Beatles Ed Sullivan colorized

[merciful-evans]

Maybe old stuff to many here but I had never seen this before.

I've only ever seen a couple of clips of the Beatles on ES shows in some docs etc. 

They managed a pretty good job here I reckon.

At first I thought this was the 1st appearance but it isn't. Curiously Cilla Black is on there as well.

[Whitefang]

Their first appearance on Ed Sullivan was in Feb. 9, '64.  Oddly, Sullivan's show wasn't broadcast in color until 1965, which makes this equally odd 21 second clip  probably not colorized but an original color broadcast.  And still in their prime, and as I also recall seeing every appearance by them on Sullivan I don't recall them only being on for a mere 21 seconds.  Their appearances on Sullivan were considered major events.  

Notice if you let the clip play out there'll be a wallboard of other clips of YT featured, and on the upper left of the screen will be a "link" to the entire program.  And why the entire Beatle performance is cut from the above clip is puzzling.   So I decided to give this a try....

Whitefang

[ksdaddy]

I saw them on Ed Sullivan in '64. I was 3-1/2 but I can remember my sisters (aged 11 and 10) making a HUGE deal out of the fact the Beatles were going to be on there. We had Pepsi and popcorn at the ready. Even at that age,  I realized their hair did not look like any boy's I had ever seen.  I wasn't judging of course, just amused I guess. I couldn't believe how much screaming there was. 

We bought the album "Meet the Beatles" either just before or just after that event. I was enthralled by the rainbow strip on the old Capitol album going around... on a 1955 Columbia 360 mahogany phonograph with V-M record changer. Which is presently sitting about 15 feet from me. 

And the 21" maple floor model 1960 General Electric television I watched the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show on.... is also about 15 feet from me.

I'm weird like that.

[Larsongs]

To it was a major event is an understatement.. They Stopped the World.. Then re-started it!

[Tman]

1 hour ago, ksdaddy said:

I saw them on Ed Sullivan in '64. I was 3-1/2 but I can remember my sisters (aged 11 and 10) making a HUGE deal out of the fact the Beatles were going to be on there.

Similar experience. I was 4 and my older twin sisters were so excited. My entire family watched the show in our little TV room. It was a monumental societal occurrence. I too hadn't seen the colorized version.

[merciful-evans]

2 hours ago, Whitefang said:

Their first appearance on Ed Sullivan was in Feb. 9, '64.  Oddly, Sullivan's show wasn't broadcast in color until 1965, which makes this equally odd 21 second clip  probably not colorized but an original color broadcast.  And still in their prime, and as I also recall seeing every appearance by them on Sullivan I don't recall them only being on for a mere 21 seconds.  Their appearances on Sullivan were considered major events.  

Notice if you let the clip play out there'll be a wallboard of other clips of YT featured, and on the upper left of the screen will be a "link" to the entire program.  And why the entire Beatle performance is cut from the above clip is puzzling.   So I decided to give this a try....

Whitefang

I may have found the wrong link then because I saw the whole show (I wizzed through a bit here & there).

In 1962 the Beatles immediately became my favourite group when I first heard Love Me Do. I was 8 years old. Funny thing is all my friends forgot about them, and only noticed Please Please Me. I suppose it was because it was a much better song and made a bigger impression. 

We all bought bubble gum because of the Beatles photos inside the wrapper. They were a national phenomenon at that time (certainly by '63 anyway) and were constantly in the news.  

[Whitefang]

Yeah, well, you're in the UK.  We here in the "colonies"  didn't get wind of The Beatles until late '63 to early '64.  And "I Want To Hold Your Hand"  was the first single we heard.  And too, some of those LPs released over there had different names here.  ie;  "With The Beatles" was called "Meet The Beatles" over here. AND the first Beatles album for sale here as well.  "Please, Please Me" wasn't released here until as a reissue by the early '80's.   "Beatles For Sale" was called "Beatles '65" here.  And yeah, I remember those Beatles cards.  Here they were the same as Baseball cards as they came wrapped in a cellophane based paper with a piece of ceramic tile they tried to pawn off as bubble gum.    And too, shortly after The Beatles landed we started hearing from The Rolling Stones.  Soon both groups had their own followings here with people divided over who they thought was the better band.  And their rivalry was as fierce as any modern day street gang's.   I've even seen fist fights break out over who thought whom was better.    Liking both, I did my best to keep clear of those donnybrooks. 

Whitefang

[jaxson50]

I can't speak for others who also witnessed The Beatles Feb. 9, 1964 appearance,  but for myself and my high school chums,  the Fab Four were a welcomed change for sure.

