That's definitely a fact.  Chances are "I Want To Hold your Hand" could have died down before it ever took off simply because Capitol refused to get behind it.  DJs were playing imported Parlophone (EMI) copies at the request of a few fans. So they might have gone bust by 1965 or even a little earlier.

RJFait said:

Not to start another argument, I really don't want that, but when you say what you said out loud, it really sounds like The Beatles weren't going anywhere until the money came into play.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

"the only reason the DJs started playing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was because of a few people who accidently heard it and thought the tune was catchy.  Nobody remembers but Dick Clark actually put out a Beatles record (She Loves You) in the summer of 1963 and debuted it on Bandstand and it flopped amongst the kids.  He even showed their photo and the kids laughed"

And then, a couple months later (when the record companies finally started throwing money at them), everyone who had never heard of The Beatles all fell madly in love.

Strategic exposure is key. If Ed Sullivan said you were cool, dammit, you were cool. I'm not saying anybody got paid, and Ed only put them on because they were already cool, but he had never heard them prior to that show. But, I stand by my above statement about the rare sequence of events.
 
Don said:

Money bought exposure. That for the most part is all it'll buy but without it no one hears the music, no one buys the music, the machine never builds up any momentum.

And yes that is why many great bands never "made it" big.

Another was lack of originality - the thing that makes for product differentiation.

BTW, ever hear of "Payola"?

Have you seen the film Cadillac Records?

Its all there.

-don

I don't believe that it was simply money that made The Beatles, though the massive exposure didn't hurt. I really believe that America needed a change, something to happen or kids were going to start killing their rigid, stodgy 1950's parents. The Beatles were something new - not so much for what they were doing, but because of who they were. Local bands only got local exposure, and were therefore only hated by local parents. The Beatles were hated by virtually every parent in America. The kids had a common hero because their parents had a common enemy. I don't think this alone was the reason for Beatle Mania either, but I think it was one of the major factors. The series of events that all coincided at the time are so mathematically phenomenal and rare that there will never be another Beatle Mania.

Money bought exposure. That for the most part is all it'll buy but without it no one hears the music, no one buys the music, the machine never builds up any momentum.

And yes that is why many great bands never "made it" big.

Another was lack of originality - the thing that makes for product differentiation.

BTW, ever hear of "Payola"?

Have you seen the film Cadillac Records?

Its all there.

-don

Not to start another argument, I really don't want that, but when you say what you said out loud, it really sounds like The Beatles weren't going anywhere until the money came into play.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

"the only reason the DJs started playing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was because of a few people who accidently heard it and thought the tune was catchy.  Nobody remembers but Dick Clark actually put out a Beatles record (She Loves You) in the summer of 1963 and debuted it on Bandstand and it flopped amongst the kids.  He even showed their photo and the kids laughed"

Nobody likes to admit it but the Stones were almost a cult following in the States for the first year and a half before Satisfaction came along and the other thing is....Capitol kept pushing the Beatles aside until the DJs in the States forced their hand to rethink their position in releasing their records and re-releasing earlier records put out by other labels that originally got ignored.  And the only reason the DJs started playing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was because of a few people who accidently heard it and thought the tune was catchy.  Nobody remembers but Dick Clark actually put out a Beatles record (She Loves You) in the summer of 1963 and debuted it on Bandstand and it flopped amongst the kids.  He even showed their photo and the kids laughed.  So there is a little truth behind Capitol telling the kids that Beatles are cool but you still gotta give some credit to everybody who believed in "I Want To Hold Your Hand" before it got released in America. 

Good to hear! Thanks for the update, been thinking about what became of all that.

Back in January Bon told me that they won their court case (I just forgot to post about it here, I guess)! The judge threw the trial out for lack of jurisdiction. They don't have enough contact with Ohio to be sued there. Gorilla can still come to Washington and sue them but they'll need to hire a lawyer who works there and that state's laws are really strong about stuff like this. So obviously they were pretty thrilled and ready to start something that's actually creative, instead of fighting a lawsuit. That took up a lot of time and money!

There was a really good story about the lawsuit written in The Weekly Volcano that you can read here.

Anyway, I just saw Bon post an update on Facebook that she's posted all of the details about this lawsuit on her website. It's a big, long story, but it's worth reading if you're interested in this sorta stuff:

Click here.

A whole lotta stuff would have been different but the sixties scene would have been made up of more bands like the Fugs and the Holy Modal Rounders and a lot more folk groups.  Other bands would have been going for a more rootsier blues sound than comercializing it.  Bands like the Bobby Fuller Four would have been bigger and Paul Revere and the Raiders would have stayed true to their New Orleans meets Jerry Lee Lewis sound.  Link Wray would be getting more credit instead of Dave Davies for a dirty sound.  You can deny the Beatles and the rest of the "Invasion" all you want but facts are facts and a lot of the scenes wouldn't exist the way we know them if certain circumstances didn't happen.

