Why DID the Beatles Get so Famous?

[Mantis Tobaggan]

I think it was because so many people liked them.

 

[spectorfreak]

First boy band yo. Not a big shock they got popular with some pretty kids and good corporate marketing/managing.

Not being a fan myself I have to say this made me LOL.

So does that make George Martin the Lou Pearlman of his day?

 

[funkymonk13]

First boy band yo. Not a big shock they got popular with some pretty kids and good corporate marketing/managing.

I agree. Another HUGE factor people dont take into account is that television started blowing up around that time; regular people could actually tune in and see them on ed sullivan. They're so iconic in part for being the first huge band but that was just a matter of right place right time.

You do have to give credit to them though. The early stuff is covers and boy band pop, but they actually grew a lot as musicians(well not all of them i guess) and became excellent and prolific songwriters. Access to excellent studios, producers and additional musicians also helped them a lot though. I really doubt it was just the four of them coming up with everything. I love the beatles, but imo they are a product of succesfull marketing, even their lasting legacy. Theyre great and all but theres a lot of other stuff from that era that is pretty awesome and hugely underrated.

 

[Jughead6]

IMO they got better later. Their music (backed by the creative genius of one Sir Martin) flourished once they could afford to take risks. To me, the early stuff is just boy band pop.

 

[JimmyM]

There are some who don't like the Beatles. They are known as "whackos."

 

[JimmyM]

IMO they got better later. Their music (backed by the creative genius of one Sir Martin) flourished once they could afford to take risks. To me, the early stuff is just boy band pop.

Totally disagreed. Their early stuff was completely innovative. Pop rock? Absolutely. But there was nothing out there like it before they hit, and tons of stuff out there like it after they hit. Nobody was using the advanced chord structures and complex harmonies like they were doing and playing rock and roll. Musical acts back then did one or the other before the Beatles came along.

 

[JoeWPgh]

We look back at the Beatles and can't help but see their entire body of work. The fact is, they just kept getting better. Just think if they followed up Beatles 65 with a whole album of Mr Moonlights, instead of Help? I doubt we'd be having this conversation. Then they followed that up with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, etc.

 

[Jughead6]

There are some who don't like the Beatles. They are known as "whackos."

And there are some who like the Beatles but have a different opinion of when they did their best work.

 

[Pdaddy1978]

I was there friends..... I was 6 years old when they played the Ed Sullivan show. There was only 3 channels then, so everybody watched....it was just what you did back then. I remember sitting in front of our black and White zenith and I was DUMSTRUCK! They were so smooth and played so effortlessly and exotic! And they were playing American rock and roll in a way we had abandoned. It sounds funny now, but it was like getting hit with thunderbolt! And our parents HATED it, which meant it was undeniably COOL. Sgt Pepper wasn't even a dream yet.... Meet the Beatles changed the world.... My world anyway.

 

[lesh-head]

is this "Behind The Music" or TB?

 

[Grooveline]

I think there's actually two reasons not listed by the op thats the reason for The Beatles poularity.

FEMALES. This is the real correct answer for the start to early periods of their career imo. The largest generation boom the US had ever seen created the most teenage girls the US had ever seen. Add that to the fact that for the first time ever a giant middle class was created and had enough money to dispose on music as entertainment. Finally, females had the choice (1 of 4) of their own personal type of "Elvis". Not saying the songs weren't good but as a young man the words of love songs never seem to match my feeling towards females at that age. Maybe they were more emotionally mature than me (however actions by them don't seem to show that) or MAYBE ITS DOWNRIGHT LIES TO APPEAL TO A MARKET AND MAKE MONEY. The older I get the creepier it is to me to see young men (20-30) make songs for teenage girls. I understand a person got to eat though and The Beatles would never have gone the places, had the money, or experienced the things they did without this large population of people spending their parents money.

The SWITCH. So sadly The Beatles started out their early career as a band of four guys making music for young girls much like Nsync and The Backstreet Boys of recent times. Where they ended up....well we can all agree it's pretty far from where they started. Now imagine if Nsync and The Backstreet Boys were able to do the same thing? You probably cant because that would be impossible to squeeze something positive from things so worthless musically. The switch from making cookie cutter songs for females (sadly still going on to this day) to mass appealing subject matter accompanied by the newest sounds and recording techniques is responsible for "the fame" that they experience today imo. Of the top of my head I haven't seen that successful of a switch musically ever.

 

[Noot]

The options in the poll are silly and transpire envy. They were very, very good. If you listen to one of their old live shows with an open mind, you will see it.

 

[hrodbert696]

You're talking about the marketing; but so many bands were marketed EXACTLY the same way. Why did they rise so much higher than the rest?

Besides the effective merchandising, which had been around since at least the 1930s, the Beatles wrote great intelligent songs. They moved away from three-chord rock & roll (nothing wrong with that) and incorporated folksy melodies with a driving beat.

one reason..SKIFFLE !

that was all that was playing in Britain til the Fab Four arrived.

I think Diabolus has something of a point, that the boy-band factor gave them a boost with the screaming girls. But Mel is absolutely right, they were hardly the first boy band, there had been a string of them, and they didn't all turn into the Beatles.

