_____
———
———
https://slate.com/culture/2013/05/the-beatles-tour-with-roy-orbison-even-the-beatles-struggled-to-follow-roy-orbison.html
Brow Beat is following the Beatles in “real time,” 50 years later, from their first chart-topper to their final rooftop concert. 50 years ago this month, the Beatles went on tour with one of their idols, Roy Orbison.
According to Roy Orbison, when he was first asked by Brian Epstein to tour England with the Beatles, he responded, “What’s a Beatle?” Orbison was fresh off hits like “Only the Lonely,” “Crying,” and “In Dreams,” and his popularity was rising fast in the U.K., but he wasn’t yet used to Mersey Beat bands with such goofy names. It was his first U.K. tour, and, as Orbison later recalled, he didn’t know what to expect. But the president of the Roy Orbison Fan Club wrote him a letter, explaining that touring with the Beatles would be terrific for him. They were No. 1 in England, Orbison’s fan explained, and would get him more exposure. There was, at first, no doubt about who the headliner would be.
The Beatles certainly knew who Orbison was. He was one of their greatest idols, and Lennon had modeled their first No. 1 on “Only the Lonely.” Later, when the Beatles were photographed with Orbison,Ringo, in particular, looked more than a little excited to be with him:
Nonetheless, by the time Orbison arrived in the U.K., his one-time opener had surpassed him in popularity. In a concession to audience demand, Orbison graciously agreed to share co-billing, and to let the Beatles close out each night.
Not that Roy Orbison would let himself simply be upstaged. Though he was greeted each night with a roar of screaming Beatles fans, clamoring to see their favorite band, he countered, rather ingeniously, by telling his band to play the first song pianissimo (as Spencer Leigh tells it), so that the audience had to hush in order to hear him. Once the crowd had quieted down, Orbison had no trouble transporting them with a few ballads. “It was pretty hard to keep up with that man,” Lennon later remembered, “He really put on a show, well, they all did, but Orbison had that fantastic voice.” Harrison agreed:
He’d had so many hit songs and people could sit and listen to him all night. He didn’t have to do anything, he didn’t have to wiggle his legs, in fact he never even twitched, he was like marble. The only things that moved were his lips—even when he hit those high notes he never strained. He was quite a miracle, unique.
The band would set up behind Orbison as he finished, hidden behind a curtain, and Harrison remembers listening to him do encore after encore and thinking, “How are we going to following this?” Ringo put it more bluntly: “It was terrible, following Roy. He’d slay them and they’d scream for more.”
Of course, the Beatles were beginning to grow quite a repertoire themselves by this point. Their standard set consisted of “Please Please Me,” “Love Me Do,” “Some Other Guy,” “Do You Want to Know a Secret,” “From Me to You,” “I Saw Her Standing There,” and “Twist and Shout.” So they didn’t fare too poorly either. Beatlemania was starting to set in, and they were being pelted by jellybeans night after night, just because George had mentioned liking them in an interview.
He’d had so many hit songs and people could sit and listen to him all night. He didn’t have to do anything, he didn’t have to wiggle his legs, in fact he never even twitched, he was like marble. The only things that moved were his lips—even when he hit those high notes he never strained. He was quite a miracle, unique.
The band would set up behind Orbison as he finished, hidden behind a curtain, and Harrison remembers listening to him do encore after encore and thinking, “How are we going to following this?” Ringo put it more bluntly: “It was terrible, following Roy. He’d slay them and they’d scream for more.”
Of course, the Beatles were beginning to grow quite a repertoire themselves by this point. Their standard set consisted of “Please Please Me,” “Love Me Do,” “Some Other Guy,” “Do You Want to Know a Secret,” “From Me to You,” “I Saw Her Standing There,” and “Twist and Shout.” So they didn’t fare too poorly either. Beatlemania was starting to set in, and they were being pelted by jellybeans night after night, just because George had mentioned liking them in an interview.
The competition between the two groups spilled over to the tour bus. Paul later remembered how at the back of the bus Orbison would be writing songs like “Pretty Woman,” and it would just about make them jealous: “He would play us his song,” Paul said, “and we’d say, ‘Oh, it’s great, Roy. Have you just written that?’ But we’d be thinking, ‘We have to have something as good.’ ” As would later happen with groups like the Beach Boys and the Rolling Stones, their competitiveness with Orbison inspired them to produce some of their best work. For his part, McCartney was writing such songs as “All My Loving,” which he began composing on the tour bus and worked out on the piano at one of the venues.
