In these days of pulling a gig at the drop of a hat, it occurred to me that one of the strangest and perhaps one of the dumbest things that happened during The Beatles history was when they put Jimmy Nicol in on drums when the Boys were to tour Scandinavia, Holland, the Far East and Australia in 1964
What were promoters and management thinking?
Why didn't they simply postpone the tour and do it when all four Beats were fighting fit and available?
It would be an automatic reschedule today if it was known that a key member of a group was taken ill. You would have thought that by that time, when The Beatles were the biggest thing in showbiz history, that THE thing to do would be obvious. George brings that very point to the table in the Anthology when he questions why they simply didn’t take the time out. I know what it’s like when what’s referred to as a “dep” comes in for someone who is suddenly ill, can’t make it or whatever, and it’s not pretty. The whole balance of the group changes. The on-stage sign systems which bands rely on are altered in a way which puts that communication at odds with normality. Subtle things like tempo and pace might be unfamiliar and can unsettle even the best bands. I’m sure Jimmy was a pretty competent drummer, but the pressure must’ve been enormous on him too - right? There are scant pieces of information available about the man who would be Ringo but it is generally understood that once his stint was done, he simply disappeared and never really wanted to talk about his time playing with The Beatles. There would have been a golden opportunity during Anthology for a short interview during the segment on that very subject, but no. I wonder - was he asked to make a contribution and just said no? Perhaps he wasn’t asked; which is even stranger! If it was so unimportant then the information would have been left out of the picture altogether, but again no. Why make the reference in such an important film and not use the actual source? In fact the more you think about this, the more bizarre it becomes. Of course, the simple explanation could be that Jimmy’s time in the band scared the pants off of him at the time and he had no wish whatever to make ANY kind of return to it.
Jimmy’s own view?..."The boys were very kind but I felt like an intruder. They accepted me but you can't just go into a group like that -- they have their own atmosphere, their own sense of humour. It's a little clique and outsiders just can't break in."
I wonder how Ringo took that information? Er…sorry to hear you’re not well Ring and you just collapsed and that but er…we’re putting this complete stranger on in your place whilst we cover those gigs that were booked, so er…. Get well soon and we’ll see you when you’re better! Unwittingly it must have sent poor Ringo the message that he was expendable and that they didn’t “love him anymore”. For example, I wonder if they would have replaced say John if he’d had a similar problem? I strongly doubt it – but hey Ringo’s just the drummer right? . . . . .
They should just have postponed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Beatcomber
Actually it did happen...During a 1963 UK Tour, John missed a pair of dates. George and Paul reworked some of the harmonies. It was my opinion that the reason they didnt cancel the Australasia tour was due to the timetable with A HArd days Night film premiere and the US tour which Im sure already had dates booked and tickets sold. Logistics wasnt a strong point when it came to 196o's rock tours.
I think Geoff Emerick put it very well in his book "Here, There and Everywhere". The Beatles weren't so much rock stars as they were entertainers. It was this unique quality about them that enabled them to do silly Shakespearean skits, incorporate brief comic routines into their stage act and achieve even more fame/notoriety as celluloid funny men. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that theirs was a unique situation from the get go. Rock stars simply didn't exist at the time. The only one to come close then was Elvis and he had even less of a say in his own career.
Having said that, I think the dynamic was different then. Beatles concerts were largely inaudible affairs anyway. Ringo himself stated he had to hang onto the beat in a very loud, basic way and not attempt any clever forays into his toms because it would simply disappear into the ether. Perhaps their (Epstein/Martin) thinking was that any drummer would do for the live show. After all, there was enormous pressure to make good on gigs. Epstein himself, it is said in many biographies, never reneged on a promise.
Also, recall that, as their producer, George Martin had the power to replace any of them for a given recording early on and in fact did just that for their Love Me Do single. And, once again, it was Ringo that was replaced. So, there appeared to be ample precedent. I don't recall reading anything about a general public outcry from the fans regarding his being replaced. I think everyone was just glad to be at a Beatles concert. This was the Far East/Australian tour in 1964. There was MONEY to be made. Sadly, for them, at that part in the Beatles' collective lives they just didn't have the pull or say in whatever was going on with them. They largely left such machinations to George Martin or Brian Epstein, mechanically agreeing to things like forgoing a day off to do a gig in Kansas City that same year.
Certainly by the time Let It Be was being filmed their situation had completely transformed. They could decide whatever they wanted (whether or not said decision was a good one was a matter for posterity). If Ringo didn't want to go abroad for filming/recording then it was promptly vetoed, despite Michael Lindsay-Hogg's persistent, illogical entreaties. In 1964 he could make no such claim for the group.
Post a Comment