|
Post by funkdiggity on Sept 17, 2009 15:15:44 GMT -5
for real you think the 60s had great media coverage that people knew the scope of everything ? where the news was a half hour and you far more stuff to cover like a war , civil unrest and draft dodgers. not to mention 5 channels there was no cable. im sure in the boondocks tv didnt even reach some people. No I think people knew the scope of everything because they had a morning, noon, early evening, and 11:00 news broadcast. They also had whatever the sixties equivalent of shows like 60 minutes and 20/20 would have been. And even if no one was watching all this news, they still had celebrity interview type talk shows. But even if you're right about the reach of tv in to the back woods of flyover country (and I think you're making a pretty big assumption there), so what? There was still newspapers, magazines, and radio. These are all dying formats today, but that certainly wasn't the case in a pre-internet, pre-24 hour news coverage day and age. Just because the internet and cable news wasn't around doesn't mean there was no information to be had. It just means people got it differently. There were celebrities and celebrity gossip well before tv and radio were ever even invented. They wouldn't have been famous if people didn't have means of finding about them in the first place. Clearly people had more ways of getting information about both hard news and entertainment type stuff then you're assuming they did.
|
|
tackhead311
artist formally known as gusano311
lets go yankees![Mo0:1]
Posts: 867
|
Post by tackhead311 on Sept 17, 2009 15:39:53 GMT -5
good morning America debut 1975 60 minutes 1968 CBS morning 1987 4 failed attempts in the 60s late 60s FM radio just starting to gain popularity national inquirer starting to cover celebrity gossip 1968
the media was not anywhere near as broad today. you always had the BBC but my family listening to that ha to busy watching i dream of Jeanie.the little news coverage was pretty much hard news stories. alot going on in the 60s and the news had a half hour broadcast to cover stupid Nixon and Johnson, racial tension, retarded war, loads of assignations and when the hippies would pack fields for shows.
OK were off topic but my final thought is they where very overrated band. i refuse to say there the greatest band when there roots was inspired by 1950s music , then jumped into the love music and stopped playing live from 65 till there final roof top show. ill agree they can write some amazing songs, there iconic as Elvis and mj which them 2 i would never call innovative or awe inspiring and had the best manager ever George martin. when that dude died the Beatles all quit ironic eh?
|
|
|
Post by funkdiggity on Sept 17, 2009 16:18:12 GMT -5
Lol you'll note I didn't say 60 Minutes, I said the 60's equivalent to 60 Minutes. Its not like there was never a news program before 1968 dude. Or that nobody cared about celebrities before the National Inquirer lol. Like I said, there was celebrity culture well before the invention of radio and television.
What about all the other news programming BESIDES those shows? Or the fact that regardless of FM or AM, radio had been a part of households the world over, where it was used to give news, entertainment, music, and gossip for DECADES. People used to sit around it the way they sit around tvs now. Using the lack of FM radio as proof that no one got entertainment or information out of radio ignores an awful lot of history.
And you're ignoring what I've mentioned several times about newspapers and magazines, which had tremendous circulation, was far more widely read than today, reached all over the world (even into the boondocks lol), and had more than enough space between its pages to cover hard and soft news alike. Television news may not have been as broad as today, but that doesn't mean there was a shortage of information, or that people couldn't get it.
|
|
tackhead311
artist formally known as gusano311
lets go yankees![Mo0:1]
Posts: 867
|
Post by tackhead311 on Sept 17, 2009 17:51:18 GMT -5
the 60s media coverage wasnt near anything like today. rolling stone mag 1968 , Ed Sullivan you where not getting gossip there. you had a half hour of news at nite in the 60s. was uncle walter was running around chasing the beatles? the whole pop culture was shoved aside to make everything look fine and dandy. no cells no cable no cam coders . . there was no oprah,jerry spriger,david letterman no jay leno. day time tv was soaps and game shows. no al rokers . no computers. example frank sintra and the brat pack. today we know what booze loving skirt chasing gambling crew that was. i would bet money that they could of out partied the beatles any day of the week. but they where so portrayed as all american i find it funny. my great grandmother till her dying day was like there will never be another frankie he was so clean cut lol. i would just roll my eyes at her. goldie hawn in a bikini on tv during laugh in was so shocking . ill talk to my mom later see how she got her news. matter of fact this how funny this was. when my grand mom moved to long valley nj in 1964 from queens nyc with my mom. google map it 53 miles west of nyc 45 car ride on route 80. but in 1965 guess what no route 80 it was a 3hour drive to nyc along back roads. my mom wanted to put my grandmom in the nuthouse. she just got divorced another bad word back then. she had to take a bus to tijuana mexico to get divorced.tthen she bought the house in jersey in 1965. this house had no water ,electricity and heat. they had to put that in. pretty much my mom ran away lol back to the city. imagimne that thats 45 minute from nyc and 1 and half from philly ! imaging what a house in north dakota back then was like ! or wyoming !
