be all that bad! Esp. given his other screen credit is for TSRTS...
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: traalfaz2@aol.co
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:50
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:50
14 lines
323 bytes
323 bytes
<< >>She's Leaving Home is not a bad song. > It's a very good song, actually. Why, I agree, it certainly is. When I was a kid, it said it all... >> And it gave anti-Beatle parents, media and ministers something to segue into 1967 from 1966's "bigger than Jesus" scenario "Beatles are telling kids to run away" LOL
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "Runnnerr"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:08
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:08
25 lines
916 bytes
916 bytes
The Aegis wrote: > 1. letting his wife join and sing in wings > 2. 'ebony and ivory' > 3. his forays into classical music > 4. his lame interviews for beatles anthology > 5. his muzaky tendencies after beatles breakup > 6. his meanness to harrison > 7. his beating up of stu sutcliffe > 8. 'she's leaving home' > 9. his letting michael jackson beat him in the beatles copyright > auction > 10. give my regards to broadstreet. > 11. magical mystery tour the movie. 12. Making "Yesterday" as a solo track on a Beatles album, and for that matter, all of the solo stuff that he did on Beatles albums. 13. Discovering the fact that with multi-tracking he could do songs without the other Beatles or without anyone else for that matter. 14. Becoming rock's penultimate egomaniac and miking applause for all that it was worth (anyone see him on the most recent tour?) Does this guy think that his shit doesn't stink?
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "Mr Jinx"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:32
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:32
37 lines
1341 bytes
1341 bytes
Runnnerr wrote: > The Aegis wrote: > > 1. letting his wife join and sing in wings > > 2. 'ebony and ivory' > > 3. his forays into classical music > > 4. his lame interviews for beatles anthology > > 5. his muzaky tendencies after beatles breakup > > 6. his meanness to harrison > > 7. his beating up of stu sutcliffe > > 8. 'she's leaving home' > > 9. his letting michael jackson beat him in the beatles copyright > > auction > > 10. give my regards to broadstreet. > > 11. magical mystery tour the movie. > > 12. Making "Yesterday" as a solo track on a Beatles album, and for that > matter, all of the solo stuff that he did on Beatles albums. > > 13. Discovering the fact that with multi-tracking he could do songs > without the other Beatles or without anyone else for that matter. > > 14. Becoming rock's penultimate egomaniac and miking applause for all > that it was worth (anyone see him on the most recent tour?) Does this > guy think that his shit doesn't stink? McCartney is a real puzzle to me. Here is a man with talent to burn but not an ounce of taste. He has blunted his talent - and judgement - over the years with a steady intake of DOPE. This has reduced him to a glorified holiday camp entertainer so out of touch with his gift that he would need to send a team of St Bernards to find and revive it. Sad. Mr Jinx
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: chris@cupolagall
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:14
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:14
4 lines
188 bytes
188 bytes
No, don't let him do that, cos then he would have to write a song about the team of Bernards to the tune of an old music hall romp. (Roll out the barrel would presumably be appropriate.)
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Seth Jackson
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:44
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:44
5 lines
130 bytes
130 bytes
On 9 Dec 2005 15:09:43 -0800, chartnav@gmail.com wrote: >She's Leaving Home is not a bad song. It's a very good song, actually.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "k sturm"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:25
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:25
12 lines
317 bytes
317 bytes
"Seth Jackson" <a@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message news:br1lp15tchu0pn0j5p3rpqiqtcq277n6ds@4ax.com... > On 9 Dec 2005 15:09:43 -0800, chartnav@gmail.com wrote: > >>She's Leaving Home is not a bad song. > > It's a very good song, actually. Why, I agree, it certainly is. When I was a kid, it said it all...
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "umo"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:32
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:32
3 lines
134 bytes
134 bytes
The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done equally as well without the participation of those other two.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:56
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:56
19 lines
716 bytes
716 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... > umo wrote: > >> The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >> equally as well without the participation of those other two. > > That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on > their own. > It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be remembered. As for all the other crossposted ignorant comments, who cares?
