Why DID the Beatles Get so Famous?

[Grooveline]

Few things on TB make me roll my eyes as much as when people slap the "boy band" label on the Beatles. They're clearly trying to drag them down to the level of the Backstreet Boys, Nsync, etc., which is preposterous. The latter groups were created largely by Lou Pearlman, who then set them up in houses and rehearsal spaces and taught them vocal parts and dance moves. Then they were shipped to Sweden, where Max Martin and his crew wrote (and played the backing tracks on) hit songs for them.

The Beatles, despite any nutty videos claiming otherwise , were essentially a self-realized band. They formed a group by themselves (though management did play a role in the sacking of Pete Best in favor Ringo), honed their chops through years of hard work in dives, wrote their own songs, and played their own instruments. Does that really sound like a boy band?

When you spend your early career writing songs for a young females that's just going to happen. Just like "rock bands" tend to typically make music that is male oriented, "boy bands" make music that is female oriented. It's pretty clear that not only did The Beatles do this but they also were earlier guilty of the ultimate "boy band" thing, dumping a member to get a member that actually looked and lived the image the others were trying to fake. IMO the comparison is not only deserved but should always be included to show how far and how GREAT these guys were able to become after they started being themselves and not the industry cookie molded artists.

If you don't want to be thrown in boy band territory then do yourself a favor and don't write cheesy love type songs as a bunch of young males when "love" is hardly the last thing on a young mans mind. Also, TV appearances with hordes of screaming females only support the labeling of BOY BAND to The Beatles. So, i'm sorry I called your band a name but i'm just defining them based on their actions. Clearly they changed for the better but you can't take away how they started.

 

[DavC]

teenage girls .. ! and boys who like teenage girls ... and they bought 45's and LPs at the time ...

it was a signal/sign that the 50's where over .. !

so why did anybody give a crap about Justin Beiber ...?? teenage girls ... teenage boys who like teenage boys

 

[electracoyote]

Great OP.

I'll expand just a little:

In addition to breaking away from what was by then "traditional" pop rock musically, they also did so visually, in a BIG way. Epstein suggested they abandon the leather look, which was already becoming a 50's cliche, in exchange for suits, ties, and Cuban heel dress boots (which no doubt appealed not only to his fashion sense but his sexuality). All but McCartney hated the idea, and Paul (the consummate showman) had to talk the others into it. In addition, their pomade quiff hair style, another mainstay of trad rock at the time, gave way to the mop top Beatle cut, usually attributed to Astrid Kirchherr, a friend from their Hamburg days. A male with hair over the ears and down on the forehead? Outrageous at the time, in an almost feminine bangs way. The Beatles changed the music world AND the fashion world. They not only sounded different, they also looked so different from the pop stars who came before. They were groomed like Sinatra, sounded like Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Elvis, and wrote songs like Buddy Holly.

It's hard for young people to understand the impact. A "new" band comes out today, and to me they look and sound like 50 others I've heard recently, and young people embrace them like it's the Second Coming. You almost had to live through the Beatles era to understand the impact, one which is still resonating in pop music today 50 years later. A few acts have come close, but still nothing like what The Beatles did to the music world.

 

[RED J]

Lotsa reasons, but they knew how to write a good hook on the front side of the tune.

 

[Richland123]

On another note (pun not intended). The Beatles were extremely influential in inspiring many young kids to get a musical instrument, take lessons, and put a band together.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Bunch of things:

1. Brought in the idea of a band as a unit - writing and performing their own music
2. Fresh and funny, came in just as TV became big for the mainstream.
3. Just rebellious enough for teens, not QUITE evil enough to turn off parents (at least at first)
4. really good and original music

 

[wallypip]

There have been some great posts here, so here's my addition. The Beatles basically grew up with the Baby Boomer generation. They wrote poppy songs that reflected their influences because that's what most 20ish year old boys who want to be in a rock band do. At the time, their generation was being inspired by American Rock and Roll, but also blues and early Motown. In the states, it was difficult to mix all of those genres because of the racist environment. In England, it was difficult to get your hands on a lot of the American stuff. When some cute white kids started playing songs that were derived from what the teenagers of the time wanted to hear but often couldn't, it was just a matter of getting them on the radio and TV. If they had stopped there, however, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What makes the Beatles truly great is that their music grew up with that generation--or vice versa--and has stayed relevant for 50 years.

The reason they took off in America instead of American bands is because as we all know, the out-of-town band is always better than the local bands.

 

[bearfoot]

"Boy Band" is dismissive and inaccurate. A Boy Band is a wholly manufactured, plastic thing. Not a seasoned rock band that gets a manager who convinces them to wear suits.
The Monkees are much more aptly called an early Boy Band.