|
|
|
Post by bigfish on Sept 18, 2009 3:13:18 GMT -5
Ok ummmm.... love the Beatles or hate the Beatles, I gotta side with Funk on this whole media debate. Admittedly there were less media outlets back then, that only means that civilization utilized what limited options they had much more than they do today.
Case in point, go as far back as the late 1800's. Guys like Jesse James, Wyatt Earp and countless other gunslingers were known nationally as heroes or criminals, and most of them had a fairly limited scope of geographical operations. As weak as print media is today, newspapers and periodicals were the internet of the late 1800's - early 1900's. Back then, even moreso than today, news was a valid form of, if not the majority of, their entertainment . They had no TV, Radio, Internet, Video Games, Ipods, Digital Distribution.... To say that anyone was without substantial information on anything they cared to know about is well.... just plain silly.
|
|
tackhead311
artist formally known as gusano311
lets go yankees![Mo0:1]
Posts: 867
|
Post by tackhead311 on Sept 18, 2009 8:48:38 GMT -5
ty fish lets use davy crockett by the time he got to the alamo he fougt bears barehanded caught lightning with his teeth all sorts of crazy stuff word of mouth not media coverage. back to the beatles they stopped playing live and touring in 65 when they still looked ed sullivan and became studio hermits. even if there was paperrazzi you where not getting them at the nite clubs in la and manhatten. the beatles came looked clean went back to england so every body thought they where the nice boys. example paul is dead rumours. if there was the passing of imformationand news so quickly every body would of known there was no car accident with paul and he died. if that happened todya you can jump on google and put it to rest. the media coverage they got portrayed them in a great fashion unless they where talking for the most part. here a sample of what pop magezines where like back then
Please Me and it's time to meet the press. An anonymous reporter from Boyfriend goes off to interview them for "an exclusive scoop" and her impressions are revealing: "their sound, although novel, isn't exactly a revolution. But there's something about it, a strange compelling something.
"They are almost frightening-looking young men," she continues, "even more modern than modern. The funny thing is that when they smile - not often - they look perfectly wholesome and nice. But the rest of the time they look wicked and dreadful and distinctly evil, in an 18th-century sort of way. You almost expect them to leap out of pictures and chant magic spells."
Published three weeks after Maureen Cleave's ground-breaking piece in London's Evening Standard ("Why the Beatles Create All That Frenzy"), the Boyfriend article ("Pop A La Mod") was one of the first in-depth articles about the group. It was well-written, informative on their backstory, and makes it clear just how weird the Beatles were when they first arrived.
As a magazine aimed at young women, with colour pin-ups, ads for cosmetics and hair lacquer, and plentiful picture stories ("The Model Bride: a career-girl or a happily married bride? The girl in our story had to choose"), Boyfriend picked up on the hysteria surrounding the Beatles and invested heavily in the British pop boom that they helped to create.
In summer 1963 the magazine produced "Big New Beat", the first of several pop supplements "about the Northern Raves". The Beatles were on the cover, standing amid the rubble of Euston Road. Inside were group shots and candid close-ups with large type comments: "They have a knack of looking as if they'd just landed on this planet. They're otherworldly, that's what they are."
The photographs were taken in April 1963 by Fiona Adams, a Boyfriend regular: one shot from the session was used by EMI for the front cover of the Beatles' Twist and Shout EP, which, released in July 1963, sold so many that it made No 4 in the singles charts. Showing the group leaping into the air with sheer joie de vivre, it remains one of the key 60s images.
A new show at the National Gallery, Beatles to Bowie: the 60s Exposed, contains Fiona Adams's contact sheets from that day, along with dozens of other photographs that have not been seen since their first publication in the music and young women's magazines of the 60s. This is a previously unreckoned resource uncovered by curator Terence Pepper: a treasure trove of words and pictures.
