Liverpool Spawns The Beatles
Liverpool Spawns The Beatles
I have always wondered whether the emergence of The Beatles from the rubble of Liverpool was pure chance or perhaps more properly explained based on social and economic factors of the time. I would like to know what others think. My view is expressed here.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
The emergence of the Beatles was simply an event of its time.
Had it not been the Beatles it would have been another band most likely from Liverpool simply because the alternative was the sacharine sweet
London sound. Cliff Richard.. and Americans such as Bobby Rydell, Bryan Hyland.
What made the Beatles different was a combination of circumstances.
Definitely their raw sound, their apprenticeship, their music could be
the mix that caused the interest. The timing, the influence of Epstein
George Martin added to the mix and caused the wider acceptance to a world wide audience in waiting.
I remember being electrified at 13 or 14 when I first heard Love Me Do and Please Please me.. I still am electrified after all these years
Had it not been the Beatles it would have been another band most likely from Liverpool simply because the alternative was the sacharine sweet
London sound. Cliff Richard.. and Americans such as Bobby Rydell, Bryan Hyland.
What made the Beatles different was a combination of circumstances.
Definitely their raw sound, their apprenticeship, their music could be
the mix that caused the interest. The timing, the influence of Epstein
George Martin added to the mix and caused the wider acceptance to a world wide audience in waiting.
I remember being electrified at 13 or 14 when I first heard Love Me Do and Please Please me.. I still am electrified after all these years
John: Had the Beatles not been successful, what group do you think would have taken over, The Searchers, Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Undetakers, Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas? This is a most interesting question.
I am not sure that any of the other groups in Liverpool would have taken hold of the music scene as the Beatles did. There were many other talented folks but the determination of Lennon and McCartney, in addition to their talent and the circumstances of the day, played a central role in their success. "To the toppermost of the poppermost."
I am not sure that any of the other groups in Liverpool would have taken hold of the music scene as the Beatles did. There were many other talented folks but the determination of Lennon and McCartney, in addition to their talent and the circumstances of the day, played a central role in their success. "To the toppermost of the poppermost."
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
ok! 2 propositions..
1.
The Beatles created the liverpool sound and others copied or modified it afterwards. History does not support this view.
2
The sound and bands already existed and the Beatles et al were able to exploit the pent up desire in the public for something peppy, memorable , relevant . They were the first and also very talented. As to which band would have been the first if not the Beatles.... Um.... without a chronological list of releases Its hard for me to say . I think probably Gerry and the Pacemakers because How do you do it was a top song , well executed memorable peppy , relevant and was , as I understand it, offered to the Beatles at the time of either Love me do or Please please me... Gerry also had personality by the bucket load
John
1.
The Beatles created the liverpool sound and others copied or modified it afterwards. History does not support this view.
2
The sound and bands already existed and the Beatles et al were able to exploit the pent up desire in the public for something peppy, memorable , relevant . They were the first and also very talented. As to which band would have been the first if not the Beatles.... Um.... without a chronological list of releases Its hard for me to say . I think probably Gerry and the Pacemakers because How do you do it was a top song , well executed memorable peppy , relevant and was , as I understand it, offered to the Beatles at the time of either Love me do or Please please me... Gerry also had personality by the bucket load
John
Peter,
You pose the question, "Had the Beatles not been successful, what group do you think would have taken over, The Searchers, Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Undertakers, Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas?"
The interesting thing is that there is no guarantee what-so-ever that any other Liverpool band would have successful, or even been heard outside of the Merseyside area, had it not been for the success of the Beatles.
The most popular bands, other than the Beatles, were as you list them, with the addition of the Big Three and Rory Storm & the Hurricanes.
John Westwood says that most probably Gerry & the Pacemakers would top that list because the Mitch Murray tune, which George Martin had wanted the Beatles to record for their debut, "How Do You Do It", was a top song?
