Photos of The Beatles taken by an amateur photographer fetch &#163;30000

Well let's take a guess: The most popular 35mm SLR among professional photographers at that time was the Nikon F, FTN (Photomic - through the lens metering, using a Cds cell). They were quite expensive; over $300 abut $2,000 in today's money. Nikon had quite the assortment back then of telephoto lenses such as the 300 f 4.5. If you were just starting out maybe you had a Nikorex, Minolta SR7, Canonflex R2000 or even the Asahi Pentax Spotmatic ( but those didn't give you much street cred).
Photojournalists were also shooting with Leica M-3's and the occasional Rollie twin lens might show up as well. Flash was, as it is now, for the most part forbidden so you had to hope for good stage lighting, have a fast lens and start out with an ASA 400 film such as Tri-X. Many photographers would rate their Tri-X at 800 or 1,600 and "push process" their film in ID-11, Microfine or some witch's brew they would concoct themselves.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

Raincheck

Nice "Magical Probability Tour" there jaygee. I enjoyed that.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

I'm glad you enjoyed the blast form the past. I just took names and numbers off of the shelf of artifacts above my desk here.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

marc822

Enjoyed your post and remarkably accurate. Like old times! I'm the photographer, marc weinstein and thought you would get a kick out of the gear I used to do the photography. It was an Argus C-3 aka "The Brick" (Box Brownie of the 35mm) using Tri-X film and rated at 800 in D-76.

After doing this event, I went on to Brooks Institute of Photography and did photo-journalism for several newspapers and worked the Hollywood beat in the early 1970's at night and color labs by day. Did many celebrities of the era including LBJ, RFK, Reagan, et al politicians of the day as well as Hollywood greats of the times including Sammy Davis Jr, Gregory Peck, Goldie Hawn, Rolling Stones '65 and '69. It was quite a career but never panned out profitable enough to earn a living.

BTW, '65 was the 2nd time I did the Beatles, the first was a year before in Baltimore, Md doing the exact same gig. ;-) Rolling Stones also twice. Any questions, write: marc822@yahoo.com

Mar 28, 2013permalink

StevenN

Hi Marc,

Very nice work. Boy, how I wish I had had my camera with me when I went to see Jimi Hendrix perform at the Singer Bowl in Flushing Meadow Park in N.Y. The newspaper at which I worked as a copyboy was able to get me second-row seats! However, like you I used a phony press pass to get into Studio 54 iin the late '70s and took some pictures of Michael Jackson and Woody Allen, among others.

--StevenN

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

rhlpetrus

Nice Marc, right place, right group (well, by 1965 they were already legends), good job.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Gordon Clyde Cummings

Very interesting thanks for sharing the story Marc.

I was a high school year book photographer in 74. Almost forgot about Tri-X and D-76. I seldom pushed my rolls just shot at 400 and used a flash. I used a 1950's Exacta. Blast from the past. Things I will have to share with my grandchildren in a few years.

Apr 4, 2013permalink

SinCity4Me

And your point is what? That your knowledgable of the times.

Apr 5, 2013permalink

Karl Summers

Whomever calls this band "overrated" obviously did not grow up in this era. They were HUGE. Hell, I didn't grow up in this era, but I recognize greatness, I see the impact they made on an entire generation(or two or three).

Cool pics, btw.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

The Beatles were musicians. Much of what passes for music today is just show, especially in rock music, where a lot of flashy guitar runs are technically interesting, but not very musical. The Beatles had well-crafted melodies, harmonies, lyrics, rhythm, and production.

People admire the fastest pickers, like they admire fast cars, and think that those people are the best musicians. They'll say that so-and-so is the "best". But no, so-and-so is just a fast picker or whatever, not the best musician.

It's the same in writing. The person with the largest vocabulary, who uses lots of obscure words, and convoluted grammar, is not the best writer. Some people might feel they "have" to admire a writer like that, but they don't. Such a person is a technician, and fails at the most basic task of a writer--communication.

The Beatles communicated with their music. The goal was not to impress.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer

And I miss Alvin Lee, but does any of this have anything at all to do with photography?

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Wolffy

OK I need to know, What camera equipment did he use. and what film, I'm guessing TriX. looks to be some sort of SLR from the above picture

Mar 27, 2013permalink

marc822

See my reply posted above to 'jaygeephoto' and posted in the wrong order....LOL

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Surprised the baseball scoreboard and the beer ad aren't covered. Though I guess in 1965 some people thought, okay a band wants to rent the stadium for a concert, let them, they won't fill it.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

I think the signage gives it a certain charm of how new and unsophisticated we were at that time when it came to large concerts. Staging of that scale along with the speaker stacks with "room" equalizing were things of the future back then, Legend has it that the Beatles were at times just laughing at each other because they had no idea what they sounded like do to the terrible reverb and echoing there - not to mention that they couldn't hear their own monitors.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

obeythebeagle

That Lennon Harrison photo is spectacular fun. It speaks to the heart of every baby boomer. My condolences to the people on this thread who are saying snarky things about the Beatles and these photos. I guess you had to be there. The fact the photographer faked his press-pass makes it priceless.