The rivalry between the artists didn’t stop them from becoming friends—25 years later, Harrison would work with Orbison again, as part of the Traveling Wilburys. But within months, the Beatles wouldn’t need to share billing at all. When they went out on tour again in November, the tour was billed only as “the Beatles Show.”
Read more recent posts from Blogging the Beatles
The Beatles Get Their Own Show
Did John Lennon Have a Secret Affair With Brian Epstein?
The Songs the Beatles Gave Away
The Beatles Meet the Stones
John Lennon Has a Secret Wife and Son
The Beatles Rock a Boarding School
The Beatles Lead a Movement
The Beatles Become the Headliners
______
–
_—
—
The Beatles albums ranked
December 23, 2022
It’s difficult to have the albums created by the most important band in the history of music ranked from worst to best. After all, it’s unlikely that you’ll find any band or musical artist unwilling to share their admiration for the Fab Four. Their fingerprints are over everything created in popular music.
The Liverpool quartet recorded albums at a significant pace between 1963 and 1970. Many of these are classics that redefined what pop-rock could be. Most of these are tremendously experimental, adventurous affairs.
Still, which one’s the best? Is there any one album worth avoiding?
I’ve looked at the evidence and listened to the whole discography once more, and I think that I have an answer or two.
For simplicity’s sake, I have only included official UK releases. That means that the early US-released records aren’t on here. Neither are compilations such as “Anthology,” “Rarities,” or “Hey Jude.” “Yellow Submarine” is included as it included mostly unreleased material and was crafted as a studio album.
With this in mind, here’s a quick initiation into the musical world created by John, Paul, George, and Ringo, The Beatles albums ranked.
13. “Yellow Submarine” (1969)
The Beatles had built an entire world since releasing their debut. It was populated by colorful characters and by exotic philosophies. Best of all, millions of folks in the real world knew everything about it.
“Yellow Submarine” is a soundtrack album by The Beatles. It was released in 1969 to accompany the animated film of the same name. The album features songs from the film, as well as a number of previously released tracks.
The colored submarine had, of course, already been added to the band’s cosmos. Smartly, it serves as the entry point for the story presented in this movie. It would become one of the most beloved animated films of all time.
It’s a good showcase for the band’s catchy melodies and clever lyrics. Standout tracks include the title track, “Yellow Submarine,” and the infectious “All You Need Is Love.”
This Beatles album also includes a number of instrumental tracks, which add to the playful and lighthearted mood of the album.
The album is a perfect introduction to The Beatles for those unfamiliar with their music and a must-have for any fan of the band. In fact, it acted as the debut Beatles record for many children familiar with the film.
Despite this, it should be noted that while the animated Beatles are characters in the film, their voices are dubbed by actors taking their best stab at a Scouse accent.
With all this being said, it’s not an album constructed with the same level of attention as some of the others in The Beatles’ discography.
Come Together – John Lennon (Live In New York City)
You may be interested in links to the other posts I have done on the Beatles and you can click on the link below: FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 288, LINKS TO 3 YEARS OF BEATLES POSTS (March of 2015 to Feb of 2018) Featured artist is Mark Dion
DAY TRIPPING: THE 10 DRUGGIEST BEATLES SONGS
1
‘Strawberry Fields Forever’
From 1967 Single
Read More: Day Tripping: The 10 Druggiest Beatles Songs | https://diffuser.fm/druggiest-beatles-songs/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
—
2
‘Tomorrow Never Knows’
From ‘Revolver’
Read More: Day Tripping: The 10 Druggiest Beatles Songs | https://diffuser.fm/druggiest-beatles-songs/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
‘Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds’
Lennon always claimed ‘Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds’ has nothing to do with LSD (or Lysergic Acid Diethylamide), and that it was his son that came up with the idea for the song’s title. But come on — this ‘Sgt. Pepper’s’ classic is obviously about psychedelic drug use. No sober person could have written something this bizarre. It’d be like asking Salvador Dalí to paint a watercolor of a house and a yard with a lemon-yellow sun. Not gonna happen.
