|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 8, 2014 9:40:25 GMT
Mike Brocken holds one of the world's very first doctorates in Popular Music Studies (Insitute of Popular Music, University of Liverpool). He is Sr. Lecturer in Popular Music Studies at Liverpool Hope University where he teaches at both undergraduate and post-graduate levels and also supervises post-graduate student research. I used to listen to his series "Brock n Roll" on Radio Merseyside with much interest. Now he has published a comprehensive overview of popular culture on Merseyside entitled Other VoicesThe Beatles are covered, mainly by a very long interview with Joe Flannery. The Beatles are sometimes describes as an R&B group, but Dr Brocken points out that they actually played Rock n Roll, and that there was a distinct divide between the groups that favoured "Long Tall Sally" "Roll over Bethoven" and, of course, "Some Other Guy" and the groups [mainly a bit later] who preferred "Mojo working" "Smokestack Lightnin'" etc. The work is quite scholarly, as might be expected, but is full of insights.
|
|
|
Post by pothos on Oct 8, 2014 10:31:36 GMT
Brew this makes sense if you take the bare bones out of it. It seems to suggest the spilt at the earliest point so by say the earliest points in the 1970's you get.
Led Zeppelin (R & B) Slade (Rock N Roll) Bowie (avant garde)
Unless I have the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 8, 2014 11:52:16 GMT
Pothos, I think it's summed up by the famous quote from John Lennon: "That's the music that inspired me to play music. There is nothing conceptually better than rock & roll. No group, be it Beatles, Dylan or Stones, have ever improved on ``Whole Lot of Shaking,'' for my money. Or maybe I'm like our parents: That's my period, and I dig it, and I'll never leave it. "
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 21, 2014 9:23:55 GMT
One of the things I admire about Mark Lewisohn's work on "Tune In" was that he got 1960s Liverpool slang and idiom spot on. Many other writers fail to understand the period slang ["fab gear" for example] so it was gratifying to see Mark get it right.
|
|
|
Post by flipdaboid on Oct 21, 2014 14:41:21 GMT
Tune In is a great book! I can hardly wait for the next two books in the series. The name Tune In wasn't a great choice, to me any way, but it certainly doesn't affect the content does it?
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 21, 2014 16:22:20 GMT
I agree, the name is a bit weak, but the book is superb. Like you, can't wait for the next installment.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 21, 2014 17:38:56 GMT
Tune In is a great book! I can hardly wait for the next two books in the series. The name Tune In wasn't a great choice, to me any way, but it certainly doesn't affect the content does it? I agree, unless the other volumes are going to be Turn On and Drop Out!
|
|
|
Post by ROCKY on Oct 22, 2014 3:37:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 23, 2014 10:09:58 GMT
I recently read The Best years of the Beatles which is Pete's account of his time in the band, co-written with Bill Harry. The format is that Pete writes a section, in the first person, then Bill adds a paragraph expanding the background. For example, if Pete mentions they played Lathom Hall, Bill explains where it was and its significance to the scene. This format works well. The book is heavily illustrated with outstanding photos of the group, as well as posters and other memorabilia. During Pete's time with the group they spent a lot of time in Hamburg, and the book reflects this, with much detail on the Indra, Kaiserkeller and Top Ten engagements. His final trip was when the Beatles opened the new Star Club. The camaraderie between the Liverpool groups is apparent, as well as the competitiveness. For example Pete would bet with Rory Storm as to which group would draw the bigger crowd on an evening. The ability of Stu Sutcliffe as a bass player has been a source of contention. Pete rated him as suitable for the type of music they were playing. There are a couple of photos which show that, rather than having his back to the audience, he was facing them and obviously having a great time. There has been a mass of material published about why Pete was sacked. The main reasons include that he was a poor drummer, and that he was the "odd man out" In this book he tries to demonstrate that his drumming was integral to the live sound that the Beatles created. In my opinion he makes a valid claim, and Spencer Leigh makes a similar point in his Drummed Out, with numerous fellow musicians praising Pete's drumming. Regarding being the outsider, well, when you are the odd man out you don't always know it! I think Mark Lewisohn, writing a few years after Pete's book was published, demonstrates pretty well that the Beatles were 3 +1 As far as I know, this is the only full book written by a Beatles, solely about those early years. As such it is a fascinating read, and I recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 23, 2014 17:57:41 GMT
Allan Williams is the culprit for the story that Stu couldn't play the bass but it's funny how Larry Parnes when asked didn't recall any issue. Furthermore, in The Birth of The Beatles, Pete Best was technical consultant. Surely he would have been consulted on Stu's bass playing!
