Biggest Beatles shocker: Never won top Grammy for best record
Introduction this week of the new video game "The Beatles: Rock Band" reminds us of an odd fact about these music artists who were once widely considered to be the definition of avant garde: the Beatles have often been, really, one beat behind.
Believe it or not, up until now music by the Beatles has not been available for sale on the Internet. With "The Beatles: Rock Band," players will be able to download up to 45 songs that they can perform with the Fab Four in such reproduced settings as "The Ed Sullivan Show," Shea Stadium and the Abbey Road recording studio. The first full album will be available for download on Oct. 20 ("Abbey Road"), then "Sgt. Pepper's Loney Hearts Club Band" and "Rubber Soul" in November and December.
There were two reasons for the download delay: fight over money (Beatles want $2 per song, but iTunes only charges 99 cents) and a fierce legal battle over trademark (Beatles' Apple Corp. vs. iTunes' Apple Inc.). Those delays helped to contribute to the other major holdup: remastering the Beatles' music, which will finally be available for sale in fine digital format on CD and (to some extent) online this week.
The Beatles were also woefully behind at the Grammys during the Fab Four's heyday. Again, the reason was a fierce fight, but one that couldn't be blamed on the lads from Liverpool. They were spurned by the conservative music establishment, which quickly came under attack for refusing to hail the rock revolution.
Back in those days, the likes of Henry Mancini, Tony Bennett, Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand and Roger Miller swept the top awards. After the Grammys in 1964 — during the peak of Beatlemania — this was Variety's headline: "Beatles play 2d Fiddle in Grammys to Bossa Nova, Barbra, Mancini & Miller." The article reported, "The Beatles may have swamped the music business during 1964, but that fact was not reflected in the Grammy award ceremonies."
The Beatles did win the Grammy Award for best new artist that year, beating Petula Clark, Astrud Gilberto, Antonio Carlos Jobin and Morgana King, but the Beatles' "I Want to Hold Your Hand" lost best record to Stan Getz's and Astrud Gilberto's "The Girl from Ipanema" and "A Hard Day's Night" lost best song (bestowed to songwriters; best record goes to the recording artist) to "Hello, Dolly!" The Beatles weren't nominated for best album for any of their LPs that year: "Meet the Beatles," "The Beatles' Second Album" or "Hard Day's Night."
The Beatles finally won best album three years later for "Sgt. Pepper," which was their only victory in that top slot. They were also nominated for "Help" in 1965 (losing to Frank Sinatra's "September of My Years"), "Revolver" in 1966 (losing to "Sinatra: A Man and His Music") and "Abbey Road" in 1969 (losing to Blood, Sweat & Tears' self-titled LP).
The Beatles never won best record of the year, though, which is one of the Grammys' biggest scandals, historically speaking. (Another was that Elvis Presley never won either.) But the Fab Four did score a few more top bids for best record. In 1968, "Hey Jude" lost to Simon and Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson" and, in 1970, "Let It Be" lost to Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water."
The only Beatles tune to win a top Grammy was "Michelle," which won best song for John Lennon and Paul McCartney in 1966. In all, the Beatles only won seven Grammys (if you count best song for "Michelle," which only went to half of the Beatles), most of them in second-tier categories.
RELATED POSTS
Grammy predix: Cobra Starship, Keri Hilson and Zac Brown Band will be nominated for best new artist
Taylor Swift, Green Day and Kanye West will nab noms for best album, our Grammy seers say
Photo: Harmonix
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
Goes to show you how utterly insignificant and stupid the Grammys are.
Posted by: el guapo | September 16, 2009 at 05:50 PM
The Grammy's have been and still are a joke.
Who are the idiots who decide the winners.
Steely Dan beats Eminem?
A Taste of Honey beats Elvis Costello?
Jethro Tull beats Metallica?
And don't forget Milli Vanilli.
Totally worthless award.
Posted by: Jeffr | September 11, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Let's remember that this was a time of tremendous change culturally, socially and musically. Rock music was actually banned in some places for a time.
Also, I believe legendary Brazilian composer's name is Antonio Carlos Jobim not "Jobin."
Posted by: Audy O | September 09, 2009 at 02:52 PM
TOM JOBIM is GREATER THAN the beatles...