I was 13, Rock and Roll had gone by the wayside, Blue Velvet,  My Boy Friends Back, Wipe out, and Judy's Turn to Cry were the big hits of 63. The King had abandoned RnR for cheesy movies,, Chuck Berry, and Jerry Lee Lewis had bern for all practical purposes been banned because of scandals  related to underaged girls, an aircraft had crashed into an Iowa cornfield and ended the lives of four promising stars, ,  the Everly Brothers had bern inducted into the Marine Corps, and believe it or not. The only guitar rock king was Duane Eddy. (Does anyone under the age of 50 remember him?)

We had just survived the closest of calls due to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the assassination of JFK was still fresh in our minds, my brother and brother in law were both Marines, botn were being prepared for a war which was just a rumor then.

In the US it was a very gloomy time, but on that Sunday night, four young, energetic lads with a new look, a new sound and more than anything else four obviously happy young men, (George was still 19) were playing a driving rythym , an upbeat sound and message. "SHE LOVES YOU " 

Those who lived in Great Britain knew these four lads were consummate entertainers. We in the US had no idea how polished and prepared they were for just that moment.  They already had over 200 hours of live TV and radio on it time. But to us young Americans it was fresh air, much needed and just in time.. 

They say timing is everything,  I believe that is true,  for many, the Fab Four were the first reason to smile and be happy in a long time, the rest is history as the saying goes. 

[brad1]

36 minutes ago, jaxson50 said:

 

They say timing is everything,  I believe that is true,  for many, the Fab Four were the first reason to smile and be happy in a long time, the rest is history as the saying goes. 

I agree 

I was born in 1962. My Parents did not listen to the Beatles.  And by the time I started getting into music, the Beatles were being played on “oldies” stations. 
 

The Beatles never did much for me. I like a few of their songs. But they never were a favorite of mine. To this day I don’t own a single album.  I’ve heard just about everything they have done. I just never really liked it. 
 

And yes I know I may be the only human on earth that feels this way.  But I wanted to just give my take. 
 

Let the stoning begin. 🙂

[Larsongs]

11 hours ago, brad1 said:

I agree 

I was born in 1962. My Parents did not listen to the Beatles.  And by the time I started getting into music, the Beatles were being played on “oldies” stations. 
 

The Beatles never did much for me. I like a few of their songs. But they never were a favorite of mine. To this day I don’t own a single album.  I’ve heard just about everything they have done. I just never really liked it. 
 

And yes I know I may be the only human on earth that feels this way.  But I wanted to just give my take. 
 

Let the stoning begin. 🙂

No Stones.. Who do you consider the greatest Band or Artist? Just curious..

[sparquelito]

I prefer to leave my memories of The Beatles in a grainy, black and white, soft focus.

😗

[kelly campbell]

My story is very similar to all those above, changed the world for sure and I was hooked along with the millions who watched that night.

[saturn]

Somewhere around my house I have a DVD set of all the Ed Sullivan shows featuring The Beatles. It' the entire episodes, with the other acts and original commercials too.

Since I was born in 1968, I missed the whole Beatlemania thing. It really wasn't until I was in my mid 20s that I appreciated them and the influence they had. I kinda like seeing the old footage in color since black and white  doesn't have the nostalgia for me that it might for the ones who are just a few years older.     

[brad1]

9 hours ago, Larsongs said:

No Stones.. Who do you consider the greatest Band or Artist? Just curious..

I can’t choose one. I like many, covering several genres. I don’t think one is the best. That’s why I have an extensive record collection. 

[Sgt. Pepper]

10 hours ago, Larsongs said:

No Stones.. Who do you consider the greatest Band or Artist? Just curious..

The Stones were great at a time, but are just really their own tribute band at this point really. They should have packed it in years ago. 

Most of what The Beatles did was top shelf, and in the 60's they lead and the rest followed and did 6 months later. The Beatles were only around a short time and didn't have time to put out 30 albums of utter nonsense like Mick and Keef did.

[Whitefang]

21 hours ago, jaxson50 said:

I can't speak for others who also witnessed The Beatles Feb. 9, 1964 appearance,  but for myself and my high school chums,  the Fab Four were a welcomed change for sure.

I was 13, Rock and Roll had gone by the wayside, Blue Velvet,  My Boy Friends Back, Wipe out, and Judy's Turn to Cry were the big hits of 63.   Chuck Berry, and Jerry Lee Lewis had bern for all practical purposes been banned because of scandals  related to underaged girls, an aircraft had crashed into an Iowa cornfield and ended the lives of four promising stars, ,  the Everly Brothers had bern inducted into the Marine Corps, and believe it or not. The only guitar rock king was Duane Eddy. (Does anyone under the age of 50 remember him?)

