Who DIDN'T like the Beatles in 1964

Cafe Society
21

The thing is, by 1964 The Beatles had already been huge in Britain for a year, and it was their success that made bands like The Stones, The Kinks, and The Yardbirds possible. Guitar groups were supposed to be finished, remember. The Beatles showed that they were not finished at all, and opened the door for (and inspired) many others. You are entitled to your tastes, I guess, but none of those bands you like would have had a career if The Beatles had not paved the way.

(Also, your choice of examples is kind of tendentious. Certainly “Please Mister Postman” is very far from being among The Beatles best work from that year, during which they were very prolific.)

22

I didn’t care for them at the time, but I wasn’t into popular music at the time; I preferred showtunes.

When I got my first record player several years later, the first album I bought was Sgt. Pepper (in mono!), so my opinion had changed.

23

William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote of the Ed Sullivan debut that their music was “god awful”.

24

Hmmm…

A matter of personal taste, of course. However, IMHO only extreme political correctness would lead one to feel that The Marvelettes’ version of “Please Mr. Postman” was somehow a more satisfying and emotion-laden performance than The Beatles’ one. I feel the same way about The Isley Brothers’ “Twist and Shout.”

I acknowledge that their versions came first, and that The Beatles’ versions wouldn’t exist without them. But The Marvelettes’ “Please Mr. Postman” is lightweight, with shrill, annoying backing vocals. The Beatles, by virtue of John Lennon’s vocal, turn it into a desperate, yearning plea. The Isley Brothers’ “Twist and Shout” is an enjoyable dance tune, but nothing more. It’s not the virtual call to arms The Beatles’ take on it is.

I agree with you that many British Invasion covers of American rock ‘n’ roll and R&B tunes were dire. (Most of them seemed to think that speed = excitement, which is not the case.)

But not these two.

At the same time, I disagree that most Stones covers were “just as great” as the originals. The Stones, on the whole, didn’t come into their own until they started writing their own material — which never would have happened were it not for The Beatles’ influence.

And finally, The Stones “representation” as in-your-face rebels was just as much of a construction (thanks to Andrew Loog Oldham) as was The Beatles’ representation as carefree moptops. Just because The Beatles had smiles on their faces when they took the Mickey out of uptight, strait-laced reporters didn’t make that act any less rebellious.

Adult antipathy toward Beatles music (at least here in the U.S.) was strong enough already. If they had shown up on our shores with sullen, rebellious attitudes, the reaction would have been even stronger. As it was, they quickly pulled the rug out from underneath that approach, and their charm increased the chances that greater numbers of people might actually listen to the music itself rather than dismissing it out of hand. I see that as a very good thing.

25

I didn’t know what to make of them. I was baffled by the hordes of girls screaming whenever they appeared; okay, jealous too. The music was catchy, but I grew up on the icons of R&R, so it seemed tame. As someone has mentioned, Rubber Soul was an attention grabber, and I became a fan.

26

Thought this was interesting reading - acollection of very negative reviews of the Ed Sullivan Show performance.

27

this thread asked about the Fab Four in reference to the 50th anniversary of the famous Ed Sullivan. my comments were to that from a USA perspective.

though comments are being made from an everything Beatles perspective, like their already being popular in Britain. i will broaden my comments also.

maybe to address their musical talent of the time.

they were a boy band. they skewed older then than boy bands now, but they still were. you don’t need as much talent when you have image.

there was a cartoon show, The Beatles. i know it was just their music involved but the target audience was people less sophisticated about music. you don’t need as much talent when you have image.

earlier i did a quick list that i will show below

1963
She Loves You - Beatles
Come On - Rolling Stones
Do You Want to Know a Secret - The Beatles

1964
Love Me Do - The Beatles
All Day and All of the Night - Kinks
Little Red Rooster - Rolling Stones
You Really Got Me - The Kinks

1965
Satisfaction - The Rolling Stones
Ticket to Ride - The Beatles

1966
Light My Fire - The Doors
White Rabbit - Jefferson Airplane
Paperback Writer - The Beatles

1967
Are You Experienced - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Axis: Bold as Love - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
The Grateful Dead - Grateful Dead
A Whiter Shade of Pale - Procol Harum
All You Need Is Love - The Beatles
Monterey - Eric Burdon & The Animals,
Nights in White Satin - The Moody Blues

1968
Electric Ladyland - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
A Saucerful of Secrets - Pink Floyd
Music from Big Pink - The Band
Anthem of the Sun - Grateful Dead
Lady Madonna - The Beatles

who rocked in the above list? what bands had long intricate songs? not the Fab Four.

good marketing of a pop band. cult following that believed them sacred and totally original underived and life changing; their followers were a good example of cognitive dissonance of a brainwashed cult.

28

The Beatles changed music in America in 1964. They changed music in America in 1965. They changed music in America in 1966. They changed music in America in 1967. By 1968 they were essentially dead as a group, drained by the adulation, and frustrated by not being able to play music in public, the thing they loved much more than making studio records.

