• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why DID the Beatles Get so Famous?

Why DID the Beatles get so famous?

  • Total voters
    203
#121
When the occasional "I don't like the Beatles" or "I change the station if a Beatles song comes on" post comes up here, I'm totally perplexed. I don't know how to respond. The variety & depth of their work is profound.

Nothing? Really? Just don't like them? Are you convinced you're demonstrating independent thinking even though it's obvious to many that you haven't really given the subject much thought at all? Are you also an anti-vaxxer and do you believe the moon landing never happened?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyM and electracoyote
#122
Alkali Ike said:
When the occasional "I don't like the Beatles" or "I change the station if a Beatles song comes on" post comes up here, I'm totally perplexed. I don't know how to respond. The variety & depth of their work is profound.

Nothing? Really? Just don't like them? Are you convinced you're demonstrating independent thinking even though it's obvious to many that you haven't really given the subject much thought at all? Are you also an anti-vaxxer and do you believe the moon landing never happened?
Click to expand...

I've owned several albums and still change the station. It's ok to not like something. People who do this to Jimi Hendrix suck, but it's still ok to not like something.

Wanna know why the Beatles became famous? Because record companies found a way to make blues/R&B sound more palatable to little white teenage boys and girls. After all, they were the ones that could actually afford the records of the time and they could have their Chuck Berry and eat it too. Let's not kid ourselves. The Beatles (and Elvis) were immense talents, but the trajectory of their success was calculated in much the same way the boy bands and fake rappers of today are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tupac
#123
petrus61 said:
I've owned several albums and still change the station. It's ok to not like something. People who do this to Jimi Hendrix suck, but it's still ok to not like something.

Wanna know why the Beatles became famous? Because record companies found a way to make blues/R&B sound more palatable to little white teenage boys and girls. After all, they were the ones that could actually afford the records of the time and they could have their Chuck Berry and eat it too. Let's not kid ourselves. The Beatles (and Elvis) were immense talents, but the trajectory of their success was calculated in much the same way the boy bands and fake rappers of today are.
Click to expand...
That's really not accurate in the Beatles' case. Every British label passed on them before Parlephone gave them a shot. Commercial expectations weren't high. Capitol initially didn't even want to release the records in the U.S. They didn't believe they would succeed in this country even after they had some success in England. They're first singles in America were released on Indies like Veejay and Tollie records because Capitol passed on them. I actually think the first LP even came out on Veejay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony and One Drop
#124
petrus61 said:
I've owned several albums and still change the station. It's ok to not like something. People who do this to Jimi Hendrix suck, but it's still ok to not like something.

Wanna know why the Beatles became famous? Because record companies found a way to make blues/R&B sound more palatable to little white teenage boys and girls. After all, they were the ones that could actually afford the records of the time and they could have their Chuck Berry and eat it too. Let's not kid ourselves. The Beatles (and Elvis) were immense talents, but the trajectory of their success was calculated in much the same way the boy bands and fake rappers of today are.
Click to expand...

No, let's go ahead and kid ourselves.

That same trajectory was calculated for countless other acts, and those countless other acts aren't being talked about much these days.

The Beatles became SO famous because they had the exact sound the world was looking for, and it spread like wildfire. The hung on to that fame because they had the goods to back it up. They didn't inspire a generation. They inspired several generations. When they played the Ed Sullivan Show, I was an infant. When they broke up, I was seven. During their entire career as a band, I didn't even know who they were.

I can play and sing a huge number of songs from their catalog, and over the years I have tried to play them with countless people who first sneered at the idea, and then quickly demonstrated they could not play the requisite parts to these songs.

The Beatles were the very best rock group of all time, and they wrote songs that ranged from elements of pop, rock, rockabilly, country, jazz and showtunes to classical music. Great hooks, great lyrics, great harmony, and really well played guitars, bass and drums. They are the single most imitated group of all time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony, jim nolte, JimmyM and 1 other person
#127
petrus61 said:
I've owned several albums and still change the station. It's ok to not like something. People who do this to Jimi Hendrix suck, but it's still ok to not like something.