To me, the truth seems to be that as popular as Gerry was on Merseyside, without the success of the Beatles, there would most probably been no chance of him recording that. No doubt it would have gone to a London group as Mitch Murray was an established writer in London's 'Tin Pan Alley'.
You pose the question, "Had the Beatles not been successful, what group do you think would have taken over, The Searchers, Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Undertakers, Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas?"
The interesting thing is that there is no guarantee what-so-ever that any other Liverpool band would have successful, or even been heard outside of the Merseyside area, had it not been for the success of the Beatles.
The most popular bands, other than the Beatles, were as you list them, with the addition of the Big Three and Rory Storm & the Hurricanes.
John Westwood says that most probably Gerry & the Pacemakers would top that list because the Mitch Murray tune, which George Martin had wanted the Beatles to record for their debut, "How Do You Do It", was a top song?
To me, the truth seems to be that as popular as Gerry was on Merseyside, without the success of the Beatles, there would most probably been no chance of him recording that. No doubt it would have gone to a London group as Mitch Murray was an established writer in London's 'Tin Pan Alley'.
Chris writes " To me, the truth seems to be that as popular as Gerry was on Merseyside, without the success of the Beatles, there would most probably been no chance of him recording that. No doubt it would have gone to a London group as Mitch Murray was an established writer in London's 'Tin Pan Alley'. "
I dont dispute what Chris says. I simply take the view that if you went back in time and erased The Beatles but everything else remained the same, Gerry and the Pacemakers had "it". Thats not to decry the talent of any others but simply to acknowledge the timing and the vehicle.
If you examine the topic with more complexity it falls into the 'too hard ' basket.
eg: If Brian Epstein hadnt been
a) a bit of an outcast with something to prove
b) hadnt been *attracted* to the Beatles
c) hadnt had the financial backing he had
d) hadnt been so darned persistent trying the get a deal.
e) If George Martin hadnt been on available at that time, Say on extended leave
f) If Their former manager had Locked them into a contract so that epstein couldnt sign them or had to split a deal
the possibilities go on for ever..
Talent isnt always enough. Would the Beatles have lasted in Liverpool for another year.... or two?
Would they have eventually split up to get a *real * job as so many others did or were forced to.
Its difficult to imagine that so much talent would allow itself to remain submerged but then, there is an awful lot of talent around that never had the persistence , an awful lot off intelligence that never had the application and an awful lot of mediocrity that had persistence that succeeded..
I think I got that from Calvin Coolidge,,, Yup here it is
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
John
I dont dispute what Chris says. I simply take the view that if you went back in time and erased The Beatles but everything else remained the same, Gerry and the Pacemakers had "it". Thats not to decry the talent of any others but simply to acknowledge the timing and the vehicle.
If you examine the topic with more complexity it falls into the 'too hard ' basket.
eg: If Brian Epstein hadnt been
a) a bit of an outcast with something to prove
b) hadnt been *attracted* to the Beatles
c) hadnt had the financial backing he had
d) hadnt been so darned persistent trying the get a deal.
e) If George Martin hadnt been on available at that time, Say on extended leave
f) If Their former manager had Locked them into a contract so that epstein couldnt sign them or had to split a deal
the possibilities go on for ever..
Talent isnt always enough. Would the Beatles have lasted in Liverpool for another year.... or two?
Would they have eventually split up to get a *real * job as so many others did or were forced to.
Its difficult to imagine that so much talent would allow itself to remain submerged but then, there is an awful lot of talent around that never had the persistence , an awful lot off intelligence that never had the application and an awful lot of mediocrity that had persistence that succeeded..
I think I got that from Calvin Coolidge,,, Yup here it is
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
John
I just re read my Ramblings.....
Assume the Beatles Never existed AND Epstein thought Gerry and The Pacemakers Had something, so much so that he went down the same track as he did with The Beatles then what would the result have been....? would this have worked for any other artists ?
Who else in Liverpool had the same level of success as G & P's?
Billy J possibly, Fourmost , I dont think so ,Searchers Possibly, Tony Crane and the Mersy Beats...... dont think so .