We had just survived the closest of calls due to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the assassination of JFK was still fresh in our minds, my brother and brother in law were both Marines, botn were being prepared for a war which was just a rumor then.

In the US it was a very gloomy time, but on that Sunday night, four young, energetic lads with a new look, a new sound and more than anything else four obviously happy young men, (George was still 19) were playing a driving rythym , an upbeat sound and message. "SHE LOVES YOU " 

 

1.  You forgot "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport."  and  "Puff, The Magic Dragon"  

2.  By mid '63 LONNIE MACK was the hottest name in guitar with his instrumental cover of Chuck Berry's "Memphis".  And, Ha!  Duane Eddy's "Rebel Rouser" was one of the first things I learned to play on guitar.  

3.  By the end of '63 the "gloom"  was likely held over from the assassination of JFK on Nov. 22 of that year.  And American popular music was in a rut.  Rehashings of older styles and genres on life support.  The Beatles put their unique spin on it all and brought it back home.  And in doing so took a lot of American pop and rock artists back to school.  Their "heroes" were all the artists we have long taken for granted. Plus at the time, American top 40 rock'n'roll was usurped by the strong folk music craze with artists like Trini Lopez and The Kingston Trio releasing top 40 "hits". ( and the aforementioned Peter, Paul and Mary).  And BTW:   The Beatles opened their Sullivan appearance on Feb. 9 '64 with "All My Loving".  Also a nice, positive and upbeat message. And George was 16 days from being 21.  

Whitefang

[Larsongs]

2 hours ago, brad1 said:

I can’t choose one. I like many, covering several genres. I don’t think one is the best. That’s why I have an extensive record collection. 

Ok, who are in your top 10? I’m just trying to get an idea of the kinds of music non Beatle fans like. Just curious..

[Sgt. Pepper]

Not in any order :

Led - Zeppelin barley put out junk, Out Door was not that great, but Fool In The Rain was a damn killer song.

Yes which is a band with no original members.

F Z and there are many albums by him I don't like.

Grateful Dead are a band I mostly listen to live complete concerts as most of the studio albums have a good nugget or two, but live is where they earned their money.

King Crimson the revolving door prog band of talent.

The Stones during the Mick Taylor Years were top shelf.

Floyd from Meddle to The Wall was a whole bunch of great albums.

As much as I love the Beatles once Rubber Soul came out and the stuff after is what I listen to most.

The Who have done some not so good albums, but Quadrophenia is such a great album

Todd Rundgren he can do anything and hasn't made a good one since Hermit.

[jaxson50]

2 hours ago, Whitefang said:

1.  You forgot "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport."  and  "Puff, The Magic Dragon"  

2.  By mid '63 LONNIE MACK was the hottest name in guitar with his instrumental cover of Chuck Berry's "Memphis".  And, Ha!  Duane Eddy's "Rebel Rouser" was one of the first things I learned to play on guitar.  

3.  By the end of '63 the "gloom"  was likely held over from the assassination of JFK on Nov. 22 of that year.  And American popular music was in a rut.  Rehashings of older styles and genres on life support.  The Beatles put their unique spin on it all and brought it back home.  And in doing so took a lot of American pop and rock artists back to school.  Their "heroes" were all the artists we have long taken for granted. Plus at the time, American top 40 rock'n'roll was usurped by the strong folk music craze with artists like Trini Lopez and The Kingston Trio releasing top 40 "hits". ( and the aforementioned Peter, Paul and Mary).  And BTW:   The Beatles opened their Sullivan appearance on Feb. 9 '64 with "All My Loving".  Also a nice, positive and upbeat message. And George was 16 days from being 21.  

Whitefang

The average 13 year old in 1963 didn't know who Lonnie Mack was. We can debate details,  But The point we are both trying to make is if you weren't there,  you may not understand why the Beatles made such an impact. 

I can't speak for others, but the first wave of rock stars circa the mid 1950s had lost momentum,  Rock it self was without a direction. The Kingston Trio were an established group, but even they were losing traction in the folk scene because folk music had shifted , now you had to be socially aware, protest songs were all the rage in Folk music, Dylan was just making his presence known, but remember how the folk cans turned on him a few years later when he plugged in his Strat. Those folk fans were the original wokies!

The Beatles gave us something different, Rock will always be looking for the next big thing. That is the take away here.  