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:16
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:16
33 lines
1055 bytes
1055 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... > McFeeley wrote: > >> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >> news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >> >>>umo wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>> >>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>>their own. >>> >> >> It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of >> them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo >> joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the >> four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be >> remembered. > > > The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material was > less than impressive than their later material. Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their early material was so weak. >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:36
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:36
51 lines
1559 bytes
1559 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:fcEmf.323850$vw5.309349@fe01.news.easynews.com... > McFeeley wrote: > >> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >> news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... >> >>>McFeeley wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>umo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>>> >>>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>>>>their own. >>>>> >>>> >>>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of >>>>them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo >>>>joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the >>>>four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be >>>>remembered. >>> >>> >>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >>>was less than impressive than their later material. >> >> >> Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their >> early material was so weak. > > Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the > pet rock :-) True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much marketing once they were launched. > > The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. That's not all, that's not even close.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:37
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:37
24 lines
560 bytes
560 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:wmEmf.437660$dZ.166127@fe02.news.easynews.com... > Bill Anderson wrote: > >> Uni wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >>> was less than impressive than their later material. >>> >> >> >> As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. > > Decca Records certainly didn't think so. > And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. You don't have much of a grasp on this subject, I think I'd let it alone.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:02
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:02
38 lines
935 bytes
935 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:msEmf.101995$Se2.59123@fe06.news.easynews.com... > McFeeley wrote: > >>> >>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>>pet rock :-) >> >> >> True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much marketing >> once they were launched. > > Their long hair sold them on teenage girl fans, not their songs. Rather empirical statement; one you cannot back up. But you're digging quite an amazing hole, so why stop now? Look > how many other UK based groups followed in their footsteps. And failed immediately. > > >> >>>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. >> >> >> That's not all, that's not even close. > > Bubblegum music did as well as the Beatles tunes. As I said, the right > place at the right time. As -I- said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stick to mono vs. stereo.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:05
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:05
37 lines
1308 bytes
1308 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:2CEmf.342187$Kr.14208@fe08.news.easynews.com... > Bob Roman wrote: > >> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote... >> >>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>>pet rock :-) >> >> >> If this were true, if it were as easy as you say, the pet rock would not >> be so remembered as a surprising fad 30 years later. Marketing events >> like that are extremely rare. Failed marketing gimmicks outnumber >> successful marketing gimmicks 100-1. >> >> >>>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. >> >> >> Many others were in that same place and did not catch on, except >> ultimately those on the Beatles' coattails. > > It wasn't the creative minds of M&L that popularized The Beatles, it was > the outside guidance that did. > You're simply quite incorrect. Yes, they had a lot of help, and their manager and producer were vital to their eventual success. Nevertheless, once they achieved it it was their talent that kept it. Their early music was accepted by the best musicians on the planet, marvelled at by those who enjoyed the way they structured their pop songs. This was not about girls or hair, it was about music. Only those with cloth ears would think otherwise.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:06
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:06
30 lines
1015 bytes
1015 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:kIEmf.342295$Kr.193352@fe08.news.easynews.com... > McFeeley wrote: > early material >>>>>was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. >>> >>>Decca Records certainly didn't think so. >>> >> >> And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. > > Why? Because they didn't wish to dump tons of money into The Beatles, to > make them as popular as Capitol, because they felt their songs were > mediocre, at best? If it weren't for the tons of money, that people > invested in The Beatles, they would have never made it as big as they did. Again, you are so full of shit you are leaving brown footprints everywhere you go. You simply haven't a clue. Most people stop when it's pointed out to them but you're going to blissfully charge on. Well, whatever, but you're speaking out of your ass here, with no real knowledge of what you're saying.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "McFeeley"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:07
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:07
95 lines
2800 bytes
2800 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:pLEmf.342336$Kr.66482@fe08.news.easynews.com... > Dave Head wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:42:42 GMT, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>McFeeley wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>news:fcEmf.323850$vw5.309349@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>umo wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have >>>>>>>>>>done >>>>>>>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too >>>>>>>>>bad on their own. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the >>>>>>>>four of them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it >>>>>>>>before Ringo joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, >>>>>>>>but it took the four of them to create the entire package, and >>>>>>>>that's what will be remembered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early >>>>>>>material was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their >>>>>>early material was so weak. >>>>> >>>>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like >>>>>the pet rock :-) >>>> >>>> >>>>True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much >>>>marketing once they were launched. >>> >>>Their long hair sold them on teenage girl fans, not their songs. Look how >>>many other UK based groups followed in their footsteps. >> >> >> Hey, what about me? I'm a guy, and really loved their _music_! > > You had no other choice but to like their music, because it dominated the > airwaves, at the time. Bullshit. I don't like what's on the airwaves now. What's the difference? There were o requirements for teens to like any music. They simply DID, because it was great. Obviously you're just too young to have a clue. > > They were the >> "real deal" 'cuz the music was good. Elvis sent the girls over the moon >> too, >> but I never bought a single Elvis album or single. Its not just the >> girls. > > The teenagers were the targeted fan base, not adults. Yet adults came along, because they were that good.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "umo"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:28
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:28
5 lines
280 bytes
280 bytes
The Beatles were actually a pop music band. The Stones were a true Rock n Roll band, The Beatles wrote pretty melodic songs that a kid in 1965 could comfortably sing her grandmother. The Stones had a dangerous hard edge that made the Beatles sound like choir boys in comparison.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: DC
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:12
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:12
15 bytes
What about Stu?
