Ed Sullivan Show-Clips

[jpgrcat]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDUNe- ... Gyulc4Ohvg

Beatles & many others listed

[thewarpedvinyljunkie]

What? No Jackie Mason?

[Sheldi]

There wasn't half a load of rubbish on the Ed Sullivan Show

[jpgrcat]

Ed Sullivan Show ran for 1001 Sundays, from 1948-1972

I'm only Interested in Blues, & anything afterwards, in Pop, Rock, Country & R&B

[Kwai Chang]

Yeah, I know!!!:
"UGH! It's Kwai Chang again, banging on about the Ed Sullivan Show and its..."
Now, hang on a cotton-pickin' minute! This could be useful in a number of ways...not the least of which is to understand the true power of television. Television might look like the logical progression of the radio medium and, it IS that, with a huge difference. Radio could never generate a willingness of the audience to fall into the broadcast content automatically. Perhaps, this was never an objective of the development of the technology. Maybe, it wasn't purely military, either. However fascinating the story may be, it IS a fact(UNWRITTEN RULE) that ALL television shows have a single purpose. That is to fill the space between the commercials. Accept that, or study it...you will understand that the premise is true, and never bends. That explains a lot of the casual mechanisms because business is business. Profit is the objective. Production costs money. Sponsorship is the only way to finance such budgets. This limits ability to be involved. This results in the paradigm of corporate networks...and, audiences. So, that will tell you why ANY show is on the television...and, why within the program's captivating greatness...there is product placement, and possibly other sponsorship support to be symbiotic. The Ed Sullivan Show was not special in any way. I have never been a fan of television. That's probably The Beatles' fault. I was a fan of their music. I didn't see them on Ed Sullivan because I was born in April of 1960. The music was everywhere. The Beatles on TV was not prevalent. But, Ed gets the credit for giving them to the world. I think Ed was a gentrified newspaper columnist with no finger on the pulse of anything. But, his name was the trademark and February 9th was the biggest corporate coup that the world has ever known. Happy hurrah for sponsorship! Nobody had ever imagined the medium could play the role that the Ed Sullivan Show had played that evening. It changed everything. EVERYTHING is a big word. But, it only happened once...and it was on that date. But, you can forget ANY of the superfluous hyperbole that goes with it. Just remember that without Ed, the revenue generator that the U.S. really was designed to be, would not have spooled up like the jet turbine that it really is. It hasn't spooled up since. But, it wasn't for lack of trying. In fact, The show baked the same recipe for the remainder of its existence. Every week the show struggled to prove Ed was a magician without a wand. Too bad, because Ed was merely a paid peon. When you watch any clips of the show, pay attention to what it is you're watching. It is amazing that the mechanisms can be so simple to affect the viewer in such complex ways. I have no intention of watching YouTube to see clips from the show. But, for those that do, be advised that the show's production technique never changed. A simple template affair creates an illusion that would not have been possible on radio. I have recently realized this dynamic to be exactly the opposite from what I had originally deduced. But, I never knew the radio realm before television. Radio is a soundtrack only. It has to rely on its own limitations for effectiveness. I figured that without the soundtrack, TV visuals aren't nearly as potent and thus, if radio had been a visual medium without sound, it would NOT have had an audience. No captivation. No corporate influence---->no consumerism. But, thanks to this post, it occurred to me that TV soundtracks aren't any different than radio broadcasts. However, the addition of visual content is the power that cannot be accomplished by audio alone. Audio merely suggests...visuals confirm. TV makes very little sense with the sound off. Radio is the more effective of the two. But, February 9, 1964 on the radio(sound + no picture) would sell more records on the 10th than would television without the audio. The Ed Sullivan Show would be useless if it was aired on the 9th of February, 1964 as visuals only, and NO SOUNDTRACK! It's not a huge revelation, but it is extremely important to remember the difference. So, now...watch any Ed Sullivan Show you want. When, you see Ed Sullivan introducing the next act...or, the guest's performance, or Ed's thank you...tell me if you ever see the audience as well. Is there ANY continuous footage that shows Ed's intro(then camera pans to)guests on stage performing,(then camera pans to) audience(then camera pans to) Ed saying thanks...et cetera. The only time this happens is when Soupy Sales or Topo Gigio are on the show. The show takes a week to produce and is no more LIVE than SNL(yawn!!!)! It isn't just The Beatles. It's Elvis, it's every single act. I doubt that the famous theater at 1697 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, is ever a part of it. It's a theater, not a soundstage...but I could be wrong. Wherever it was taped(Hialeah Racetrack, for instance) we never see an audience, and/or , Ed, and/or guest performer in a continuous shot. Yes Ed had artists join him 'onstage' but not a continuous shot that shows an audience OR the performance. I'm amazed at the sloppy way this was accomplished. When the camera cuts from performance to audience, there is noticeable mismatch of audio volume, crowd reaction and audience audio context. Lewisohn really fucked up when this chaos was revealed to have occurred AFTER the taping of The Beatles third appearance on the show(to be aired on the 23rd) which had supposedly had an afternoon audience brought in for the occasion. Think about that. The Beatles were in England on the night that they appeared upon their 3rd Ed Sullivan Show. I don't think Ed mentioned that the show had been taped in front of an afternoon audience on the 9th. That's probably because the 'audience' of the 23rd must have been really bummed to find that they were two weeks late to see the group. None of that is believable. An afternoon taping would have created CHAOS and MAYHEM that would have given the internet a run for its money. The phone system in the U.S. would have been jammed for the entire day. Et cetera!!! The same problem for the 1965 taping. It occurred when the show's production was dark but Lewisohn wants us to believe that an audience was brought in and that live strings were played by a trio of violinists when that isn't even correct recording content(first violin and a second violin—a viola, and a cello). Yawwwwwwn!!!
I'm tired, and I'd rather eat glass than to convince anyone. Just look for The Beatles AND the audience in a continuous shot that is from the performance broadcast. You WON'T find one...you won't even find a single photo that shows the group AND audience. The YouTube vids of other artists bears this out!
Thank you, for your time.
I wish I knew what day they woke Ed out of a stupor to come in and mumble his way through the motions.
Heee-larious!
Thank you, Mark Lewisohn. Calling Buzz Aldrin! "Gods peed" tee hee hee!
Thank you, jpgrcat!
KC

