The Beatles singing "You Can't Do That" in 1969

Epstein made a huge mistake for the Decca audition by having them play a "safe" set of songs that he believed would sell. All of their raw rock and roll was left at home that day. And that was their bread and butter.

 

I have heard a lot of these recordings, so I (and also others who have them) know what I'm talking about, the list of examples is endless and especially confusing when they do standard tunes

 

Thanks to the OP for the video - a quick question - the last few seconds of the video contain footage from what I guess is sometime in 1968, where is this from? Thankingtons

 

But 1967 still had a LOT of songs without lyrical depth that became hits - it's not like suddenly all the "teenage stuff" disappeared. Is "I'm a Believer" more serious than "It's My Party"?

Besides, there were always songs about sex and drugs - they just weren't as obvious!

 

Congratulations, so have I.

Except that in the only instance that's relevant to my statement—the one that is the topic of this thread—you did not.

So it should be very easy for you to give us one or two specific examples where they are "playing in different keys for minutes". If you're offering up the YT clip as proof (as you presumably are), then tell us exactly where in this clip there are examples of them "playing in different keys for minutes".

 

I have no doubt, that they could have returned to shape. I mean - it was all there once !
And to this day I also do not understand the idea of a roof top concert in the middle of winter. No doubt this might have worked great in summer, but to play guitar outside with temperatures near freezing point can't lead to outstanding results. And this is another miracle - under these conditions they do a quite good "One after 9O9"

 

I gave a link above - you have to listen yourself.
BTW it's quite pointless to argue about that, as the Beatles themselves always admitted the problem.

 

I did, and I heard no evidence supporting your claim. Hence my request that you "tell us exactly where in this clip there are examples of them 'playing in different keys for minutes'". A request that you have—wisely, I'm sure—chosen not to respond to.

You have once again demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm done here.

 

If you can't hear off key playing and detuned instruments, then I can't help you any further

 

Man, I know we're more than 50 years from all of these events, and simplification/compression must occur in any "history," but this is just plain wrong. It could be argued that Martin was actually quite forward-thinking in regard to production before the Beatles even crossed his path.

 

Please see published set lists before and after this this audition -- the majority of these songs were played live before and after this audition. Mark Lewisohn shines great light on a lot of the oversimplifications that have embedded themselves in Beatles' history throughout the years in the first volume of his comprehensive biog.

The were great and raw after midnight, hopped up on bennies, and playing to a bunch of wild drunks in Hamburg. I'm sure the band and the audience played off of each other's energy. But... in the bright white light on the "operating table" on New Year's Day in a quiet clinical Decca studio, the Beatles were out of their element... and they choked a bit. That's cool... it was an important step in the odyssey.

 

It was tough for the Fonz too.

 

I don't know whether your complete misrepresentation of what I've said is intentional or unintentional. Given your history on this thread, it's a close call. Either way, it's pathetic.

 

Maybe it's a language barrier thing. He's certainly not using musical terms the way I've ever used them or heard anyone else use them.

 

Heeeeeyyyyyyy...

 

The Fifties ... meet the Sixties .... in the Seventies.

 

Perhaps, though given that he also said, "I'm not talking about the occasional wrong chord or breakdown", it seems that he is sufficiently familiar with the language to avoid misstating the point in question. If the error is due only to a language barrier, then of course I wouldn't hold that against him. If he wishes to clarify this, he may do so.

 

It's amazing to me that this dude could play a piano part, speed it up, and make it sound like a harpsichord on a Beatles' record, and then... sack John Elway more than 20 years later. Truly a Renaissance man.

 

Welcomingtons.

 

M

And they were in their Twenties and Thirties. (except Julian)

 

I agree. Teeny bopper style music never really ceased to exist, but it slowed down, in a way, to "make room" for music about sex and drugs. And in 1963, or even before, there were songs about sex and drugs, but it wasn't popular, as in it didn't top the charts. And you didn't make songs in the early 60s that were blatantly about sex and drugs. But starting around '67 we saw the content and meaning of more popular material, stuff that actually topped the charts, change into sex and drugs.

 

However -- if the new information by Mark Lewisohn is to be believed, it worked out well ... because supposedly, it was their song "Like Dreamers Do" which was wanted by the publishers at EMI.

 

Surprising. That's pretty lame.

 

Or how about:
Lennon - Mr. Moonlight (1964) to Tomorrow Never Knows (1966)
McCartney - Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey! (1964) to For No One (1966)
Harrison - Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby (1964) to Love You To (1966)
Starr - Honey Don't (1964) to Yellow Submarine (1966)?

 

But the Beatles did NOT write Mr. Moonlight, Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey, Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby, nor Honey Don't. So those cover songs shouldn't be compared to their later original material.