Where they all seem to fallshort is in the material. None , incl G and the P's really come up to scratch with original material so ultimately they are at the mercy of songwriters/publishers/record labels.. IMO this is why they have limited shelf life.
I rated The Hollies and Freddy and the Dreamers ( both Manchester bands if I recall correctly) on a par with Gerry and the Pacemakers.
One thing the Beatles had ,as did Gerry and Freddy was Personality except that the Beatles had it x 4.. The other bands I mentioned were by contrast a little bland
Assume the Beatles Never existed AND Epstein thought Gerry and The Pacemakers Had something, so much so that he went down the same track as he did with The Beatles then what would the result have been....? would this have worked for any other artists ?
Who else in Liverpool had the same level of success as G & P's?
Billy J possibly, Fourmost , I dont think so ,Searchers Possibly, Tony Crane and the Mersy Beats...... dont think so .
Where they all seem to fallshort is in the material. None , incl G and the P's really come up to scratch with original material so ultimately they are at the mercy of songwriters/publishers/record labels.. IMO this is why they have limited shelf life.
I rated The Hollies and Freddy and the Dreamers ( both Manchester bands if I recall correctly) on a par with Gerry and the Pacemakers.
One thing the Beatles had ,as did Gerry and Freddy was Personality except that the Beatles had it x 4.. The other bands I mentioned were by contrast a little bland
John,
You're second effort at explaining your premise is a little clearer and the "what if's" more realistice to the question at hand.
You are correct that material (ie: good, strong commercial songs) was the key to popularity, back then, as it is now, although with the advent of MTV that is not neccessarily so anymore: But that's a argument and/or discussion for another day.
Unfortunately, in mentioning the need for strong material you are at odds with your own argument in that, in the beginning, the Beatles were not strong songwriters, especially in the eyes of their own record company, Parlophone. Why else would their producer, George Martin, be looking for other songs for them? To take that thought a little further, I think that, but for their meteroic rise in fame and worldwide acceptance, the Lennon/McCartney talent for writing wonderful songs might not have blossomed as it did and in the way that it did. Just as your premise is predicated on a string of "what if's", so can both the quality and direction of their songwriting talents be.
Back to Gerry Marsden. Gerry was a very popular entertainer. But, because at that time, popularity on Merseyside was a rather superficial thing and not based on much more than being able to get the crowd up to dance, he was no more popular than a lot of other groups. This had nothing to do with his real talent as, indeed, it had nothing to do with any of the other groups talent, back then.
I think that if Brian Epstein had chosen to take Gerry & the Pacemakers 'to the top', instead of the Beatles, Gerry would not have been able to reach the heights that the Beatles did, nor would he have become the commsumate tunesmith that either lennon or McCartney did. Indeed, to me, neither John Lennon or Paul McCartney individually wrote songs as well as they did as a team. Gerry was of a whole different caliber of singer and entertainer and the songs that he has written bear this out.
My band, the Undertakers, turned down Brian Epstein as a manager. I'm still asked if we had signed with Eppy, and had been given all the chances that the Beatles had, would we have been able to do what they did. The answer is, of course not! There was something very special going on there. The Beatles rose to the occasion and did something that most probably no other band or entertainer could have done, at that time and in that place.
You're second effort at explaining your premise is a little clearer and the "what if's" more realistice to the question at hand.
You are correct that material (ie: good, strong commercial songs) was the key to popularity, back then, as it is now, although with the advent of MTV that is not neccessarily so anymore: But that's a argument and/or discussion for another day.
Unfortunately, in mentioning the need for strong material you are at odds with your own argument in that, in the beginning, the Beatles were not strong songwriters, especially in the eyes of their own record company, Parlophone. Why else would their producer, George Martin, be looking for other songs for them? To take that thought a little further, I think that, but for their meteroic rise in fame and worldwide acceptance, the Lennon/McCartney talent for writing wonderful songs might not have blossomed as it did and in the way that it did. Just as your premise is predicated on a string of "what if's", so can both the quality and direction of their songwriting talents be.
