I know this was discussed on older threads, but I've read this today:

It's unlikely you'd describe The Rolling Stones as an "insignificant group" nowadays, isn't it? But the folks at The SSE Arena (formerly Wembley Arena) have sent us a fascinating document of pop's history, which you can see below: it's a letter from former NME executive Maurice Kinn, who was locked in negotiations with The Beatles' management team over NME's 1964 Poll Winners Party.

The Beatles wanted to close the show; Kinn worried that their presence would cause a mass scrum. And so they thrashed out a deal for the Fab Four to appear earlier in the programme. "Dear John," it says. "Just a note to tell you I have spoken to Brian Epstein this morning. He has agreed for The Beatles to appear prior to the presentation of the Poll Awards, so I will get one of the insignificant groups to close the bill."



And who would that insignificant group be? Step forward, Mick Jagger and co, who's performance – according to NME at the time – could "hardly be heard above the shouts". It was the only time they ever shared a bill with The Beatles.

Oh, and Kinn's plan didn't go all-too smoothly, either: he got his wish with The Beatles being whisked away before the end of the concert, but he and John Lennon also came to blows as a result.


[www.nme.com]

I wonder has Jagger ever seen this letter...

- Doxa

It worked---He was downplaying the close to John bsing him to take
a middle spot.

Tell him we don't think the closing the show is as important
as being in the middle of the show..

You are sooooo GREAT John
you wouldn't want to close the show...We will just get a INSIGNIFICANT
Band to close...haha.

It worked and the rest is history....Jagger wouldn't care...

In April 1964 most groups were insignificant compare to the status of Beatles, the letter is from the 9th of April Stones released their first LP the 16th of April and they just released 3 singles "Come On" "I Wanna Be Your Man" Feb 1964 "Not Fade Away"

Singles released by the Beatles before the April 1964

1 My Bonnie / The Saints 1962, January 5
2 Love Me Do / P.S. I Love You 1962, October 5
3 Please Please Me / Ask Me Why 1963, January 11
4 From Me to You / Thank You Girl 1963, April 11
5 She Loves You / I'll Get You 1963, August 23
6 I Want to Hold Your Hand / This Boy 1963, November 29
7 Roll Over Beethoven / Please Mr. Postman 1963, December 9
8 I Want to Hold Your Hand / I Saw Her Standing There 1964, January 13
9 Please Please Me / From Me to You 1964, January 30
10 Sweet Georgia Brown / Nobody's Child 1964, January 31
11 All My Loving / This Boy 1964, February 17
12 Why / Cry for a Shadow 1964, February 28
13 Twist and Shout / There's a Place 1964, March 2
14 Can't Buy Me Love / You Can't Do That 1964, March 16
15 Do You Want to Know a Secret? / Thank You Girl 1964, March 23

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-02 00:18 by NICOS.

I agree with your general point, but--
Were all of those actually released in 1964? In different countries, surely? Because they sure weren't all singles in the UK.

So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.

Just so we have it historically accurate.

Quote
NICOS
In April 1964 most groups were insignificant compare to the status of Beatles, the letter is from the 9th of April Stones released their first LP the 16th of April and they just released 3 singles "Come On" "I Wanna Be Your Man" Feb 1964 "Not Fade Away"

Singles released by the Beatles before the April 1964

1 My Bonnie / The Saints 1962, January 5
2 Love Me Do / P.S. I Love You 1962, October 5
3 Please Please Me / Ask Me Why 1963, January 11
4 From Me to You / Thank You Girl 1963, April 11
5 She Loves You / I'll Get You 1963, August 23
6 I Want to Hold Your Hand / This Boy 1963, November 29
7 Roll Over Beethoven / Please Mr. Postman 1963, December 9
8 I Want to Hold Your Hand / I Saw Her Standing There 1964, January 13
9 Please Please Me / From Me to You 1964, January 30
10 Sweet Georgia Brown / Nobody's Child 1964, January 31
11 All My Loving / This Boy 1964, February 17
12 Why / Cry for a Shadow 1964, February 28
13 Twist and Shout / There's a Place 1964, March 2
14 Can't Buy Me Love / You Can't Do That 1964, March 16
15 Do You Want to Know a Secret? / Thank You Girl 1964, March 23

Quote
Aquamarine
I agree with your general point, but--
Were all of those actually released in 1964? In different countries, surely? Because they sure weren't all singles in the UK.

