|
Post by Michelle Revolution on May 18, 2008 15:32:55 GMT
Why and how did the Beatles become so successful when Gerry and the Pacemakers had greater success with their first 3 singles (all UK number one hits)?
They shared the same producer and manager, and Gerry Marsden wrote some great songs ("Ferry Across The Mersey" and "Don't Let The Sun Catch You Crying", for example). They were also the first Mersey group to employ a string arrangement - arguably then, George Martin spent a greater amount of his time producing Gerry and the Pacemakers' records than Beatles' records. Plus their first (and only) movie, "Ferry Across The Mersey", was in color! But by 1965 it was pretty much over for the group.
What did the Beatles have that elevated them above the other equally accomplished Liverpool groups?
|
|
alexis
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 447
|
Post by alexis on May 18, 2008 15:37:39 GMT
Why and how did the Beatles become so successful when Gerry and the Pacemakers had greater success with their first 3 singles (all UK number one hits)? They shared the same producer and manager, and Gerry Marsden wrote some great songs ("Ferry Across The Mersey" and "Don't Let The Sun Catch You Crying", for example). They were also the first Mersey group to employ a string arrangement - arguably then, George Martin spent a greater amount of his time producing Gerry and the Pacemakers' records than Beatles' records. Plus their first (and only) movie, "Ferry Across The Mersey", was in color! But by 1965 it was pretty much over for the group. What did the Beatles have that elevated them above the other equally accomplished Liverpool groups? Wow, what a great question! Maybe the Beatles projected that Liverpool wit and irreverence better. And I'm presuming they had a better stage show (winning the NEMS poll and all), so maybe it's all that put together. BTW, since the Beatles had two of their first three singles go to #1 (Please Please Me, From Me To You), what aspect were you referring to that G&TP had greater success with their first three singles? Nice to see you back, Michelle Revolution
|
|
|
Post by Bobber on May 19, 2008 10:55:54 GMT
It was the Beatles that paved the way for all other Liverpool groups, including Gerry/Pacemakers and The Searchers, who all had great hits in 63/64. They all jumped on the riding train of The Beatles. Gerry's output on songwriting can not be compared with the massive output of Lennon and McCartney. Plus The Beatles had the ability to develop their songwriting ánd musicianship to other levels.
|
|
|
Post by The End on Jun 29, 2009 12:03:18 GMT
I was just reminded of this question and seeing as we have a lot of new members I thought it would be interesting to revive the topic.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jun 29, 2009 20:14:47 GMT
It's an interesting concept this. None of the Liverpool bands ever thought there would be any success outside Liverpool and Hamburg for a start. They were always a few steps behind The Beatles in terms of trying to achieve success and as the other guys quite rightly said The Beatles literally just made a path for the other bands to try and follow.
The songwriting and their personalities are the key here. I think it's well documented, and discussed much on this forum, that the Beatles were not instrumentally the best band in Liverpool. By all accounts the likes of The Big Three blew them away instrumentally. Vocally however The Beatles probably blew competition away. As good a singer Gerry Marsden is he didn't get anywhere near the vocal ability of Lennon or McCartney even in the eary days.
The Beatles had the ability and yearning to become progressive with their songwriting, change direction and set new trends. The rest of the Liverpool bands didn't have this so they had only two avenues left to them - pack in or do the cabaret circuit. Not that there is any shame in this as Mike Pender of the Searchers pointed out on a special Liverpool Rock Family Trees a few years back (as he was saying it he didn't really look as though he believed it).
A lot of Liverpool bands were given some sort of opportunity through Epstein to achieve what they could but to be fair to Liverpool bands they only got a fraction of the support and attention Epstein gave to The Beatles (and Cilla Black) and eventually he tired of the Liverpool bands.
Even though George Martin did write a score for Ferry Across The Mersey I don't believe he spent more time with Gerry compared to the Beatles. George Martin was a very experienced producer, composer and arranger who could knock out a decent orchestral score in an hour in the morning, get the session players in for the afternoon and have it recorded before Gerry and the band had finished their evening set at the Cavern. I would imagine (although please tell me if I'm wrong) that Gerry and the band had very little to do with the orchestral score and were probably not even in the studio when it was being written or recorded.
George Martin has been quoted as saying he was getting rather tired with the succession of Liverpool bands Epstein would bring before him. Pop music in the early sixties changed so quickly because Rock and Roll was really in it's infancy. The bands who couldn't keep up and change with the times got left by the wayside very quickly. I think this was the real reason the rest of Liverpool bands didn't get up there along with The Beatles.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Aug 2, 2009 22:22:52 GMT
1. Great songwriting by both John and Paul. And at the end, a couple by George. 2. A record producer who was musically trained, yet was tolerant of rock and roll, a very rare trait in the '60s. 3. Adequate musicianship (John stated they were "adequate.") 4. Skillful promotion by Brian Epstein. Their momentum continued past Epstein's death. 5. The girls thought the were cute.
If you only had the great songwriting you'd have wound up with something like Buffalo Springfield.
|
|