Mar 26, 2013permalink

atlien991

Every baby boomer? Hehe. I'm always reminded of the single track thinking on the interwebs when it comes to culture. For the most part, the Beatles were a music group for white people. You enjoyed them. But think about the times realistically for a second even. 1965!

Mar 27, 2013permalink

Raincheck

Sure, civil rights were coming into the right place as humans progressed, but I can tell you that relationships among cultures and races have never been so bad as they are today. Further, between my birth in 1955 and around 1980, no one that I've asked can think of ONE instance of children getting a gun and killing each other. That is 25 years. Today, we expect the next one day after tomorrow.

It never ceases to amaze me how people 50 or 100 years further evolved, look back and judge the past with present eyes.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

Raincheck:

Are you sure that say black people and white people just got along nicely in say Mississippi in 1960?

Also why bring up mass murders with guns, are those mostly race based in your world view.

Then you do realize that black people got lynched, sometimes more than one at a time?

Is the present perfect? No. But quit with the rose tinted glasses.

If you had said that the Beatles were playing not very challenging music for mostly white audiences in 1965 then you'd have a point. Wouldn't be a new point though.

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

Raincheck

I can tell by your need to embellish and hyperbolize my comments in the typical fashion, that I must have got you thinking.

Can't ask for more than that!

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Rain-

You're the one who says that "the races" got along better in the old days. That's not hyperbolization of your comment.

You also more than link mass gun killings (in the USA) in the present with something racial, again not hyperbolization of your comment.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

atlien991

I don't see what random gun violence has to do with anything. My point, assiduously avoided in the responses, was that the beatles were an affirmative action (for white people) music group. They didn't have to be so great compared to other music because they had an 'advantage'. I would say it's water under the bridge but the same thing goes on today. I won't go too far into this though as I've seen the politics of dpreview commenters on other occasion and it wasn't very pleasant.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

atlien--

Right, and particularly in 1965 the Beatles were an unthreatening boy band that could be marketed to white teens. Yin to the Stones' Yang. People like Dylan were already doing far more challenging stuff, but he wouldn't fill Shea Stadium, unless he were the hypothetical music act for an MLK speech, oh wait.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

I can't believe you guys say the Beatles' MUSIC was unchallenging.

Do you mean lyrics?

Because musically they were far ahead of any other rock band, in terms of innovation, melody, harmony, instrumentation, arrangements, etc. etc. ad infinitum. That is, of course, unless innovation only counts for you if the lyrics are anti-social, or the performer is of a certain race.

It's unbelievable how unconscious some people are of the times. Were any of you commenting even alive then? We are not islands. We live in a certain culture and time, and reflect the values of that culture and time. For example, nowadays, you can either choose to accept that a large part of your transport (planes, cars, buses, whatever) is based on fossil fuels, or you can walk everywhere you go. Is that your point?

Mar 28, 2013permalink

bobbarber--

In 1965 the Beatles music was not particularly challenging. 3 or 4 years later the story changes, but you missed the repeated 1965.

In 1965 the Beatles were a pop boy band with good marketing.

In 1965 the Beatles were no where near what the Rolling Stones were doing musically, a band that easily out plays the Beatles. The lyrics of the Beatles never came close to Dylan, but yes the Beatles improved in the later 1960s.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

HowAboutRaw

Can't agree with you there. I don't know how much musical training you have, but the human voice is considered the "greatest instrument" by many composers and arrangers. The Stones never even came close to what the Beatles did vocally, which was the heart of their music (melody and harmony) except that Mick Jagger's style was interesting. But was Mick Jagger's style great musically? Please. And good musical arrangements don't have to be complex, or played fast. Listen to Chopin's 4th prelude. That is 3 chord, amazing music. The Beatles, in my opinion, had talent that at their best was along those lines. Sure, there were some misses.

And I had 35+ years ago, a copy of Sticky Fingers with the zipper and any other number of Stones albums, which I wore out. Cream too, etc. But those groups weren't in the Beatles class musically. Socially? Another question.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

bob-

I listen to a lot of live opera. And nothing the Beatles ever did comes close to that vocally. However, the Stones' "Gimme Shelter" does.

Anyhow, I never said that the Beatles didn't do interesting things with music, just that those years were in the future in 1965.

I suggest that you relisten to the opening notes of "Paint It Black" (probably Brian Jones on a sitar), if you want to apprehend what the Beatles were not copying from real well in the later 1960s, "Paint It Black" was first done in 1962.

"And another girl to take my pain away..."

Mar 29, 2013permalink

HowAboutRAw

There isn't a single Stones song that I haven't listened to between a dozen and several hundred times.

They're a great band.