Read More: Day Tripping: The 10 Druggiest Beatles Songs | https://diffuser.fm/druggiest-beatles-songs/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
A full-page advertisement appeared in The Times newspaper on this day, signed by 64 of the most prominent members of British society, which called for the legalisation of marijuana. Among the signatories were The Beatles and Brian Epstein.
The advertisement was instigated as a response to the nine-month prison sentence for possession received on 1 June 1967 by John Hopkins, founder of International Times, the UFO Club and the 24 Hour Technicolour Dream. The following day an emergency meeting was held at the Indica Bookshop, during which Steve Abrams of drug-research organisation SOMA suggested bringing the issue into public debate by running a full-page advertisement.
Abrams agreed to organise the signatures, but the question of financing the advertisement proved temporarily problematic. None of The Beatles were present at the Indica, but the bookshop’s co-owner Barry Miles telephoned Paul McCartney, who agreed to finance the advertisement.
On 3 June Miles and Abrams visited McCartney’s house in Cavendish Avenue. McCartney listened to the plans, told Abrams that all The Beatles and Epstein would put their names to it, and told them how to contact the rest of the group for their signatures.
On 23 July, the day before publication, the ad was mentioned in The Sunday Times’ Atticus column, written by Philip Oates. Behind the scenes, however, The Times’ advertising manager, R Grant Davidson, nervously insisted on checking that all the people had indeed agreed for their names to be associated with the article.
Davidson also insisted on advance payment. Steve Abrams contacted Peter Brown at Brian Epstein’s office, and shortly afterwards received a personal cheque for £1,800 made out to The Times. At the time the amount was twice the average annual wage.
Although McCartney had wanted to keep the funding a secret, in fear of negative publicity, it soon proved impossible. The day after the advertisement appeared, the information appeared in the Evening Standard’s Londoner’s Diary.
Within a week of its appearance, the advertisement led to questions being asked in the House of Commons, and began a public debate which eventually led to liberalisation in the laws against cannabis use in Britain.
ADVERTISEMENT
This advertisement is sponsored by SOMA*
The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice.“All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at. Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of man that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men’s thoughts toward these very objects; for we always strive toward what is forbidden and desire the things we are not allowed to have. And men of leisure are never deficient in the ingenuity needed to enable them to outwit laws framed to regulate things which cannot be entirely forbidden. …He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.”- Spinoza
The herb Cannabis sativa, known as ‘Marihuana’ or ‘Hashish’, is prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Act (1965). The maximum penalty for smoking cannabis is ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of £1,000. Yet informed medical opinion supports the view that cannabis is the least harmful of pleasure-giving drugs, and is, in particular, far less harmful than alcohol. Cannabis is non-addictive, and prosecutions for disorderly behaviour under its influence are unknown.
The use of cannabis is increasing, and the rate of increase is accelerating. Cannabis smoking is widespread in the universities, and the custom has been taken up by writers, teachers, doctors, businessmen, musicians, scientists, and priests. Such persons do not fit the stereotype of the unemployed criminal dope fiend. Smoking the herb also forms a traditional part of the social and religious life of hundreds of thousands of immigrants to Britain.
A leading article in The Lancet (9 November, 1963) has suggested that it is “worth considering … giving cannabis the same status as alcohol by legalising its import and consumption … Besides the undoubted attraction of reducing, for once, the number of crimes that a member of our society can commit, and of allowing the wider spread of something that can give pleasure, a greater revenue would certainly come to the State from taxation than from fines. …Additional gains might be the reduction of inter-racial tension, as well as that between generations.”
The main justification for the prohibition of cannabis has been the contention that its use leads to heroin addiction. This contention does not seem to be supported by any documented evidence, and has been specifically refuted by several authoritative studies. It is almost certainly correct to state that the risk to cannabis smokers of becoming heroin addicts is far less than the risk to drinkers of becoming alcoholics.
Cannabis is usually taken by normal persons for the purpose of enhancing sensory experience. Heroin is taken almost exclusively by weak and disturbed individuals for the purpose of withdrawing from reality. By prohibiting cannabis Parliament has created a black market where heroin could occasionally be offered to persons who would not otherwise have had access to it. Potential addicts, having found cannabis to be a poor escape route, have doubtless been tempted to try heroin; and it is probable that their experience of the harmlessness and non-addictive quality of cannabis has led them to underestimate the dangers of heroin. It is the prohibition of cannabis, and not cannabis itself, which may contribute to heroin addiction.
