Why DID the Beatles Get so Famous?

[bherman]

I too was around then and grew up through that whole era. I was 8 or 9 when the beatles hit it big, then watched them evolve throughout my teen years. SOme of my reasons would be redundant with other posts above, but here goes:

timing - right place, right time.
talent - to this day, they are right up there with the best as an ensemble, both musically and vocally.
hard work - if you read about their early days, they worked their butts off in dive bars in England and Germany until they got it right.
Songwriting - In my view, they are going to stand the test of time in the same manner as Gershwin and others. What other pop bands can you say that about?
Combination of the above - if you put it all together, you'll know why they became so famous.

 

[klokker]

I agree about the timing, the sound, the personalities, what was happening in the culture and media. But lots of other musicians have worked just as hard and been just as good, so in my mind that wasn't the reason they hit it so big.

Maybe this has already been said, but in the end, I'd say it was pure luck.

 

[Milo Spleen]

Not much mention about how hard they worked. If you read the book that tells of their activities in chronologic order, you will see that they had very little time to relax. Their days were taken up playing music, writing music and doing radio, TV and live performances. It amazes me, but clearly the source of "Eight Days a Week".

 

[jim nolte]

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.

Pete Best was the girls favorite, "Pete forever, Ringo never" was what they were screaming when they showed up at the Cavern one day with Ringo. Hell, George even got punched in the face and got a black eye for defending Ringo when they walked off the stage. Hardly boy band stuff.

 

[Celtic59]

I always figured this was due to Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochrane dying before their influence really got a hold in the rock 'n roll business. After their passing, you had Frankie & Annette and horrible pop songs dominating the top 40. Everyone was long overdue a pop band that rocked and had some edge to them. And most of all, the reason they got SO big was their manager, who was obsessed with making this all happen, and radically changed their manner and appearance. Otherwise the Beatles would have been about as big as Johnny Kidd and The Pirates methinks, and the Brit Invasion would have been confined to Germany.

 

[gregmon79]

Because they're the s**t......duh.....

 

[Smoove-Groove]

"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

I believe it was 'I feel fine' that was their feedback debut.

 

[tbx59]

They listened to Carl Perkins and Little Richard - pretty much good advice for anyone

 

[Shovel]

Right place at the right time.

 

[Iridescentone]

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.

Dunno where you grew up, but I was in the Chicago burbs. We had at least two radio stations that played rock n roll all day long and into the night. The biggest one was WLS, which broadcast at 50,000 watts and could be heard as far south as Texas. I'd imagine that every decent size city would have a similar situation, and that would account for the vast majority of the population. Radio stations didn't spring up overnight just because of the Beatles, the stations were already there.

Although I have to admit, when I drive across Nebraska there are times when all I can find on the radio is the damn farm report. So I guess some segment of the population may have been sheltered from what everyone else was experiencing.

 

[engedi1]

My dad was a huge Buddy Holly fan...until he heard the Beatles. He said at the time no one could play guitar like that and no one had such cool vocal harmonies. He and his friends we pretty much blown away.

 

[rtav]

The reasons are innumerable, great and small. I think John's quote (RS, 1971) sort of sums up a lot of it: they were different, they shook up everything and offered something new musically:

"And when we got here (USA), you were all walking around in shagin’ bermuda shorts, with Boston crew cuts and stuff on your teeth."

 

[Freez]

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.

Most of you are looking BACK on these events, filtering your viewpoint through every other event that has happened in music since then. It's not the same as being there and witnessing it when it happened. The great rock that started in the 50's was dying out in favor of crooners like Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka and the like. "Guitar groups are on the way out" is why DECCA didn't sign them, for crying out loud!!! Aside from our friend who posted above and lived in the Chicago area, most of middle America was hearing these watered down acts as the primary radio staple of the day. When the Beatles hit it was like a bomb went off! The Beatles are THE REASON guitar groups didn't die out, but instead went on to overwhelmingly dominate popular music, until only very recently. There is some credibility to the "right place, right time" theory, but that can be said about anyone who "makes it" in the entertainment industry. 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!

 

[ThePresident777]

Because Paul McCartney's bass playing, of course.

I WIIN MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAa............

 

[azureblue]

Duh - how about they wrote great songs that stood the test of time? And they were really good lyricists too..

They also were hellacious arrangers, listen to their recordings - there is not a wasted note anywhere and the arrangements flow, no matter if it is full orchestra or just the quartet...

They knew how to deliver the songs the wrote. Go find the Ed Sullivan vid of when Paul sings "Yesterday" for the first time - a perfect meld of a great song with great poignant lyrics, a simple instrumentation, and Paul presenting it perfectly. That, my loopz and beatz friends, is talent

They were musicians first, not players. George was the only guy in the group who could play well - the rest found a good part and kept to it. Note that they all played other instruments, too. Paul was originally a guitar player and John and Paul learned piano. Both also played drums. George picked up Eastern stringed instruments and styles, and Ringo played a little piano, too.

Telling the the choices omitted selections regarding the music itself.

 

[fretter]

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.

These favorable circumstances that bands in general benefitted from included the portable turntable. Adolescents increasingly had their own rooms, and somebody in their circle of friends owned a portable record player. They no longer had to share a console radio with the adults.

 

[Phalex]

They changed everything. There is popular music before the Beatles, and there is popular music after the Beatles.

 

[Lionel Albert]

They get famous because of the end of the military service in the UK (for some rock historians, Elvis Presley stopped being a rocker when he had to do his military service, he became a "man").
That was the British Boom, no engagement with the army, no war, a lot of job, a lot of joy and innocence, and British didn't have any prejudice about black music.

 

[Bassquest]

None of the above. Brian Epstein.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[JoeWPgh]

This is a convoluted question that really ignores the longer arc. They are as popular as they are for the entire body of their work. While many assume the question to be about the 'Beatle Mania' phase, if they had stopped recording after Beatles 65, we wouldn't be having this discussion.