Jump to content

The Beatles thread


achilleslaststand77
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Yes, a totally obscure guitar they probably only played on one session, no doubt :lol: If it ain't in Andy Babiuk's Beatles Gear book it isn't worth mentioning IMO. Consider that George's Rosewood Telecaster sold for a couple of million as I recall at auction a few years back...imagine what an axe like Lennon's 3/4 size Rickenbacker or George's psychedelic Strat ("Rocky") would go for...they're probably damn near as priceless as 'famous' guitars can get. McCartney still busts out his old Epiphone Casino to play "Paperback Writer" -the guitar he played on the studio track- at his live shows. That's pretty cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
McCartney May Perform at Candlestick Park Before Its Demolition
Sir Paul McCartney has mentioned the possibility of headlining one last concert at Candlestick Park - where the Beatles played their final gig for a paying crowd in 1966 - before the stadium's date with the wrecking ball.

No one was more stunned than Mayor Ed Lee when McCartney floated the idea as he was about to take the stage at his recent Outside Lands festival appearance.

"And it was him who made the suggestion," Lee said. "Believe me, it wasn't something I, or anyone else, was expecting."

It all began when Lee - with about a half hour to kill - decided to check out how things were going at the festival in Golden Gate Park the evening of Aug. 10.

Lee was talking with Outside Lands promoter Gregg Perloff, who asked if he had a couple of minutes to meet with McCartney before the singer went on.

"Ah, Mayor Lee, what an honor," McCartney said. "I understand you are the first Asian mayor of the city."

"Thank you," Lee replied, "but I'm not sure it's quite as glamorous as being knighted."

Sir Paul put his thumb and forefinger almost together and said, "It's that much more."

The ice properly broken, city salesman Lee launched into the success of Outside Lands, then slid into another upcoming significant event - the end of Candlestick, and how the city was putting together photos and film footage to honor the Beatles' final concert.

"Oh, kind of like Shea Stadium," McCartney said, referring to the old New York ballpark where the Beatles played two of their most famous shows. "That sounds fantastic."

"Then," Lee said, "he looks at me and Phil Ginsburg" - general manager of the Recreation and Park Department - "and says, 'Well, if you are going to tear down the stadium next year, we should think about us doing the last concert there.' "

As Lee's and everyone else's jaw dropped, McCartney added, "You know my agent. Why don't we follow up with him?"

McCartney did this once before - at Shea Stadium, just before it was demolished in 2009. Then he and Billy Joel helped break in Citi Field, the New York Mets' replacement stadium.

If the Stick show does come together, it would be full circle from Aug. 29, 1966, when the Beatles played to a crowd of about 25,000 - well short of the stadium's pre-expansion capacity of 42,000.

Tickets went for $4.5o and $6.50, and the Beatles played for about 30 minutes.

When McCartney hit the stage at Outside Lands, an estimated 65,000 were on hand - at $75 to $105 a head. Over the three-day festival, the Recreation and Park Department netted $2.2 million.

A McCartney farewell show would grab international headlines - but it's only one of the many ideas in the works for turning the Candlestick tear-down into a boon for Rec and Park.

Forty-Niners owner Jed York has proposed selling team-autographed seats to benefit the city's parks programs once the team plays its final game there this season.

Lee has taken the memorabilia craze a step further - proposing that the city auction off the chunks of turf where Joe Montana and Dwight Clark hooked up for "the Catch" in 1982, sending the Niners to their first Super Bowl.

"I'm sure there is some multimillionaire out there who would like to have that kind bragging rights for his backyard," Lee said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New Book Sheds Light on Last Moments of John Lennon

Ever since John Lennon was tragically gunned down in 1980, it has been widely and persistently reported that the former Beatle spoke a few minutes after he was shot. Jim O'Donnell, a noted Beatles' author, refutes the story with new research, showing that Lennon did not linger in agony for minutes and speak, but rather died swiftly in seconds.

gI_61917_Lennon%20Pic.jpg

Former Beatle John Lennon was shot to death in

1980 in this arched entryway of the Dakota apartments

in New York City. (Photo by Jim O'Donnell)

release-topquote.gif"His [Lennon's] face was right into the floor, actually, face down. He wasn't turned left or right. His arms were spread out in front of his head, almost like you were taking a dive."release-bottomquote.gif

Little Silver, New Jersey (PRWEB) August 20, 2013

A newly-published book examines the 1980 shooting of John Lennon and decisively makes the case that the former Beatle died in seconds, not minutes.

