Why DID the Beatles Get so Famous?

[Pilgrim]

The transparently obvious answer is: they were better than everyone else.

They proved it again and again.

They had other advantages, including their looks, early marketing and such, but bottom line: they were better.

 

[BassChuck]

I agree with Pilgrim. John, Paul and George were true triple threats... playing, singing, composing. Ringo was the drummer they needed, no drama, got the job done and sang well enough. If you don't think so, take the afternoon and try to write a song that sounds like something they did that made the top 10. Then do, as they did, compose a song in the current style with a different chord vocabulary and make it sound simple. True genius is clear and transparent (not like say... Kanye).

 

[mellowinman]

I agree with Pilgrim. John, Paul and George were true triple threats... playing, singing, composing. Ringo was the drummer they needed, no drama, got the job done and sang well enough. If you don't think so, take the afternoon and try to write a song that sounds like something they did that made the top 10. Then do, as they did, compose a song in the current style with a different chord vocabulary and make it sound simple. True genius is clear and transparent (not like say... Kanye).

I love a whole lot of the "British Invasion" bands, and I just can't think of one that transcended genres as well as those Beatles. I love the Kinks, the Animals, the Stones, the Dave Clark Five, and other "first wavers," but I can't think of anyone who even came close to taking it to the house like those guys did. (I really consider the Who, the Yardbirds, and others as more "second wave," but I realize that's debatable.)

 

[ZenG]

There's just something about the songs they wrote .

I often improve my musical chops by going from end of their songbook to the other.....

 

[Unemploid]

correct me if i'm wrong, but rock music was illegal in america because it was black/devil music. beatles being white and well dress broughht rock back to america because parents thought they were ok for their kids.

 

[JimK]

Illegal?!?
..ummm, no.
Rock and Roll music in America pre-dated The Beatles.

 

[JimK]

The transparently obvious answer is: they were better than everyone else.

They proved it again and again.

They had other advantages, including their looks, early marketing and such, but bottom line: they were better.

I love a whole lot of the "British Invasion" bands, and I just can't think of one that transcended genres as well as those Beatles. I love the Kinks, the Animals, the Stones, the Dave Clark Five, and other "first wavers," but I can't think of anyone who even came close to taking it to the house like those guys did. (I really consider the Who, the Yardbirds, and others as more "second wave," but I realize that's debatable.)

I'm a big fan.
That said-
I realize they quit 'touring', became a 'studio' band, etc...but, man, by 1966 bands like The Who were kickin' The Beatles' asses in a live environment.
The book I have about The Beatles last gig in Candlestick Park? They played about 30+ minutes. The set consisted of their older/simpler material & covers.

 

[JimmyM]

correct me if i'm wrong, but rock music was illegal in america because it was black/devil music. beatles being white and well dress broughht rock back to america because parents thought they were ok for their kids.

Right, back when they were burning witches.

 

[One Drop]

I'm a big fan.
That said-
I realize they quit 'touring', became a 'studio' band, etc...but, man, by 1966 bands like The Who were kickin' The Beatles' asses in a live environment.
The book I have about The Beatles last gig in Candlestick Park? They played about 30+ minutes. The set consisted of their older/simpler material & covers.

Definitely.

The Who was pushing the boundaries with more and more powerful amps, and their behaviour on stage, funny and entertaining and scary in equal measure, while the Beatles were getting fed up with not hearing themselves over the screaming crowds and playing poorly as a result. They were also beginning to experiment in the studio and find their own feet there, unusual for bands at the time who were at the mercy of their labels and producers.

Two very different roads, and who can say how SR and studio practices would have developed differently had the Beatles not retreated to the studio and given up on performing live?

 

[ZenG]

There was an actual anti-rock 'n' roll movement in the States......records were burned and smashed. And , yes, they thought it was a terrible influence on the teens and kids of the day.

 

[El Güero]

Why did they get so famous? Brian Epstein.

Of course they did give him something to work with.

 

[Imaginary Pony]

Anyone who tries to deny the Beatles talent for songwriting is either deaf or stupid, especially if you're a musician and you still can't see what they brought to the table. I'm not talking about whether or not their music appeals to you personally, but if you call yourself a musician and you still can't recognize the talent, then it's YOU who is wrong. Boy band? That ignorant comment doesn't even deserve a reply....

The Beatles worked their ASSES off, playing until their fingers bled for hours upon hours, honing their craft and sharpening their writing skills. Wish I had their level of commitment when I was young; I wouldn't be here reading the totally meaningless opinions of a bunch of less-thans about why the best pop group in the history of the world wasn't any good!

No need to hold back; tell us how you really feel!

 

[Imaginary Pony]

Out of the mouths of babes...

 

[tbx59]

correct me if i'm wrong, but rock music was illegal in america because it was black/devil music. beatles being white and well dress broughht rock back to america because parents thought they were ok for their kids.

This is like in Idiocracy where in the future they try to understand the distant past

It is terrible that America locked up Chuck Berry until the Fab Four saved the day