Time Capsule For Beatles Fans

[Sue K]

Sep 7, 2010 7:33 am US/Eastern

Time Capsule For Beatles Fans

DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) ― A new DVD about the Beatles' initial appearances on "The Ed Sullivan Show" is like cracking open a time capsule.

Almost as interesting as the band making its musical introduction to America in 1964 is the context in which it is placed. The DVD presents the programs exactly as they appeared that night — complete with hapless magicians or comedians, commercials that would shame "Mad Men" and illustrations of how the pace of television has changed.

The first night, Feb. 9, 1964, is a landmark in television. An estimated 73 million Americans tuned in, the largest ever for a TV show at the time, or three times the amount of people who watched the latest "American Idol" finale, according to the Nielsen Co.

A generation of musicians can trace their career choices to that night. One was Dennis DeYoung, former Styx lead singer, who told the Montreal Gazette that he watched it while at a high school dance.

"I looked at that and I went, 'Oh, my God! What is that? And how do I apply for that job?'" he recalled. "That was it. There was never any doubt in my mind what I wanted in my life."

Film clips of the Beatles on Sullivan have been available, but never the whole event until Tuesday's release of "The 4 Complete Ed Sullivan Shows Starring the Beatles." SOFA Entertainment, which owns the archive of Sullivan shows (a staple on CBS' Sunday night schedule from 1948 to 1971), is putting it out after getting the OK from the Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd.

Sullivan, the competitive old newspaper columnist, clearly knew the high stakes involved that night and gave the Beatles two showcases on the first show.

While the Beatles' appearance stands in memory like a thunderclap, their power seemed muted the first time they hit the stage. Their first two songs, "All My Loving" and "Til There Was You," were both Paul McCartney showcases and the band didn't really hit its stride until the powerful "She Loves You." Even then, the cameras seemed to shortchange John Lennon in favor of McCartney.

For all the attention paid to that first night in New York, their performances on the following week's show from Miami are much better. They had repeats: "She Loves You" was played both weeks.

Cutaways to the audience show young girls who can barely stay in their seats from the excitement of it all. Older people look bored, annoyed and clueless to the generational change staring back at them.

The Beatles' cheekiness, enthusiasm and talent was bracing.

"It's like they were in color and everybody else was in black and white," said Andrew Solt, CEO of SOFA Entertainment.

Watching the magician with the hard luck of following the Beatles to the stage that first night is painful. Fred Kaps' show biz career never really recovered from that moment, Solt said. It seemed his routine would never end.

The sense that television moves much more quickly today is one of the most interesting finds in the DVD time capsule. Mitzi Gaynor, who was once the princess of musical comedy, gave a sweaty performance from Miami, has enough time for costume changes. Comic Frank Gorshin's routine with movie star impersonations was interminable.

The comic team of McCall & Brill, with a punch line about an "ugly girl," would not have made it past today's taste police.

One other performance in that first week came from the cast of the Broadway show "Oliver," including a young Davy Jones, whose life was changed in the wake of the Beatles' performance in a way he couldn't have imagined. A few years later, he was cast as one of the Monkees, a prefab rock band that was a Beatles knockoff.

Sullivan "didn't spend too much money on talent that week because he knew he had the audience," Solt said.

Producers plainly believed people had an attention span then, certainly much more so than now. Perhaps the knowledge that viewers had to get out of their seats to turn the channel — and then had a couple of choices, not north of 100 other networks — was on their mind.

The same is true of the ads. Can you imagine a commercial break with only one commercial?

Maybe it was what they were hawking, but the ads are stunningly unimaginative. What were the Madison Avenue pitch men of the day thinking? Then again, even an image of waves lapping up on a tropical shore couldn't save an instant pineapple upside down cake that was stocked in a supermarket freezer. Cold water detergent All was called "revolutionary."

The DVD also contains Sullivan shows from Feb. 23, 1964 and Sept. 12, 1965 when the Beatles also performed. Twenty songs in all are performed, including three versions of "I Want to Hold Your Hand." The DVD also has a short interview Sullivan did with the Beatles in London in May 1964 that hasn't been seen since the day it aired.

[Steve6]

The Beatles = The most overrated band of all time.