Titled John Lennon Did Not Die a Slow Death, the book debunks the widely-reported story that Lennon spoke to a police officer after he was shot.

“If John had been able to talk to the cop,” said authorJim O'Donnell, “then that means he was in excruciating pain for minutes. After many interviews and going over a ton of published and unpublished reports, it became evident that John was not conscious or talking in the minutes after he was shot. The research shows that he died in seconds or even instantaneously. He did not die a slow death.”

As one piece of research, O’Donnell’s book quotes Herb Frauenberger, one of the first two cops on the scene that December night at the Dakota: “His [Lennon’s] face was right into the floor, actually, face down. He wasn’t turned left or right. His arms were spread out in front of his head, almost like you were taking a dive. He was actually turning white at that point.”

Although some of the details about Lennon’s death are graphic, they serve to show that it’s highly unlikely that the father of two died a slow death.

The frequently told story of Lennon speaking stems from the moments right after he had been shot four times, at close range, in the arched entryway of the Dakota apartments in New York City.

His bullet wounds were so severe that, instead of waiting for an ambulance, he was put into the back of a police car. According to the oft-repeated story, a policeman asked Lennon if he was, indeed, John Lennon. The story goes that Lennon nodded and said, “Yes.”

“I remember reading that story way back in 1980,” says O’Donnell, “and thinking how horrible it was that John must have been in such agony between the time he was shot and the time he was placed in the back of the police car where he supposedly spoke to a cop. I remember thinking how the seconds must have felt like hours.”

O’Donnell says that, over the years, he kept coming across the story in books and magazines when he was researching his Beatles’ book, The Day John Met Paul, which was published by Penguin. And the more he came across the story, the more he wanted to look into it.

“When you read the entire piece in my book,” said O’Donnell, “I'm confident you’ll come away thinking that the story of John talking after he was shot belongs more in the realm of urban legend than in the realm of historical record."

All of the interviews in O’Donnell’s 3000-word Lennon article were tape-recorded. There are also nine other pieces in the book, which was produced by Center Stage Media. They tell the stories of deceased people from the world of rock, including Jim Morrison, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin.

O’Donnell’s first book on music was published by Pinnacle in 1975. The author’s previous Beatles’ book was acclaimed for its exhaustive research and accuracy. Pete Shotton, Lennon’s best friend as a teen, read The Day John Met Paul and said, “This is a realistic portrayal of Lennon as a teenager. O’Donnell gets it right.”

O’Donnell gets it right again in this much sadder account from the life of a much-loved musician.

“I really enjoyed writing about John as a teenager,” said O’Donnell, “and I hated writing about his murder. But at least I came away knowing he didn’t go through a slow death.”

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11038618.htm

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's everyone's favorite Beatles era? (I included some examples of historical events during this era)

1) 1957-1962 (pre-Ringo, Cavern/Hamburg)

2) 1962-1964 (Ringo joins, Love Me Do, Please Please Me, With The Beatles, I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

3) 1964-1965 (A Hard Day's Night; Beatles for Sale; Help!, Shea Stadium)

4) 1965-1966 (Rubber Soul, Day Tripper/We Can Work it Out, Revolver, bigger than Jesus, Paperback Writer/Rain)

5) 1967 (Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour)

6) 1968 (Lady Madonna, White Album, Hey Jude/Revolution, Ringo leaves/rejoins)

7) 1969 (Get Back/Let it Be sessions, George leaves/rejoins, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road)

Edited by ledzepfilm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will offer my thoughts about the Beatles. I will admit that I have not read any of the 433 posts that others have made. I will try and read them someday because I Love the Beatles.

I believe that the Beatles were very much innovators of something that was very new and fresh at that time (1960-1963). I believe that They were one of the very first groups that actually wrote and sang their own songs and lyrics. I know that they did not start out this way in the very early days but they took playing and song-writing to a whole new level. They covered a lot of soul and Motown in the early days but they soon began to come up with original material on their own. Anyway, those of Us who are Beatles fans already know this.