The present system of controls has strongly discouraged the use of cannabis preparations in medicine. It is arguable that claims which were formerly made for the effectiveness of cannabis in psychiatric treatment might now bear re-examination in the light of modern views on drug therapy; and a case could also be made out for further investigation of the antibiotic properties of cannabidiolic acid, one of the constituents of the herb. The possibility of alleviating suffering through the medical use of cannabis preparations should not be dismissed because of prejudice concerning the social effects of ‘drugs’.
The Government ought to welcome and encourage research into all aspects of cannabis smoking, but according to the law as it stands no one is permitted to smoke cannabis under any circumstances, and exceptions cannot be made for scientific and medical research. It is a scandal that doctors who are entitled to prescribe heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates risk being sent to prison for personally investigating a drug which is known to be less damaging than alcohol or even tobacco.
A recent leader in The Times called attention to the great danger of the “deliberate sensationalism” which underlies the present campaign against ‘drugs’ and cautioned that: “Past cases have shown what can happen when press, police and public all join in a manhunt at a moment of national anxiety”. In recent months the persecution of cannabis smokers has been intensified. Much larger fines and an increasing proportion of unreasonable prison sentences suggest that, the crime at issue is not so much drug abuse as heresy.
The prohibition of cannabis has brought the law into disrepute and has demoralized police officers faced with the necessity of enforcing an unjust law. Uncounted thousands of frightened persons have been arbitrarily classified as criminals and threatened with arrest, victimisation and loss of livelihood. Many of them have been exposed to public contempt in the courts, insulted by uninformed magistrates and sent to suffer in prison. They have been hunted down with Alsatian dogs or stopped on the street at random and improperly searched. The National Council for Civil Liberties has called attention to instances where drugs have apparently been ‘planted’ on suspected cannabis smokers. Chief Constables have appealed to the public to inform on their neighbours and children. Yet despite these gross impositions and the threat to civil liberties which they pose the police freely admit that they have been unable to prevent the spread of cannabis smoking.
Abuse of opiates, amphetamines and barbiturates has become a serious national problem, but very little can be done about it so long as the prohibition of cannabis remains in force. The police do not have the resources or the manpower to deal with both cannabis and the dangerous drugs at the same time. Furthermore prohibition provides a potential breeding ground for many forms of drug abuse and gangsterism. Similar legislation in America in the ‘twenties brought the sale of both alcohol and heroin under the control of an immensely powerful criminal conspiracy which still thrives today. We in Britain must not lose sight of the parallel.
MEDICAL OPINION
“There are no lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marihuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded. … The causal relationship between these two events (marihuana smoking and heroin addiction) has never been substantiated. In spite of the once heated interchanges among members of the medical profession and between the medical profession and law enforcement officers there seems to be a growing agreement within the medical community, at least, that marihuana does not directly cause criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction.”
Dr. J. H. Jaffe, in The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, L. Goodman and A. Gillman, Eds., 3rd Ed. 1965“Certain specific myths require objective confrontation since otherwise they recurrently confuse the issue, and incidentally divert the energy and attention of police and customs and immigration authorities in directions which have very little to do with the facts and much more to do with prejudiced beliefs. The relative innocence of marijuana by comparison with alcohol is one such fact, its social denial a comparable myth.”
Dr. David Stafford-Clark, Director of Psychological Medicine, Guy’s Hospital. The Times, 12 April 1967.“Marijuana is not a drug of addiction and is, medically speaking, far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco … It is generally smoked in the company of others and its chief effect seems to be an enhanced appreciation of music and colour and together with a feeling of relaxation and peace. A mystical experience of being at one with the universe is common, which is why the drug has been highly valued in Eastern religions. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not lead to aggressive behaviour, nor is it aphrodisiac. There is no hangover, nor, so far as it is known, any deleterious physical effect.”
Dr. Anthony Storr, Sunday Times, 5 February 1967“The available evidence shows that marijuana is not a drug of addiction and has no harmful effects … (the problem of marijuana) has been created by an ill-informed society rather than the drug itself.”
Guy’s Hospital Gazette, 17, 1965“I think we can now say that marijuana does not lead to degeneration, does not affect the brain cells, is not habit-forming, and does not lead to heroin addiction.”