I keep getting off track. My original point: The whole notion that "this band" couldn't have existed without "that band" is total horseshit. Maybe Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have been if it weren't for Pet Sounds. Maybe it would have been something better or just all together different. I'm constantly bombarded with the whole "punk started in American" "no it started in England" crap. Research the bands! In a very similar way to pyramids in Egypt, Mexico and Mesopotamia, it just happened. They built them because it was time for them to be built with no knowledge of the others having been built. Punk was created in many places simultaneously because it was time for punk to exist. I know 100s of people who have never met each other who were all part of the first hip crowd to call McDonalds "Mickey D's". I just thank God I wasn't one of them. If two cavemen hadn't come up with the idea to hit each other with sticks at about the same time, there would have only been one tribe left. OK, I think I've made my original point now.

RJFait said:

And if The Beatles denied the influences of other (mostly American bands) they'd have been liars. But, they didn't "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." -John Lennon. McCartney lists The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" as one of his biggest influences. "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds" -Paul McCartney. Johnny Thunders is one of my biggest influences. I may have played slightly different without him, but I would have played... and it would have been dirty rock 'n' rocll. So, everything I've said (other than the Backstreet Boys exaggeration) still remains true. The 'scene' would have happened - with or without The Beatles.

But its true! I mean think about it... the average person, we are told, has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a person with an IQ of 100? (And fully half of the population, I suppose, has less)

Too, pop music appeals mostly to teenagers.  Now since we all enter the world knowing nothing, and most people die knowing little more, how much can even a bright teenager know? How much discernment can they have?  Five years earlier mommy was telling them to clean up their room (maybe she still is doing so) and yet we expect them to know good art from bad?  Teenagers like boxed macaroni and cheese for gods sake!

Now many years ago teens -- pre-teens even! - were exposd to fine art, fine music, and fine literature.  Just exposed mind you. I.e., able to repeat what was "good" about it. But today even that foundation is gone.

When I listen to the lyrics of most of the brit bands I hear literacy. Mix that with teen angst and you can have the basis for art. But mix the nothingness of mall life and reality TV and video games with teen angst and whatuya got?

I won't even attempt to answer that RJF or your wife will tell you that I'm opinionated too. :D (and that's my wife's job!)

-don

RJFait said:

On an unrelated (?) note, one of my all time favorite quotes is actually from the TV show 'Frasier', "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity." I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

On an unrelated (?) note, one of my all time favorite quotes is actually from the TV show 'Frasier', "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity." I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

Sorry Don, I get a bit heated sometimes. It's been established that the English record companies were throwing around a LOT of money. Record company money makes stars. How else can you explain Fergie and Ga-Ga?

Don said:

I look at this whole thread and go "huh?"  The Beatles were a band. They were four guys who made music. Lots of people dug their music. Their success opened possibilities in the minds of other budding (and some not so budding) musicians. That's it. Nothing more.

I find this whole "money" thing bogus. The studios tried to push lots of bands -- without success. Even the Beatles; film A Hard Day's Night goofs on this concept with the "Susan" sequence.

Frankly, to me, this sounds like the same nonsense as the "The 1% are to blame for my failure."  BS!  Make the best music you can. See if anyone wants to hear it. Stand on the street with a tin cup. Get an 8 track and distribute your music. Put on a Viking suit like Moondog did and sell it in the street.

Not raw enough for you?  OK. Neither is Cole Porter or the Gershwin brothers. Neither, perhaps, is Miles Davis.  There are a million styles of music. If it talks to your soul it is for you, if not its not. Why the need to bicker and compare. Why the need for biblical "so and so begot so and so."

Sorry guys. As the gum popper at the mall says "Been there. Done that."

I look at this whole thread and go "huh?"  The Beatles were a band. They were four guys who made music. Lots of people dug their music. Their success opened possibilities in the minds of other budding (and some not so budding) musicians. That's it. Nothing more.

I find this whole "money" thing bogus. The studios tried to push lots of bands -- without success. Even the Beatles' film A Hard Day's Night goofs on this concept with the "Susan" sequence.

Frankly, to me, this sounds like the same nonsense as the "The 1% are to blame for my failure."  BS!  Make the best music you can. See if anyone wants to hear it. Stand on the street with a tin cup. Get an 8 track and distribute your music. Put on a Viking suit like Moondog did and sell it in the street.

Not raw enough for you?  OK. Neither, I suppose, is Cole Porter or the Gershwin brothers. Neither, perhaps, is Miles Davis.  There are a million styles of music. If it talks to your soul it is for you, if not its not. Why the need to bicker and compare. Why the need for the quasi-biblical "so and so begot so and so."

Sorry guys. As the gum popper at the mall says "Been there. Done that."