During the high pop 60s, between 1963 and early 1967, Britain had an incredibly vigorous pop and teen press, with at least a dozen weeklies and/or monthlies vying to bring their readers all the latest news, gossip and interviews about the Beatles, the Stones, the Searchers, Cilla and Dusty, right the way through to the Walker Brothers and the Small Faces.
Selling between 70,000 or so copies (Record Mirror) up to 200,000 (Fabulous, the New Musical Express) a week, their total circulations combined to several hundred thousand. This paralleled the unprecedented spike in singles sales in the years after the Beatles' breakthrough: reaching a peak of more than 70m in 1964.
These magazines created an all-inclusive, almost hermetically sealed environment of Super Pop. Things were changing so fast that they were put together without much reflection or much heed of the morrow. Reading them today, they are both time-locked and immediate: they are historical documents yet retain the fervour of the moment.
This exponential growth was based on sound demographics. In his influential 1959 pamphlet, The Teenage Consumer, Mark Abrams observed that teenagers comprised 13% of the UK population. This figure rose as the postwar baby boom worked its way through - reaching its first peaks in 1960, 1962 and 1963 when the 10-19 age group rose to nearly 15% of the total.
During the late 1950s, the American consumer society spread throughout Britain. In an era of plentiful jobs, British teenagers had double the spending power that they had in 1939. Temporarily free of responsibilities, they bought a wide range of items: cosmetics, magazines, clothes, soft drinks, cinema tickets, and - most of all - records and record players (44% of the UK total).
By the early 1960s, there were already several weeklies catering to the teenage female market - long established as being in the forefront of youth consumerism - by publishers including Fleetway, George Newnes and C Arthur Pearson: Marilyn, Mirabelle, Romeo, Roxy, and Valentine. Boyfriend was launched in 1959, with Marty - based on the popularity of Marty Wilde - following in 1960.
The newer titles were more pop-heavy: as well as "love scene" picture stories and problem pages, there were innovative layouts and colour photos. The star staples were Elvis, Cliff Richard, Adam Faith, John Leyton, Eden Kane: the Tin Pan Alley-manufactured dream teen pop of the early 60s was perfect for the girls' mags, leaving the weekly music papers somewhat becalmed.
Of these, there were several. Launched in 1926, Melody Maker was the longest-running: with its particular commitment to jazz, folk and blues, it was not pure pop. That slack was taken up by the New Musical Express (est 1952), Record and Show Mirror (est 1953 as Record Mirror) and Disc (est 1958). All were monochrome, with weekly charts and plenty of news: aimed at young men as well as women.
Basically you paid your money and you made your choice. Melody Maker was serious about music: jazzcentric, it made headway during the ghastly early 60s trad boom. The New Musical Express was hamstrung by its prominent front cover ad, but it had great insider gossip: "Tail-Pieces by the Alley Cat". Disc was poppier, with prominent charts and front-page news stories.
The Beatles' arrival revolutionised pop publishing. Boyfriend's Big Beat No 2 (autumn '63) promised "12 colour pages and all the mod pop that's popping". Inside were Cliff and Elvis but coming up fast vying were the Searchers ("1864 Mods"), Freddie and the Dreamers ("it's rough tough and jumping music") and "those strange boys from south London", the Rolling Stones.
Two important new weeklies were launched in January 1964. Jackie ("for go-ahead teens") was published by DC Thomson as a girls' "comic", a streamlined version of Boyfriend: all the same elements but with larger pages and unusual, candid shots of stars like the Beatles. It was a winning mixture: by the late 60s, its circulation was up to half a million.
Fabulous (Fleetway) was a completely new tabloid pop paper. Predicated on "Merseymania", it contained at least one pin-up of the Beatles in every issue for two years. Several issues, like that of 15 February 1964, were almost totally devoted to the group, with quirky features, 11 colour pages, and a central double-page poster (now hard to find, as they were usually stuck on the wall).
Selling for one shilling, Fabulous was pricier than the competition but it had more pages, better quality paper, and a regular team of photographers such as Fiona Adams, Bill Francis and David Steen. It had self-promoting transfers, black American faces (Martha and the Vandellas) and theme issues, like the "Gets the Vote" edition that coincided with the October 1964 general election.
