Beatles Week On BBC2/BBC4

[Tooj 17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...7/beatles.shtml

 

A new documentary featuring never-heard-before fragments of conversation, along with interviews and rare footage of The Beatles in the studio, will form the centrepiece of a season of programming as BBC Two and BBC Four join forces for Beatles Week.

 

The joint season, celebrating the Fab Four's enduring legacy and continuing influence, begins on BBC Two on Saturday 5 September 2009.

 

Kicking off an evening of programming on BBC Two on 5 September, The Beatles On Record offers a concise history of The Beatles in the studio and sits alongside other highlights including the first TV showing of The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit, the Maysles brothers' film charting the Fab Four's arrival in America in 1964.

 

BBC Four's programming includes Storyville's extraordinary story of how The Beatles' music may have contributed towards the collapse of the USSR; a documentary on the making of The Beatles' First U.S. Visit; and a new compilation of archive footage featuring an eclectic range of artists who have covered Beatles songs over the decades.

 

In 1962 an unknown group from Liverpool entered Abbey Road Studios to record their debut single. During the next eight years they created what is arguably regarded as the greatest collection of studio recordings of the 20th century.

 

The Beatles On Record, directed by Bob Smeaton, charts The Beatles' extraordinary journey from Please Please Me to Abbey Road and reflects on how they developed as musicians, matured as songwriters and created a body of work that sounds as fresh in 2009 as the time it was recorded.

 

Narrated entirely by John, Paul, George, Ringo and their producer Sir George Martin, the documentary features more than 60 classic songs, rare footage and photos from The Beatles' archives and never-heard-before out-takes of studio chat from the Abbey Road recording sessions.

 

This is followed on the same evening on BBC Two by The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit.

 

It is 1964, Beatlemania is beginning in America and from airport to hotel to TV studio, the pioneering Maysles brothers are at The Beatles' shoulders on their first US visit. This is the inside story of the two remarkable weeks when Beatlemania first ignited in America.

 

BBC Two will also be reshowing Timewatch: Beatlemania, the inside story of the rise and fall of Beatlemania. By 1966 the Beatles had played more than 1,400 gigs, toured the world four times and sold the equivalent of 200 million records. At the height of their popularity, and without warning, they pulled the plug and never toured again.

 

There's also another chance to see the action adventure spoof Help!, directed by Richard Lester.

 

The season continues with a week of programming on BBC Four from Sunday 6 September.

 

Storyville: How The Beatles Rocked The Kremlin tells the extraordinary unknown story of how The Beatles' music may have contributed to the collapse of the USSR.

 

In August 1962 director Leslie Woodhead made a two-minute film in Liverpool's Cavern Club with a raw and unrecorded group of rockers – The Beatles. He arranged their first live TV appearances on a local show in Manchester and then watched as the Fab Four phenomenon swept the world.

 

Twenty five years later, while making films in Russia, Woodhead became aware of how – even though they were never able to play in the Soviet Union – The Beatles legend had soaked into the lives of a generation of youngsters.

 

This film meets the Soviet Beatles generation and hears stories about how the Fab Four changed their lives.

 

Other programming throughout the week on BBC Four includes Sings Beatles, a new compilation of archive footage featuring a diverse range of artists – from Sandie Shaw to Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Carpenters to Candy Flip – who have covered Beatles songs over the years.

 

Plus there's an opportunity to see Filming The Beatles' First U.S. Visit: Albert Maysles, which takes viewers behind the scenes with the legendary documentary director of The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit that screens on BBC Two on 5 September.

 

George Entwistle, Controller, Knowledge Commissioning, says: "This is a chance for viewers to enjoy some rare footage and fascinating insights into the career of the greatest pop group of all time.

 

"Through BBC Two and BBC Four's close working relationship we will be inviting our audience to join us on a rich and colourful journey across two TV channels, through new and archive content, shown in just one week in September."

[Happy Face 29]

And on September 6th there's a chance to watch one of the surviving Beatles take a shit in the brand new documentary Magical Mystery Pooer

Edited August 18, 2009 by Happy Face

[Tom 13861]

[JawD 31]

Good stuff. Now someone bloody bump this nearer the time so I dont miss it

[Tooj 17]

Anyone been watching then?

[Renton 17799]

Cant stand the Beatles. Totally overrated.

 

You might not like them but to claim they are somehow overrated is ridiculous.

[NJS 3981]

Cant stand the Beatles. Totally overrated.

 

You might not like them but to claim they are somehow overrated is ridiculous.

 

I've read people defending the inclusion of "When I'm 64" on Sgt Peppers as me not recognising their profound sense of irony.