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "Barbara"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:44
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:44
26 lines
917 bytes
917 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:wiFmf.342743$Kr.253500@fe08.news.easynews.com... > umo wrote: > > > The Beatles were actually a pop music band. The Stones were a true Rock > > n Roll band, The Beatles wrote pretty melodic songs that a kid in 1965 > > could comfortably sing her grandmother. The Stones had a dangerous hard > > edge that made the Beatles sound like choir boys in comparison. > > That's true. The Stones were okay, at best, in my opinion. Their songs > never made an impact on me, to cause me rush out and by any of their > records/CDs. > > Uni > > > > Asked now who the adults after all these years are listening to, would be a rather large clue as to which group had a larger impact,( imo)the Beatles or Stones. Personally for me it would be the Beatles, who after all these years sound fantastic. Not to say the Stones don't, just that I choose not to listen to them now.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Bill Anderson
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:20
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:20
16 lines
268 bytes
268 bytes
Uni wrote: > > > > The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material > was less than impressive than their later material. > As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. -- Bill Anderson I am the Mighty Favog
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: "Bob Roman"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:35
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:35
18 lines
585 bytes
585 bytes
"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote... > Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the > pet rock :-) If this were true, if it were as easy as you say, the pet rock would not be so remembered as a surprising fad 30 years later. Marketing events like that are extremely rare. Failed marketing gimmicks outnumber successful marketing gimmicks 100-1. > The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. Many others were in that same place and did not catch on, except ultimately those on the Beatles' coattails. -- Bob Roman
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Bill Anderson
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49
73 lines
2487 bytes
2487 bytes
Uni wrote: > McFeeley wrote: > >> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >> news:wmEmf.437660$dZ.166127@fe02.news.easynews.com... >> >>> Bill Anderson wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Uni wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early >>>>> material was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. >>> >>> >>> Decca Records certainly didn't think so. >>> >> >> And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. > > > Why? Because they didn't wish to dump tons of money into The Beatles, to > make them as popular as Capitol, because they felt their songs were > mediocre, at best? If it weren't for the tons of money, that people > invested in The Beatles, they would have never made it as big as they did. > Here's some info on how early Beatles releases in the US were handled through Decca and Vee-Jay and Swan and Capitol. There's some interesting material on who released what and why, airplay, and who was willing to "dump tons of money" on the Beatles and who wasn't. Vee-Jay apparently would have, if they'd had the money and the courts had allowed; Capitol wouldn't -- until it became obvious the Vee-Jay label Beatles songs were becoming popular; and as the Beatles had quit recording with Tony Sheridan for Polydor (Deutche Grammophon) early on, Decca was out of the picture. So if you're really interested in making a reasoned argument, read this -- it's continued over several pages: http://www.friktech.com/btls/bc1.htm and this http://www.friktech.com/btls/tony/tony.htm Then come back to make your point that "My Bonnie" isn't up to the standards of the later Beatles. You'll be right, of course, and as long as you limit your definition of "early material" to "My Bonnie" and a number of relatively obscure others, you can be very proud of your shallow critique. Just take care not to include "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in your list of early Beatles songs. That one made an impression in the USA. And as an added bonus, you may enjoy listening to some reminiscences from Dave Dexter, the Capitol executive who passed on the group at first, but later "discovered" I Want to Hold Your Hand. He apparently didn't care too much for the Beatles, except for their little drummer. "He was nice." http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/dex-bio.htm -- Bill Anderson I am the Mighty Favog
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Bill Anderson
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:12
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:12
17 lines
480 bytes
480 bytes
Uni wrote: > > Most record companies didn't care for The Beatles material. It was okay, > at that. They were more concerned on the profits to gain from The > Beatles. There were many artist who were as good as, or better than, The > Beatles. Unfortunately, they didn't know of anyone with big bucks to > promote them into stardom. Okey doke. Never mind. But I still think the facts are more interesting than your presumptions. -- Bill Anderson I am the Mighty Favog
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:42
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:42
12 lines
244 bytes
244 bytes