It also introduced a more direct rapport between the stars and their keenly attuned audience. In the all-Beatles 15 February 1964 edition, there were articles about "famous escapes" (how the Beatles got away from the fans after a show), Brian Epstein speaking in his own words, and a forensic breakdown of Paul, Ringo, George and John's height, weight, eye colour, inside leg etc.
Features showing stars in their own homes were interspersed with old school photos and pop stars' musings on ideal girls. At the same time, Fabulous had guest editors: for the 14 August 1965 issue, "those gorgeous" Kinks took over, making space for the Animals, Goldie and the Gingerbreads, Manfred Mann and - oddly enough, bearing in mind their spiky relationship - the Who.
Fabulous saw pop not just as a teen process but as part of something wider. Fashion was given prominent space, not only in the adverts, but in spreads directly related to star "gear". A double page spread on "bee-oootiful beat babes" showed the Beatles in their corduroy jackets and then told you where to buy them - cut for the young female shape of course.
After the Beatles cracked America, British pop culture entered a new phase: it was clear that this was not parochial, not Tin Pan Alley, not about to disappear into variety and lame musicals. Pop was not only yoked to a generational assertion of power ("Ringo for PM") but the global re-branding of a static, class-bound country in terms of novelty, speed and creativity.
Britain became Pop Island and the bombsite-ridden capital a youth mecca. On 3 October 1964, Fabulous published its "Shaking London Town" issue, with a spread about the best TV programme of the day, Ready Steady Go!, as well as Vicki Wickham's "POP guide to London", which featured hairdressing salons, recording studios, clubs, mod shops, and the Fabulous offices themselves.
This widescreen view of pop culture was also assumed in another great magazine launched in early 1964. At 2s 6d, Rave (George Newnes) was five times as expensive as the weekly music papers, but in return you got an 80-page or so A4-size monthly, with excellent quality paper, meaty content and great photographs - by Jean Marie Perier, Terry O'Neill, Marc Sharratt and others.
The first issue showed the cross-media spread of British pop culture with a front cover shot of the Beatles with 007 badges. Paul McCartney has a spy camera, while Ringo's gun shoots BANG. Inside are Dusty's fashion tips, a feature on star holidays (Sitges, Corfu etc) and a regular monthly event, DJ Alan Freeman's "Heart to Heart": this month, Billy Fury - '"The Billy No One Knows".
Rave went further and deeper with articles about Stuart Sutcliffe, the lost Beatle, a fashion round table with John Stephen and the Pretty Things, and notices about up-and-coming groups such as the Yardbirds. Photo shoots were set in (for then) unusual locations, like Portobello Road or Covent Garden, and stars including Jeff Beck were used to model gear such as PVC overcoats.
Like Fabulous, Rave prominently featured young women writers. Cathy McGowan was a regular, along with Maureen O'Grady and Dawn James. However, if the ads for guitars were anything to go by, Rave also appealed to young men. Balancing teen pop with groups like the Yardbirds, the Byrds and the Who, it acquired a circulation of 125,000 by 1966.
The music weeklies responded to this challenge by consolidating and hiring new writers. Disc sharpened up its act with bang-up-to-the-minute news stories on the front page, race-track-style chart rundowns ("Kinks Hit Crisis" at No 4), a contentious readers' postbag ("How dare Crispian St Peters Knock the Beatles!") and incisive singles reviews by the great Penny Valentine.
Melody Maker developed a good line in eye-catching headlines ("Dylan Digs Donovan!" from 8 May 1965) and increased its circulation to nearly 100,000. Record Mirror also had colour and was well-regarded for its thorough charts page, James Hamilton's comprehensive singles reviews, and Tony Hall's inspired column. On the back page was a gossip column, called "The Face".
Despite the formulaic banality of Derek Johnson's singles reviews ("a rock ballad with a plaintive, throbbing beat"), the New Musical Express was still the brand leader, peaking at over 300,000 in 1965. A sample issue from that year (26 March) has Keith Altham tackling "A Kink A Week", Sue Mautner visiting "Brian Jones's New Pad" and pictures from the Ready Steady Go! Tamla TV spectacular.
1966 was the year of change. Singles' sales dropped by 10m. The papers began to feature stories about star exhaustion and unavailability: the surliness of the Kinks, the Who and the Rolling Stones. A new micro-generation of more cheerful groups appeared, apparently unburdened by significance: the Troggs, Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich, the Monkees.