 

They may have done a lot for the music business but I still think their music itself is vastly overrated.

[ChezGiven 0]

Is Yellow Submarine on this week at any point? Watched most of it on saturday night, even sat through Help!.

[Renton 17799]

Cant stand the Beatles. Totally overrated.

 

You might not like them but to claim they are somehow overrated is ridiculous.

 

I've read people defending the inclusion of "When I'm 64" on Sgt Peppers as me not recognising their profound sense of irony.

 

They may have done a lot for the music business but I still think their music itself is vastly overrated.

 

Well, they have directly, or indirectly, influenced nearly every guitar-based band since them. Without them the music today would simply be unrecognisable. I think it's pretty hard to argue with that.

 

And so they released some tosh along with their classics? So what? What band has only ever produced music you like?

 

I wouldn't personally listen to the Beatles today, but then I don't read Shakespeare either. I recognise the contribution of both to what I like today though.

[Guest alex]

I actually slightly prefer their earlier, more 'poppy' stuff.

[Happy Face 29]

Cant stand the Beatles. Totally overrated.

 

You might not like them but to claim they are somehow overrated is ridiculous.

 

It's the one thing you can say categorically.

 

For example, Q reviewed their back catalogue when it came out on CD and gave EVERY one of them 5 stars.

 

[Guest alex]

What's the point in just posting other people's opinions btw?

Edited September 9, 2009 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

I agree their "success" speaks for itself, but were they not just the "take that" of their day?

 

Take That's later period has been far more interesting too.

[Renton 17799]

Cant stand the Beatles. Totally overrated.

 

You might not like them but to claim they are somehow overrated is ridiculous.

 

I've read people defending the inclusion of "When I'm 64" on Sgt Peppers as me not recognising their profound sense of irony.

 

They may have done a lot for the music business but I still think their music itself is vastly overrated.

 

Well, they have directly, or indirectly, influenced nearly every guitar-based band since them. Without them the music today would simply be unrecognisable. I think it's pretty hard to argue with that.

 

And so they released some tosh along with their classics? So what? What band has only ever produced music you like?

 

I wouldn't personally listen to the Beatles today, but then I don't read Shakespeare either. I recognise the contribution of both to what I like today though.

 

 

See, if you read this article below they are just another band that borrowed various ingredients from the world around them such as Elvis, the Beach Boys, the shadows etc.

 

I agree their "success" speaks for itself, but were they not just the "take that" of their day?

 

As youths, the members of The Beatles were enthusiastic followers of British rock-and-rollers, notably Cliff Richard and The Shadows, whose stage presence and female following were often cited by the band as one of their inspirations to begin performing publicly. In their early days as performers, the band took some cues from local Liverpool favourites Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, who Ringo played with prior to joining the Beatles.

 

Many of the Band's influences were American in origin. Chuck Berry was perhaps the most fundamental progenitor of the Beatles' sound. They recorded covers of "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Rock And Roll Music" early on and many other Berry classics were in their live repertoire. Chuck Berry's influence is also heard (in altered form) on later recordings such as "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey" (1968) and "Come Together" (1969) (when "Come Together" was released, the owner of Chuck Berry's copyrights sued John Lennon for copyright infringement of his song "You Can't Catch Me", after which the two reached an amicable settlement, the terms of which included an agreement that Lennon cover some Chuck Berry songs as a solo artist).

 

George Harrison had a fondness for American rockabilly music, particularly that of Eddie Cochran and Carl Perkins. The band's early stage show featured several Perkins tunes; some of these (notably "Honey Don't" featuring an early Ringo vocal) would eventually make it to vinyl. Moreover, Harrison's guitar work remained highly influenced by rockabilly styles throughout the band's tenure.

 

The Beatles' distinctive vocal harmonies were also influenced by those of early Motown artists in America; early Beatles staples included faithful versions of Barrett Strong's Motown recording of "Money (That's What I Want)" and The Marvelettes' hit "Please Mr. Postman".

 

While many of these American influences drew from the blues music form, The Beatles, unlike their contemporaries the Rolling Stones, were seldom directly influenced by the blues. Drawing inspiration from an eclectic variety of sources, their home idiom was closer to pop music (during their early fame they were sometimes referred to as a mod band, a label they seem to have resisted).

 

At the height of Beatlemania, John Lennon declared "Before Elvis, there was nothing." In comments recorded for the Anthology TV series all four band members spoke of him in glowing terms, with George Harrison (showing his knack for religious allusions) saying "Seeing Elvis was like seeing the messiah arrive." However, it has been argued Presley's musical influence on the Beatles may have been indirect, with opinion somewhat split; although few deny there was an influence, the extent of it has been the subject of controversy among fans and music historians.