By 1964, they had already changed music in Britain. They were legendary before the Stones and the Kinks and Who had become the bands we know today. None of them looked down on the Beatles. If they didn’t, then you don’t get to.

Hindsight is useful, but it fails here. The Beatles in 1964 were miles ahead of anybody else. The original British Hard Day’s Night track listing is dynamite. Great rockers, sophisticated ballads, up-tempo dance songs. Every song holds up - something not in the least true of other contemporary albums - and every single one was written by the group.

They could have coasted on this success. They didn’t. They approached every new album as a chance to try something they hadn’t been capable of before and that nobody else, with the possible exception of Dylan, had even considered trying. They raised the age of their audience year by year and shoved rock out of teen music status, making it possible for all the later college-oriented bands to have a career and fame. By 1967, they had conquered even the haters. Sgt. Pepper’s solidified rock’s permanent place in music. You don’t have to consider it their best album - I don’t - but it’s the most important album of all time. If they had stopped making music then, they’d still be what they are today, and possibly ranked higher.

The Beatles won over the sophisticated people who had never considered rock anything better than music for imbeciles. You can’t go back and say that history never happened. They did it almost overnight and through the sheer excellence of their music. Looking at that history year-by-year is amazing. The only thing close in cultural history is the arrival of movies and that was a longer process involving scores of talents. The Beatles did it against the opposition of the entire music establishment and the critical world. Image doesn’t do that. Your history is wrong.

29

My dad claims he didn’t like them at first, in his words, “because I thought only screaming girls liked them. And then I found out that the intellectual girls liked them too” :slight_smile:

30

Buckley thought music had been in an irreversible decline since Tchaikovsky died.

31

I don’t think this post makes the point it seems to think it’s making. I think all those songs are great. Also, of the six non-Beatles songs listed, five weren’t written by the given groups; they’re covers of old songs. The Beatles were doing kick-ass covers of songs like “Talking 'Bout You”, “Clarabella” and “I Got to Find My Baby” in Hamburg and Liverpool years before those other groups existed.

32

it doesn’t matter if they were cover songs. it what the groups were putting out to show their musical taste and talent.

33

You’ve been owned. Completely.

34

Allan Sherman Pop hates the Beatles

35

No, it really doesn’t. But even if it did you’ve make a very selective sample of the music put out by those groups.

36

I was 8 years old when they first appeared on Ed Sullivan. I thought they were pretty good, but my tastes were for more pop fluff until 3 years later, when I bought The Doors (the first record I bought with my own money.) I didn’t really appreciate them or more involved R&R until later on in life.

37

I can’t find a cite now, but I read the aforementioned opinion in a collection of Buckley’s writing. It was footnoted with the claim that Buckley later admitted that he’d been wrong about the Beatles.

And yes, while I was only five years old in 1964, every adult who I can remember expressing an opinion on the Beatles (parents, teachers, et al) either hated them or thought they were silly (and all agreed that they “couldn’t sing”). My mother changed her mind when she heard “Yesterday” for the first time.

38

So your standard for what’s good in rock is “long, intricate songs”? Can you explain a little further how that standard works?

FWIW, I like virtually every song on this list (note that several of them are albums, not songs, though). I also like most Beatles songs from each of these years, too.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept: different music for different purposes. If you want to make the argument that “Nights in White Satin” is somehow a more worthy and important song in the history of rock ‘n’ roll than “Tutti Frutti” is, then there’s gonna be a fight.

I notice how you cherry-picked your Beatles examples, too…choosing “Paperback Writer” instead of “Tomorrow Never Knows” for 1966, “All You Need Is Love” instead of “Strawberry Fields Forever” for 1967, and “Lady Madonna” instead of “Revolution” for 1968. Nice try.

And if you really think The Stones’ lame, limp cover of Chuck Berry’s “Come On” is better than “She Loves You,” then I have to question whether you know anything at all about rock ‘n’ roll. The fact that you would cite The Beatles cartoon show, which the band had nothing to do with, as if it proves something makes me lean this way already.

Finally, I would be willing to bet that every single one of the artists you list on this page, without exception, would acknowledge their debt, both musically and culturally, to The Beatles and what they started in 1963. If you’d like to point out one who would not, please be my guest.

39

I was born in 1963 so I never encountered the Beatles until they were already icons of popular music. But I used to know a guy born in 1950 who told me he didn’t think much of their music when he first heard it because most of the songs didn’t have “proper” endings, they just faded out on repeats.

Later in his teens he came around to being a fan, though, so I guess it wasn’t a dealbreaker.

40

Not born yet? I think I was in 4th grade, and had no clue who they were.

Yeah, they first came on my radar as something that my dad was ranting about. The basic rant about that music was at least half an hour, with variations that could go on from there and specific bits about the Beatles sometimes added.