Oh here we go…! Remove the word ‘ little’ for a start, cos they they were the hugest band ever. They did great covers, but they learnt from them and, as revealed recently, Epstein encouraged them to write their own material that soon surpassed the covers. Now…let’s move on…next!!
He may have been referring to the number of members. Just four of them (plus, maybe George Martin on piano) played the instruments on most of their records. Certainly, those early covers you enjoy so much, niscum, are delivered, basically live, by a four/five piece. This was also the case with The Stones, The Who and The Kinks.
By contrast, The Beach Boys, The Monkees, The Byrds, The Mamas And The Papas, Sonny & Cher etc., were supported by the massed ranks of The Wrecking Crew, of whom there were at least fifty members. At Motown, The Funk Brothers numbered at least twenty players. Muscle Shoals and Stax had tight ‘little’ house bands, though.
Hey, that’s why I come to this site – for lightly worn snippets of music knowledge like that.
You may be right but I guess like everything the fabs came to say or do this is just another thing that is open to all kinds of interpretation so that the most simple and obvious meaning may become lost. Actually, I think that’s exactly what he’s trying to say here – forget all the hype and analysis and remember that The Beatles were a great band. And I suspect he just meant ‘little’ in the colloquial sense.
Even after tens of thousands of hours of live gigs in The Cavern and Hamburg, they really enjoyed playing with and for each other, especially in the studio. In 1963, they were barely out of each other’s sight. The first track they used extra musicians for was Yesterday in 1965. They gave up touring in 1966 and would often be in the studio separately from 1968 onwards. The Get Back project was an attempt to rekindle their love of playing with each other. By then, they needed the presence of Billy Preston to help maintain discipline.
Still, they saw themselves as just a little gang of four people who loved playing and writing songs together.
Oh good, we are still arguing about the Beatles. All is right in the world. Niscum is correct. The Beatles at the BBC and the first three LPs are a testament to this. They built their early reputation on bringing the house down playing rock and roll. Without that, forget it.
No argument with the ‘early reputation’, presumably referring to the Hamburg/Cavern days, but their real reputation is for their original work…hence this thread on the Beatles rather than the Searchers or the Swinging Blue Jeans..?
Love the Fabs but they weren’t infallible. My favourite early Beatles song is I saw her standing there. However ‘Michelle’ was on the radio this am – I quite like the melody but the line ‘these are words that go together well, my Michelle’ really grate on me – certainly wasn’t their best moment.
I would drop Michelle from the red 62-66, which is otherwise faultless & add three more, making seven tracks per side of vinyl. I Saw Her Standing There is obvious, plus Here, There & Everywhere and And Your Bird Can Sing.
Where is Beatles band? This band who have not been as of late clear of circumstance. Beatles Band! Can we no longer hear there medolious throng? John! Paul! All in Beatles Band come forth! What question have we to put? Now? Arguments neccessary can begin with whole results expected for any return. Ringo! Here in Thailand Beatles band experience is long loved and can be hurt away from John, Paul etc. Please give any news to Samuel K. Amphong of address similar to above. yours as in rock!
…….like The Stones.
When they were in their ‘covers period’, ’63-’65, that’s when I like both groups the most.
With The Beatles over Sgt. Pepper’s; Rolling Stones No. 2 over Sticky Fingers.
Oh here we go…! Remove the word ‘ little’ for a start, cos they they were the hugest band ever. They did great covers, but they learnt from them and, as revealed recently, Epstein encouraged them to write their own material that soon surpassed the covers. Now…let’s move on…next!!
“The basic thing in my mind was that for all our success The Beatles were always a great little band. Nothing more, nothing less.” Paul McCartney.
He may have been referring to the number of members. Just four of them (plus, maybe George Martin on piano) played the instruments on most of their records. Certainly, those early covers you enjoy so much, niscum, are delivered, basically live, by a four/five piece. This was also the case with The Stones, The Who and The Kinks.
By contrast, The Beach Boys, The Monkees, The Byrds, The Mamas And The Papas, Sonny & Cher etc., were supported by the massed ranks of The Wrecking Crew, of whom there were at least fifty members. At Motown, The Funk Brothers numbered at least twenty players. Muscle Shoals and Stax had tight ‘little’ house bands, though.
Hey, that’s why I come to this site – for lightly worn snippets of music knowledge like that.
You may be right but I guess like everything the fabs came to say or do this is just another thing that is open to all kinds of interpretation so that the most simple and obvious meaning may become lost. Actually, I think that’s exactly what he’s trying to say here – forget all the hype and analysis and remember that The Beatles were a great band. And I suspect he just meant ‘little’ in the colloquial sense.
Even after tens of thousands of hours of live gigs in The Cavern and Hamburg, they really enjoyed playing with and for each other, especially in the studio. In 1963, they were barely out of each other’s sight. The first track they used extra musicians for was Yesterday in 1965. They gave up touring in 1966 and would often be in the studio separately from 1968 onwards. The Get Back project was an attempt to rekindle their love of playing with each other. By then, they needed the presence of Billy Preston to help maintain discipline.
Still, they saw themselves as just a little gang of four people who loved playing and writing songs together.
I think that’s called modesty….?!
Oh good, we are still arguing about the Beatles. All is right in the world. Niscum is correct. The Beatles at the BBC and the first three LPs are a testament to this. They built their early reputation on bringing the house down playing rock and roll. Without that, forget it.
Oh gawd…
… Our help in ages past?
No argument with the ‘early reputation’, presumably referring to the Hamburg/Cavern days, but their real reputation is for their original work…hence this thread on the Beatles rather than the Searchers or the Swinging Blue Jeans..?
Love the Fabs but they weren’t infallible. My favourite early Beatles song is I saw her standing there. However ‘Michelle’ was on the radio this am – I quite like the melody but the line ‘these are words that go together well, my Michelle’ really grate on me – certainly wasn’t their best moment.
I would drop Michelle from the red 62-66, which is otherwise faultless & add three more, making seven tracks per side of vinyl. I Saw Her Standing There is obvious, plus Here, There & Everywhere and And Your Bird Can Sing.
Harse baskets! I am SPEET at you floppy “BEAT Boys”!
‘these are words that go together well, my Michelle’
yeah that’s got McCartney’s paw prints all over it …
The Beatles?
Where is Beatles band? This band who have not been as of late clear of circumstance. Beatles Band! Can we no longer hear there medolious throng? John! Paul! All in Beatles Band come forth! What question have we to put? Now? Arguments neccessary can begin with whole results expected for any return. Ringo! Here in Thailand Beatles band experience is long loved and can be hurt away from John, Paul etc. Please give any news to Samuel K. Amphong of address similar to above. yours as in rock!
Samuel K Amphong
The places to have seen (really seen) The Beatles and The Stones would both have necessitated hearing a lot of cover versions.
Hamburg/Liverpool…..Richmond/Ealing.
Only really any good as a skiffle band. Lost it completely thereafter.