|
Post by kds on Feb 3, 2023 14:55:19 GMT
The Beach Boys dabbled in making videos in 1966. I can't find it on YouTube but there was that strange video of "That's Not Me" where they're wearing those monster masks and peeking around trees and stuff. And then there's this one, which is pretty bad, too:
That was a Pet Sounds promo video with the monster masks. I believe it used snippets from about 4-5 songs from the album. Plus, there was the Sloop John B promo that was pretty impressively recreated in the Love and Mercy movie.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 3, 2023 15:04:49 GMT
Weren't videos then more or less a way for bands to "appear" on those kinds of live performance (though often lip synched anyway) shows without actually having to go?
That would explain why huge bands might make them, but nobody else necessarily would. Huge bands might be less interested in traveling to such-and-such TV studio to either perform live or pretend to perform live, possibly with some kind of set around them (think the Beach Boys doing "California Girls" on ... the Jack Benny Program?). If you're huge--like Beatles-huge--I could see that as a massive hassle. Whereas if you're just an up-and-coming band, it would be a great opportunity you'd likely be thrilled for.
But for everybody to make (expensive) videos, you'd need a new and bigger reason. MTV eventually figured that out, a bit of a scam where they convinced you that you had to make videos at your expense and let MTV air them for free. It really was an amazing business model... Suddenly you had nobodies making videos for their debut singles because it was the only way to break through. (And you had your looks mattering as much as, or more than, your music.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 3, 2023 15:17:15 GMT
Weren't videos then more or less a way for bands to "appear" on those kinds of live performance (though often lip synched anyway) shows without actually having to go? That would explain why huge bands might make them, but nobody else necessarily would. Huge bands might be less interested in traveling to such-and-such TV studio to either perform live or pretend to perform live, possibly with some kind of set around them (think the Beach Boys doing "California Girls" on ... the Jack Benny Program?). If you're huge--like Beatles-huge--I could see that as a massive hassle. Whereas if you're just an up-and-coming band, it would be a great opportunity you'd likely be thrilled for. But for everybody to make (expensive) videos, you'd need a new and bigger reason. MTV eventually figured that out, a bit of a scam where they convinced you that you had to make videos at your expense and let MTV air them for free. It really was an amazing business model... Suddenly you had nobodies making videos for their debut singles because it was the only way to break through. (And you had your looks mattering as much as, or more than, your music.) I believe so. And, I think they were sometimes used to air on TV in markets that a band might not necessarily play. I have a bootleg DVD of some early Pink Floyd promo clips which I believe were broadcast on television in Granada. So, in those pre internet days, it was a way to expand your audience without having to tour.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Feb 3, 2023 15:28:46 GMT
The Beach Boys dabbled in making videos in 1966. I can't find it on YouTube but there was that strange video of "That's Not Me" where they're wearing those monster masks and peeking around trees and stuff. That was a Pet Sounds promo video with the monster masks. I believe it used snippets from about 4-5 songs from the album. Plus, there was the Sloop John B promo that was pretty impressively recreated in the Love and Mercy movie. This seems to feature one of those snippets:
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 3, 2023 16:05:30 GMT
That was a Pet Sounds promo video with the monster masks. I believe it used snippets from about 4-5 songs from the album. Plus, there was the Sloop John B promo that was pretty impressively recreated in the Love and Mercy movie. This seems to feature one of those snippets: That's it! That's the one. I had the wrong song, though. How weird was that video, especially for Pet Sounds. I could see if it was for Smiley Smile...
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 3, 2023 16:42:52 GMT
I think you both had the right song. If I remember, the clip is about seven minutes song, and had parts from Wouldn't It Be Nice and God Only Knows too.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 4, 2023 0:31:30 GMT
But, as I did with the red album, I could argue for many songs that were left off. Dear Prudence, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Revolution 1, Rocky Raccoon, Blackbird, Because, You Never Give Me Your Money, Golden Slumbers, Two of Us, I've Got a Feeling, For You Blue, Getting Better - I'm thinking in terms of songs I've heard on classic rock radio. Sometimes it seems to me like nearly every song the Beatles recorded was a hit! One thing I've been thinking about is that the white album is noticeably underrepresented. That said, I understand that much of the white album just isn't as commercial and it's sort of an "sum is greater than its parts" album. I think that's a legitimate concern here. Objectively, I think they were right to include "Back in the USSR", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da". I can't argue those. But I also think "Dear Prudence", "Blackbird", and "Helter Skelter" were worthy and should (and could) have been included. Those are important tracks (and that would have been evident in 1973, if not 1968). But tracks like "Birthday" (too much of a novelty), "Revolution 1" (wouldn't be chosen over the single version), "Rocky Raccoon" (too inconsequential), "Two of Us" and "For You Blue" (lacking production values), and "I've Got A Feeling" (too raw/live-sounding) just aren't strong arguments. I love 'em all, but...again...approaching it objectively. (I also think incorporating the Abbey Road medley on Side 4 is an interesting idea initially but there just isn't enough space for any configuration of it.) So, mathematically speaking, considering the obvious underrepresentation of album tracks from the white album, which tracks do each of you think were the biggest snubs?My choices: Add "Dear Prudence", "Blackbird", and "Helter Skelter". Possibly drop "Magical Mystery Tour" (tough because it's a title song but not entirely implausible), "Fool on the Hill", and "Old Brown Shoe". (I'd also consider dropping the A-side of the latter to "preserve" that single and free up space for one more track. I get that they were prioritizing singles, and I think both tracks add to the "cool factor" of the compilation, but...)