Back to Gerry Marsden. Gerry was a very popular entertainer. But, because at that time, popularity on Merseyside was a rather superficial thing and not based on much more than being able to get the crowd up to dance, he was no more popular than a lot of other groups. This had nothing to do with his real talent as, indeed, it had nothing to do with any of the other groups talent, back then.
I think that if Brian Epstein had chosen to take Gerry & the Pacemakers 'to the top', instead of the Beatles, Gerry would not have been able to reach the heights that the Beatles did, nor would he have become the commsumate tunesmith that either lennon or McCartney did. Indeed, to me, neither John Lennon or Paul McCartney individually wrote songs as well as they did as a team. Gerry was of a whole different caliber of singer and entertainer and the songs that he has written bear this out.
My band, the Undertakers, turned down Brian Epstein as a manager. I'm still asked if we had signed with Eppy, and had been given all the chances that the Beatles had, would we have been able to do what they did. The answer is, of course not! There was something very special going on there. The Beatles rose to the occasion and did something that most probably no other band or entertainer could have done, at that time and in that place.
"Unfortunately, in mentioning the need for strong material you are at odds with your own argument in that, in the beginning, the Beatles were not strong songwriters, especially in the eyes of their own record company, Parlophone. Why else would their producer, George Martin, be looking for other songs for them? "
I dont think that this had anything to do with their songwriting ability rather a preconception by record companies that only London songs were good ..The Tin Pan Alley syndrome.
That still existed when I was in London in the Late 60's. People Like Tommy Sanderson Johnny Stevens writing and working around Charing X and flogging their songs through contacts to record companies
George Martins comment " Gentlemen you have your first number one" would not have been said in vain and subsequently was proved right over and over again.See Please Please me album.
My comments are as a non scouser (Wolverhampton) and based upon my own reaction and those of my school mates at the time.. We were electrified by this new sound
Not because it was the Beatles or Gerry Marsden or Liverpool..It was the sound. It was different and electrifying.
I dont rate Gerry Marsden as a songwriter at all. His band was a 3 or 4 hit wonder .
My statements are related to the what if the beatles didnt exist and with my addition " and all other things remained the same .
Chris .. who do you think would have been the replacement for the Beatles had they not existed?
I dont think that this had anything to do with their songwriting ability rather a preconception by record companies that only London songs were good ..The Tin Pan Alley syndrome.
That still existed when I was in London in the Late 60's. People Like Tommy Sanderson Johnny Stevens writing and working around Charing X and flogging their songs through contacts to record companies
George Martins comment " Gentlemen you have your first number one" would not have been said in vain and subsequently was proved right over and over again.See Please Please me album.
My comments are as a non scouser (Wolverhampton) and based upon my own reaction and those of my school mates at the time.. We were electrified by this new sound
Not because it was the Beatles or Gerry Marsden or Liverpool..It was the sound. It was different and electrifying.
I dont rate Gerry Marsden as a songwriter at all. His band was a 3 or 4 hit wonder .
My statements are related to the what if the beatles didnt exist and with my addition " and all other things remained the same .
Chris .. who do you think would have been the replacement for the Beatles had they not existed?
-
artbeat54
As a musician(drummer) myself having played with farons Flamingos & Lee Curtis and the All Stars, later in their careers..At the boom time I was watching and learning, I feel sometimes being in the right place at the right time, means a lot..what would have Brian done if the first band he had seen, would have been the Dynamic Kingsize Taylor and the Dominoes, or The Exciting Undertakers, which Chris Huston was the Lead Guitarist, or Beryl Marsden, who could sing Cilla dead.