I listened to the beatles songs many times, and what all the fuzz was about I have no idea. There music is very average. Listen to the radio you'd hear a lot of classic songs getting played often..but I never hear the beatles. They were unqiue in 60s that's why they were embraced by so many people. John Lennon was the most talented. Paul McCartney is just painfully cheesy. Am I alone in saying the beatles were overrated?

[24K]

I have never liked The Beatles, very few songs that were any good imo. But can appreciate why they were huge and why a lot of people liked them. Just not for me.

[A Slice Of English]

I think they were absolutely crucial in the musical revolution of the 60's. Whether you like their music or not, they made a bigger impact than any other band ever. Period. I respect that, even if I am not a huge fan of their music. To say they are overrated is complete poppycock. they were the biggest band of all time, bar none. BAR NONE. That cannot be simply put down to being overrated. They had something that no one else had at the time and they were in the right place at the right time with the right sound and the right songs. More power to them for hitting that.

[Wario]

Originally Posted by A Slice Of English

IThey had something that no one else had at the time and they were in the right place at the right time with the right sound and the right songs. More power to them for hitting that.

that or they made a pact with the devil...

[Steve6]

Originally Posted by A Slice Of English

I think they were absolutely crucial in the musical revolution of the 60's. Whether you like their music or not, they made a bigger impact than any other band ever. Period. I respect that, even if I am not a huge fan of their music. To say they are overrated is complete poppycock. they were the biggest band of all time, bar none. BAR NONE. That cannot be simply put down to being overrated. They had something that no one else had at the time and they were in the right place at the right time with the right sound and the right songs. More power to them for hitting that.

That's a very fair post, and a very honest opinion.

I was born 24 years after Beatle mania..so I wasn't alive to experience it. But when you hear their songs compared to what came after it their music seems very ordinary. They were part of the music revoultion of the 60s, but so was Elvis and The Beach Boys.

[A Slice Of English]

Agreed. I'm not a Beach Boys fan but I do like a bit of Elvis as it goes. They were all part of the music revolution and Elvis was definitely the King, but Beatlemania was like nothing that we are likely to ever see again.

And I was born in the 80's so I wasn't even remotely close to it!

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by Steve6

I listened to the beatles songs many times, and what all the fuzz was about I have no idea. There music is very average.

The Beatles started out like many bands at that time. They covered well-known rock 'n' roll songs. Their early own songs are heavily influenced by what was popular then. Around the middle of the 1960s they began to develop their own style(s) and created music that was far from being "very average".

Not all of their stuff is good but they wrote some of the best songs in music history. Some were just crazy. I just listened to the "white" album again and had to giggle when I heard Yoko Ono on The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill.

Originally Posted by Steve6

John Lennon was the most talented. Paul McCartney is just painfully cheesy.

Not cheesy enough for Meat to perform one of his songs as an encore. It's a pity that most of the Beatles' oeuvre consists of Lennon / McCartney music. I bet George Harrison would have contributed more than a handful of interesting songs if they had only let him.

[AndrewG]

At times I consider The Beatles a bit like Prince, quantity over quality seemed to be the ticket. In amongst that quantity there are phenomenal gems though. I've said this many times, their songs have often been much more interesting when performed by others notably "With a Little help from my friends" by Joe Cocker, "Let it Be" by Meat, "Come Together" by Michael Jackson and "Help" by Tina Turner.
Regarding their performances they lacked emotion at times and I regard them more like a boyband with an amazing song catalogue. For the emotion side I don't really buy the time (60s) excuse as we had Janis Joplin singing her guts out round that time too.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Regarding their performances they lacked emotion at times and I regard them more like a boyband with an amazing song catalogue. For the emotion side I don't really buy the time (60s) excuse as we had Janis Joplin singing her guts out round that time too.

The way they were marketed once they were beginning to become popular reminds indeed of a "boy band" but how many boy bands have played for several hours with hardly getting any sleep in bars full of sailors and hookers? Imagine the Backstreet Boys on the Reeperbahn. I agree with the comment on Janis Joplin - amazing woman, no other female vocalist sang like that, except maybe Maggie Bell (Stone the Crows) and Annisette (The Savage Rose). But then again, The Beatles were primarily songwriters and stopped doing concerts in 1966 while Janis was a true performer.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by Steve6

The Beatles = The most overrated band of all time.