Dr James H. Fox, Director of the Bureau of Drug abuse Control, U.S. Food and Drug administration. Quoted Champaign, Illinois News-Gazette, 25 August 1966“Cannabis is taken for euphoria, reduction of fatigue, and relief from tension, … (it) is a valuable pleasure-giving drug, probably much safer than alcohol.”
Dr. Joel Fort, Consultant on Drug Addiction to the World Health Organisation, Lecturer in School of Criminology, University of California. From Blum, Richard Ed., Utopiates 1965“(Smoking cannabis) only occasionally is followed by heroin use, probably in those who would have become heroin addicts as readily without the marijuana.”
Dr L. Bender, Comprehens. Psychiat. 1963, 4, 181-94
The signatories to this petition suggest to the Home Secretary that he implement a five point programme of cannabis reform:
1 THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE RESEARCH INTO ALL ASPECTS OF CANNABIS USE, INCLUDING ITS MEDICAL APPLICATIONS.
2 ALLOWING THE SMOKING OF CANNABIS ON PRIVATE PREMISES SHOULD NO LONGER CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE.
3 CANNABIS SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS LIST AND CONTROLLED, RATHER THAN PROHIBITED, BY A NEW AD HOC INSTRUMENT.
4 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS SHOULD EITHER BE LEGALLY PERMITTED OR AT MOST BE CONSIDERED A MISDEMEANOUR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ukp10 FOR A FIRST OFFENCE AND NOT MORE THAN ukp25 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENCE.
5 ALL PERSONS NOW IMPRISONED FOR POSSESSION OF CANNABIS OR FOR ALLOWING CANNABIS TO BE SMOKED ON PRIVATE PREMISES SHOULD HAVE THEIR SENTENCES COMMUTED.
- Jonathan Aitken
- Tariq Ali
- David Bailey
- Humphrey Berkeley
- Anthony Blond
- Derek Boshier
- Sidney Briskin
- Peter Brook
- Dr. David Cooper
- Dr. Francis Crick, F.R.S.
- David Dimbleby
- Tom Driberg, M.P.
- Dr. Ian Dunbar
- Brian Epstein
- Dr. Aaron Esterson
- Peter Fryer
- John Furnival
- Tony Garnett
- Clive Goodwin
- Graham Greene
- Richard Hamilton
- George Harrison, M.B.E.
- Michael Hastings
- Dr. J.M. Heaton
- David Hockney
- Jeremy Hornsby
- Dr. S. Hutt
- Francis Huxley
- Dr. Brian Inglis
- The Revd. Dr. Victor E.S. Kenna, O.B.E.
- George Kiloh
- Herbert Kretzmer
- Dr. R.D. Laing
- Dr. Calvin Mark Lee
- John Lennon, M.B.E.
- Dr. D.M. Lewis
- Paul McCartney, M.B.E.
- David McEwen
- Alasdair MacIntyre
- Dr. O.D. Macrae-Gibson
- Tom Mashler
- Michael Abul Malik
- George Melly
- Dr. Jonathan Miller
- Adrian Mitchell
- Dr. Ann Mully
- P.H. Nowell-Smith
- Dr. Christopher Pallis
- John Piper
- Patrick Procktor
- John Pudney
- Alastair Reid
- L. Jeffrey Selznick
- Nathan Silver
- Tony Smythe
- Michael Schofield
- Dr. David Stafford-Clark
- Richard Starkey, M.B.E.
- Dr. Anthony Storr
- Kenneth Tynan
- Dr. W. Grey Walter
- Brian Walden, M.P.
- Michael White
- Pat Williams
DISCLAIMER – Signatures should in no way be taken to imply affiliation to SOMA or support of its aims or objectives.
*SOMA is applying for recognition as a company limited by guarantee with Charitable Trusts. It is being formed to examine without prejudice the scientific, medical, legal, moral, social, and philosophical aspects of heightened mental awareness, with special reference to the effects of pleasure-giving drugs. SOMA will sponsor research and discussion on the mechanisms, potentialities and dangers of heightened mental awareness and will publish its findings. Contributions can now be accepted. Cheques and postal orders should be made payable to SOMA, and sent to Michael Henshaw, Accountant, 20, Fitzroy Square, W.1.
______
The Daily Hatch 