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

As I understand it all those artists you mention Pete were not the staples of while middle class america - the kind that watched the Sullivan show. All of them are fantastic but outside of a few large cities and even in those cities certain neighbourhoods those artists records would not have been played on the radio station and a geographically large swathe of the US, The South precluded then being played at all. Those Liverpool chaps knew a good thing though and thats why they covered them and its often been said that they brought American music back to America.

 

so is the Singing Nun.

 

That may be true, but it is certainly untrue to suggest that there was no great music being made in the early 60s. I guess you had to go out of your way to find it.

 

I don't think anyone is saying there was no great music then, just that there wasn't the type of high energy rockabilly/R&B hybrid that the Beatles excelled at at that point in time.

 

Moptops
Gimmick
Charm

 

the music

 

I missed earlier posts in this thread, so I don't know what was said. I just want to point out that I never said there wasn't great music in the early 60's; there is always great music. Dion & the Belmonts and the Crystals are fine with me (the former much more than the latter, but that's just my tastes). James Brown is one of the biggest names in my own personal musical universe. But the people who listened to most of the acts you mentioned were not typically the most receptive to the Beatles, particularly when they broke. I know guys in Bensonhurst for whom Dion is still a legend, and the Beatles just a name.

 

To Liverpool!

 

Some of the greatest music ever to come out of America! "What'd I Say" alone is probably one of the 10 most significant 45s ever released.

 

Hello.

 

I agree. In the Midwest, WLS broadcasting from Chicago was the main radio station. And remember, Chicago was the home of Chess, VeeJay, and other great R&B record labels, but those got scant airplay.
Take a look at what type of artists dominated the WLS charts for the years 1963 and early 1964 (before February)
http://www.oldiesloon.com/il/wlsyear.htm

Sure, there are some Elvis, Beach Boys and some R&B artists in there. But lots of artists of other genres like Steve Lawrence, Dean Martin, Peter, Paul & Mary, The Bobbies-Vinton, Rydell, Cascades, etc. Much of what we, as children listened to was what our parents listened to. They controlled the TV (which had almost no Rock n Roll, but lots of variety shows with adult pop artists), and even the radio in the house. This was also a time when there wasn't a TV in every room, or even a radio for that matter. In our house, the portable transistor radios didn't make inroads until a couple years later. That is when we as kids had the freedom to listen to the radio stations we wanted, because we could put the earphone in and our parents didn't have to listen to "that damned noise."

To understand that time, I really believe you have to have experienced it personally - both in that time and in that country. I can read about what it was like to be growing up in Liverpool in the late 1950's, but I can never know what it was really like. I should never try to tell someone who was actually there what it was like. But I did grow up in the Midwest of America in the 1960's and I know what experiences I had. The Beatles were completely different from anything we'd ever seen, and they were able to be played on mainstream radio and TV, unlike many of the more raucous black artists. That was the world in the Midwest at the time. I'm not defending it, but that is how it was.

 

To say The Beatles conquered America because the US music scene was in the doldrums is damning them with extremely faint praise. The Beatles conquered a fragmented but enthusiastic and vital music scene in the US and almost overnight made certain sorts of music very mainstream. It's no accident that they were big champions of Motown, a label few white kids in the US will have heard of before then but which was producing great records, and in so doing helped Motown become their only serious commercial rivals in the US between 1964 and 1968.

 

It was grey, cold, dark, and mainly rainy. But we had a lot of laughs. Mainly the laughing.

 

The music is the best....no other reason

 

Bond, James Bond. It was a good year to be British in the US, from 007 to the Beatles to Petula Clark. That, plus the leading edge of the Baby Boomers hitting their late to mid-teens.

 

The Beatles were more popular in Canada. Capitol of Canada released their records prior to Vee Jay and Capitol in the US and their Fan Club had more members per capita.

 

This is quite the essay. Thank you for all the thought you put into this. Well stated.

 

"Wings -the band The Beatles could have been" -Alan Partridge

 

That's a huge key , getting out when they did at the top. That, combined with consistent and brilliant songwriting right out of the gate, three (!) top shelf writers and vocalists, and astronomical growth over a really short time period pretty much sums it up.

 

Whoa there...better check with someone who saw it all happen before their eyes in the US of A. Granted, the fab four injected serious B12, steroids, and 5 year energy into the veins of the American music scene, but it certainly was not in a state of the doldrums. The music that was coming out of Detroit, Philly, New York and California was already in full swing before the mop tops splashed their way over here. Motown their most serious commercial rivals?? I'm thinking more along the lines of Brian Wilson and company-both commercially and artistically.

 

If I may, I understand Dewey02 brought this up as one of the reasons. The white kid audience and what it is was fed to consume by the mainstream media by February '64... Well I am only a "bordering country witness", but I think I can relate to that, as we also got the Ed Sullivan's live shows, we were also in the doldrums, and we took the wave... Instant merchandizing of (highly successful) Beatles bubble gum collectible cards, etc.

..Why even my dad, who was in his mid-30s and into old persons music like everybody else his generation got all enthusiastic watching Ringo drum with that attitude on the first night!

 

Three's a stretch on both points. GH was one hell of a 3rd option, though.

 

The Beatles popularized the concept of a 4 piece rock band where each member is (theoretically) providing equal input and/or contributions.

 

If I knew I'd form another group and be a manager... ;-)

 

This has been a fascinating read. What was most compelling was the frustration of the non-Beatle fans or, at least, those who don't agree that the Beatles are the be-all-end-all of popular culture.

I was born in 1962, so I missed all of the early hoopla, but I tend to agree that it is a long shot that there will be a band as influential as the Beatles ever again. It was a perfect storm of an amazing list of elements (read the whole discussion thread) that make the Beatles into such an overwhelming force. And, if this is true, how frustrating it must be to one who doesn't like the Beatles or doesn't buy into how "great" they were. Earlier a link to an editorial article was posted that has two basic premises. The first (which I agree with) is that cultural significance does not ensure quality entertainment. The second (which I don't buy) boiled down to "new is always better". But his first point, while true, must make it so hard for those who don't drink the Beatle kool-aid, being constantly told that, no matter what you think is better than the Beatles - you are wrong.

In 1979 I was a big Ramones fan. The Ramones seem to be very well respected today by a big cross section of rock music fans, but that was certainly NOT the case back when the Ramones were still an active band. It was supremely frustrating trying to preach the Ramones gospel to other music fans who discounted them outright without ever hearing them. I wasn't the hipster while others didn't get it. On the contrary, it was I who didn't get it. Clearly the vast majority was correct - the Ramones were a joke.

So I understand the huge brick wall of "the Beatles were the greatest that ever were or ever will be" that non-believers must face.