 

The Beatles were also fond of Little Richard and some of their songs (especially in the early repertoire) featured falsetto calls similar to his, notably on their version of his song "Long Tall Sally". In 1962 he socialised with the Beatles around Hamburg and they performed together at the Star Club. "Long Tall Sally" became a permanent fixture in the Beatles' concert performances, and McCartney's singing on their recorded version is widely regarded as among his best rock and roll vocal performances.

 

Apart from the up-beat, optimistic rock and roll sound of Little Richard and others, McCartney's influences include ragtime and vaudeville, owing much to his father's musical interests. Their impact is apparent in songs like "When I'm Sixty-Four" (composed during The Quarry Men period), "Honey Pie", and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer". Of their early single, "From Me To You", McCartney said, "It could be done as an old ragtime tune... especially the middle-eight. And so we're not writing the tunes in any particular idiom." His songwriting was also influenced in part by Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys, who was in turn spurred on by the Beatles' work. Wilson acknowledged that the American version of Rubber Soul challenged him to make Pet Sounds, an album which then inspired McCartney's vision of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The song "Back in the USSR" was based on a suggestion by Mike Love to McCartney and contains overt allusions to the Beach Boys' "California Girls". The song "Here, There and Everywhere" is said to have been written the evening that Lennon and McCartney first listened to Pet Sounds.

 

The Everly Brothers were another influence. Lennon and McCartney consciously copied Don and Phil Everly's distinctive two-part harmonies. Their vocals on two 1962 recordings, "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" were inspired by the Everlys' powerful vocal innovation on "Cathy's Clown" (1960), the first recording to ever reach number one simultaneously in the USA and in England. "Two of Us", the opening track on Let It Be is overtly composed in the Everly style and McCartney acknowledges this in the recording with a spoken "Take it Phil."

 

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though, and digging up all these articles doesn't really prove much. Of course the Beatles were influenced by previous bands but I would still state they took their genre further than anyone else.

 

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

[ChezGiven 0]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

[Happy Face 29]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

So no one here can judge the impact of Shakespeare, Newton or Mozart?

[NJS 3981]

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though

 

Watch the footage of any of their gigs from 60-66 and you will see absolutely nothing else but screaming, tearful teenage girls - exactly like any "Take That" type band since.

 

Maybe their later music would have given rise to gigs with more "serious" fans but we'll never know.

[Guest alex]

What's the point in just posting other people's opinions btw?

 

 

Cos I thought they were interesting viewpoints on the subject being discussed

I'd be interested to know why, rather than just posting them because it suggests you've just googled stuff to back up your point. Which is a bit pointless really.

[Renton 17799]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

[Guest alex]

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though

 

Watch the footage of any of their gigs from 60-66 and you will see absolutely nothing else but screaming, tearful teenage girls - exactly like any "Take That" type band since.

 

Maybe their later music would have given rise to gigs with more "serious" fans but we'll never know.

That's not really true. You might have only been able to hear screaming girls in the audience but loads of blokes were into them and went to see them at the time as well. They were hugely influencial too, again nothing like Take That and they could all perform live and play their instruments, another difference.

[ChezGiven 0]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

[Renton 17799]

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though

 

Watch the footage of any of their gigs from 60-66 and you will see absolutely nothing else but screaming, tearful teenage girls - exactly like any "Take That" type band since.

 

Maybe their later music would have given rise to gigs with more "serious" fans but we'll never know.

 

But that was a first though wasn't it? Regardless of latter fanbase, for me their later stuff vindicates their talent, in particular John Lennon.

[NJS 3981]

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

There were many band who started/came to prominence in the early 60s who could be said to have influenced what came later - I don't see any Beatles influence in metal/heavy rock for instance which if anything arose "in opposition" to the Beatles.

 

They get the plaudits beacuse of the level of success/popularity which is probably fair enough and I recognise that a lot of stuff I like could be said to have been influenced by them but I think that influence is more diffuse than just "I grew up listening to The Beatles and The Beatles alone".

[NJS 3981]

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though

 

Watch the footage of any of their gigs from 60-66 and you will see absolutely nothing else but screaming, tearful teenage girls - exactly like any "Take That" type band since.

 

Maybe their later music would have given rise to gigs with more "serious" fans but we'll never know.

 

But that was a first though wasn't it? Regardless of latter fanbase, for me their later stuff vindicates their talent, in particular John Lennon.

 

Whose solo stuff was dross.