Rory Storm who was Rod Stewart years before Rod got near a microphone..or Earl Preston who was Billy J with a voice, I could go on and on, Faron
the most exciting on stage,or Derry Wilkie's energy. So many great Performers, Freddie Starr had to become a comedian to be discovered. I don't take anything away from The Beatles, they worked hard to get the rewards of success, and they deserved it, they went to Germany to complete their education in performing and came back and stormed. BUT what would have happened if they were always in the wrong spot at the wrong time..they may have broke up and Ringo might have joined Kingsize Taylor, George maybe The Undertakers, Paul The Remo Four, John, FaronsFlamingos, fate is a funny thing...
Rory Storm who was Rod Stewart years before Rod got near a microphone..or Earl Preston who was Billy J with a voice, I could go on and on, Faron
the most exciting on stage,or Derry Wilkie's energy. So many great Performers, Freddie Starr had to become a comedian to be discovered. I don't take anything away from The Beatles, they worked hard to get the rewards of success, and they deserved it, they went to Germany to complete their education in performing and came back and stormed. BUT what would have happened if they were always in the wrong spot at the wrong time..they may have broke up and Ringo might have joined Kingsize Taylor, George maybe The Undertakers, Paul The Remo Four, John, FaronsFlamingos, fate is a funny thing...
Arty,
Great to hear from you! Like me, you were there during those early days, albeit on the sidelines until a little later. Your post, although a 'what if' scenerio, is actually what was happening on Merseyside in the earle '60's: Musicians were going from group to group as the natural order of things changed. Our original sax player, Les McQuire, became Gerry Marsden's piano player, for instance.
John,
You have now narrowed it all down to one succint question "...who do you think would have been the replacement for the Beatles had they not existed?"
In my opinion there was not a group on Merseyside that could have done what the Beatles did, as I'm sure everybody will agree. As Artie points out, it was a question of being in 'the right place at the right time' with the talent to follow through. I really think that the Liverpool scene would have continued in a vacuum. By that I mean that it most probably would have remained a regional thing. This might have continued for one, two or more years until groups like Led Zeppelin and the Who crossed the Atlantic with their music and put England on the musical map. Conversely, it just might have died away. Another important point which I know you'll understand: Liverpool, along with its inhabitants were not on any popularity lists until the Merseybeat craze. Liverpool was a dirty little corner of Britain best forgotten.
Of course, this is all a catch 22, isn't it? Would any of that have happened without the influence of the Beatles? I'm falling into the same 'what if' trap that you did...LOL!
One more point: I think that the Beatles meteroic success was the catalyst for their songwriting.
Great to hear from you! Like me, you were there during those early days, albeit on the sidelines until a little later. Your post, although a 'what if' scenerio, is actually what was happening on Merseyside in the earle '60's: Musicians were going from group to group as the natural order of things changed. Our original sax player, Les McQuire, became Gerry Marsden's piano player, for instance.
John,
You have now narrowed it all down to one succint question "...who do you think would have been the replacement for the Beatles had they not existed?"
In my opinion there was not a group on Merseyside that could have done what the Beatles did, as I'm sure everybody will agree. As Artie points out, it was a question of being in 'the right place at the right time' with the talent to follow through. I really think that the Liverpool scene would have continued in a vacuum. By that I mean that it most probably would have remained a regional thing. This might have continued for one, two or more years until groups like Led Zeppelin and the Who crossed the Atlantic with their music and put England on the musical map. Conversely, it just might have died away. Another important point which I know you'll understand: Liverpool, along with its inhabitants were not on any popularity lists until the Merseybeat craze. Liverpool was a dirty little corner of Britain best forgotten.
Of course, this is all a catch 22, isn't it? Would any of that have happened without the influence of the Beatles? I'm falling into the same 'what if' trap that you did...LOL!
One more point: I think that the Beatles meteroic success was the catalyst for their songwriting.
John: While Gerry doesn't meet the Lennon-McCartney category over a lifetime, I do consider that he was a composer of some talent in the early days.
I can find nothing wrong with compositions such as It's Gonna Be Alright, I'm The One, Ferry 'Cross The Mersey and Don't Let The Sun Catch You Crying.