 

[spanndrew]

They were super talented. Also super lucky.

 

[One Drop]

Same reasons anyone else does... right people, right place, right time, right circumstances, all lined up. There's a world of great musicians we never heard of, simply because those things didn't happen.

Yes, and part of the 'right people' means people with the talent and drive to turn a good break into continuing success, who had the potential to become truly great songwriters, etc etc.

Luck might (even this is highly debatable) get you a hit song but it will not result in even a mildly successful career, never mind a massively successful and long-lived one that transforms a genre and an industry, with so many firsts and such lasting influence.

I think people are confusing the idea that luck is necessary even if you have all the talents with the idea that luck alone will get you somewhere.

 

[tycobb73]

You know we actually studied this in my social psychology class in college. The professor and an author of a paper on the subject, agreed that it was because they appealed to teenage girls. This was just before the feminist movement and sexual revolution really broke. You had all these girls trapped and they wanted to grab onto something. That is why John's marriage was never publicized. Paul didn't mind Stew leaving the band because Stew was also very attractive and Paul wanted that attention. Brian also did a very good job at marketing them. Unfortunately they were so new that he had to sell off a significant amount of the royalties. they were very much a boy band. It is all over their early stuff. But they were the first to appeal to females who really felt like they could express themselves exuberantly. Right place, right time. Without their early success we probably wouldn't have the later hits that changed the direction of music forever.

 

[GregC]

When you spend your early career writing songs for a young females that's just going to happen. Just like "rock bands" tend to typically make music that is male oriented, "boy bands" make music that is female oriented. It's pretty clear that not only did The Beatles do this but they also were earlier guilty of the ultimate "boy band" thing, dumping a member to get a member that actually looked and lived the image the others were trying to fake. IMO the comparison is not only deserved but should always be included to show how far and how GREAT these guys were able to become after they started being themselves and not the industry cookie molded artists.

If you don't want to be thrown in boy band territory then do yourself a favor and don't write cheesy love type songs as a bunch of young males when "love" is hardly the last thing on a young mans mind. Also, TV appearances with hordes of screaming females only support the labeling of BOY BAND to The Beatles. So, i'm sorry I called your band a name but i'm just defining them based on their actions. Clearly they changed for the better but you can't take away how they started.

No apologies necessary, as I did not aim my post at any specific person and I don't think of the Beatles as "my" band--that sounds weird.

Your personal definition of "boy band", and your generalizations about gender-specific appeal, ignore the context of the time. Until Dylan nudged his way into "rock" in '65, everyone in the pop/rock world wrote and/or performed songs about love. Who wasn't a "boy band" in your eyes at that time? Hell, the Stones were arguably more of a boy band than the Beatles during that period--they hit it big with other people's songs first (including I Wanna Be Your Man by Lennon/McCartney) and crafted a bad boy image that obscured their bourgeois backgrounds.

Regarding Pete Best and Ringo: Image was part of the decision, and Best's firing was handled poorly, but it's clear that Best didn't fit in with the others from a personality standpoint and he wasn't nearly as good a drummer as Ringo. Also, Best had more female appeal than the others, according to most. So calling this move the "ultimate boy band thing" is an exaggeration at best.

Yes, I agree the Beatles' later material was better, but they simply were not down at the level of the groups for which the phrase "boy band" was originally coined in the 1990s. Also, it was less than two years after the Beatles hit it big in the US that the game-changing Rubber Soul was released.

 

[wrench45us]

It's true to my recollection that it was all about teenage girls. Teenage boys were drawn to harder edged elements of the evolving British Invasion.
Try to recall there really wasn't a youth culture before that time. One day it wasn't there, then quite suddenly it was there and soon on its heels a counter culture and generation gap and, you know, the center could not hold.

Two anthropological points
1) youth of that era were so well raised with security and relative prosperity that my sense has always been that we/they were more willing to try a bunch of stuff and push boundaries -- more than just a bell curve distribution of behavior that the demographic bulge would warrant.
2) Not a lot of irony back then -- everything has become so post-modern, contemporaneous that nothing much escapes the ironic perspective --punk and grunge and hip hop poked through for a few moments, but it's about time for another breakthrough. You know, get real.

 

[Iridescentone]

The point about the drivel that was on the radio at the time cannot be overstated.
It was a very fresh and lively sound -- and those early records still sound pretty fresh.

and to the point immediately above -- they covered a very wide range -- the Beatles at the BBC was a revelation to me of just what a terrific cover band they were.
everything from gritty R'n'b to Broadway 'till there was you'

Playing all those styles soaked a lot of changes and songcraft into them -- esp playing 4 sets a night
and then they had the good fortune to work with George Martin

I have to disagree, by the early sixties rock 'n roll and pop music were already peaking. Rock 'n Roll was in it's heyday. Great stuff was all over the radio by artists like Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Roy Orbison, Everly Brothers, The Ventures, Jerry Lee Lewis, and on and on and on... And young people loved it. No one thought it was "drivel" or stale. Quite the opposite, everyone thought it was fresh and exciting. And young people's parents hated it and feared it. It was great music then, and still is today. The "bar" was set pretty high by that point.