They were however, far, far behind the Beatles musically. Their melodies were nowhere near as strong, their harmonies were nonexistent, their guitar-playing and instrumentation was repetitive, and on and on. Still, they were a great band. I would put their peak musically somewhere between Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. There are many songs on those two albums that have better melodies and instrumentation than Paint It Black.

Melody is the base of music, at least western music. Rock was no exception. There is no getting around the fact that the Stones were not as talented musically as the Beatles. But they spoke to a lot of people, like Bob Dylan did, and Woody Guthrie, etc., because of their message. And the music was pretty good, too. But quite a bit short of great, or timeless.

Mar 30, 2013permalink

B-

You should still probably relisten to the opening of "Paint It Black" to find much of the source of later 1960s Beatles music--it takes a good stereo, not an mp3 on an ipod.

And still my original post was about the Beatles pre 1966, you know when this Shea Stadium concert happened.

I'm plenty familiar with "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile", but individually those songs don't hold up against stuff the Stones did in the 1960s, even though the recording is much better. "Miss You" from "Some Girls" comes close to what the Stones were doing in 1960s. And still it's not somewhere the Beatles ever really got to. Perhaps "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" approaches the better Stones stuff, ironic.

Mar 30, 2013permalink

HowAboutRaw

A hundred years from now, people will still be humming Beatles tunes, playing them on the piano, etc. You could take one of the worst early Beatles songs ever, something like "You can't do that", and the bridge is more melodic and harmonic than anything the Stones ever did. That's not even to speak of songs like "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude" and so on. A number of songs on "Let it Be", by general acclaim the worst album the Beatles ever made, have better melodies and harmonies than anything the Stones ever did.

The Stones music is the opposite of timeless. Nobody will be humming songs like "Satisfaction" or "Sympathy for the Devil" a hundred years from now. The songs just aren't that good. A few social studies majors might know the words. Now, if the Stones are your heroes, for whatever reason, maybe they were tough to the pretty Beatles or whatever, maybe I'm stepping on your toes. They were and are a cultural phenomenon. But the music is not Beatles-class.

Mar 30, 2013permalink

bobbarber:

One can hum the Beatles, now or later, simply because the most of their work is nonthreatening unchallenging nice enough stuff, but sorry people will still cover "Satisfaction" in the years to come. True the Stones aren't in the same class as the Beatles, the Stones are a bigger deal. So are The Who, Dylan, and Hendrix, and it's not as if I actively dislike The Beatles, they're just kinda easy listening music, lacking much passion.

Generally when one has to use the term bridge when talking about music it's a snooze.

And quoting myself from above since you skipped my point about how familiar I am with live vocals: "I listen to a lot of live opera. And nothing the Beatles ever did comes close to that vocally. However, the Stones' "Gimme Shelter" does."

It's also real hard to hum Bach Cello, but no one says that's not a big deal.

Apr 3, 2013*permalink

brudy

You guys seriously underestimate the rabidness of Beatles fans that still continues today. Go read some of the audiophile forums - it's beyond what you can imagine.

Mar 26, 2013permalink

Yeah, yeah,yeah. These guys don't get it. There are such things in this world as classics - Beethoven, James Brown, The Beatles - immortal music for all the ages. Who are these naysayers frackin' 14 year old's, nowhere men, fools on the hill? Grab a Nikon FTN and some Tri-X (also classics) - sorry if you kids don't get that either.

Mar 26, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

Way overrated band.

Mar 26, 2013permalink

Barney Britton

Thanks for your input.

Mar 26, 2013permalink

Ollie 2

Ahh, words of wisdom from the wise. In my experience, "overrated" is a term that is generally applied to great things by people who feel underrated.

Mar 26, 2013permalink

Well, you got a reaction. But seriously, are you all right?

Mar 26, 2013permalink

CaseyComo

i'm sure your band is better.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

mr_landscape

100% agreed

Mar 27, 2013permalink

atlien991

It's not so much that they are overrated but that their heyday was during Jim Crow America. Many musical talents they would have competed with were automatically considered bad or worse yet, irrelevant, simply due to skin color. The Beatles essentially were a white affirmative action band.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

rhlpetrus

Yes, overrated, tell that to my 10yo daughter that's just learning some of their songs on the piano ...

Mar 28, 2013permalink

WilliamJ

When did The Beatles disbanded ? 43 years ago ! Thus why should we feel the need to talk so much about this group 43 years later, while several "scoops" are flooding the press ? Have a look at that article of The Japan Times, published the same day than this topic (cf: http://tinyurl.com/cnfjmp3 ). Seriously ? The very day there was an ubiquitous topic about Yoko Ono and the way she uses every single remaining of her died husband for any cause she wants ? (cf: http://tinyurl.com/d2s8csc )

I don't believe in coincidences...

Mar 26, 2013permalink

Seagull TLR

<I don't believe in coincidences...> You mean it is another conspiracy?

Their partnership was not legally dissolved until 1975.

Mar 26, 2013permalink