Was there a Beatles 'backlash' in the late 70s??

I don't think there was any backlash against the Beatles as a band. However, I think there may have been a backlash
against the Beatles as solo artists after 1974. The quality of their solo effects I believe diminished as did their sales and
critical acclaim. But the public young and older still rocked to the Beatles hits. (How could they not !!??!!)

 

I remember, in the '70's and a 'bully kid' started a "DISCO SUCKS!" chant on the school bus.
When he and his minions, got in the other kids faces to ask what they liked..... and they got to me, I said,
"I like The Beatles.... it's not my fight."
The bully thought about this, and left me alone.

 

As I recall there was actually lots of nostalgia for the Beatles from the mid-70's on. There were the Beatlefest conventions, the various Capitol compilations, on Broadway was the multi-media show 'Beatlemania', offers for the Beatles to reunite, and several films and TV shows including 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' which is a great film and the Peter Frampton/Bee Gees fiasco 'Sgt. Pepper' and in 1979 the TV movie 'Birth of The Beatles'. You had the 'Ringo' special and the Rutles, and while both were not ratings winners, in the case of the Rutles, it kept the legacy rolling. George and Paul were still releasing good solo albums while Ringo's records were a bit hit & miss. By 1980 you had Paul in the charts again with 'McCartney II' and the 'Coming Up' single, his 'Rockshow' movie and 'Wings Around The World' TV special, and of course you John Lennon & Yoko Ono's 'Double Fantasy'.

So, between 1976 and 1980, while some of the solo releases might have underperformed, I'd say there was no Beatles backlash.

 

The Velvet Underground were much more the influential band to namedrop between Punk and whenever Oasis cut their first single. The Gallagher brothers singlehandedly revived The Beatles

 

further to my earlier reply if there was a Beatles backlash it was earlier imho, after the arrival of punk and new wave they were if anything more relevant again, the backlash referred to in the original post imho was for their current work as solo artists not their back catalogue, everybody recording before 1977 could be considered old farts by the new wave, not many made an easy transition post 1977, Bowie did and strangely enough so did the Floyd for two LP's anyway.....others who made the transition had a more rockier road to start with....

 

I'd contest that, as much as i love the Velvets, again if you were able to i suggest you ask Elvis, Paul Weller, Joe Strummer, Tilbrook & Difford, the Finns and a whole host of others between 1977 and Oasis...

 

"No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones in 1977"
"Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust"

 

I'd say with the Anthology, the Beatles revived the Beatles. When the Beatles Anthology CD's were released and all three volumes entered the charts consecutively at number one and the TV specials garnered huge ratings, Paul McCartney commented that folks were trying to see who would be bigger than the Beatles and it turned out it was the Beatles. A most recent example were the ratings for the recent 50th anniversary Beatles special which resulted in the special being rebroadcast just a few days later. So, there you go.

 

No backlash.

 

No there was just a lot of living music to compete for our attention.

 

And the Rutles.

 

Indeed, in fact..around that time (1978 according to one website) NYC radio station WYNY (NBC's FM station in NYC) went through a highly publicized format change. They went from one format to another with a "bridge" in between. That "bridge" was going completely Beatles, 24-7 for a period of time. (A New York Times article from 1981 claims it was just two weeks. My own recollection is it was longer than that, but it could be just wishful thinking on my part.)

The upshot was the ratings for the station went through the roof for the period they did it. Doesn't sound like there was a backlash there!

 

I can't speak for the late 70s, but I don't remember The Beatles being all that popular in the 80s. They weren't scorned or anything, but they certainly weren't getting much TV and radio exposure during that time. I started hearing them more after the CD releases, and then when they did the Anthology stuff in '94, they were everywhere, and that popularity seems to have stayed with them since.

It's safe to say there was a lull in their popularity throughout the 80s, though, but I don't think it was ever considered "uncool" to like them. They just didn't have their ubiquity for awhile.

 

sadly we can't ask him but the reference was more about London imho ironically in their most Beatlesque and greatest LP.....

 

sadly it wasn't true with the singles, Free as a Bird is a mash up but had Real Love been released first as it should have been being the stronger of the two by far both may have been number ones...sadly the UK record books show Elvis now as having the most number ones at 18 because of A) a tv commercial and B ) the decision by whoever to count the only chart of all the UK charts operating before 1969 that had Please Please me as number 2 not number one as everyother chart and everybody else knew it really was. ...Had they only released Real Love first.....

 

The "Sgt. Pepper" movie also made millions.

 

"Before Elvis there was nothing."
~John Lennon

 

That's for sure what inspired them all but there was no comparison with anybody after they arrived on the scene

 

It depends on who you were and at what age.

In the general public yes, for a brief time it was cool to rag on the Fabs in the late 70s, and uncool to listen to them. IF you were young or into punk.

Those of us NOT into punk nor being teens were still into the Beatles as much as ever. Many of the original older fans never went away. Only the music papers and the 'hip' crowd. And that only lasted a few years.

Never flagged in MY estimation.

 

This is how I remember it. Some might have thought the Beatles to be a little corny or old-fashioned in the late '70s, but there wasn't really much negative feeling toward them. The solo Beatles? Different story.

 

I'm from a suburb of Boston, MA. It sure seemed to 13 year old me that the Beatles were not considered nearly as cool as the active hard rock bands, circa early 1980. (and this was a bummer.) There was a battle of the bands on WAAF, and every hour they'd pit groups against each other. They had a "Beatles vs Ted Nugent." Beatles won that, and proceeded onto "Beatles vs Led Zeppelin." Zep won mightily.

 

They weren't a working band anymore, and hadn't been for nearly a decade. It wasn't so much of a backlash, as it was they were starting to be seen as an oldies band - Remember that the time between when something awas current and when something was an oldie was much shorter then.

 

I recall ridicule for the movie but, around me anyway, that didn't stick to The Beatles. It was more of an incredulousness of a masterwork being done an injustice.
I agree with those who have said the public had simply moved on to other music with The Beatles unsullied. One thing is true, I think (!) is that The Beatles studio albums were never in the cut-out bins during that late 70's period that is under discussion.

 

I'll take the Beatles any day.

 

All I know is that they were cool enough to get covered by the Muppets, and that was good enough for six-year-old me.