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Feb 4, 2023 0:50:14 GMT
Well - Now that we have gone off the rails on the Best/Worst of The Beatles thread - I have to include the video that gives me all of the feels. “God Only Knows”, Carl enjoying a relaxing breakfast, so many close ups of Carl, his voice over. I could watch this everyday. Damn Carl is so beautiful. Maybe we move to a new thread - our favorite Beach Boys videos? Long Promised Road and Sloop John B would show up there.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 5, 2023 5:16:03 GMT
The Beatles/1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were big sellers - the latter made it to #1 in Billboard; the former peaked at #3. And both continue to sell year after year. A year later, Capitol released the Beach Boys' Endless Summer, and to everyone's surprise, it made it to #1 on the charts. Well, when you've found a good thing, you try to repeat it, so in '75, Capitol gave us Spirit of America. Once again, it was a big seller - as I recall topping out at #8. So it was only a matter of time before they gave similar treatment to the Beatles' catalog. 1976 brought us Rock 'N' Roll Music. I know this album is widely panned among fans, primarily for the atrocious cover art, but I find it an enjoyable listen. A lot of those hard left and right mixes are centered here, and it's nice to have an album that emphasizes that the Beatles were always first and foremost a rock and roll band. The only minor complaint I have about it is they repeated several tracks from the red and blue albums - Drive My Car, Back in the U.S.S.R, Revolution, and Get Back. On the plus side, I'm Down finally appears on an album. Several years later the double album was split into two singles. Discuss if you like, or we can move on to The Beatles At the Hollywood Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2023 18:41:06 GMT
I had never heard of this compilation album, though reading about it is pretty interesting: the drama over the '50s nostalgia artwork (for a '60s band); the drama over the tapes used, and George Martin's efforts to improve them; and its massive success, hitting #2 on the US Billboard charts, held from the top spot by ... none other than Wings's Wings at the Speed of Sound.
As for my favorite and least favorite, I don't know. Does anyone else find it harder to make those choices on compilation albums than original albums, or is that my own little brain quirk? To me, the songs just don't seem to go together because I've never experienced them that way.
I guess my favorite song of the bunch is probably "Got To Get You Into My Life," with "Revolution," "Birthday," "Any Time At All" and "I Saw Her Standing There" in contention.
On the other end of things, Side Two in general is inferior to the rest, for my opinion. "Kansas City" and "Matchbox" are the ones I could most easily do without.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 6, 2023 21:30:41 GMT
My take on the 50's artwork was, it's an album of the Beatles doing Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Larry Williams, Little Richard songs. So in that way, it fits. But of course the album also has "Revolution", "The Night Before", "I Call Your Name", to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2023 21:32:46 GMT
My take on the 50's artwork was, it's an album of the Beatles doing Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Larry Williams, Little Richard songs. So in that way, it fits. But of course the album also has "Revolution", "The Night Before", "I Call Your Name", to name a few. I see that angle for sure, but my understanding from what I was reading was that the Beatles themselves--at least Ringo and John--were not fans of it. I think it seems it was a part of the '50s nostalgia of the time, which they didn't think they fit into.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 6, 2023 21:35:52 GMT
I think we can move on from Rock 'N' Roll Music. It's been out of print for probably 30 years, so if you didn't grow up with it, it's not gonna mean anything to you. That might not be the case with the next two. The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl WAS out of print for many years, then reissued a few years ago as a soundtrack to a Ron Howard movie. WTF? The other album has been re-released more times than I can count. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 7, 2023 2:09:06 GMT
I think we can move on from Rock 'N' Roll Music. It's been out of print for probably 30 years, so if you didn't grow up with it, it's not gonna mean anything to you. I just wanted to mention that I did purchase the Rock 'n' Roll Music album, but not until later, when it was split in two. I remember buying them at a budget price which surprised me for a Beatles' release. The artwork had a lot to be desired. That being said, I did enjoy the records very much. As I mentioned, growing up I didn't purchase Beatles' albums, and this release helped me to fill in more gaps after the Red/Blue albums.
Not much imagination here:
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 7, 2023 20:43:56 GMT
I think we can move on from Rock 'N' Roll Music. It's been out of print for probably 30 years, so if you didn't grow up with it, it's not gonna mean anything to you. I just wanted to mention that I did purchase the Rock 'n' Roll Music album, but not until later, when it was split in two. I remember buying them at a budget price which surprised me for a Beatles' release. The artwork had a lot to be desired. That being said, I did enjoy the records very much. As I mentioned, growing up I didn't purchase Beatles' albums, and this release helped me to fill in more gaps after the Red/Blue albums.
Not much imagination here:
I remember seeing that version in the discount section - the only Beatles albums, other than the Star Club tapes and the Tony Sheridan stuff - to ever get the budget treatment. As I recall, the US artwork was slightly different. It was "A Capitol Value".
|
|