The unitary motion of the high 60s was beginning to falter. Sentimental "mums and dads" ballads returned with a vengeance, Soul engaged the hardcore mods, while the drug culture began to take an effect. Rave was particularly hostile to the last development and vainly predicted, in its January 1967 issue, that "psychedelic music and psychedelic happenings won't happen".
|
|
tackhead311
artist formally known as gusano311
lets go yankees![Mo0:1]
Posts: 867
|
Post by tackhead311 on Sept 18, 2009 16:59:53 GMT -5
after talking with my mom she learned of the Beatles thru ed Sullivan . from 64 to 68 to press loved them and all footage shown if they were on the news was from 64 era. she said they where considered long haired freaks lol! but where poppy and fun. she said there where played on the am radio with all the other pop groups rarely ever heard on FM which was underground at that time where the Cali groups and hippie music was. there where Beatles dolls and cartoons and were never considered by her friends dark or mysterious. by the time they started getting any negative press about taking drugs my mom said it was more funny cause they still were cute looking while they did that. OK they took acid but Jim Morrison was chasing concert goers with his penis and Hendrix was setting shit on fire . they where rarely portrayed on the news as anything but goody 2 shoes In my moms eyes. she felt it was interesting how they where the media darlings that could do no wrong. my mom liked them OK but was never impressed . in her words chuck berry already did what the early Beatles where doing but was cast aside for being African American. in NYC area there was one half hour news program and gossip was hardly ever on there. if you read about the Beatles there were in the bubble gum mags with Donavon Flo and Eddie and beach boys. she had no idea Manson lived with the beach boys to after the trial. pretty much if anything her group found them innovative with there fashion if anything. they never toured and her group only played rubber soul if any Beatles music was to played during there Ty dye parties.
|
|
|
Post by funkdiggity on Sept 19, 2009 0:30:11 GMT -5
As interesting a peek into another time/place it is, I'm not sure that your mom's stories, or your grandma's Sinatra story, really proves anything. You've assumed throughout this entire conversation that your family member's experiences in the 60s represents EVERYONE'S experiences in the 60's, which is just not reasonable. How could one group represent everybody? Or even a majority? Especially when it comes to a subject like media exposure, where there's multiple studies conducted by historians, sociologists, media and communications theorists that incorporate feedback from dozens, hundreds, sometimes even thousands of people? Not to mention information from primary sources? I don't doubt that your family, and your family members friends saw the world the way you say they did, but saying that that went for everyone, when there's mountains of research and verifiable evidence to the contrary is tough to do and still look credible. I'm not sure what the massive piece on magazines you quoted above is supposed to indicate either. That some magazines were serious and some more frivolous? And that the less serious magazines tended to appeal more to certain demographics? That makes sense, but I'm not sure what your purpose in quoting it was. My point was that the information was out there for anyone to find it, and that quite a few people did in fact do just that. Which the piece you quoted backs up: Despite the massive amounts of teeny bopper junk out there, there were serious mags that took a more thoughtful approach to popular culture of the time, and there was enough people interested in that sort of thing for these media sources to be successful. Like I said earlier, there's books that compile tons of thoughtful, intelligent, adult interviews where the Beatles made all sorts of statements that debunk what you're saying about their image. For that matter, finding interviews similar in tone featuring all sorts of musicians, actors, and other pop culture icons isn't very difficult to do. If there was no way for people to read these interviews and stories, why were they being published? Why did editors waste time and money sending reporters out to interview subjects that no one could read about? And the Davy Crockett thing just confuses me. People weren't stupid back then. They had less accumulated knowledge then we do, but their critical thinking and reasoning was just as sound as ours today. They knew the difference between a tall tale and verifiable fact. I mean the 1800's? We're talking about a post Enlightenment society, even if it is out in the frontiers of civilization. Most people knew how to weigh what they were told. I'm sure there were a few morons who believed all that stuff, but do you really think everyone who heard about bear killing and lightning eating took it as truth? Any serious historical text that talks about that time will show you that people were far more intelligent back then than you're giving them credit for
|
|
tackhead311
artist formally known as gusano311
lets go yankees![Mo0:1]
Posts: 867
|
Post by tackhead311 on Sept 19, 2009 1:59:06 GMT -5
ok please tell these great wells of gossip information that everybody was getting there news from . these wonderful gossip shows that showed the beatles as crazy over ego drug manaics not the four nice boys from liver pool. there so overrated its not funny ! im nort speaking for the entire world but from my experience they are! amd honestly there music kinda sucks sure they have a few good songs but it totally sucks. i think they even knew couldnt play live. heres a hard hitting interview froom nyc wow there crazy wow wow
ABOUT THIS PRESS CONFERENCE: The Beatles and their entourage flew into New York City on Friday August 13th 1965 as the very first stop of their current North American Tour. The group held a press conference with reporters upon their arrival. Saturday the 14th was reserved for the taping of their 1965 Ed Sullivan Show appearance. The Beatles then gave their historic performance at Shea Stadium on Sunday August 15th. Their second movie 'Help' had premiered in New York City just two weeks before their arrival. While the Beatles had packed smaller stadiums on previous tours, their concert event at Shea Stadium broke the world's record for ticket sales. It represented a sudden shockwave of realization that rock concerts could now sell out the largest venues imaginable -- a legitimate 'first' for the Beatles. The group's performance at Shea was arranged through promoter Sid Bernstein, who later would be turned down in 1976 by the four ex-Beatles on his staggering offer of 100 million dollars for a Beatles Reunion tour.