Yes, an awful lot of American releases and pre-Parlophone recordings in that list.

You can compare the Stones' and Beatles' UK singles by release date HERE.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-02 01:27 by Deltics.

Your both right Deltics and Aquamarine I couldn't find an accurate list of UK releases...............Thanks Deltics for the compared list of STONES ^Beatles.

But anyhow there was not a real comparison between the Beatles Stones in April '64...Stones just started

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-02 01:36 by NICOS.

Didn't they also share the Bill in '65 and '66?

Quote
treaclefingers
So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.

Just so we have it historically accurate.

Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.

Quote
swiss


Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.

That would be a very bad move IMHO. Folk who, quite reasonably, want to stay away from silly Beatles vs Stones arguments would then miss this quite remarkable find.



--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
swiss

Quote
treaclefingers
So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.

Just so we have it historically accurate.

Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.

Shirley you jest.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
swiss

Quote
treaclefingers
So, in summation The Beatles did in fact open for the Stones.

Just so we have it historically accurate.

Hmmm...I'm now thinking this thread should be chucked into the 52-page-long Beatles Vs Stones cacophony.

Shirley you jest.

Who you calling Shirley? And no, I am not being Ernest.

Quote
24FPS
Didn't they also share the Bill in '65 and '66?

1963: [life.royalalberthall.com]

Not so hard to imagine, for a group that had just released their first album. In the eyes of the public, which was based on a poll of popularity, they were indeed insignificant, and until they scored their first #1 on the charts there would be a ways to go before they would in the mind of the public usurp the likes of Gerry and the Pacemakers, the Searchers, the Hollies, Manfred Mann, or Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas. Even the Beatles had to be an opening act on one of their early tours. You don't become a legend overnight.

I really don't think mr. Maurice would call the Stones or any other band "insignificant", and when I say this I mean he would never dare to say that to any of the bands that played the NME Poll concert.

But in the context (let's not forget it was a letter addressed to John Lennon) what it seems to me is that he wanted to say to the Beatles (especially John) how awesome they were, so they wouldn't need to worry about the other "insignificant" bands on the same bill.

Great post, Cristiano - thanks for sharing - as an archivist, posts like yours make my day.

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
I really don't think mr. Maurice would call the Stones or any other band "insignificant", and when I say this I mean he would never dare to say that to any of the bands that played the NME Poll concert.

But in the context (let's not forget it was a letter addressed to John Lennon) what it seems to me is that he wanted to say to the Beatles (especially John) how awesome they were, so they wouldn't need to worry about the other "insignificant" bands on the same bill.

Was the letter really addressed to John Lennon?

That seems really really odd to me, since (definitely at about that time) few things would have interested John less than details like that. (At the time The Beatles were filming "A Hard Day's Night", as well as Abbey Road recording sessions and so forth)

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

<<Was the letter really addressed to John Lennon?>>

Yes, great point. Any contact to the Beatles from such an individual would be addressed to their manager or press agent, not one of the band members themselves.

Perhaps we could see a larger scan of the letter to view the full page--the top left seems to be addressing someone with the Empire Pool who was named John.

If Lennon had been actively involved in these negotiations and had been corresponding, we would have heard about long ago, and any such correspondences on Lennon's part would have been sold at auction by now.

Quote
CaptainCorella
Was the letter really addressed to John Lennon?

Actually, the article isn't clear about this, but the letter is addressed to "John", presumably Lennon. But you're right, it seems really odd that John or any other Beatle would be interested on this kind of details.

Good point, y'all. I wouldn't say that at that time Lennon would have been acknowledged as a sort of unofficial band leader or spokesman, either.

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
24FPS
Didn't they also share the Bill in '65 and '66?

1963: [life.royalalberthall.com]

Thanks. So the Beatles & Stones shared a bill at least once in 63,64,65, and 66.

Quote
stonehearted
<<Was the letter really addressed to John Lennon?>>

Yes, great point. Any contact to the Beatles from such an individual would be addressed to their manager or press agent, not one of the band members themselves.

Perhaps we could see a larger scan of the letter to view the full page--the top left seems to be addressing someone with the Empire Pool who was named John.

