Why were the Beatles so popular in the mid-60's?

I was discussing that with a co-worker. Possibilities we came up with:

--As foreigners (to their US audience), they were exotic and had a cute accent.

--A large number of young people with money to spend on records and other stuff.

--Marketing.

Other?

QED

The unconventional "mop tops" were considered pretty long and unkempt by the standards of the day and it was a visible sign of the change in music.

Lot of cute singers on American Idol, but they couldn't write a song to save their lives.

They were a rock & roll band full of active, original songwriters first, and a teen-friendly pop act out of design. They were first and foremost music lovers, which helped them to adapt and expand over the years.

They were also worked like horses by Brian Epstein, which helped them build their reputation as an act. Before that, they were very unprofessional onstage.

They were more like 24 chord rock (with 3 or even 4 part harmonies!). Especially in the pre-Sgt. Pepper days. And ever since, for reasons I have never understood, it has been rule #1 in pop music song-writing that the chord progressions and harmonies must be dumbed-down not only to 3 chords (or 2?) - but the SAME frikkin' 3 chords (virtually)!
And I think that's a mistake. I think people were reacting to the expanded chord and harmony universe that the Beatles injected into pop/rock music - even though they don't know enough about music to know that that's what they were reacting to.
And yet, the tiny, oppressive, dispiriting range of possibilities that pop/rock music is restricted to continues - despite what the Beatles taught us! :crazy:

They had more talent in their little toes than most any song writing pair in history.

Their music doesn't age either. My teenage boys love their music as much as I do.

They were immensely popular in Britain before they ever came to the U.S. I recall a segment on the Jack Paar Show in which he showed home movies of some of the things he had seen on his trip to London, one of which was teenage girls screaming over the Beatles.

never made it huge here, though.

more like the soches, (Beach Boys)

And we loved that raw garage band sound!

Let's not argue over this. These are facts, not opinions.

:)

:D

If you put the surviving members of both groups into one band, (Roger, Pete, Paul, and Ringo)and put the dead members of both groups into another, (John, George, Ox, and Moon)the all-dead band would sound better.

And that's even if you DON'T believe in any sort of afterlife.

And by "we had teenagers", I mean that society, for the first time, across almost all income levels (and not just the aristocracy), had non-working still-in-school still-at-home suburban teenagers with free time, electricity, indoor plumbing, no farm chores, and also an income to buy some fairly new whizbang gadgetry - stereos, records, TVs, cars (not all kids had cars, but probably just about every teenager had either access to one, or knew someone who had access), and magazines and radio programs aimed at youth, and products actually marketed to teenagers for the first time. (the advertising to young'uns started in the 50s, yes, but it was aimed at small children - the children who became the teens that the marketing was directed at in the Beatles era).

And the Beatles brought with them a fairly new sound as well.

If the Beatles had shown up in the 50s, they probably would not have achieved anywhere near the same level of fame. Before the 50s, it would have been impossible.

such as it was, in the US and the world with their distinctive
style. They ushered in other great British groups. I shudder to
think what would have happened without them...

That's also why I think another Beatles can never happen: There's so much variety and access to music now that there are dozens of different nices that no on would be able to span.

:hide:

Blah...holding hands..blah...I saw her standing there...

But, that was just a polite introduction to the parents...'cause with all they did
they could rock the mind.

They were sophisticated and fun and some of the time...they were sweet..
..that means part of the time they were nasty:)


Tikki

Things got better after that.............

I think your three points are quite valid, as are others in this thread, especially those that address their sheer talent. But since the '80s, I've pondered such elements as long hair, make-up and high notes and other aspects considered "feminine" in stereotype. The Beatles were the first with the hair, and they shook it, "girlishly," as they hit the high notes on such passages as "...and you know you should be glad — wooooo."

I have to wonder if that didn't have a large, esoteric appeal to their predominant audience of teenage girls, who (so we're told) already have some confusion about their sexual identity. Same with Journey; Steve Perry had hair almost to his tuchus and stuck the high notes, as did bands like Poison, all the time singing about love and (covertly or overtly) sex.



Or maybe it's just that Freud's stuck in my head, bangin' his cup on the bars and making me think these weird things. :shrug:

Seemed like one of each kind there...
..take a bite or two out of one of 'em for a while then move on to the next...

It was pretty obvious to even the most immature that they were demanding more and more of an
intellect from their audience as time raced by...

Like any great transitional band...they spurred on plenty of trogs who sang and played
to any and all teenage fetishs..

Tikki

in one of her books. I can't remember which one, but it came out in the late 90s. Very interesting stuff.

Everyone here touched on some good points. It really was a perfect storm.

I would, however, disagree with the marketing aspect. The first couple Beatles albums were failures in the States. Even EMI initially passed on them before offering them a deal with Parlophone, which was EMI's jazz imprint.

There were a ton of factors:

1. Economy- as mentioned above by Rabrrrrrr, it was the first time in modern history that teenagers had expendable income and relatively easy access to goods like records and radios.

2. Talent- the Beatles were not only good songwriters, but were first and foremost good musicians. Most rock songs of the day were based around the traditional 12-bar blues format. The Beatles have their roots in skiffle, which is a jazz/folk offshoot. They often employed chords, changes and harmonies not usually featured in rock & roll of the era. They also enjoyed experimentation, which helped them stay fresh throughout their career.