Following the build up in excitement from the supporting acts, Ed Sullivan finally appeared to personally introduce the Beatles, and the mania in the crowd reached a fevered pitch. The Beatles appeared from the dug out, ran out onto the field, and up onto their stage which had been positioned at second base on the stadium's baseball diamond -- appearing before 55,000 shrieking fans.
The concert was of such completely unprecedented size that the most powerful sound technology available in 1965 could not handle the massive stadium. Even the amplifiers which were designed to deliver increased power specifically for the Beatles' Shea Stadium appearance could not keep up with the size of the screaming crowd. The stadium's P.A. system, normally used by baseball announcers, was also incorporated in a last minute attempt to support the volume of the sound in the stands. None of this appeared to matter to the fans, who were enraptured by being so close to their idols.
The following press conference was held at the Warwick Hotel in Manhatten on August 13th as the kick off of the new tour. Certain reporters who had written them off as a short-term fad on the previous year's tour now were beginning to take a slightly different tone. Their world record breaking event at Shea Stadium would raise the bar for rock concerts, and make it impossible for skeptics to deny the endurance of Beatlemania.
- Jay Spangler, Beatles Ultimate Experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: "John, you're the chief Beatle. What is the duty of the chief Beatle?" JOHN: "Uhh, nothing. Nothing I can think of. I was just tagged chief Beatle."
RINGO: (jokingly) "It's 'cuz he's the oldest."
JOHN: "I don't do anything extra, you know."
M.C: "Okay, let's go with the first question, please."
Q: "How does it feel to be back in the States?"
BEATLES: "Great!"
JOHN: "Marvelous."
Q: "John, do you always do press conferences chewing gum?"
JOHN: "Uhh, no. Only in America."
Q: "Only in America you chew gum?"
JOHN: "'Cuz people give you gum all the time over here."
Q: "Are the Beatles the answer to Prime Minister (Harold) Wilson's export drive?"
GEORGE: "No."
JOHN: "We're one of the answers. One... of... them."
RINGO: "A little answer."
Q: "Since you were made a Member of the Order of the British Empire has it changed your lives in any way?"
JOHN: "Uhh, not yet, 'cuz we haven't really received it yet."
Q: "Will it change your lives?"
RINGO: "We'll just have a medal to wear."
Q: "Ringo, what are you gonna name the baby if it's a boy or a girl?"
RINGO: "Uhh..."
JOHN: "Charlie."
(laughter)
RINGO: "That was John answering, not me. We don't know yet. We're still talking about names."
JOHN: "How about Lyndon?"
RINGO: "How about it?"
(laughter)
Q: "Is your popularity fading?"
JOHN: "Go and ask the record people."
RINGO: "Well, you all seem to be back again."
(laughter)
JOHN: "Just ask the record people."
Q: "George, lots of people in this country and others are comparing you boys with those who usually are pace setters in op art and pop art and classical music-- even so far as to go to compare you with Gouneau. Now, how do you react when you hear that kind of thing?"
JOHN: "Never heard of him."