If Lennon had been actively involved in these negotiations and had been corresponding, we would have heard about long ago, and any such correspondences on Lennon's part would have been sold at auction by now.

If true, this was a psychological move from the author, obviously to avoid reactions - hence it was addressed to John, whom he thought of as the band leader.

It looks like this was purely informational, and not part of any negotiations, since he refers to Epstein okaying this.

If authentic, this was a "put down any futurable flames"-letter.

Then again, isn't a "Dear John"-letter an expression for breaking up or sending letters with bad news?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
If true, this was a psychological move from the author, obviously to avoid reactions - hence it was addressed to John, whom he thought of as the band leader.

It looks like this was purely informational, and not part of any negotiations, since he refers to Epstein okaying this.

If authentic, this was a "put down any futurable flames"-letter.

I doubt it would be addressed to Lennon, because of the way the letter writer speaks of the Beatles in the third person. There would otherwise be references in the second person, such as "He has agreed for you to appear", etc.

It would be unconventional for organizers of events to contact band members themselves--that's what managers are for after all. Why would they take the time to send a letter to one of the four band members (wouldn't he address it to all four Beatles?) telling him something that the manager will already have told him long before the letter even arrives?

Again, a full-page scan of the letter would be preferable to clear this up.

It must have been part of some sort of negotiations, though, as he refers to the issue as having been "amicably settled."

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
24FPS
Didn't they also share the Bill in '65 and '66?

1963: [life.royalalberthall.com]

Thanks. So the Beatles & Stones shared a bill at least once in 63,64,65, and 66.

The RAH site is rubbish, and they have been told to correct it.

As far as I can find out, the Stones & The Beatles were on the same bill, 5 times

1963 RAH
1964 NME Poll Winners (two shows)
1965 NME Poll Winners (two shows)

And, I'm very welcome to seeing verifiable evidence of other times.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman
If true, this was a psychological move from the author, obviously to avoid reactions - hence it was addressed to John, whom he thought of as the band leader.

It looks like this was purely informational, and not part of any negotiations, since he refers to Epstein okaying this.

If authentic, this was a "put down any futurable flames"-letter.

I doubt it would be addressed to Lennon, because of the way the letter writer speaks of the Beatles in the third person. There would otherwise be references in the second person, such as "He has agreed for you to appear", etc.

It would be unconventional for organizers of events to contact band members themselves--that's what managers are for after all. Why would they take the time to send a letter to one of the four band members (wouldn't he address it to all four Beatles?) telling him something that the manager will already have told him long before the letter even arrives?

Again, a full-page scan of the letter would be preferable to clear this up.

Maybe John was worried because he earlier had gotten signals that the Beatles would not be headlining this thing? We don't know..

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Maybe John was worried because he earlier had gotten signals that the Beatles would not be headlining this thing? We don't know..

Yes, but if the letter had in fact been addressed to Lennon specifically I think the NME article linked in the OP would have mentioned it, no?

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Maybe John was worried because he earlier had gotten signals that the Beatles would not be headlining this thing? We don't know..

Yes, but if the letter had in fact been addressed to Lennon specifically I think the NME article linked in the OP would have mentioned it, no?

Probably

A further point to mention is that Lennon tried to insist to Kinn during the concert that the Beatles be allowed to close the event. And then they had a bit of a scuffle. This would indicate that Lennon did not have much, if any, prior knowledge of the arrangements being put on place as of the day of that letter. If he had, then he would have sent a reply on behalf of the band, since there was plenty of time before the event to do so, with 17 days between the date of the letter and the day of the concert.

The letter is obviously addressed to an organizer working with the venue, because why would he mention to Lennon about his intention to "get one of the insignificant groups to close the bill"? Why would such information be conveyed to Lennon? How would an old-schooler like Kinn, who was 20 years older than the musicians playing at this concert, know who the spokesman was for this upstart pop group? As far as press was concerned, their spokesman was Brian Epstein, who is the only Beatles-related name actually mentioned in the letter.

Another question I have is, how did this thread come to assume that it was addressed to Lennon in the first place?

Anyway, here's the Stones set for that NME bill. Some pretty righteous-sounding distorted guitar coming through Keith's amp here, for 1964 at least....





Not Fade Away
I Just Want To Make Love To You
I'm Alright