[MarkRJones1970]

And the jist of that was?

[Fun 4 None]

I like KC but I have no time to read that to be honest haha

[FestVideoRoom]

I *did* read it.

Several things come to mind, but I'll just be polite and say nothing else.

[Kwai Chang]

Rehearsal from '65. Mark L says pre recorded strings...Paul M says he played with Ed's string section.

The gist of that is that "I wouldn't read that thing either".
Just look at that mess. It could have said the Feb 9, 1964 is the day that TV was at its peak power as an influential medium.
ALL Ed Sullivan shows are of template production method. The audience footage is ALL canned generic footage. When I noticed, I didn't believe it. I set about disproving this obvious oversight. I couldn't do it. I have been to all forums. I was thrown off of the Steve Hofmann for explaining exactly what I have written here. So, that's when I knew. And I kept looking. I only need a single photo and then we would know that there was an audience. But, 15 years ago, I stopped. I failed. Objective not realized. So, the crap I wrote above is bullshit. Because The Beatles are the best group ever. I can't explain it. They have no say in how TV Shows are produced. Ed Sullivan Shows don't happen in an hour on Sunday night. Why would they care? They didn't do anything on Ed Sullivan that they hadn't been doing on the BBC for all of 1963. Audience? Who cares? So, I stopped trying to disprove the illusion. But, there are no pictures and there is no video. So, we can't really say that an audience was anywhere. I haven't cared for 15 years. I had hoped to show what does matter...and that is just how powerful the TV medium can be. And, NOW...I can. Because guess what else I never found. Because TV is so powerful, I'm now searching for a single person who is willing to say "I haven't seen a picture that shows The Beatles + Audience on Ed Sullivan, either".<----(NOT ONCE!!!) and, if you don't get the gist of that, just write it down again...or bring a picture. I thought that if a picture exists, it will be here. I would be elated!
So, I am a Beatles fan forever but, I sure won't create a safe bubble to escape to. That's already here. It looks just like a Television set!
I appreciate your time. The Beatles are still the greatest. There's the Denmark video that has cameras angles that just don't work for Ed Sullivan Show!
Thank you!
KC

[Fun 4 None]

Video and film is a powerful medium but so is photography KC
https://images.app.goo.gl/eViLuTdhnxwxE9nD7