umo wrote: > The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done > equally as well without the participation of those other two. That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on their own. Uni >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:13
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:13
31 lines
897 bytes
897 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... > >>umo wrote: >> >> >>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >> >>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>their own. >> > > It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of > them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo > joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the four > of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be remembered. The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material was less than impressive than their later material. Uni > > As for all the other crossposted ignorant comments, who cares? > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:25
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:25
49 lines
1283 bytes
1283 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... > >>McFeeley wrote: >> >> >>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>> >>> >>>>umo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>> >>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>>>their own. >>>> >>> >>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of >>>them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo >>>joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the >>>four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be >>>remembered. >> >> >>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material was >>less than impressive than their later material. > > > Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their early > material was so weak. Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the pet rock :-) The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. Uni > > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:36
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:36
20 lines
312 bytes
312 bytes
Bill Anderson wrote: > Uni wrote: > >> >> >> >> The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >> was less than impressive than their later material. >> > > > As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. Decca Records certainly didn't think so. Uni >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:42
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:42
72 lines
1899 bytes
1899 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:fcEmf.323850$vw5.309349@fe01.news.easynews.com... > >>McFeeley wrote: >> >> >>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>> >>> >>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>umo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>>>> >>>>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>>>>>their own. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of >>>>>them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo >>>>>joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the >>>>>four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be >>>>>remembered. >>>> >>>> >>>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >>>>was less than impressive than their later material. >>> >>> >>>Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their >>>early material was so weak. >> >>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>pet rock :-) > > > True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much marketing > once they were launched. Their long hair sold them on teenage girl fans, not their songs. Look how many other UK based groups followed in their footsteps. > >>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. > > > That's not all, that's not even close. Bubblegum music did as well as the Beatles tunes. As I said, the right place at the right time. Uni > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Dave Head
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:50
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:50
87 lines
2564 bytes
2564 bytes
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:42:42 GMT, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote: >McFeeley wrote: > >> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >> news:fcEmf.323850$vw5.309349@fe01.news.easynews.com... >> >>>McFeeley wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>umo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>>>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>>>>>>their own. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of >>>>>>them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo >>>>>>joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the >>>>>>four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be >>>>>>remembered. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >>>>>was less than impressive than their later material. >>>> >>>> >>>>Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their >>>>early material was so weak. >>> >>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>>pet rock :-) >> >> >> True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much marketing >> once they were launched. > >Their long hair sold them on teenage girl fans, not their songs. Look >how many other UK based groups followed in their footsteps. Hey, what about me? I'm a guy, and really loved their _music_! They were the "real deal" 'cuz the music was good. Elvis sent the girls over the moon too, but I never bought a single Elvis album or single. Its not just the girls. >>>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. >> >> >> That's not all, that's not even close. > >Bubblegum music did as well as the Beatles tunes. These guys are the biggest phenomenon in pop music history, bar none. Nobody's done it better before or since. > As I said, the right >place at the right time. They _changed_ the music from Elvis, et. al. to their kind of "British Invasion" music. It was awesome. No force in music has been as great in recorded history. Dave Head >Uni > >> >>
