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

As a Brit and a music fan (born in 1969), I have always been fascinated by the so-called "British invasion" and the popularity of bands from these shores over in the States in the 60s - led, obviously, by The Beatles.

Even now, as is so often borne out by this forum, the regard The Beatles are still held, by a large number of American music fans is breathtaking. I wasn't there but it seems that four working-class lads from Liverpool literally took over the world.

But my question to my American cousins is why? Why do you put The Beatles ahead of all the great bands/artists from your shores - bands that I have to admit I personally listen to a lot more than The Beatles.

I'm thinking of The Byrds, CSN(&Y), The Doors, The Allman Brothers, Creedence, Jimi Hendrix, Dylan, Paul Butterfield, Hendrix, Moby Grape, all the fabulous blues and soul acts on Chess & Motown...the list goes on and on.

Some come on, enlighten me, why are The Beatles put on a pedestal over every one else?

 

a new sound - imported - clever group name - multiple releases on 3 labels simultaneously

 

Well, they're a better story, for one. I don't sit around listening to The Beatles all day, or even all that often, but I do like them and more than anything, I think they have one of the most compelling stories in all of music. Beyond that, there's something pretty cool about how much they changed between 1962 and 1970, and how great an effect those changes had on pop culture in general. The only thing close would be rap and hip hop culture, really.

 

In general I prefer British bands, from the 60s to today, over American bands. That's not to say I don't love lots of American bands, because I do. But in general I prefer to British rock sound and production to the American and I think while America invented rock music, Britain perfected it (again, this is just my opinion).

 

Right band; right sound; right look; right time.

 

Yeah, that, too. I've often wondered what it is that made me so drawn to UK artists, but outside of jazz and soul, I've been primarily interested in British music since I was a child.

 

Great beat, rhythm and vocals. That's what got me and they got better and better rather quickly.

 

Exactly right!

 

If not for The Beatles there would be no Byrds, Doors, Allman Brothers Credence, Hendrix, Moby Grape, etc.

 

For me, it was, and is the consistent high quality of the music. The band flat cranked out so many absolutely memorable tunes and performances in such a short amount of time, when you think about it. Six or seven years at best? I am biased, but out of the 100 or so songs they recorded, they are but a handful that I don't like. Incredible catalog of music.

There are all kinds of socio-cultural reasons, besides. They changed things -- of that there is no doubt.

And they did that by reminding Americans of basic rock 'n roll -- Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and The Crickets, Everly Brothers, Little Richard -- and putting their own stamp on it.

 

It's all there in the pandiatonic clusters and Aeolian cadences.

Also, they made Wings possible.

 

They arrived at the time when American youth were ripe for big changes and new directions. A brilliant band arriving at the right time.......they had "personality", amazing song writing skills and a good manager/producer.

 

The Beatles were part of a trend in the postwar US in which art/entertainment from other countries/cultures could be considered on its own terms rather than having to be exoticized or self-consciously Americanized. Examples from around the same time would include European cinema, Black Orpheus and of course bossa nova. It always astounds me when people can talk about the Beatles and the British invasion in such detail without ever mentioning - let alone seriously considering - what was happening in the US with Brasilian music. So in light of all this, I think the Beatles' popularity was part of a larger trend that is often overlooked in rock-centric conversations.

 

That's true. I read somewhere that guitar sales exploded in 1964 as The Beatles inspired thousands of people to start bands. I remember hearing a recording of The Monkees' Mickey Dolenz deejaying a radio show in 1967 and he introduces a Beatles tune by saying something like "thanks to The Beatles for getting this whole thing started," which I remember thinking referred to both the music explosion and the counter-culture explosion.

 

Surely their image was new and exciting but the bottom line is, the music is what sustains it. Musically, for rock, for pop, for pop/rock, the Beatles were the best that ever was and the best that ever will be.

 

You know, while there could be no argument about The Beatles talent for writing singing and playing, they DID have the good fortune of coming along at a time in the music business that was perfect for them. Rock and Roll was getting a bit stale in 1964. Surf music was ending its run and American teens were really ready for something very different and fresh and boom...here come The Beatles. Really, they couldnt miss.

And the same could be said for Elvis. Teens in 1956 were tired of the Perry Comos and Guy Mitchells and wanted something of their own. That was Elvis.

 

I'd be hestitant about the 'best that ever will be,' but, on the other hand, we've been waiting, what, almost 45 years, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

But what about the influence of, say Bob Dylan, on The Beatles?

"Though The Beatles stayed fairly up to date on popular music in the early 1960s, Bob Dylan wasn't on their radar until the spring of 1964, a full year after The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan established the young songwriter as American folk music's premier voice. Once the band heard that record, during a tour of France, it had an immediate impact on them. "For three weeks in Paris, we didn't stop playing it," Lennon would later say. "We all went potty about Dylan." The band's early hits, though deceptively complex, were clearly intended for a teenybopper audience more interested in dancing to backbeats than listening to poetry and acoustic guitars. After hearing Freewheelin', The Beatles—and especially John Lennon—were inspired to write more mature, narrative-driven folk songs in the manner of their new hero."

 

It may sound strange, but once upon a time in America talent actually correlated with commercial success.

 

First and foremost, we like it real dumb. Compound that with a strong publicity machine and we're all over it.

I'm kidding. Well...for the most part.

 

they were marketed perfectly....parents accepted them as they dress properly, looked clean and neat...their music was safe, great and perfect for a 9 year old....they aimed to please. I love the Beatles then and just as much now...the world was a great place in 1964 not cluttered with all the BullS%%t we have to put up with today...we were free to enjoy many simple pleasurse that seem like a dream now.

 

Their music was fresh and exciting on a level no one had ever heard before, which struck a collective world chord that still rings today, and is still being discovered by today's "youngsters", to paraphrase Ed Sullivan, who's contribution to that American resonance, the OP refers to, may be difficult to measure.

 

I know I am echoing, but when I compare the British bands of the time to the American bands, I just think the British bands of the 60s, by and large, wrote better music.

 

yeah I agree with that in that Zep, the Stones, Who, and Floyd are in my upper eshelon of bands along with the fab four. Neil Young is a Canadian so the only one making my upper eschelon from the US is Nirvana. I'd add that Hendrix is right up there but it took the Brits to discover him, really, didn't it ?

 

And then I get into the 80s with the Smiths, the Cure, Sisters of Mercy, Love and Rockets, The The, etc... There are American bands that I love (Allman Brothers) but when I start listing favorites from any age they do seem to come up British. Now I really wonder what the fundamental issue is here that caused the Brits to produce such great artists.