I will have to say that My favorite Beatles album is the "White Album".

Maybe more to come...

Edited by kingzoso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's everyone's favorite Beatles era? (I included some examples of historical events during this era)

1) 1957-1962 (pre-Ringo, Cavern/Hamburg)

2) 1962-1964 (Ringo joins, Love Me Do, Please Please Me, With The Beatles, I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

3) 1964-1965 (A Hard Day's Night; Beatles for Sale; Help!, Shea Stadium)

4) 1965-1966 (Rubber Soul, Day Tripper/We Can Work it Out, Revolver, bigger than Jesus, Paperback Writer/Rain)

5) 1967 (Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour)

6) 1968 (Lady Madonna, White Album, Hey Jude/Revolution, Ringo leaves/rejoins)

7) 1969 (Get Back/Let it Be sessions, George leaves/rejoins, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road)

For me, '65'-'66 by far as it was an astonishingly creative period for the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What's everyone's favorite Beatles era? (I included some examples of historical events during this era)

1) 1957-1962 (pre-Ringo, Cavern/Hamburg)

2) 1962-1964 (Ringo joins, Love Me Do, Please Please Me, With The Beatles, I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

3) 1964-1965 (A Hard Day's Night; Beatles for Sale; Help!, Shea Stadium)

4) 1965-1966 (Rubber Soul, Day Tripper/We Can Work it Out, Revolver, bigger than Jesus, Paperback Writer/Rain)

5) 1967 (Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour)

6) 1968 (Lady Madonna, White Album, Hey Jude/Revolution, Ringo leaves/rejoins)

7) 1969 (Get Back/Let it Be sessions, George leaves/rejoins, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road)

Weren't they The Quarrymen, Johnny and the Moondogs, and The Silver Beatles in the late 50s and early 60s, so that doesn't qualify as a "Beatles" era.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the Beatles would have been without George Martin and all those studio musicians...

Ever heard any of the bootlegs from the "Get Back"/"Let It Be" sessions? There's yer answer. But as John Lennon said, "George Martin didn't really produce us...he's more Paul's kind of music than mine."

They were a good band until around 66/67. After that they were scared to play live, and it showed in the studio work with a lot of crap music you would never play in a club or a stadium

It wasn't that they were 'scared' to play live, they were fed up with it...big difference. It particularly shows in the 1966 performances. They were sick of rushing through twenty minute performances to a bunch of screaming teenyboppers, and you can't really blame them. Sgt Pepper is definitely overproduced (mainly to mask the inferiority of some of the material) but The Beatles soon seemed to 'rebel' against that on the White Album and Get Back projects. Abbey Road on the other hand is a very lush production (again, to mask the weak material...) And that's almost a rule of thumb for most bands: the weaker the material, the more overblown the production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were a good band until around 66/67. After that they were scared to play live, and it showed in the studio work with a lot of crap music you would never play in a club or a stadium

Are you kidding?

They were a good band until 1966, but some of their early songs were a bit childish for my taste.

Then,from Revolver onwards, their music became extraordinary, and extremely sophisticated : if SGT Pepper, the White Album, Magical Mystery Tour, Hey Jude/Revolution, Abbey Road and Let it Be are crap music, then the rest of pop and rock music is rubbish.

Between 1967 and 1970, they produced masterpieces and Abbey Road is IMO the best album of all time, it's not overproduced at all, the level of songwriting is absolutely incredible, and on this album they have reached what you can call maturity. The balance between pop and rock is close to perfection and the final medley is one of the best moments in the history of music.

Come together, somehting, Here comes the sun, Because, are what some call "weak material".In fact the production was very good and so was the material, it may be disturbing to some, but yes, this balance was reached with Abbey Road.

You just have to listen to the Blue Album to realize that they achieved muh more within 4 years that any other band, most artists would have to live three or four times to achieve what the Beatles did within four years.

The truth is that from 1966 onwards their music became too sophisticated for those who enjoy long country-rock songs with no melody at all, those who would tell you that Exile on Main Street is a masterpiece and who consider that a very melodic and well-produced pop song is inferior to a normal rock song with three chords in it.

Some also blame them for being to good, indeed they were both musically and commercially very successful, which never happened again afterwards (or not to this extent).

Edited by goldenguitar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...