I don't know. Nirvana were completely shite and they're usually in the top ten list for something or other.

[daveake]

U2. I win.

[youngJB]

Originally Posted by Pudding

I don't know. Nirvana were completely shite and they're usually in the top ten list for something or other.

Yeah, Nirvana is the most overrated band of all time.

But as for The Beatles, "Rubber Soul," "Srgt. Pepper," and "Abbey Road" are all perfect albums in my opinion. As in "Bat Out Of Hell" perfect. Well, maybe not, but pretty damn close.

And as for the band aspect, they were just really cool guys. They generated their own music, recorded it the way they wanted to, and wrote some of the greatest songs of all time in the process. "I'm Looking Through You" is probably my favorite McCartney song, and my favorite Lennon song might be "Ballad Of John And Yoko."

But seriously (and again, I must say "in my opinion," because people seem to dissagree) anything The Beatles did 1965 onward is golden. Their earlier stuff is pop, so not everyone likes it, but the later stuff, AKA "Rubber Soul," "Revolver," "Srgt. Pepper," "Mystery Tour," "White Album," "Abbey Road," and "Let It Be" are all stunning records. Lyrically, musically, and in the production of George Martin.

Whether you like them or not is up to you, but "overrated?" Is the sun overrated? Are trees overrated?

[Steve6]

Originally Posted by youngJB

Whether you like them or not is up to you, but "overrated?" Is the sun overrated? Are trees overrated?

I know what you mean JB but I'm sure you understand peoples opinions who weren't around for Beatlemania. I mean we hear all this stuff about it..and then when we listen to their records, it seems kind of average, and old fashioned in comparison to what I grew up listening to if you know what I mean. But I think the music and artists that came after them were better. But the Beatles were the first, and unique in that regard. They had and still have a massive legion of fans and fair play to them.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by daveake

U2. I win.

I think you just might. Joshua Tree was excellent, Rattle & Hum not bad, everything else is dog

[Steve6]

Originally Posted by Pudding

I think you just might. Joshua Tree was excellent, Rattle & Hum not bad, everything else is dog

"How to dismantle an Atomic Bomb" was a very good album too. It certainly did well in the charts.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by Steve6

"How to dismantle an Atomic Bomb" was a very good album too. It certainly did well in the charts.

Britney Spears - Oops!... I Did It Again did very well in the charts and that's a pile of shite also.

[Steve6]

Originally Posted by Pudding

Britney Spears - Oops!... I Did It Again did very well in the charts and that's a pile of shite also.

It depends on the audience and the persons taste. Some people probaly worship "Oops!...I did it again" and listen to it everyday..the same with Sgt. Pepper.

[Wario]

Originally Posted by Pudding

Britney Spears - Oops!... I Did It Again did very well in the charts and that's a pile of shite also.

Lets not get started with Hang Cool Teddy Bear and how much that puppy ate up the charts....

[Steve6]

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

Lets not get started with Hang Cool Teddy Bear and how much that puppy ate up the charts....

Move it to the HCTB threads this is about McCartney and Co.

But just as a matter of interest Wario what is your opinion of the beatles? lover? hater? or an inbetweener?

[Wario]

Originally Posted by Steve6

Move it to the HCTB threads this is about McCartney and Co.

that was between me and pud. And this is off topic, we can go off topic...

Originally Posted by Steve6

But just as a matter of interest Wario what is your opinion of the beatles? lover? hater? or an inbetweener?

I Like: Nowhere Man, Hey Jude, and Yellow Submarine.

I really hate everything else they've done and the fact they let MJ buy their back catalogue (which is now owned by his estate)... they are sell outs.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

I really hate everything else they've done and the fact they let MJ buy their back catalogue (which is now owned by his estate)... they are sell outs.

Maybe you should do some research on Michael Jackson's purchase of the Beatles songs.

[Wario]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Maybe you should do some research on Michael Jackson's purchase of the Beatles songs.

I did. They still shouldn't have let him touch their back catalogue.

Though still, it was nice to do that for paul in his will.

Lets actually get off the MJ subject. don't really think its appropriate. i apologize for bringing it up.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

I did.

Yet you call them "sell outs"?

[Wario]

about this new DVD....