[Sgt. Pepper]

56 minutes ago, Fish Crumpet said:

The Beatles have proven time and time again that they are the 'next big thing'.

One of the few bands that will always be talked about.

[jdgm]

I've never been a Stones fan enough to buy any records other than some 45s and a s/h copy of 'Let It Bleed' (and was given some LPs recently, thanks to O.P.) but I am English and grew up in the 60s, so must stick up for them.  A bit.

1) '64 and '65.  "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction".  You could not deny that riff was great for 1965.   Back then this was POP music, it was all pop music and everything was new, colourful and exciting.   The Stones were rebellious and didn't want to conform, like a lot of other young people.   One difference between them and the Beatles; the Stones were blues record collectors/fans first off; so much so that they named their band after a Muddy Waters song, and when they got to the USA they wanted to meet their heroes - they insisted on Howlin' Wolf appearing on one of the TV shows they did.  

2) '66 - '67. In the UK they were seriously and truly seen by the establishment as a REAL threat to society, much more than Elvis had been....just by being there and being themselves.            I cannot emphasise this enough.  

3) '69 (death of Brian Jones) through the 70s.  They peaked musically and when they were good on stage, they were so good that  they became rated as the "greatest rock and roll band in the World".   Either them or the Who.   I never saw the Stones, not enough of a fan,  but that's what was said back then.  Everyone I know who has seen them says live they are either really good or just terrible.   I remember listening to the radio chart show around the time "Brown Sugar" was peaking, and it was by far the best and rockiest single in the whole top 30.   

But I didn't go for the whole Keith Richard 'elegantly wasted' look and attitude, though it was hugely popular with rock and punk musicians for well over a decade.  How many bands and guitarists have modelled themselves on that look?  Thousands!

They have gone on far too long, like many 60s and 70s heroes.  The money was and probably still is too stupendously huge for them to turn down.   It is impossible now for them not to be a parody of themselves.   There are no new songs.  Which is a shame considering the rhythm section of Darryl Jones and Steve Jordan.  

Edited October 16, 2022 by jdgm

[Sgt. Pepper]

Beggars and Sticky Fingers are two amazing Stones LP’s. I somehow love Some Girls too.

[brad1]

9 hours ago, Larsongs said:

Ok, who are in your top 10? I’m just trying to get an idea of the kinds of music non Beatle fans like. Just curious..

That's hard for me to do.

If you asked me when I was 16(1978) it would have been: Kiss, Ted Nugent, Rush, Black Sabbath, Led Zep, Outlaws, ZZ TOP, Judas Priest, Ramones, Cars, Aerosmith, Van Halen, Plasmatics, AC/DC, Alice Cooper, Doobie Brothers, 

In my 30's and 40's I began liking more of these bands: Megadeth, Suicidal Tendencies, Grateful Dead, CCR,  Meat Puppets, Little Feat, Peter Tosh, Early REM (first 4 albums), Blondie

I love discovering older bands that I have not yet heard much. I do this all the time.  I have been catching up on old bluesman like BB and Freddie and Albert King, Elmore James, Robert Johnson, Son House, etc. I like a lot of that stuff.

I'm also very fond of Hank Williams Jr. and a lot of other country and bluegrass music groups. I like Chris Stapleton and  Nickel Creek.

I  like James Brown, Ohio Players,  and others of that genre.

I'm also very indecisive, by nature. It depends on where I'm at in life. It depends on my mood that week, that day, that minute.

But most of what I like has a common thread. Because I play the drums and the guitar. I like to hear a lot of that in the music. I also like distinctive and original sounding singers. And I don't like a lot of female singers. Don't know why. 

I still listen to all the bands above. And I still enjoy discovering new bands, and old bands I've never heard before. 

 

[Larsongs]

3 hours ago, ghost_of_fl said:

Speaking of strings - anyone know who played the string parts on Yesterday in the above recording?    It doesn't sound like a keyboard and I don't see strings on or around the stage.   I have no doubt that was live footage, so either it's a hidden orchestra offstage or a canned track?    

The performance on Sullivan sounds like a Pre Recorded Track played most likely by George Martin on a Mellotron….

[Murph]

The brilliance of the Beatles, to me, was the incredible "buzz" Epstein managed.

We all know talent and good looks alone didn't create Beatlemania, nor will it make you successful. 

That hysteria has never been duplicated, although Michael Jackson (somehow) pulled off a little for just a minute.

I mean, the Boys themselves transformed from a pop band to cutting edge music and recordings (with a little help from George Martin) in short time, but the "mania" has never been seen before, nor since.

It was something to witness in real time.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Murph