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

One problem with that theory - Mick Jagger's longevity!

 

Paul's 21st was at his Auntie Gin's house in Huyton and Lennon said "...I smashed his ribs in".

 

lol thanks for the correction, i probably thought it was the cavern cos wooler was the mc there !!

 

It's all true - were it not for the assassination of JFK, the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam war, I'd never have bought a Beatles record.

 

I haven't read all the replies, but thought I'd give mine own explanation.

I was there watching Ed Sullivan in 64 as a 16 year old kid and there was something electric about them. I know the pure joy and animal energy of 'She Loves You' and 'She was just Seventeen' was a jolt of something out of the blue.

You know that legend of the Pied Piper of Hamelin who came into the village playing his flute and bedazzled all the children and led them away never to be seen again. that was the effect they had on my generation.

It's all about paying it forward. Both John Lennon and George Harrison told the story of how each of them, separately, heard Elvis' Heartbreak Hotel coming out of somebody's home, and it took them away from their working class homes and on the road to adventure.

 

Having lived in the U.S. at the time this wasn't the case at all. While the hair was considered too long by many, the music wasn't seen as any more of a threat as any other groups at the time. Adults weren't threatened by them until later when they became more outspoken and particularly after John's Jesus comment. That's truly when the backlash began.

Now critics may not have liked them at the time but that's another thing entirely. No one was threatened by the band. In fact most of America found them charming and witty.

 

.

...and to hear them singing TOGETHER...truly incandescent.

 

Not according to the interviews published at the time with ordinary Americans and every newsreel from the time. Sure, some adults found The Beatles fun, but they were in a distinct minority. I'm glad the adults you knew liked them but that is not reflected in every foot of film and videotape and inch of newsprint at the time.

 

See post #212. Newspaper and CBS News Quotes.

 

I think it's possible similar answers may well apply. With disco, you had a completely messed up, post-60s aftermath of economic dislocation (a recession in '74 quite possibly sparked by the Arab oil embargo), inflation, post-Watergate hangover, Church Committee revelations on how corrupt things had gotten ... a huge group of music fans just wanted to go out and dance, just as in the decade previous a huge group of fans wanted some spirited, joyous rock 'n roll. On simpler level though, it seems like disco, as well as pub rock, glam rock and punk, were kind of a reaction to the "art" excesses and pretensions of progressive rock.

With rap, I suppose you could cut-and-paste the same sorts of conditions that sparked disco, but after the second, third or fourth time around, very angry voices emerged, just like the punk anger that came out of the UK in '76 and '77. Not much in the way of joyous abandon that time.

 

This is getting scary.

 

JFK wasn't as popular as myth states. Beatle fans have this entire country depressed until they watched the Sullivan show and then they were happy again because the Beatles were here to cheer us up for the rest of our lives. There were many, many people who disliked JFK and his family. And it wasn't just the deep south.

 

So because they didn't like JFK or the Kennedy family, they wouldn't have been shocked by seeing the president of the United States shot in the head on national TV? Hmmm...something about your post seems pretty non-sensical to me.

The man was murdered in front of a nation that thought of itself as pretty invincible. It brought home vulnerability in huge way I would think. I'm shocked by it just watching the video footage. The back of his head was shot off in front of his wife, all the people lined up on the motorcade and finally the entire country.

Normally adjusted people mourn innocent victims of murder, even if they don't like them or share their beliefs. I tend to think most Americans mourned the death of their president.

 

Walter Cronkite was known as the most trusted man in America. What happened was a national tragedy and, overall, I believe the mood/reaction was as he described. There were, evidently, some pockets of people who weren't despondent (or so I understand from reading) but that wasn't the norm. And it doesn't split along political lines. It is more usual for something like that to upset the entire nation...which is as Cronkite describes.

 

Exactly.

 

Don't forget about the generational shift toward the younger baby-boomers like myself, and the Generation X coming up.

 

In a country of several hundred million, a selective review of their major news media (itself very selective & biased) proves that someones direct personal experiences are not absolute? Isn't that like saying "I'm glad your dad treated prisoners of war humanely, but that is not reflected in every foot of film / news ...at the time" Or that while its nice one city was spared carpet bombing, that is not reflected in every foot of film / news at the time? It offers nothing we don't already know.

Since when has major news media presented well researched, balanced news bits instead of news designed to garner attention? Rarely, in my lifetime. Theres a huge disconnect between events I've personally witnessed or experienced and the resultant news version. Every winter here we get a little snow. Because its hilly and wet it causes some accidents and the occasional traffic jam. Millions of us go about our day - with a little extra caution. Most of us do fine. But that evening, on the news, whats presented is a disaster of the largest magnitude. Frantic & emotional interviews, images of overturned cars in a sea of emergency lights, alarmed newscasters proclaiming this snow the blizzard of (insert year here) - and please stay tuned for details on how you can survive natures fury. I'm waiting for the day my grandkids ask me - how did you even survive those winters gramps?

Great events and news stories can have a grain of truth to them and yet at the same time, give an inaccurate picture of day to day life for most citizens. I wouldn't argue a lot of parents didn't roll their eyes at the Beatles (all the way to declaring them part of a red menace) - thats my general recollection, especially of the men and dads - but I saw something less definitive amongst the women I knew. And of course, my experience may be in the minority in white middle America at the time. I doubt it, buts its possible.

 

That is true, it is also true that LBJ did more for civil rights that Kennedy did, however the assassination of JFK and in such a way traumatised the world and i am sure it did in the States too, almost regardless of what some may have thought of him ( save for a few rednecks )...

 

The assassination was not on live TV. People did not watch it as it happened, and the Zapruder film wasn't aired soon after either.
There are plenty of good books that describe politics of the early sixties. I won't list them because of forum rules.

 

The trauma was, for some, more situational than it was personal. It created uncertainty about national stability and our leadership. I know people wondered whether the USSR was behind it and whether they were intending to take advantage of the situation given the recent missile crisis. Thats not to say that very conservative people like where I lived weren't upset that a human and fellow military veteran had been murdered, and the terrific personal grief to the family and those that cared about him. What I miss these days is how genteel and respectful our opposing political spectrums were. A civility and civic responsibility or pride that largely disappeared over the next couple decades.

 

That did not exist in 1963. I'll list one book -
Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

 

Every foot of film and videotape? Really? That I doubt. The U.S. is such a large country, theres no way a series of inteviews is going to represent everyone. It's one part of the story. keep in mind that you can make an argument for anyone using videotape or film of the time to prove a point. Let's keep n mind that American news is about, well, airing reports that will gather attention. If there's a story is there (Beatles evil, bad) then you shape our story and interview to focus on that.

I wouldn't assume that I know what ALL folks in the UK thought about John F. Kennedy based on a smattering of survivinginterviews

What you've seen is a small subsection that doesn't necessarily represent the whole. Did people think The Beatles looked weird? In the south, yes spot some degree, but most folks thought they were a harmless distraction in the U.S.

If we thought they were a threat they wouldn't have been allowed to be on the Ed Sullivan show multiple times and adults AND kids would not watch them.

 

We are straying way off course here....but I don't think anyone claimed that everyone loved Kennedy. The assassination of a president was rare and the communication was more rapid in the late 20th century. That made it more immediate. You don't have to love someone to be traumatized by their murder.

 

Increasing party polarization since the 1950's is well documented in political science. Not even debatable.

 

If you were not there, it's hard to understand. It's like taking a calculus class without taking algebra first.