Wanna know why the Beatles became famous? Because record companies found a way to make blues/R&B sound more palatable to little white teenage boys and girls. After all, they were the ones that could actually afford the records of the time and they could have their Chuck Berry and eat it too. Let's not kid ourselves. The Beatles (and Elvis) were immense talents, but the trajectory of their success was calculated in much the same way the boy bands and fake rappers of today are.
Click to expand...

This was true of many of the white rock 'n roll artists who came up in the '50s, making r&b ('race music') palatable to a white audience (not to take anything away from the talents of many of these early stars).

The Beatles introduced something new post Hamburg, quite different from just a version of blues/r&b.
 
#128
A number of factors were at work--as discussed above--but there was hype, and the backing up of the hype.
The production of George Martin was a big factor, the management savvy of Brian Epstein, the public image & the songs reaching a lot of people.

No one band is ever going to please everybody--so there will always be those who don't like the Beatles, but they had the right combination of stuff at the right time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimK
#130
Going back to Beatles Live at the BBC CDs, it was clear to me that the Beatles had better access to gritty American r'n'b than most American suburban white kids. Aside from possibly WLS that music wasn't making the airwaves. Growing up in Pittsburgh we had Motown but I didn't even hear much Stax Volt records till I went away to college and met a kid from DC. And I definitely remember a summer of hearing a lot of Pat Boone's 'Love Letters in the Sand' and Pirates baseball on KDKA.
The Beatles recycled and integrated a lot influences and were squeaky clean enough to get on the radio. I tend to think that same squeaky clean is why image conscious Motown got on the radio in my vicinity and Stax Volt didn't. Epstein was smart enough to manipulate their image -- not a lot of distributed pictures of them smoking - nifty fashion sense and the like.
 
#135
petrus61 said:
And they were the biggest imitators to ever reach such heights. Completely missed the point while conveniently sidestepping the social connotations, but have at it. The chicken came before the egg, the egg spoke and it said: "I am the walrus".
Click to expand...
All musicians steal from other musicians. The Beatles freely admitted it. Paul said they were the best thieves in the business. But they took what they stole and created something completely new, and to this day, all rock and roll has influences that can be directly traced to things they did, and you can't say that about any other band out there.

rtslinger said:
Because, George Martin (The 5th Beatle) give them a break and helped them create a fresh new sound.
Click to expand...
George Martin did absolutely nothing to create them. They were created and their sound was well-formed by the time he met them. Yes, as time went on, he got more involved creatively, but he never wrote any of their songs and only assisted them in arranging for other instruments and playing occasional keyboard parts. He was excellent at it, too, but make no mistake...nobody created the Beatles except the Beatles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony, JimK, OldDog52 and 2 others
#136
JimmyM said:
All musicians steal from other musicians. The Beatles freely admitted it. Paul said they were the best thieves in the business. But they took what they stole and created something completely new, and to this day, all rock and roll has influences that can be directly traced to things they did, and you can't say that about any other band out there.


George Martin did absolutely nothing to create them? They were created and their sound was well-formed by the time he met them. Yes, as time went on, he got more involved creatively, but he never wrote any of their songs and only assisted them in arranging for other instruments and playing occasional keyboard parts. He was excellent at it, too, but make no mistake...nobody created the Beatles except the Beatles.
Click to expand...