3. Charisma- all four were great when being interviewed. Even George Harrison, who was never comfortable with the limelight, could drop a one-liner or two.

4. Culture- like many of the British Invasion artists, they were able to tap into black music without being awkward or condescending. They truly loved artists like Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and were'nt out to make sanitized versions of rock songs for white audiences.

5. Timing- Rock & roll was at a relative low point in the US. Buddy Holly was dead, Elvis was making movies, and Jerry Lee Lewis pretty much lost his career over the whole 13-year-old bride thing. Most pop music was vocal group stuff, or teenybopper music. In the underground, folk was the big thing.

That's just a few things I can think of...

The British, at the time, were deemed a 'nation of (unmentionables)' -- indeed, James Bond's antics were created to dispel the same myth too.

Marketing is inevitable.

Kids will always have money to spend.

different musically, and parents HATED them. What more would it take?

Very melodic, and the long hair was quite a shock at the time of crewcuts and very short hair, here.

All the boys wanted Beatle haircuts. It was a look, as well as the music itself. I think teenagers were just ready for something new.

they were freakin' awesome. Nobody did what they did before then or since.

:toast: There's The Beatles, and there's everyone else.

1). The ATTITUDE. They WANTED it. They partnered with Brian Epstein, a manager who WANTED them to have what they WANTED, and things they didn't even know they wanted yet

2). The first band to break away from the Chuck Berry covers and the la la la love songs and venture into superior ORIGINAL songwriting

3). The look

4). The fact that Elvis sold his frigging soul to those lame-ass movies and no longer posed a threat

And yes, marketing played a big part. I'm self-employed and run a Strategic Marketing company. The number one rule of marketing? If you don't have the goods to back up your marketing effort, you're in for a short ride.

The Beatles had the goods.

:toast:

We desperately needed a change. They were it. Sound familiar?

the first appearance of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan Show.
Even the moon landing wasn't as exciting as that.

:hi:

Those songs still sound pretty fresh. At that time the Beatles had a driving beat ( thanks Ringo) that most other acts didn't have . Lots of other lame "pop" music acts were infecting radio at that time the Beatles were very different when they hit the air over here. Again, I suggest you get a copy of Meet the Beatles and listen to it real loud.

Some of the lyrics for their older albums are of the moon-june-spoon type, but the music is great, especially, as you said, when played loud. Great harmonies, great playing, great melodies...

Your DU Beatles Freak

Well, not any more there isn't. It was the invention of idiots at Capitol records who decided to carve up the Beatles actual albums and repackage them at their own convenience (hence the real meaning behind the infamous "butcher cover" originally designed for the completely Capi-fictional album "Yesterday and Today".

But even their earliest recordings still sound great. Like this one, the only track from the Hamburg 1961 sessions to feature an actual Beatle lead vocal (John) and not Tony Sheridan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8s4FoKenU

out their early stuff and listen...it still sounds great.

That they were popular is undeniable, but I can't think of a single Beatles song I like. They struck me as a bubblegum band which simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.

If Yoko Ono really is responsible for breaking them up, she's a hero to me.

Period.

Negro music? Yeah, right!

:sarcasm:

as mentioned above, the Beatles were talented musicians who were at the right place at the right time (post-Kennedy assassination, economic prosperity, etc.).

My mother had Beatles, Stones, Who, and Kinks records in her collection when we were growing up. I always preferred the Stones, Who, and Kinks because I'm more a fan of the garage sound than pure pop sound. This sound, or course, evolved into punk rock. To this day, 'Nuggets' is one of my favorite CDs. :-)

:silly:

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgcvf001+the-beatles-in-london-black-and-white-photo-the-beatles-canvas-canvas.jpg

I was going to show them all and I was actually going to be the one to actually marry him...

It was the eyes, really...

:P

brought a breath of fresh air. I am so thankful for the Beatles, especially once they discovered psychedelics and began making REALLY good music.

It was fucking horrible, mostly.
Early Beatles sounds a lot like older American R&R. They were big fans of older Americam music, but they pust a little British spin on it, and it sounded a little different.
They were very good musicians, as were a lot of people in the British Invasion of the times - you are thinking of 1963-1964.

mark

The Beatles have always been about harmonies, whether Abbey Road or Please Please Me.

Harmonies were pretty much absent in Rock in its early days.

Of course, all their songs at the time were either about surfing, or cars. And that kinda got old after a while, but they still had harmonies.

But the Beach Boys didn't get Blues.

The Beatles did.

But they had their moments. "In My Room" was sort of bluesy. Later on they had "Sail On Sailor". But I doubt you'll ever see a bootleg of them jamming with Muddy Waters and Buddy Guy, like the Stones have done on occasion.

the best music.

on the cutting edge of popular music, never sounding stale or derivative.

Plus they wrote some great songs.

They were really different from anything else; they caught on like nothing else before or since. Quite a phenomenon.

Remember: Hell hath no fury like the wrath of Khan.

Marketing to teen-aged girls like my sister.

you could artificially manufacture music and market it to the masses and become rich!

oh wait...

...of which John held for all of them. You can also
add Epstein's brilliant management and their never
having sold out to corporate.