This material of Gerry's was fresh and popular. You are right to assume that they might have shone on the Liverpool horizon. They were, however, eclipsed by the Beatles.
I can find nothing wrong with compositions such as It's Gonna Be Alright, I'm The One, Ferry 'Cross The Mersey and Don't Let The Sun Catch You Crying.
This material of Gerry's was fresh and popular. You are right to assume that they might have shone on the Liverpool horizon. They were, however, eclipsed by the Beatles.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
I cant for the life of me recall "Its gonna be alright"... must be Old timers disease.. "Im the one" was good pop song .
I found Ferry too pretentiously Liverpudlian.. In the same way that I found Joe Brown too obviously Cockney.
Dont let the Sun ....Ok Ill pass on that one..
All this retrospection got me to thinking that there must hundreds of songs which were recorded, never made the top ten but were good melodies lyrics and arrangements.. I wonder where copies of NME are available on line for those days to use as a memory jogger.
There was a 4 piece called 4 Pennies fronted by Lionel Murton. ( I think).
Were they from Liverpool?
I wonder if Chris ( Huston) recalls a 3 piece band with a chinese or part chinese lead guitarist. He was a blast as a soloist. Not in the screaming earsplitting headbanging heavy metal style but very ...how the heck do you describe it? Lyrical melodic Claptonesque/Paige style. They featured at the Cavern in the after midnight slot fairly regularly as I understand it. I saw them a couple of times when we trekked up from Wolverhampton do a gig at a club called The blue flame I think in Wigan ( Billy Butler was the resident DJ) then back to Liverpool following a taxi to do a 3 or 4 am stint at the cavern which is how I got to meet the Late Bob Wooler..........but I digress............it must be age, the pipe, slippers and faithful dog that is causing this and a couple of rickenbackers and maybe a scotch rocks
More digression.... Im going back to Wolverhampton in August and doing ( if everything goes to plan ) a gig with the old band (probably to a room at the back of a pub packed with wives brothers and sisters kids and maybe some grand kids.. If it all comes together I'Il post some pix of old farts playing ricks
I found Ferry too pretentiously Liverpudlian.. In the same way that I found Joe Brown too obviously Cockney.
Dont let the Sun ....Ok Ill pass on that one..
All this retrospection got me to thinking that there must hundreds of songs which were recorded, never made the top ten but were good melodies lyrics and arrangements.. I wonder where copies of NME are available on line for those days to use as a memory jogger.
There was a 4 piece called 4 Pennies fronted by Lionel Murton. ( I think).
Were they from Liverpool?
I wonder if Chris ( Huston) recalls a 3 piece band with a chinese or part chinese lead guitarist. He was a blast as a soloist. Not in the screaming earsplitting headbanging heavy metal style but very ...how the heck do you describe it? Lyrical melodic Claptonesque/Paige style. They featured at the Cavern in the after midnight slot fairly regularly as I understand it. I saw them a couple of times when we trekked up from Wolverhampton do a gig at a club called The blue flame I think in Wigan ( Billy Butler was the resident DJ) then back to Liverpool following a taxi to do a 3 or 4 am stint at the cavern which is how I got to meet the Late Bob Wooler..........but I digress............it must be age, the pipe, slippers and faithful dog that is causing this and a couple of rickenbackers and maybe a scotch rocks
More digression.... Im going back to Wolverhampton in August and doing ( if everything goes to plan ) a gig with the old band (probably to a room at the back of a pub packed with wives brothers and sisters kids and maybe some grand kids.. If it all comes together I'Il post some pix of old farts playing ricks John, you are right, the Four Pennies were from Liverpool. However, you got me stumped (and I have a great memory) with the ...3 piece band with a chinese/part chinese lead guitarist, especially the ...lyrical melodic Claptonesque/Paige style part. I don't remember any guitarist in Liverpool with those kind of chops with the exception of, perhaps, Brian "Griff" Griffith, of the Big Three. He had that Mick Green touch that makes a three piece group so 'ballsy'.