Jimmy Did you ever hear the early Beatle recordings? I am a big fan of the Beatles so do not get me wrong but, in the early days The Beatles had nothing special about them they were like many many other bands in England covering Us musicians material. Even when they got there chance to perform their own material thanks to the constant push of the manager. And they were turn down time and time again by the top British record companies. And I listen to this recording myself (the Decca recordings) and you know they were up against the likes of the Beach Boys who's sound just grabbed you and took you for a ride. And honestly they were just okay. To suggested Martin's vast knowledge of song arrangements and music itself had nothing to do with the Beatles success not to mention he gave them a second shot at a record deal when they were already turn down by him himself. He listen to it and found them unpromising and although he like John and Paul's voice not to waste his time but because Epstein pushed back they were sign to a truly lame deal with EMI 1 penny for each record sold split among the 4 members even after that in Abby road studios in 1962 Martin was to have the same opinion after listening to the 4 songs they recorded. George Martin remember was not just some guy off the street he was record producer, arranger, composer, conductor, audio engineer and musician who took them under his wing. I believe it would have been a long road for them to get to the level they achieved without him considering no one else saw anything thing special worth there investment and that is a sad historical fact in The Beatles climb to the top. EMI wasn't happy when Love Me Do peak at 17 on the British charts in 1962 back then it wasn't about albums it was about the A and B side of the 45 many artist who didn't get into the top 10 on the record charts rarely got the chance to get a second try at it. Certainly not a band who was already consider by many not worth the effort. They begged Martin to record Please me Please and can you imagine that if he said no, instead of letting them record it and tell them to speed it up. They may have just faded to dust. His decision lead to the Beatles being successful and that is how I reached my opinion. Jimmy I was a big Beatle fan from way back my family had a room in my house growing up called the Beatle room. Hell I have large autographed picture of them on my living room wall today. I am not trying to change your opinion I am merely showing you how I have come around to mine :) with the utmost respect RTS
 
  • Like
Reactions: petrus61
#138
rtslinger said:
Jimmy Did you ever hear the early Beatle recordings? I am a big fan of the Beatles so do not get me wrong but, in the early days The Beatles had nothing special about them they were like many many other bands in England covering Us musicians material. Even when they got there chance to perform their own material thanks to the constant push of the manager. And they were turn down time and time again by the top British record companies. And I listen to this recording myself (the Decca recordings) and you know they were up against the likes of the Beach Boys who's sound just grabbed you and took you for a ride. And honestly they were just okay. To suggested Martin's vast knowledge of song arrangements and music itself had nothing to do with the Beatles success not to mention he gave them a second shot at a record deal when they were already turn down by him himself. He listen to it and found them unpromising and although he like John and Paul's voice not to waste his time but because Epstein pushed back they were sign to a truly lame deal with EMI 1 penny for each record sold split among the 4 members even after that in Abby road studios in 1962 Martin was to have the same opinion after listening to the 4 songs they recorded. George Martin remember was not just some guy off the street he was record producer, arranger, composer, conductor, audio engineer and musician who took them under his wing. I believe it would have been a long road for them to get to the level they achieved without him considering no one else saw anything thing special worth there investment and that is a sad historical fact in The Beatles climb to the top. EMI wasn't happy when Love Me Do peak at 17 on the British charts in 1962 back then it wasn't about albums it was about the A and B side of the 45 many artist who didn't get into the top 10 on the record charts rarely got the chance to get a second try at it. Certainly not a band who was already consider by many not worth the effort. They begged Martin to record Please me Please and can you imagine that if he said no, instead of letting them record it and tell them to speed it up. They may have just faded to dust. His decision lead to the Beatles being successful and that is how I reached my opinion. Jimmy I was a big Beatle fan from way back my family had a room in my house growing up called the Beatle room. Hell I have large autographed picture of them on my living room wall today. I am not trying to change your opinion I am merely showing you how I have come around to mine :) with the utmost respect RTS
Click to expand...
No doubt George was a positive influence on the Beatles. But they had begun writing songs long before they met (albeit not as good as stuff like "Please Please Me" and "She Loves You") and George wanted them to do more covers at first and wasn't crazy about "Love Me Do." Suggesting a tempo change does not a songwriter make, nor does suggesting arrangement ideas to existing songs. George did all that stuff and did it well, but they would still have had the same career trajectory with or without him. They simply were unstoppable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rtslinger and OldDog52
#139
Squeaky clean image is the answer.





The_Beatles-Yesterday_And_Today-Frontal.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony, jim nolte, OldDog52 and 2 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back