Did the circumstances of 1958 help propel the Beatles?

Like a perfect storm, 1958 saw the deaths of Buddy Holly, The Big Bopper and Richie Valens, the marriage of Jerry Lee Lewis to his 13 year-old cousin, the loss (partially) of Little Richard to a higher calling and the departure of Elvis to Germany dressed in military clothing.

Seems to me all of these things created the PERFECT opportunity for something or someone "new" to come in and take over. I understand it would be several more years before the Beatles became "The Beatles," but in my opinion the aforementioned incidents (taken as a whole) helped put the ball in motion.

Would the Beatles have been just as popular worldwide anyway? Probably so, they were incredibly talented, but the music world changed dramatically in 1958 and music lovers (especially in America) were left waiting for new heros.

Thoughts?

 

Sorry to nitpick but Buddy Holly, The Big Bopper and Richie Valens died in 1959.

 

Okay... 1958 into EARLY 1959...

 

Ok then, Did the circumstances of 1959 help propel the Beatles?
Sorry gener8tr, don't mean to take over your thread.

I'd say it helped pave the way for something new. Considering nearly all of the original heavyweights were sidelined or out of the picture prematurely.
Short answer, yes.

 

The circumstances definitely contributed to the temporary slumber of rock 'n' roll, sure. The Beatles came along at the right time and helped awaken it.

 

Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran, and the Everlys were still viable.

If anything the Cochran Vincent tour, and subsequent Vincent solo tours had a galvanizing effect on British youth.

 

I think the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, and the resulting funk that America felt had a great deal to do with the success of the Beatles. We were looking for an escape and the joyful noise the Beatles made proved cathartic for America, something positive and reaffirming to hold on to and believe in.

"She Loves You" -- what boy wouldn't want to hear those words? "I Want To Hold your Hand" -- what girl wouldn't want to hear those words?

Lyrically, musically and emotionally they were exactly what we needed to lift us out of our doldrums. Timing is everything.

 

A lot of folks think the death of JFK contributed a serious sense of gloom in the US that just begged for something to relieve it. Two months later when the Beatles arrived, people were ready for a reason to smile. JFK's death is often mentioned as a key factor in getting America ready for the Beatles.

 

Speaking of "Timing is Everything," our posts hit at exactly the same moment.

 

no, that was 4, some say 5 years before they hit america

 

I think in the U.S. the assassination of President Kennedy had more of an impact.

 

yup. You must have been there too!

 

The end of mandatory military service around 1960 didn't hurt their plans.

 

Chuck Berry was convicted of violating the Mann Act in 1959 and was sent to prison until 1963.

 

16 was the most populated US age group in 1964 thanks to the WWII baby boom

 

I think looking back, the fact that they were very, very CHEAP; people made fortunes from 'Beatle-related STUFF', and that propelled their success. Epstein nearly GAVE THEM AWAY! It wasn't his fault. He didn't know. But, I'm sure promoters saw him as a 'sucker' that we all know Col. Parker WASN'T! They were cheap to book, and Brian had no concept of merchandising. That is, when it came to the selling of 'things'. Even on their EMI contract, they got a few pennies for every album they sold.

 

I really don't think that Richie Valens still being alive would have changed anything in the rise of the Beatles.

 

The Beatles were influenced by the music of these rock pioneers, not by their deaths, drafts, jailings, and other career killing events.

In other words, had Elvis stayed out of the Army, or if Buddy Holly would have lived, we would still have The Beatles.

 

I don't believe Kennedy being shot made a difference, they were talented that's all really? They had proved they were good in the UK and was creating a storm and the USA picked up on this, and wanted in?, wasn't clips shown of Beatlemania on the Ed Sullivan show? also very different to what America culture was use to (the wacky Liverpool humour, Haircuts, clothes etc) and the music in the USA like the UK before it was becoming 'Samey' and 'Stale' and in need of a good injection of something new and exiciting after Rock And Roll, The Beatles was that injection?

 

End of thread.

 

I agree. Although a living Buddy Holly might have provided some serious competition, the Beatles invasion was inevitable and could only have been derailed by mistakes by the Beatles themselves or their promoters.

Either that or the emergence of an entirely new home grown (or Australian or whatever) group that could have outdone The Beatles. Americans had a short attention span and were always looking for a new fad at this time.

The British invasion occured when the greatest American pop/rock band of all time, The Beach Boys, were making some of their best music ever. If they couldn't stem the Beatles tide nobody could.

 

I think a lot of posts are straying from the OPs' premise.
Considering the biggest acts were out of the picture pre-maturely Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, it undoubtedly opened the door for the Beatles to even consider competing (with their major influences).
Just my opinion, but I think that if those acts had continued to be as hot as they were and not derailed by tragedy, jail, and the draft, things may have indeed unfolded somewhat differently.

 

We also tend to forget/overlook how popular the Four Seasons were at the time of the Beatles arrival, and the Seasons surely didn't go away! In fact, they "peaked" just before the Beatles arrived, and over the next 4 years strung together 15 Top 12 singles, including four #1's and three to #3 . . .

the Beatles, of course, were doing the same and more, but it's not like they were without competition.

why the Beatles and not our boys from Jersey? hmmm, a million reasons, but main ones being:
+ "magic" chemistry of the fabs vs. the Seasons who seemed more like a doo-wop throw-back (and I LOVE both groups--just observing). I know plenty of people here probably can, but I can't name one guy in the Four Seasons beyond Frankie Valee . . . if they ever had a press conference with them in London, 1963, how do you think the repartee might have gone? Anyone here ever see a clip of such?

And not to pick on the 4 Seasons, really, Dylan and Elvis are the only ones to create such a commotion over there (in another era, Sinatra, maybe).

+ uniqueness--the Beatles "sounded" different, looked different, acted different. perfect fit to kick off the decade that would truly change the world. The 4 Seasons made great, great records, but not a new sound.

+ momentum: fresh, new, different and just kept coming w/great song after great song--singles and albums that, even compared to true hit-makers and talents like the Beach Boys and 4 Seasons, set themselves apart from the crowd in just about every way. It also helped that they anticipated
(created?) the new "seriousness" of the pop music field--full, solid albums, conceptual, group-written, etc. setting up FM, album cuts on radio, etc.

ALL THE stuff we've been talking about--and a good bit of pure luck and happenstance--merged to create lightning in a bottle. the recent bio, CAN'T BUY ME LOVE, does the best job I've read of zeroing in on the cultural impact and exactly how and why it happened.

doug

 

That would be age 7 (4.3 million in 1957).

 

If Holly had moved towards country, and there were some indications that he was, he would not have been competition. Chuck Berry and Little Richard, God love them, but their sound and style did not evolve in a rapidly changing era, and they would have been as just as left behind.

Elvis' stint in the army wasn't nearly as harmful to his career as his decision to concentrate on his craptacular movies and abandon live performance. The second the Beatles touched down Elvis went from being hip to L7.