It was Paul’s cousin’s wedding. So yes it would be really cool to tell people the Beatles played at your wedding, and it would also be really cool to tell people your cousin is Paul McCartney.
I'm glad it was someone familiar with the band. If it had been someone random, they might not have remembered who those dumb kids they paid to stand in the corner were five years later.
They actually got kinda popular, too. Look up 'The Beatles' when you get a chance. They're nothing crazy but it's nice to put on in the background while you're working.
No, George is 14. He was born in February 1943. However, this photograph was taken later in 1957. Paul and John didn't meet till July that year. If the ages are right the picture was taken after October 9th, John's 17th birthday.
It's well documented that this photo was taken on the 8th March 1958.
[https://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/03/08/quarrymen-play-paul-mccartney-cousin-wedding-reception/](https://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/03/08/quarrymen-play-paul-mccartney-cousin-wedding-reception/)
George had his 15th birthday 11 days before the photo - on 25th February 1958.
Paul is also 15 - his birthday being in June the previous year.
John was 17 on his birthday the previous October in 1957.
On December 20, 1958, The Quarrymen, featuring Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and George Harrison, performed at the wedding reception of Harry Harrison, George's brother, at the Childwall Abbey Hotel in Speke, Liverpool. The event took place at 25 Upton Green, the home of Harry's bride, Irene McCann.
They did play at that wedding, but the person who said this picture is from March was right: this one was [Paul's cousin's wedding](https://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/03/08/quarrymen-play-paul-mccartney-cousin-wedding-reception/) and Mike McCartney took the picture.
The Beatles Bible page I linked says it was 1958 (meaning that George and Paul were 15 and John was 17). They have a very accurate timeline of pretty much everything the Beatles ever did, at least from 1957 to 1970.
Well, something had to be wrong with the caption and in the end two things were. It was 1958, not 1957, and George was 15, not 14. Thanks for checking this out.
Paul's brother is fairly prominent, since he had his own recording career, took some iconic pictures of the band, and generally seems like a funny and outgoing sort of guy. But yeah, George's brothers are at the other end of the spectrum - I think the only thing they ever appeared in or were quoted in was the Martin Scorsese doc about George's life.
How is it possible for young children to be this good at music. I don't what they sounded like at this time, but they were good enough to get gigs and continue growing.
As a grown ass man I still need to look up chords, struggle with progressions, have to practice a lot, and still suck! The sheer scale of difference in music capabilities among people is insane.
There really wasn’t much else to do as kids in the 1950s. Even though the learning is readily available and fairly easy today, we also have plenty of distractions.
Simply put: dedication.
I’ve asked a musician friend the same question. Him and I had been playing roughly the same amount of time, but he was serious about learning so he could get gigs. He had to practice steadily and push himself to learn consistently so he would still be able to get gigs to support himself. Meanwhile, I took guitar up as more of a hobby and played in my downtime, occasionally learning new songs or chords or riffs.
As a grown ass man, you likely have responsibilities and a job. The time you took to get educated to get a good job, the time you spend taking care of your obligations, and even your down time where you do anything besides play guitar, are all the reason you may not be as good as you’d like to be. It’s the same thing for me.
Nothing to be ashamed about it’s just that different people are called to different things. The Beatles were so talented because they played music literally all the time. You would or can be too!
Plus it’s always easier the younger you start because you have more free time.
If you aren’t good by the time you’re 16, you’ll never be good. You need the impressionable mind, dexterity, and fields of time that you only ever have during childhood to become a musician
Yet another poster tries to rewrite history and erases DENNIS!
https://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/58.00.00%20auntie%20gins/1.jpg
https://webgrafikk.com/blog/news/the-passing-of-dennis-littler/
Think this is Childwall Abbey . Still going. Very nice pub to be fair . Taken by Mike McCartney .
He was on Twitter other day posted a pic ten pin bowling at Pins in Liverpool on Easter Sunday . 😂🙏
God, imagine letting your kid cousin and his band play at your weeding because they're not that bad and it was free, then 5 years later watching them rise to the absolute pinnacle of stardom.
Better yet, imagine being a GUEST at that wedding. You see three kids in the corner strumming some pretty good songs, but you think nothing of it. Then a few years later you're shelling out top dollar (top pound?) To try and see them in concert.
Wouldn’t it be cool to tell people that the Beatles played at your wedding reception?
It was Paul’s cousin’s wedding. So yes it would be really cool to tell people the Beatles played at your wedding, and it would also be really cool to tell people your cousin is Paul McCartney.
I'm glad it was someone familiar with the band. If it had been someone random, they might not have remembered who those dumb kids they paid to stand in the corner were five years later.
You’d very likely be dead rn so I’m good
These kids should form a band
You’re behind the eight ball, it looks as though they already did based on this picture
They actually got kinda popular, too. Look up 'The Beatles' when you get a chance. They're nothing crazy but it's nice to put on in the background while you're working.
I don't know, that kid on the right doesn't even know how to hold his guitar the right way. They'd never make it...
