What was it about the Beatles that resonated so strongly in the US?

There's an alternate universe in which The Beatles didn't exist. I'd love to know what the folks obsess about on the SHF over there

 

this is all true but you miss one massive point, THE BEATLES WROTE THEIR OWN STUFF, and in doing so changed the game, artists ever since and still now mostly have to write their own stuff to be taken seriously as artists , this is what the Beatles did for us ( amougst other things ) and are still doing today, it was a game changer, as were they..and they remain, to quote Paul Gambacinni the most important act in the history of popular music, by a country mile. IMO of course ( as well as many others i suspect )

 

nothing as there probably would not be one in that universe...lol

 

Not far off, given our most popular export up here is Nickelback.

 

Duke Ellington was doing this long before the Beatles when swing was the popular music, and has hundreds of original compositions that he wrote with Billy Strayhorn.

So that they're not the first nor unique from this point of view.

 

Not all but most, the Beatles created the conditions for these bands to exist and thrive, and those that did exist would have remained R&B covers bands most likely, remember in the UK, how many successful beat/pop/rocknroll groups were there before the Beatles who didn't have their name in front of the group ??? the Shadows, the Tornados, but they were ( then ) were non vocal

 

The Velvet Underground who was managed by Brian Epstein.

 

absolutely not, Buddy Holly did, as well as Little Richard and many others, but after the Beatles it made it almost a REQUIREMENT, today interpreters of songs are held in a different regard to those that write and perform their own songs.

 

do not worry we had some sad variety acts over here too !

 

Fats Waller was doing that long before Duke Ellington, writing many tunes, a few of which are even today standards. But he wasn't the first either. So what? Ellington was immensely popular, a pioneer, and a turning point. So was Louis Armstrong. So what. None of them were The Beatles. Current bands aren't apeing stuff from the 20s, 30s or 40s, most- a very great majority- are apeing the sound, look, and stylings of the 1960s and early 70s. Four skinny young guys with long hair, guitars and drums. That's The Beatles they all want to be.

 

Max Bygraves anyone?

 

Freddie "Parrot Face" Davies?

 

How do you know it was the Beatles that were responsible for this requirement and not Bob Dylan?

 

Dylan's not a band.

 

Not following that logic...he's a singer / songwriter. Do Simon & Garfunkle count as a 'band'?

 

Yes, the Beatles were influenced by the people that you mention, but they were also just as original as those people, if not more so.

It is not like the Brill Building writers and Motown writers just popped out of nowhere and created music; they had been influenced by the music that had come before them, people like Berlin, Porter, Lead Belly, Robert Johnson, Gershwin, etc, and those people had been influenced by music like the British Child Ballads, and German Gospel, and Marching Band music, etc.

You make it seem like the people before the Beatles were the creators of music, and that the Beatles just copied them. This is patently untrue. Everyone was influenced in some way by the music that came before them, and this includes the Beatles, but if they were special songwriters they built on the previous music and helped to create new genres of music, and the Beatles certainly were one of the few to do this.

To truly understand their musical creativity and originality, you could watch the Howard Goodall documentary about their songwriting, it is on youtube.

 

Because it wasn't Dylan on the Sullivan show being watched by 70 million people, thousands of whom started their own bands and wrote their own songs because they had seen the Beatles do it. Dylan influenced how people wrote their songs (especially lyrically), but his influence on the mass public came after the Beatles.

 

I should start a thread asking why disco, or rap became such a phenomenon. I think similar answer would apply. The two musical movements were influenced by major national events or crisis. The one time that did not happen was after 9/11.

 

I don't think that anyone is claiming that the Beatles were the fist people to write their own songs (that would be preposterous), but they were the first group of their kind to write their own material, and they were hugely influential with regards to inspiring other rock and roll groups to write.

Buddy Holly and Little Richard wrote their own songs, and they were great, but for whatever reason they didn't inspire thousands of groups to form and start writing songs to the same degree as the Beatles.

 

It probably was. People were immensely disgusted with the political realities of the day. We didn't win in Viet Nam, and the economy was going down the tubes. The counter-culture didn't really change anything. America needed a new diversion, and escape, and disco provided it.

 

I was going to say something similar that it isn't limited to the Beatlles or the 60s. Post punk bands dominated the 80s with bands above plus New Order, Banshees, Bunnymen, Depeche Mode, Duran, Simple Minds, Furs, etc. all fromUK.

 

It's so hard to talk about these topics without getting political, because so much of what we need to say directly involves it.

 

They did not dominate in the U.S.. Duran Duran came closet out of the ones you named, though.

 

Who were prominent the 80s in the U.S.? Tina Turner, Journey, Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Def Leppard, Alabama, Van Halen, Don Henley, Culture Club, John Mellencamp, Bruce Springsteen, and George Michael. There's only three British artists among those.

Now, back to The Beatles, and why the U.S. is so obsessed with them.

 

If you're referring to the oft-quoted ''he wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles'' - no, he didn't.