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:53
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:53
32 lines
759 bytes
759 bytes
Bob Roman wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote... > >>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>pet rock :-) > > > If this were true, if it were as easy as you say, the pet rock would not be > so remembered as a surprising fad 30 years later. Marketing events like > that are extremely rare. Failed marketing gimmicks outnumber successful > marketing gimmicks 100-1. > > >>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. > > > Many others were in that same place and did not catch on, except ultimately > those on the Beatles' coattails. It wasn't the creative minds of M&L that popularized The Beatles, it was the outside guidance that did. Uni > > -- > Bob Roman > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:59
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:59
37 lines
903 bytes
903 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:wmEmf.437660$dZ.166127@fe02.news.easynews.com... > >>Bill Anderson wrote: >> >> >>>Uni wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >>>>was less than impressive than their later material. >>>> >>> >>> >>>As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. >> >>Decca Records certainly didn't think so. >> > > And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. Why? Because they didn't wish to dump tons of money into The Beatles, to make them as popular as Capitol, because they felt their songs were mediocre, at best? If it weren't for the tons of money, that people invested in The Beatles, they would have never made it as big as they did. Uni > > You don't have much of a grasp on this subject, I think I'd let it alone. > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:03
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:03
114 lines
2901 bytes
2901 bytes
Dave Head wrote: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:42:42 GMT, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote: > > >>McFeeley wrote: >> >> >>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:fcEmf.323850$vw5.309349@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>> >>> >>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>umo wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have done >>>>>>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too bad on >>>>>>>>their own. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the four of >>>>>>>them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it before Ringo >>>>>>>joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, but it took the >>>>>>>four of them to create the entire package, and that's what will be >>>>>>>remembered. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early material >>>>>>was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their >>>>>early material was so weak. >>>> >>>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>>>pet rock :-) >>> >>> >>>True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much marketing >>>once they were launched. >> >>Their long hair sold them on teenage girl fans, not their songs. Look >>how many other UK based groups followed in their footsteps. > > > Hey, what about me? I'm a guy, and really loved their _music_! You had no other choice but to like their music, because it dominated the airwaves, at the time. They were the > "real deal" 'cuz the music was good. Elvis sent the girls over the moon too, > but I never bought a single Elvis album or single. Its not just the girls. The teenagers were the targeted fan base, not adults. Uni > > >>>>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. >>> >>> >>>That's not all, that's not even close. >> >>Bubblegum music did as well as the Beatles tunes. > > > These guys are the biggest phenomenon in pop music history, bar none. Nobody's > done it better before or since. > > >>As I said, the right >>place at the right time. > > > They _changed_ the music from Elvis, et. al. to their kind of "British > Invasion" music. It was awesome. No force in music has been as great in > recorded history. > > Dave Head > > >>Uni >> >> >>> >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:17
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:17
57 lines
1789 bytes
1789 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:2CEmf.342187$Kr.14208@fe08.news.easynews.com... > >>Bob Roman wrote: >> >> >>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote... >>> >>> >>>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like the >>>>pet rock :-) >>> >>> >>>If this were true, if it were as easy as you say, the pet rock would not >>>be so remembered as a surprising fad 30 years later. Marketing events >>>like that are extremely rare. Failed marketing gimmicks outnumber >>>successful marketing gimmicks 100-1. >>> >>> >>> >>>>The Beatles were in the right place at the right time, that's all. >>> >>> >>>Many others were in that same place and did not catch on, except >>>ultimately those on the Beatles' coattails. >> >>It wasn't the creative minds of M&L that popularized The Beatles, it was >>the outside guidance that did. >> > > You're simply quite incorrect. Yes, they had a lot of help, and their > manager and producer were vital to their eventual success. Nevertheless, > once they achieved it it was their talent that kept it. > > Their early music was accepted by the best musicians on the planet, > marvelled at by those who enjoyed the way they structured their pop songs. Right. You mean others covered The Beatles tunes, because someone promoted them to popularity. > This was not about girls or hair, it was about music. Only those with cloth > ears would think otherwise. Right, again. That's why you'd find tons of teenage girls salivating over the Beatles when they made a public appearance, but you'd never find any "best adult musicians" there. If the Beatles looked like Buddy Holly, the girls would have fell asleep and that would have been the end of The Beatles. Uni > > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29