SHAME ON YOU GRAMMY!!!
Posted by: Antonio Carlos Brasileiro de Almeida Jobim | September 09, 2009 at 07:12 AM
The Grammy's are not the be all to end all. For some, the Grammy curse hangs over their heads--Milli Vannilli--but that was just a fluke. Bonnie Raitt, Christopher Cross, Alanis Morrisette, Nora Jones to name a few of the more recent ones are now part of the where are they now club. If The Beatles had won Grammy after Grammy After Grammy I'm sure they would have disappeared just as quickly. Savor what we have of them and forget about awards or those that they didn't win or snubed. Fifty years from now we will probably still be discussing the Beatles--I don't think the same can be said for Bonnie or Christopher.
Posted by: J Reaves | September 08, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Don't think the Grammy's is the end all be all judge of global music, though its a huge honor. The video game should be interesting, I wonder if Joe the Plumber Rock Band would sell well?
Posted by: Alistplumbers.com | September 08, 2009 at 05:21 PM
Paul McCartney won a Grammy for Best Contemporary (R&R) Vocal Performance, Male or Female, in 1966 for Eleanor Rigby, a Beatles song..
Posted by: scott | September 08, 2009 at 12:14 PM
"Actually, I believe Micheal Jackson wanted $2. He owned most of the Beatles' library."
Michael Jackson never owned the rights to The Beatles recordings. He owned the publishing rights. That's why Michael Jackson could never approve the use of an actual Beatles recording in a commercial. He didn't own the rights. He could only approve somebody else re-recording the song to be used in a commercial. So I don't think Michael had anything to do with the price of the digital downloads of The Beatles recordings, since he didn't own the rights.
Posted by: Pat | September 08, 2009 at 11:15 AM
First of all they won several vocal grammy awards,
and you mentioned that they won best album for Sgt.Pepper so what did they get it for if not for album of the year?
And they got a much bigger and better award, an academy award in 1970 for their musicial score of The Let It Be Film!
Plus they got 17 prestigious Ivor Novello awards in just an 8 year recording career wich are the equivalent of the British Grammys!
Posted by: m4165 | September 08, 2009 at 09:49 AM
THE GRAMMYS are a major fraud, which is clear if you compare them to, say, the OSCARS.
EX: Hollywood blockbusters almost never are nominated for "Best Picture", while small, artsy films are often nominated.
The Grammys are the opposite: a brilliant album that does not sell a lot of copies will NEVER be nominated for best album or record.
If the OSCARS were run by the same industry tools that run the GRAMMYS, Sylvester Stallone would win Best Movie all the time!
Posted by: cxb | September 08, 2009 at 09:05 AM
Yes, Getz deservedly beat out the Beatles. And "Mrs. Robinson" was certainly a better song in every respect than "Hey, Jude," the Beatles' most embarassing moment.
Posted by: David McCullough (not the big guy ) | September 08, 2009 at 09:00 AM
"Beatles want $2 per song, but iTunes only charges 99 cents"
Actually, I believe Micheal Jackson wanted $2. He owned most of the Beatles' library.
Posted by: rhoadie | September 08, 2009 at 08:59 AM
Why is this surprising? The Grammies have always sucked. The last thing a band should want is to win one.
Posted by: Mike | September 08, 2009 at 08:57 AM
Not surprising since the Grammy's pretended rock-n-roll didn't exist until mid 70's. They were still giving awards to Frank Sinatra and other "lounge" acts when the Beatles were in their prime.
Posted by: Steve O | September 08, 2009 at 08:54 AM
As you note, the Grammies have traditionally saluted commercial dreck rather than musical innovation, though "Girl From Ipanema" happens to be more interesting musically than "I Want To Hold Your Hand." But it's no dishonor to have not won a Grammy. If anything, the Beatles were generally one beat ahead of, not behind, the music industry. Their imitators won awards for things that had been too strange when the Beatles did them earlier.
Posted by: TJDestry | September 08, 2009 at 08:48 AM
The grammies have always ignored the true musical visionaries. The top awards are still being handed out to bland and ultimately forgettable artists, or ones far past their prime.
Posted by: Adam McLean | September 08, 2009 at 08:41 AM