\*1958
Yes, and it's the 8th March so George is actually 15 the same as Paul and John is 17.
Well, that’s important to know
Paul always acted like George was 10 years younger.
No, George is 14. He was born in February 1943. However, this photograph was taken later in 1957. Paul and John didn't meet till July that year. If the ages are right the picture was taken after October 9th, John's 17th birthday.
It's well documented that this photo was taken on the 8th March 1958. [https://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/03/08/quarrymen-play-paul-mccartney-cousin-wedding-reception/](https://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/03/08/quarrymen-play-paul-mccartney-cousin-wedding-reception/) George had his 15th birthday 11 days before the photo - on 25th February 1958. Paul is also 15 - his birthday being in June the previous year. John was 17 on his birthday the previous October in 1957.
George looks 10 😂
On December 20, 1958, The Quarrymen, featuring Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and George Harrison, performed at the wedding reception of Harry Harrison, George's brother, at the Childwall Abbey Hotel in Speke, Liverpool. The event took place at 25 Upton Green, the home of Harry's bride, Irene McCann.
They did play at that wedding, but the person who said this picture is from March was right: this one was [Paul's cousin's wedding](https://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/03/08/quarrymen-play-paul-mccartney-cousin-wedding-reception/) and Mike McCartney took the picture.
You cut out the best part of the picture earlier--the suave looking cat on the right.
Then it wasn't 1957. John and Paul didn't meet till July 1957. March, 1958, perhaps? Then George's age would be wrong. More research needed.
The Beatles Bible page I linked says it was 1958 (meaning that George and Paul were 15 and John was 17). They have a very accurate timeline of pretty much everything the Beatles ever did, at least from 1957 to 1970.
Well, something had to be wrong with the caption and in the end two things were. It was 1958, not 1957, and George was 15, not 14. Thanks for checking this out.
Cool thanks 😎
We never really hear about the siblings of the Beatles much.
Paul's brother is fairly prominent, since he had his own recording career, took some iconic pictures of the band, and generally seems like a funny and outgoing sort of guy. But yeah, George's brothers are at the other end of the spectrum - I think the only thing they ever appeared in or were quoted in was the Martin Scorsese doc about George's life.
Childwall Abbey is in Childwall, not Speke
How is it possible for young children to be this good at music. I don't what they sounded like at this time, but they were good enough to get gigs and continue growing. As a grown ass man I still need to look up chords, struggle with progressions, have to practice a lot, and still suck! The sheer scale of difference in music capabilities among people is insane.
There really wasn’t much else to do as kids in the 1950s. Even though the learning is readily available and fairly easy today, we also have plenty of distractions.
George would listen to records over and over again in order to learn the cords by ear. He used to painstakingly learn guitar solos that way.
Simply put: dedication. I’ve asked a musician friend the same question. Him and I had been playing roughly the same amount of time, but he was serious about learning so he could get gigs. He had to practice steadily and push himself to learn consistently so he would still be able to get gigs to support himself. Meanwhile, I took guitar up as more of a hobby and played in my downtime, occasionally learning new songs or chords or riffs. As a grown ass man, you likely have responsibilities and a job. The time you took to get educated to get a good job, the time you spend taking care of your obligations, and even your down time where you do anything besides play guitar, are all the reason you may not be as good as you’d like to be. It’s the same thing for me. Nothing to be ashamed about it’s just that different people are called to different things. The Beatles were so talented because they played music literally all the time. You would or can be too! Plus it’s always easier the younger you start because you have more free time.
If you aren’t good by the time you’re 16, you’ll never be good. You need the impressionable mind, dexterity, and fields of time that you only ever have during childhood to become a musician
Taken at the home of Auntie Jin from Let 'Em In.
*I've Just Seen a Face* was initially called *Auntie Jin's Theme* because she loved the song.
It's sad how Paul is the only one from this photo who is still alive 😭
I’d love to know the setlist - was it all Quarrymen songs or covers?
[удалено]
I’d hope so, alongside Yakety Yak!
“well she was just seventeen”
Yet another poster tries to rewrite history and erases DENNIS! https://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/58.00.00%20auntie%20gins/1.jpg https://webgrafikk.com/blog/news/the-passing-of-dennis-littler/
John Lennon is already a little under halfway through his life here.
Think this is Childwall Abbey . Still going. Very nice pub to be fair . Taken by Mike McCartney . He was on Twitter other day posted a pic ten pin bowling at Pins in Liverpool on Easter Sunday . 😂🙏
Today I'm 30, and I find it incredible that at my age the Beatles already ended.
God, imagine letting your kid cousin and his band play at your weeding because they're not that bad and it was free, then 5 years later watching them rise to the absolute pinnacle of stardom. Better yet, imagine being a GUEST at that wedding. You see three kids in the corner strumming some pretty good songs, but you think nothing of it. Then a few years later you're shelling out top dollar (top pound?) To try and see them in concert.
John’s 16, He’s beautiful, and he’s mine
That’s just David Bennet on the right.
Adam Sandler was a way better wedding singer and sang way better songs