BazzTard makes a great point, and you need to remember that there are two key markets the Beatles managed to bridge, the US and UK (and they were the first to go from Britain to the US rather than vice-versa, as Elvis had done). In the UK, you had had both the Skiffle craze, pretty much one-chord songs with heavy rhythm, which attuned people to more energetic, danceable music and was an easy intro for lots of kids to play guitar (and want to listen to guitar music); and a big interest in American blues musicians. Those primed audiences for British rock and roll; the Beatles were one of the first to break big, but it was really all pretty rapid-fire, with the Stones and John Mayall's Blues Breakers and the Yardbirds and the others all coming out in rapid succession.

In the US market, rock and roll was back on its heels since about 1959 or 1960; Elvis was in the army, Jerry Lee Lewis was disgraced, Bill Haley had gone to Mexico, Buddy Holly and Richie Valens were dead. The payola scandal provided the occasion for a big backlash against rock and roll. So by 1963, you had had a few years of a music market that was much more mild and tame compared to the hormone-pumping, pelvis-rattling music of 1954-59. Roy Orbison was very talented (as were many other acts of the time) but more of a traditional balladeering crooner. College kids were listening to the Kingston Trio. But the teen market hadn't disappeared. By 1963, it was pent-up enough to explode as soon as a sufficiently gutsy act showed up to light the hormonal fuse. The Beatles were it.

Even so, the Beatles might have remained on the same plane as, say, Bill Haley, just one among many noteworthy acts, rather than defining the generation. They had their limitations; they couldn't play anywhere near the level of, say, the great bebop jazzers, and none of them had a voice like Sinatra or Orbison. But they did two things that raised them to another level; one, as has been said, they wrote memorable songs, often simple, but distinct enough to stand out from the crowd; and they were very attuned to the generation and changed with it. Like someone said (Lokikallas?) earlier in the thread, the "LSD" albums like Sgt. Pepper meant that they had a body of work that was flexible and wide-ranging and they didn't stay stuck in pop-band mode forever.

 

[Stealth Fighter]

I voted carrots, but it had more to do with good promotion than anything else. IMHO

 

[Smooth_bass88]

Luck.

Right place, right time, and enough savvy to make the most of it.

Just like anyone else who's ever gotten famous.

I'd have to disagree with this comment simply because their songs were so great and melodies so catchy. Shure, timing had a little to do with it but good music transcends the era in which it was created; if they came out in the 70s or 80s they'd still be popular.

 

[Jeff Sarsippius]

They started a whole new scene, PERIOD: concept albums, hits without touring.....getting better management, and most importantly: knowing when to call it quits, making the band bigger than each individual member. I can only think of a few bands thaat have accomplished that feat: funny enough, most are their contemporaries.

 

[ROGI]

I think Diabolus has something of a point, that the boy-band factor gave them a boost with the screaming girls. But Mel is absolutely right, they were hardly the first boy band, there had been a string of them, and they didn't all turn into the Beatles.

BazzTard makes a great point, and you need to remember that there are two key markets the Beatles managed to bridge, the US and UK (and they were the first to go from Britain to the US rather than vice-versa, as Elvis had done). In the UK, you had had both the Skiffle craze, pretty much one-chord songs with heavy rhythm, which attuned people to more energetic, danceable music and was an easy intro for lots of kids to play guitar (and want to listen to guitar music); and a big interest in American blues musicians. Those primed audiences for British rock and roll; the Beatles were one of the first to break big, but it was really all pretty rapid-fire, with the Stones and John Mayall's Blues Breakers and the Yardbirds and the others all coming out in rapid succession.

In the US market, rock and roll was back on its heels since about 1959 or 1960; Elvis was in the army, Jerry Lee Lewis was disgraced, Bill Haley had gone to Mexico, Buddy Holly and Richie Valens were dead. The payola scandal provided the occasion for a big backlash against rock and roll. So by 1963, you had had a few years of a music market that was much more mild and tame compared to the hormone-pumping, pelvis-rattling music of 1954-59. Roy Orbison was very talented (as were many other acts of the time) but more of a traditional balladeering crooner. College kids were listening to the Kingston Trio. But the teen market hadn't disappeared. By 1963, it was pent-up enough to explode as soon as a sufficiently gutsy act showed up to light the hormonal fuse. The Beatles were it.

Even so, the Beatles might have remained on the same plane as, say, Bill Haley, just one among many noteworthy acts, rather than defining the generation. They had their limitations; they couldn't play anywhere near the level of, say, the great bebop jazzers, and none of them had a voice like Sinatra or Orbison. But they did two things that raised them to another level; one, as has been said, they wrote memorable songs, often simple, but distinct enough to stand out from the crowd; and they were very attuned to the generation and changed with it. Like someone said (Lokikallas?) earlier in the thread, the "LSD" albums like Sgt. Pepper meant that they had a body of work that was flexible and wide-ranging and they didn't stay stuck in pop-band mode forever.

THIS!

 

[cnltb]

Guessing...
They got lucky,
They had some good songs,
They started in Germany-england was hip there at the time.
They chose the right covers to start with.
They had an excellent manager, or two.
Girls fancied them.
They got lucky.

 

[dalkowski]

Their early stuff was completely innovative.

Yup. "Please Please Me." Full stop.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

At the time of the Tony Sheridan recordings, the producers did not like the name The Beatles. The original release billed them as The Beat Boys. It was after they became famous, they rereleased with new labels and it became The Beatles with Tony Sheridan.