4.25pm
Members
18 March 2013
That’s in The Beatles: The First U.S Visit documentary, t’is a good watch.
I shall look for the whole video in a second and shall post it here.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
Starr Shine?
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
4.50pm
Members
18 March 2013
Bother, I can only see “the making of” documentary on YT but I’m sure if you look around some other sites *cough*, you’ll be able to find the clip you’re looking for. It’s in the middle of the documentary from what I can remember.
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
7.33pm
1 November 2013
8.45pm
1 November 2013
Which Beatle was the best at speaking German?
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
parlanceIf you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.
12.56am
5 February 2014
7.15pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Would you say there was a pivital moment in the life of any of The Beatles where they went from being a boy to being a man? Or were there gradual paths each took? Can you describe the point or path for one or more of them?
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
7.54pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
@Ahhh Girl Hamburg. For all of them. I’m not going to describe the how and why. Use your imagination. This isn’t the Forty Shades thread!!!
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.21pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Not that kind of becoming a man. I almost wrote that into my initial post/question, but I hoped no one would go “there”.
EDIT: Actually, I do recall the comment they made about Hamburg being where they grew up. I just feel like there is something more. Why were they still called boys by so many for years. Maybe it was just the culture of the time for older people to call anyone that age “boy” or “girl”. When did they gain the designation “man”?
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
8.51pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
@Ahhh Girl I was not merely referring to becoming a man in that way. But, along with Hamburg forging The Beatles as a group, it also made them grow up, turned them from boys to men. They went from the comfort of being home for tea to this extremely sexual and violent adult world the like of which didn’t exist (openly) in Liverpool. To survive in that environment they HAD to grow up fast.
In every respect, professionally and – individually – personally, Hamburg was fulcrum. One cannot ignore that their jump from boys to men took place against that rather seedy backdrop, and it was that seedy backdrop that forced them to leave behind childish things. The Reeperbahn was where they stopped being children simply because a child would drown there.
The importance of Hamburg on every aspect cannot ever be underestimated. It forged the band, and it forged the men.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Beatlebug"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.27pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Okay, I’m double-posting, @Ahhh Girl, but that’s your fault for editing to change the parameters of your question while I was responding to another.
Why did Brian refer to them as the “Boys “, a description that many others adopted as well? Part of that was because that was how Brian viewed them, his “Boys “. As things unfolded, it fitted the non-threatening image – especially sexually – for them that Brian wanted to project. In that respect, they were the original boy band, and that description still stands for many male pop groups.
So, if that is the questions, the public perception of them as the “Boys ” started dying the moment they stepped off stage at Candlestick Park in 1966.
The reference to them as the “Boys ” shouldn’t be taken to mean that they were not also regarded as men. At what age, for instance, do men and women stop having respectively a “Boys night out” or a “Girls night out”? In that way, we as adults, cling to our youth. While women, at a certain stage, may switch from a “Girls night” to “Ladies night”, there is no real equivalent in male language. For us, it’s a “Boys night” or a “Lads night”, both of which sound rather juvenile.
It’s just the way the language works.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
ewe2, Ahhh Girl, Beatlebug"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1.18am
15 May 2014
Ron Nasty said
Why did Brian refer to them as the “Boys “, a description that many others adopted as well? Part of that was because that was how Brian viewed them, his “Boys “. As things unfolded, it fitted the non-threatening image – especially sexually – for them that Brian wanted to project. In that respect, they were the original boy band, and that description still stands for many male pop groups.
Finally! I’ve been saying that for a whole year!
“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
2.55am
5 February 2014
I disagree.
While true that Epstein referred to them as ‘the boys,’ so did numerous other people, including family, friends, and associates, including Mona Best, Neil Aspinal, Bob Wooler and George Martin. And this was before they ‘broke.’ It’s a term of affection, to be sure. But The Beatles weren’t known for just their singing (the chief element in a ‘boy band’), they were also known for breaking the songwriting barrier -you know of what I speak. Hindsight saddles them with this term and, I’m going to presume, some of them might have found it unflattering and maybe even a bit offensive.
The term ‘boy band’ is a term that gained notoriety only as recently as the 1990’s. It wasn’t used in the 1960’s (that I’m aware of). Retrospective application of it landed on The Beatles, but unfairly. If you’re to create justification for a ‘boy band,’ it would center on ‘manufactured’ groups (by producers, record execs, A&R people, etc.) and focused largely for their vocal ability. Rarely does this include musicianship, and never on their own songwriting. ‘Boy bands’ also involve dance choreography and a few other elements that The Beatles lacked (or didn’t even consider) unless you wish to count their unison bowing.
Knowing your Beatles history tells you that, before anything, The Beatles were a straight-up rock band that evolved into a more complex rock act as they musically matured. Name me a single ‘boy band’ where you find that.