(laughter)
JOHN: "We don't mind being compared with anybody."
Q: "You think you're that type of musician?"
JOHN: "No. I mean, if people wanna compare us, they can."
Q: "Do you think you're setting styles in pop and op art?"
GEORGE: "Maybe unconsciously."
RINGO: "Yeah, we're always unconscious."
Q: "Is matrimony in the immediate future for the two unmarried members of your group?"
PAUL: "Matrimony is not in the immediate future."
GEORGE: (jokingly) "Paul won't have me."
Q: "I noticed the two married men are sitting together, and the two single boys are sitting together."
JOHN: "That's 'cuz we're queer!"
(laughter)
RINGO: "But don't tell anybody, will you? It's secret."
Q: "What were the sunglasses you were wearing this afternoon, John?"
JOHN: "Uhh... Sunglasses."
Q: "No. I mean, were they special? They were green."
JOHN: "I just found 'em in... umm..."
RINGO: "Cannes."
JOHN: "...Cannes. They're just sort of ordinary sunglasses, only they've got mirror on one side, so nobody can see in."
Q: "Are the American fans the most enthusiastic?"
GEORGE: "There's more of them, so it appears that way."
Q: "Who are your most enthusiastic fans?"
JOHN: "The ones that are nearest."
PAUL: "Well, they're all enthusiastic but it depends on the size of the country. In this case-- the biggest."
Q: "Is there any possibility of you changing your style of performance?"
JOHN: "Uhh... not consciously."
RINGO: "I told you... we're always unconscious."
Q: "How do you feel about the teddyboys coming here?"
JOHN: "I don't know. I don't feel anything, you know."
Q: "What happened in the Bahamas?"
JOHN: "Which bit? We were there for weeks."
Q: "There were reports that you cut it up."
JOHN: "We made a film."
PAUL: "What do you mean, 'cut it up?' (pause) He said, 'Is it true you cut it up in the Bahamas?' And I said, 'What d'you mean, cut it up?"
Q: "Any plans to visit any countries behind the Iron Curtain?"
JOHN: "Ask Mister Epstein."
PAUL: "No, not at the moment."
Q: "Any plans for going to Vietnam and entertaining the troops?"
JOHN: "I wouldn't go there, no."
Q: "Did you fellas do your own skiing in the (Help!) motion picture?"
JOHN AND PAUL: "Some of it."
PAUL: "The clever bits we didn't do."
GEORGE: "We did the bits falling over. The falling over bit."
Q: "Who do you consider the best actor among you?"
JOHN: "Ringo."
Q: "Is this movie as good as 'Hard Day's Night'?"
JOHN AND PAUL: "It's better."
Q: "John Lennon's press release says that Ringo..."
(crowd begins talking all at once)
JOHN: (jokingly) "Hey, hold it here! What's happening, man!"
RINGO: "Put your hands up and we'll snap 'em off."
Q: "You Beatles have conquered five continents. What do you want to do next?"
PAUL AND JOHN: "Conquer six."
(laughter)
Q: "How much money has the group made since you organized?"
JOHN AND RINGO: "We don't know."
GEORGE: "No idea."
Q: "Any new gimmicks for the show that you're gonna do?"
GEORGE: "I don't think so, no."
Q: "Are you bored with being the Beatles?"
GEORGE: "No."
Q: "The American press has compared you the Beatles with the Rascals. Have you heard of them, or seen 'em?"
JOHN: "No."
PAUL: "We've never seen 'em."
Q: "George or Paul, have you worked up any new routines for the American concerts?"
GEORGE: "Well, we've changed the, you know... We're doing lots more different songs from last time."
|
|
tackhead311
artist formally known as gusano311
lets go yankees![Mo0:1]
Posts: 867
|
Post by tackhead311 on Sept 19, 2009 2:03:10 GMT -5
here every beatle interview ever in the press very boring interview they where i might add. yet i dont see many questions about there debauchery ? www.beatlesinterviews.org/i never stated i speak for all americans thats george bush job by the way!what i did say is this the point im saying im trying to make is i dont like the beatles lol. my reasons are [glow=red,2,300]i am one the few that [/glow]dont believe there trendsetting , or innovative or talented muscians execpt george. great song writers hands down but they also dont write songs i like. bob dylan same deal dude is a amazing song writer but if im forced to listen to him im running away god i hate dylan sound live .
|
|