With regard to Pete's drumming, he may well have been a good drummer in the sweaty clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg where the band where mainly playing all out Rock 'n' Roll but under the microscope of the recording studio and newly written material he was clearly lacking. You only have to listen to his performance on Love Me Do. Quite frankly it's appalling and he was playing the song a lot longer than Ringo was. You couldn't separate Ringo's and Andy White's performance on Love Me Do. I'm sticking to the odd man out/drumming issues as the real reason he was fired.
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 23, 2014 19:00:33 GMT
Among several other "porkies!" I wrote a post about Pete's drumming but it somehow disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 23, 2014 19:19:20 GMT
Among several other "porkies!" I wrote a post about Pete's drumming but it somehow disappeared. Absolutely! Another classic he comes out with is his diagnosis of The Beatles contracting an STD, after a liaison with Hamburg lady, by getting them to piss in a glass and holding it up to the light. Good old Dr Williams (sorry, I realise this wasn't the sort of porkie you meant!) Your post must be around somewhere about Pete.
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 23, 2014 20:08:16 GMT
Basically what I wrote was that I agree with you about Pete in the studio. After all, Bert Kaempfert wouldn't let him use the bass-drum, and the Decca version of LMD had terrible drumming. [Pete's explanation was that they usualy performed it with a time change in the break, and this is what he was trying to do]. He also makes the point that others missed vocal notes etc during the session. The fact that all three studio producers found his drumming wanting sealed his fate.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 23, 2014 20:54:50 GMT
Yes, Pete used to play his bass drum on every beat of the bar which doesn't lend itself to subtlety or feel.
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 24, 2014 9:26:54 GMT
In the book, Pete also goes into detail about the makeover that Eppy instigated. The most reluctant to change were Pete and John; the most eager was Paul- "Mr Entertainment" Interestingly, Pete asserts that Eppy starting swinging the balance within the group, making Paul more of the leader.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 24, 2014 10:20:27 GMT
In the book, Pete also goes into detail about the makeover that Eppy instigated. The most reluctant to change were Pete and John; the most eager was Paul- "Mr Entertainment" Interestingly, Pete asserts that Eppy starting swinging the balance within the group, making Paul more of the leader. Rather than the dig at Paul, I would suggest it was naivety on Pete and John's part. Not sure I believe the story about Brian making Paul the leader. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 24, 2014 10:58:58 GMT
I've just checked the book, and in fact it's Bill Harry, in a section where he's discussing how he first met each of the Beatles, saying "I believe it was Paul more than anyone else who became the driving force of the group. It might have begun as John's group, but with the emergence of Epstein as their manager it transformed itself into Paul's group. He, more than any of the others, became dedicated to the success of the band, and I believe the Beatles would have had a shorter career but for Paul's urging them to try new things" Regarding the transformation in image, in my opinion, they were powerful enough to breakthrough to the mass market in leathers. After all, the "establishment" were shocked at their hairstles and accents, why not go the whole hog? But we'll never know.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Oct 24, 2014 10:59:29 GMT
As an American boomer who remembers when the Beatles first came over here and had great success, I do have a hard time believing the Epstein would have made Paul the leader while Pete was still in the band. John was held out to be the leader; it was JOHN, Paul, George and Ringo.
Paul is, however, Mr. Entertainment. I saw him with my own eyes week before last. Heard with my own ears.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 24, 2014 12:08:39 GMT
I get that Paul was a driving force when Brian came on the scene and he was fully behind Brian's transformation of the band. It's just the idea that Brian would force Paul to lead the band that didn't ring true. Without Brian they where going nowhere other than a Hamburg and Liverpool. It's high unlikely they would have amounted to much without him.
|
|
|
Post by brewmaster on Oct 24, 2014 17:44:59 GMT
Agreed 100%
|
|