If you’re going to apply the term retrospectively, in the rock genre, you’re going to have to stop at The Monkees. They were the original boy band.
The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:
Beatlebug4.41am
11 November 2013
When I look at the prancing ninnies who comprise today’s boy bands, they are – to me – unquestionably boys, whereas I always regarded The Beatles as young men. Perhaps this is because I was a boy myself when the Beatles arrived, but I don’t think so – the Beatles had an adult air about them, and I suspect it was the Hamburg experience which gave them this.
The thing which puzzles me is John. As leader of the group in Hamburg, and someone with a commanding way about him as a young man (even though still nominally living at Mendips), he later seemed to lose all ability to actually do things for himself, becoming utterly dependent on others. Maybe this is just a matter of false reporting, but it’s an impression which seems to come from multiple sources.
8.36am
Reviewers
14 April 2010
C.R.A. said
I disagree.
While true that Epstein referred to them as ‘the boys,’ so did numerous other people, including family, friends, and associates, including Mona Best, Neil Aspinal, Bob Wooler and George Martin. And this was before they ‘broke.’ It’s a term of affection, to be sure. But The Beatles weren’t known for just their singing (the chief element in a ‘boy band’), they were also known for breaking the songwriting barrier -you know of what I speak. Hindsight saddles them with this term and, I’m going to presume, some of them might have found it unflattering and maybe even a bit offensive.
The term ‘boy band’ is a term that gained notoriety only as recently as the 1990’s. It wasn’t used in the 1960’s (that I’m aware of). Retrospective application of it landed on The Beatles, but unfairly. If you’re to create justification for a ‘boy band,’ it would center on ‘manufactured’ groups (by producers, record execs, A&R people, etc.) and focused largely for their vocal ability. Rarely does this include musicianship, and never on their own songwriting. ‘Boy bands’ also involve dance choreography and a few other elements that The Beatles lacked (or didn’t even consider) unless you wish to count their unison bowing.
Knowing your Beatles history tells you that, before anything, The Beatles were a straight-up rock band that evolved into a more complex rock act as they musically matured. Name me a single ‘boy band’ where you find that.
If you’re going to apply the term retrospectively, in the rock genre, you’re going to have to stop at The Monkees. They were the original boy band.
Incredibly well put. In my view, the notion of the Beatles being referred to as a boy band is ludicrous.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
C.R.A., BeatlebugTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
8.46am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
I guess what is getting in my way here is the idea of the “bubble” that people say they were in while Brian was alive. Brian took care of them. I’ve seen the posts on the forum that say the bubble burst when Brian died. Maybe that is part of what is coming into my thinking when I try to imagine them having to grow up and become men.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
9.06am
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Ahhh Girl said
I guess what is getting in my way here is the idea of the “bubble” that people say they were in while Brian was alive. Brian took care of them. I’ve seen the posts on the forum that say the bubble burst when Brian died. Maybe that is part of what is coming into my thinking when I try to imagine them having to grow up and become men.
I was thinking about your question, AG – “when did they become men?”. RN is on the right track in saying Hamburg, but to me that was just where the tendencies began. Turning teenagers (yes, I know John would soon be 20) loose in Hamburg is like letting a kid loose in a candy store. Humping everything that moved is not being a man. However, sending money home to their families showed manly (a loose adjective) responsibility. Shouting obscenities at your audience is not being a man. Showing tenderness and depth of feeling toward Astrid upon Stu’s loss is. I could go on, but hopefully by now you see where I am coming from. Even after Hamburg when it came to sacking Pete, they hid behind Brian. Men face up to it. I’m not going to sit here and tell you definitively when they became men. I would be daft to try. But Hamburg was definitely the beginning.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
9.16am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Ron Nasty said
…it fitted the non-threatening image – especially sexually – for them that Brian wanted to project. In that respect, they were the original boy band…
I think my use of the phrase “the original boy band” has been misunderstood. Perhaps my fault for bad wording. I was, in no way, suggesting they were the first boy band. My comment was solely in regard to Brian’s packaging of them, his media operation that went with it, and the media’s willingness to uphold the image that Brian created for them for so long. I qualified the phrase before I used it, but it seems not enough…
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
trcanberra"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.19am
28 March 2014
Ron Nasty said
I think my use of the phrase “the original boy band” has been misunderstood. Perhaps my fault for bad wording. I was, in no way, suggesting they were the first boy band. My comment was solely in regard to Brian’s packaging of them
I think it’s safe to say they were the first boy band…. “Beatlemania” was something that wasn’t experienced since Elvis, but he was a solo act.
The following people thank Bongo for this post:
OudisBEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!
9.21am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
2 Guest(s)