Then, seemingly from out of nowhere, came the Beatles. With their totally fresh, totally electrifying sound, they grabbed ahold of listeners world-wide....and they never let go. They did it by constantly deluging the market with new material. The songs were compelling and prolific. Each album was chock full of great tunes, including many hits. For years Beatles songs dominated the charts. Remarkably, the Beatles reset the "bar" to the highest level, paving the way for the rest of the British Invasion, where other bands had to work feverishly just to compete with the Beatles.

That aint luck, folks.

 

[BigJohnAZ]

Luck.

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

Just like anyone else who's ever gotten famous.

I have read a fair share of books on the Beatles and agree with the above. It was a perfect storm for them. They were exciting and had a good following, Brian packaged them properly and then the magic of George Martin sealed the deal.

 

[Richland123]

Just imagine what "pop/rock" music in the 1960s and beyond would have been like without The Beatles. Would there have been other acts to step in and change the musical landscape and force others to be more creative and innovative as much?

The music scene from the mid 1960s and onward changed so much so fast with musicians pushing the boundaries and there was a wide variety of new and exciting styles and sounds not to mention that technology had a huge impact on equipment, instrumentation, and audio production.

Also, the rock and pop musicians themselves started to get better at playing their respective instruments.

 

[Bob_Ross]

You can tell me which one is "the cute one" and "the funny one, " just like One Direction and Backstreet Boys.

I think the degree to which ^^^this is true -- not just about The Beatles (or more contemporary boy-bands) but any/all of our favorite acts -- can't be underestimated. When fans are aware of the band members as individuals with distinct personalities (rather than anonymous, faceless musicians) it helps create and affirm the fan/artist bond. Even if you don't actually know the bass player's name*, if you know he's "the cute one" that goes a long way towards making you feel connected to the band, almost as if they're your friends.


*What's that meme I've seen kicking around lately? Something about "You're not really a fan of the band if you don't know the bass player's name."

 

[wrench45us]

I have to disagree, by the early sixties rock 'n roll and pop music were already peaking. Rock 'n Roll was in it's heyday. Great stuff was all over the radio by artists like Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Roy Orbison, Everly Brothers, The Ventures, Jerry Lee Lewis, and on and on and on... And young people loved it. No one thought it was "drivel" or stale. Quite the opposite, everyone thought it was fresh and exciting. And young people's parents hated it and feared it. It was great music then, and still is today. The "bar" was set pretty high by that point.

Then, seemingly from out of nowhere, came the Beatles. With their totally fresh, totally electrifying sound, they grabbed ahold of listeners world-wide....and they never let go. They did it by constantly deluging the market with new material. The songs were compelling and prolific. Each album was chock full of great tunes, including many hits. For years Beatles songs dominated the charts. Remarkably, the Beatles reset the "bar" to the highest level, paving the way for the rest of the British Invasion, where other bands had to work feverishly just to compete with the Beatles.

That aint luck, folks.

That was certainly not the case where I grew up listening to major market radio. Maybe some Elvis and Everly Bros and Ricky Nelson but none of those others made the am radio that I could listen to. The music may have been made, but it wasn't getting on the stations in my vicinity. When the Beatles broke they were on twice an hour.

 

[jim nolte]

Because they were innovators, they had ideas that were ahead of their time.
The following is just a small list

Helter skelter - heavier than pretty much anything else around at the time

Tomorrow never knows - use of tape loops, some played backwards, uncommon at the time, Lennons voice recorded through a rotating organ speaker to get its vocal effect

Strawberry fields forever - use of reverse recorded instrumentation and tape loops and was created from the editing together of two separate versions of the song

A day in the life - 40 piece orchestra , 4 different recordings of which were overdubbed into a crescendo

There loads more examples i could give but alas my time is limited

"Day Tripper" the first time feedback from a guitar was used as part of a recorded song. "Rain" the first time a vocal track was played backwards in a recorded song, etc. etc. Yup, just another boy band

 

[Bassblisters]

I remember where I was as a kid when the Beatles broke up, and I have a poor memory. I remember thinking of how bummed other people would feel. Intellectually speaking, I can justify their brilliance and think they deserve kudos. Emotionally speaking, they never did it for me, as I was becoming raunchy at an early age, LOL!