And if The Beatles denied the influences of other (mostly American bands) they'd have been liars. But, they didn't "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." -John Lennon. McCartney lists The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" as one of his biggest influences. "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds" -Paul McCartney. Johnny Thunders is one of my biggest influences. I may have played slightly different without him, but I would have played... and it would have been dirty rock 'n' rocll. So, everything I've said (other than the Backstreet Boys exaggeration) still remains true. The 'scene' would have happened - with or without The Beatles.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Every town a rock and roll scene before the Beatles came along but almost everybody from these scenes is probably gonna admit that their influence helped evolve them.  And all the British bands had money behind them.  And if anybody was the Backstreet Boys, it was Herman's Hermits, not the Beatles.  EMI wanted the Beatles to sing songs that EMI provided for them and they refused.  Instead, they simply took this as a sign to write better tunes.  Sure, Brian Epstein got them to dress in suits but they were doing that before EMI got involved.  And the haircuts came before Brian Epstein got involved.  So I really don't see how manufactured you think they are.  Capitol Records originally didn't even want the Beatles to begin with and when they did get them, The Beatles already had their image, Capitol simply put money behind promoting a record that couldn't be denied.

RJFait said:

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Every town had a rock and roll scene before the Beatles came along but almost everybody from these scenes is probably gonna admit that their influence helped evolve them.  And all the British bands had money behind them.  And if anybody was the Backstreet Boys, it was Herman's Hermits, not the Beatles.  EMI wanted the Beatles to sing songs that EMI provided for them and they refused.  Instead, they simply took this as a sign to write better tunes.  Sure, Brian Epstein got them to dress in suits but they were doing that before EMI got involved.  And the haircuts came before Brian Epstein got involved.  So I really don't see how manufactured you think they are.  Capitol Records originally didn't even want the Beatles to begin with and when they did get them, The Beatles already had their image, Capitol simply put money behind promoting a record that couldn't be denied.

RJFait said:

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Um, Mr Rosedon, while I agree that you'd be a fool to dismiss the Beatles entire back catalogue, but you do realise that there were a lot of black folk doing what the Beatles were doing, but before them?

They changed everything because they had EMI's money and connections. And as for making the world a better place? No, I think that's hyperbole.

Maybe I get out of line sometimes, but if you take what I say out of context, I make the context real clear. The fact remains, The Wailers didn't need The Beatles to write Dirty Robber. The Sonics' Strychnine borrowed nothing from Love Me Do. Garage and psych would have existed with or without The Beatles. And most other garage AND psych bands did it harder and dirtier than The Beatles ever did, before and after I Wanna Hold Your Hand. And I should have put this somewhere else but I don't remember where; The first Blue Cheer album came out before Helter Skelter and is more heavy metal than anything else would be until Black Sabbath. Maybe even after. OK, my dander is no longer up.

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Apple Corp. Don't let hippies look after the money. I take it everyone has seen All You Need Is Cash?

And Buddy was God, in that sense. But everybody knows Willie Dixon is really God.

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Hey all, this is some weird stuff. I got an email from an 'agent' asking me to play a couple bands that he 'represents' on my radio show. First off, a minimal amount of research would have turned up that my station is pretty new and my audience is about 7 listeners - me, 4 people in Germany, one in Japan and my niece who thinks I'm cool for some reason. Second, 10 minutes of listening (probably 5) and it would be clear that I do not run a "prog metal" station. I very politely (yes, very politely) told him I didn't play that style of music. He wrote me back asking if I knew who did. Yes, I'm serious. I thought, maybe I should look at this guy's website. An agent who has no clue what genre his clients play and does zero research for marketing them has got to be good for shits and giggles, right? You've really got to read this blog on his site: http://monolithmanagement.com/pre-sale-tickets/ then come back to this. I've been playing music a long time, and believe me when I tell you, musically, I'm the worst. I truly suck! But, there has never been a time when I couldn't get a gig opening for a friends band until my band got a bit of notice and and I could start getting my own shows. If your band (not yours, the people who pay this 'agent') is so bad that you can't piggyback a gig on a friend's bill, you have no business owning an instrument. Seriously, I've never been anywhere where musicians don't have friends who are musicians in other bands playing the same general genre and getting gigs. If any of you have fallen for this 'pre-sale ticket' scam, I apologize if I've offended you, but I really don't get it. I had to double check to see that I hadn't made a horrible mistake and this guy's actually a real estate or insurance agent and I hadn't gotten it all wrong. No, he claims to be a talent agent.

Oh, yeah, those are cool!!  I love fuzz pedals as mush as I like vintage guitars.  That Aria was probably made by the Japanese Shin Ei electronics company.  Shin Ei made a bunch of fuzz pedals and pickups during the 60s and 70s.

Early on, Jamie used this obscure vintage Japanese fuzz pedal, an Aria FW-1 Fuzz-Wah Machine, about which one can find almost nothing (pics below).  I think he's using a Big Muff now.  I go for the big chrome Morleys.

-A

THEE DIRTYBEATS maximum vintage garage
http://theedirtybeats.bandcamp.com

The other threads got me thinking Beatles. The sheet music to I Want to Hold Your Hand says "Its such a feeling that my love, I can't hide."  I always hear (to this day) "I get high."

And no band of the sixties would do Wooly Bully without screamin out "hand job."  What Sam really cried out I have no idea.

:)

-Don