44 lines
1374 bytes
1374 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:kIEmf.342295$Kr.193352@fe08.news.easynews.com... > >>McFeeley wrote: >> > > early material > >>>>>>was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. >>>> >>>>Decca Records certainly didn't think so. >>>> >>> >>>And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. >> >>Why? Because they didn't wish to dump tons of money into The Beatles, to >>make them as popular as Capitol, because they felt their songs were >>mediocre, at best? If it weren't for the tons of money, that people >>invested in The Beatles, they would have never made it as big as they did. > > > Again, you are so full of shit you are leaving brown footprints everywhere > you go. > > You simply haven't a clue. Most people stop when it's pointed out to them > but you're going to blissfully charge on. Well, whatever, but you're > speaking out of your ass here, with no real knowledge of what you're saying. You agree that Decca Records felt The Beatles were boring. If any other songs dominated the airwaves, like The Beatles did, you'd probably claim those artists as the "best musicians", since sliced bread. You confuse airplay songs, targeted at teenagers, with highly talented musicians Uni > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: TAR
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:40
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:40
49 lines
1828 bytes
1828 bytes
Uni wrote: > > McFeeley wrote: > > > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > > news:kIEmf.342295$Kr.193352@fe08.news.easynews.com... > > > >>McFeeley wrote: > >> > > > > early material > > > >>>>>>was less than impressive than their later material. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the time. > >>>> > >>>>Decca Records certainly didn't think so. > >>>> > >>> > >>>And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. > >> > >>Why? Because they didn't wish to dump tons of money into The Beatles, to > >>make them as popular as Capitol, because they felt their songs were > >>mediocre, at best? If it weren't for the tons of money, that people > >>invested in The Beatles, they would have never made it as big as they did. > > > > > > Again, you are so full of shit you are leaving brown footprints everywhere > > you go. > > > > You simply haven't a clue. Most people stop when it's pointed out to them > > but you're going to blissfully charge on. Well, whatever, but you're > > speaking out of your ass here, with no real knowledge of what you're saying. > > You agree that Decca Records felt The Beatles were boring. If any other > songs dominated the airwaves, like The Beatles did, you'd probably claim > those artists as the "best musicians", since sliced bread. You confuse > airplay songs, targeted at teenagers, with highly talented musicians > > Uni Ask the people who heard a Beatles song for the first time on the radio what they thought. Ask them if there was something different about the song... something special... if it had an energy that they had never heard before. This is why the Beatles took off. Before Ed Sullivan, most American kids didn't have a clue what they looked like. It was the music that started it all.
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:40
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:40
15 lines
465 bytes
465 bytes
umo wrote: > The Beatles were actually a pop music band. The Stones were a true Rock > n Roll band, The Beatles wrote pretty melodic songs that a kid in 1965 > could comfortably sing her grandmother. The Stones had a dangerous hard > edge that made the Beatles sound like choir boys in comparison. That's true. The Stones were okay, at best, in my opinion. Their songs never made an impact on me, to cause me rush out and by any of their records/CDs. Uni >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:45
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:45
98 lines
2642 bytes
2642 bytes
McFeeley wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:pLEmf.342336$Kr.66482@fe08.news.easynews.com... > >>Dave Head wrote: >> >> >>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:42:42 GMT, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>news:fcEmf.323850$vw5.309349@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:r1Emf.323593$vw5.83352@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>McFeeley wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:IzDmf.178837$tM5.11465@fe05.news.easynews.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>umo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The Beatles were essentially a duo. Lennon & McCartney would have >>>>>>>>>>>done >>>>>>>>>>>equally as well without the participation of those other two. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>That may be true to some degree, but the other two didn't do too >>>>>>>>>>bad on their own. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It's not true at all. There was a special symbiosis between the >>>>>>>>>four of them that created the group dynamic. They neither had it >>>>>>>>>before Ringo joined nor after the group broke up. L&M had talent, >>>>>>>>>but it took the four of them to create the entire package, and >>>>>>>>>that's what will be remembered. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early >>>>>>>>material was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Only to you. They would never have gotten and sustained fame if their >>>>>>>early material was so weak. >>>>>> >>>>>>Any clever person can market songs as well as inanimate objects, like >>>>>>the pet rock :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>True. But these guys were the real deal, they didn't need much >>>>>marketing once they were launched. >>>> >>>>Their long hair sold them on teenage girl fans, not their songs. Look how >>>>many other UK based groups followed in their footsteps. >>> >>> >>>Hey, what about me? I'm a guy, and really loved their _music_! >> >>You had no other choice but to like their music, because it dominated the >>airwaves, at the time. > > > Bullshit. I don't like what's on the airwaves now. What's the difference? Because you're no longer a teenager. If you were, you'd be buying up every song on CD that was airplay popular, today. Uni
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:55
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:55
37 lines
1216 bytes
1216 bytes
Barbara wrote: > "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message > news:wiFmf.342743$Kr.253500@fe08.news.easynews.com... > >>umo wrote: >> >> >>>The Beatles were actually a pop music band. The Stones were a true Rock >>>n Roll band, The Beatles wrote pretty melodic songs that a kid in 1965 >>>could comfortably sing her grandmother. The Stones had a dangerous hard >>>edge that made the Beatles sound like choir boys in comparison. >> >>That's true. The Stones were okay, at best, in my opinion. Their songs >>never made an impact on me, to cause me rush out and by any of their >>records/CDs. >> >>Uni >> >> > Asked now who the adults after all these years are listening to, would be a > rather large clue as to which group had a larger impact,( imo)the Beatles or > Stones. > Personally for me it would be the Beatles, who after all these years sound > fantastic. Not to say the Stones don't, just that I choose not to listen to > them now. The songs you admired when you were a child have the greatest impact on you. Airplay, is the key to making ANY tune/goup popular. I'm sure you enjoyed many LP songs, that received little or no airplay, but that didn't stop you from remembering them. Uni > >
Re: paul mccartney's ten greatest sins
Author: Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:02
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:02
86 lines
2912 bytes
2912 bytes
Bill Anderson wrote: > Uni wrote: > >> McFeeley wrote: >> >>> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:wmEmf.437660$dZ.166127@fe02.news.easynews.com... >>> >>>> Bill Anderson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Uni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Beatles had a lot of outside help. That's why their early >>>>>> material was less than impressive than their later material. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I recall, their early material made quite an impression at the >>>>> time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Decca Records certainly didn't think so. >>>> >>> >>> And they kicked themselves ever after for that decision. >> >> >> >> Why? Because they didn't wish to dump tons of money into The Beatles, >> to make them as popular as Capitol, because they felt their songs were >> mediocre, at best? If it weren't for the tons of money, that people >> invested in The Beatles, they would have never made it as big as they >> did. >> > > Here's some info on how early Beatles releases in the US were handled > through Decca and Vee-Jay and Swan and Capitol. There's some > interesting material on who released what and why, airplay, and who was > willing to "dump tons of money" on the Beatles and who wasn't. Vee-Jay > apparently would have, if they'd had the money and the courts had > allowed; Capitol wouldn't -- until it became obvious the Vee-Jay label > Beatles songs were becoming popular; and as the Beatles had quit > recording with Tony Sheridan for Polydor (Deutche Grammophon) early on, > Decca was out of the picture. > > So if you're really interested in making a reasoned argument, read this > -- it's continued over several pages: > > http://www.friktech.com/btls/bc1.htm > > and this > > http://www.friktech.com/btls/tony/tony.htm > > Then come back to make your point that "My Bonnie" isn't up to the > standards of the later Beatles. You'll be right, of course, and as long > as you limit your definition of "early material" to "My Bonnie" and a > number of relatively obscure others, you can be very proud of your > shallow critique. Just take care not to include "I Want to Hold Your > Hand" in your list of early Beatles songs. That one made an impression > in the USA. > > And as an added bonus, you may enjoy listening to some reminiscences > from Dave Dexter, the Capitol executive who passed on the group at > first, but later "discovered" I Want to Hold Your Hand. He apparently > didn't care too much for the Beatles, except for their little drummer. > "He was nice." Most record companies didn't care for The Beatles material. It was okay, at that. They were more concerned on the profits to gain from The Beatles. There were many artist who were as good as, or better than, The Beatles. Unfortunately, they didn't know of anyone with big bucks to promote them into stardom. Uni > > http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/dex-bio.htm >
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads