Secret of The Beatles phenomenal popularity still unsolved

Secret of The Beatles phenomenal popularity still unsolved

http://english.pravda.ru/society/sho...the_beatles-0/

Every story eventually gets mythologized, especially when it comes to the history of popular music groups and performers. The history of the most popular band of all times The Beatles also became a subject of this mandatory mythologizing.

Here's an example of one such myth. Many sources on the Internet claim that Beatlemania started on September 16-17, 1963. They claim it was precisely when the first recording of songs of the famous Fab Four was created. This happened in the U.S. at the recording studio owned by Swan label. This record, according to researchers, became the launching of the careers of the musicians, and opened a New Age of Beatles
in the pop culture.

Nevertheless, such an assessment of this somewhat irrelevant event in the history of the famous band is not entirely correct. That record was not the first in the history of the band.

Their truly first recording was made in 1961 at the Hamburg studio Polydor. The album was called My Bonnie, but its release at that time went unnoticed. Although at the time they called themselves The Beat Brothers.

The band recorded their first single Love Me Do under the familiar name in September 1962 at the EMI studio (the single was released on October 5, and immediately reached the 17th place in the music magazine Record Retailer, which is not bad for a debut). By September 1963, The Beatles released four singles, two mini-albums and one full album in Britain at the label Parlophone, owned by the giant of the recording industry EMI.

The very first edition of the Beatles songs in the United States was released by Chicago-based Vee Jay in early 1963. The songs Please Please Me and From Me To You, as well as the album Introducing The Beatles were not successful and did not get even into the regional charts. The most interesting fact is that the September single She Loves You (Swan) was not even noticed in the U.S.

The first wave of Beatlemania swept across America only in December of 1963, when Capitol released I Want To Hold Your Hand. The official start of Beatlemania, according to many historians of the band, is the concert of the Fab Four in London Palladium, held on October 13, 1963. The event was broadcast in the program Sunday Night At The London Palladium for entire Britain.

Although the program attracted 15 million television viewers, thousands of young fans and admirers have preferred to skip the TV show and filled the streets adjacent to the building of the concert hall, hoping to see the musicians in real life. After the concert, the band had to wade to the car surrounded by a police patrol - an event very, very rare in those years. Even Elvis Presley was not "torn to pieces" in his time.

What causes such mythologization of the history of the Beatles? Probably, the attempts to somehow explain the phenomenon of their extraordinary popularity. However, the authors of all the myths are making the same fundamental error - they believe that such a complex and multifaceted thing as popularity may be the result of only one event. It is not true.

But once we are talking about the secret of the popularity of the Beatles, it should be noted that the puzzle is yet to be solved. Hundreds of contemporary musicians and producers are trying to do it as everyone wants to become as popular as The Beatle used to be (and still remain to this day). But no one has become the new Beatles.

Those who have been studying the phenomenon of The Beatles usually say that their success is explained by the simplicity and openness of songs performed by the Fab Four. Four guys "from the people"who were not professional musicians were able to become close to millions of listeners because the music was understood by ordinary people.

It is difficult to disagree with this statement if we talk about the earlier albums of the band. But in Britain in the late 1950s - early 1960s there were dozens of bands playing similar music, and The Beatles are the only band known around the world. Why were they the only ones to become super popular?

Some believe that the phenomenon of The Beatles was not created by the musicians but their manager Brian Epstein and producer George Martin. However, it is unlikely. Epstein, according to people who knew him personally, was a very mediocre organizer and businessman. In addition, it is known that he never interfered with the work of the Fab Four. Same with George Martin.

Others believe that the reason for the success of The Beatles was not their music, but topical and original lyrics. However, the early releases are not very original (at the time, almost everyone was singing about love, rhyming "yesterday" and "far away"). The Beatles started creating truly unique lyrics much later, when the popularity of the band has already reached its peak.

Most interestingly, The Beatles never tried to appease the tastes and preferences of the public and be fashionable. They preferred to do what they liked themselves. Perhaps here lies the secret of their phenomenal success, and also the fact that they always liked to experiment.

The tunes of even the earliest songs were astonishingly unconventional. The Beatles felt there was not enough room for them within the frame of "classic" rock-n-roll, and they kept trying to remake creating their own rhythm, harmony and tone. That caused a strange effect where the song turned out both "common" and at the same time unique. As a result, even in the first albums you will not find two similar compositions.

The same happened with the lyrics. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison seemed to be writing about things everyone knows of, but always put some hidden extra subtext in their poetry. The result was a song that you wanted to listen to time and again, discovering something new every time. Such works of art never get old.

As a result, the Fab Four created their own, unique and original world of The Beatles. In this world there were wonderful things, people lived in "nowhere," yellow submarines were abundant, guitars were crying, and octopus invited you to its garden, Lucy soared into the heavens, and so on. This magical space was open to anyone who wanted to visit.

There were many those willing, because people were tired of war ruins and everyday burdens of life, and wanted to find themselves in the sweet and gentle tale for a moment. This tale was offered by The Beatles to the fans (it was offered, not imposed).
But nothing lasts forever. Over time, the members of the band got bored of the "fairy tale," and The Beatles ceased to exist. But the magical world they created seems to have remained attractive for the fans of modern pop music. When in 2004 Rolling Stone magazine published a list of top 500 songs of all time, it included 23 songs of the legendary Fab Four.

It is unlikely that the musicians would be able to create their own magical world, if they have not tried to remain true to themselves. Then, probably after 1-2 popular albums and dozens of concerts people would have completely lost interest in their work (except, perhaps, a couple of hundred loyal fans). The saddest thing is that most modern pop artists do just that. As a result, the popularity of the Beatles has not been surpassed by anyone.

Originally Posted by Lucy

But once we are talking about the secret of the popularity of the Beatles, it should be noted that the puzzle is yet to be solved. Hundreds of contemporary musicians and producers are trying to do it as everyone wants to become as popular as The Beatle used to be (and still remain to this day). But no one has become the new Beatles.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it, it was lightning in a bottle. The right combination of individuals converging at the right time. That isn't something you can manufacture.

I don't think you can pin their success upon just one thing; it was a combination of them.

Originally Posted by AeolianCadence

Well, that's the thing, isn't it, it was lightning in a bottle. The right combination of individuals converging at the right time. That isn't something you can manufacture.

That's exactly it. People who try to manufacture this kind of success are doomed to fail, it seems. Things have to blossom organically.

I can't think of another band in history that is as influential as The Beatles in all respects. Certainly, a number of mid- to late-90s boy bands reached the same level of adoration from their fans, but the music was lacking; bands like Arcade Fire approach the level of lyrical and melodic talent that The Beatles possessed, but don't inspire teenaged girls to riot in the streets. And you wouldn't compare these bands to The Beatles if you wanted to retain your credibility.

It was a unique phenomenon, and trying to pin it down to one thing or another, or even to identify exactly the combination that worked, is likely an exercise in futility... but we still try, don't we?

Originally Posted by Maggie Mae

That's exactly it. People who try to manufacture this kind of success are doomed to fail, it seems. Things have to blossom organically.

I can't think of another band in history that is as influential as The Beatles in all respects. Certainly, a number of mid- to late-90s boy bands reached the same level of adoration from their fans, but the music was lacking; bands like Arcade Fire approach the level of lyrical and melodic talent that The Beatles possessed, but don't inspire teenaged girls to riot in the streets. And you wouldn't compare these bands to The Beatles if you wanted to retain your credibility.

It was a unique phenomenon, and trying to pin it down to one thing or another, or even to identify exactly the combination that worked, is likely an exercise in futility... but we still try, don't we?

Well said, Maggie Mae.

The problem is arcade fire's music is not something that teenage girls can latch onto, at least not the large majority of them. The Beatles started by making fairly simple songs that were easy to grasp by a younger audience. I doubt if their first record was say Revolver they would have been as successful. Although that is rather hard to be certain of.

We were talking in my history class the other day about trying to pin one cause on something that was huge.. mono-causation. It just doesn't make sense! The revolutionary war in America didn't start only because of "taxation without representation" like most people like to say and the same applies to the Beatles. I don't think there can be only one reason why the Beatles became as popular as they did.

I'll stand in front of the firing squad on this one.
Causes of the Beatles' success:
A rock and roll music industry which had failed to produce much in the preceding few years;
A dispirited America, jaded after the JFK assassination and looking for some escapism;
A good band, tried and tested by hundreds of live gigs in very demanding conditions, who had the "hunger" for success;
A persistent manager;
A sound engineer who believed in them and had the skills they lacked in arrangement and translating ideas into reality;
A belief in melody--the key to a successful pop song (well...usually);
The youth and energy of the band (they worked damned hard for eight years);
The good sense in realising that the touring days were over and getting into the studio;
The reputation and money that allowed them to get into the studio;
Talent, of course...you can have talent and get nowhere, but you can't sustain fame for long without talent;
Willingness of the songwriters to constantly refine their craft.

Reasons for longevity:
Songs: they appeal to the melody-minded, have enough in the lyrics to appeal to the poetically-minded, don't offend the grannies overly much, have enough darkness and dissonance for the alternate crowd, are often easy enough for the beginner or near beginner guitarist to play, are just plain singable and likeable, and have plenty of instrumental variety.
Post-Beatles Careers: their continued success as solo artists was a constant reminder of the old days. Anyone listening to music in the mid-late 70s (as I was) was drawn to learn about the earlier McCartney, the earlier Lennon, etc.
Lennon: this may be controversial, but I believe the manner of his death was fundamental in sealing the group's legacy and importance. For a start, it was purely shocking in a way that went beyond headlines or tears in Central Park--there was a profound sense of numbness about his death; secondly, it represented a "never again" moment in terms of the Beatles; third, it gave him a kind of martyrdom that few experience, and he was only famous as a solo artist because of his Beatles career.
Jaded, Cynical world: Never again will there be such unbridled enthusiasm about musicians. It's been done; there has been so much water under the proverbial bridge in 45 years, so much going on in the world; there are so many styles, so many bands, so many recording and marketing opportunities, so many world tours. There is much more money in the industry and people are generally more affluent. It's highly unlikely that a band of musicians will ever be so famous or influential, just because they won't get the space to do it. Good, popular, successful bands are everywhere.
Best of a great era: The Beatles are widely regarded as the best popular music artists in an era that featured: Bob Dylan; the Rolling Stones; the Who; Herman's Hermits; Hendrix; Supremes; Four Seasons; Grateful Dead; Byrds; Animals; Beach Boys; Simon & Garfunkel; Monkees; Doors; Seekers; Bee Gees (one could go on, but you get the picture). This is a testament to their greatness. Has any other band succeeded against their contemporaries to the extent that the Beatles did?

Add to the obvious talent they had, the chemistry among the 4 men is what made it work!

Don't forget the timing. The Beatles were born at the cusp of the post WWII generation, the Baby Boomers. A few year older, thus ideally situated to identify with and represent them. It's hard to dismiss the phenomena. For the first time in modern history we had adolescents named as a group - teenagers. The sheer volume of them, although young, gave them a voice.

Like youths of all times they wanted to break free from adult authority but, unlike other historical eras, they had the power to do it. And The Beatles, although conforming on the surface, were anti-establishment and it showed. Their slightly too long hair, their slightly raunchy backtalk, exposed their rebellious spirit in a rather innocent way that parents could live with yet appealed strongly to their kids. Just like their music.

Then, and this is the biggie, they continued to surf on that cusp all through the decade. As the early 60s teenagers grew and changed so did the Beatles. They were perfectly in sync with their times; in appearance, in lifestyle, in music. Not only that, they had the talent and inventiveness to sustain their popularity.

That Baby Boom generation is still here, still going strong and still influential. No generation since has had the same impact on society so how can any band since have had the same impact as THE band of their generation - The Beatles?

This is a silly concept to investigate. Scientists are still trying to understand the mysterious force of gravity, other attractions such as love and music are just as mind boggling and maybe are meant to have no universal explanation. But they came, they saw and they are still kicking some ass regardless of its logic, they're the bloody Beatles! Shut up.

Originally Posted by Serena

This is a silly concept to investigate. Scientists are still trying to understand the mysterious force of gravity, other attractions such as love and music are just as mind boggling and maybe are meant to have no universal explanation. But they came, they saw and they are still kicking some ass regardless of its logic, they're the bloody Beatles! Shut up.

Well said Serena. this is one of those ideas that if you look too hard you can't find an easy, throwaway answer to. but if i may for me the short answer is that they played music that had a message and at the same time was fun to listen to.

Originally Posted by yol

I'll stand in front of the firing squad on this one.

Best of a great era: The Beatles are widely regarded as the best popular music artists in an era that featured: Bob Dylan; the Rolling Stones; the Who; Herman's Hermits;

This is where you lost me, yol... Herman's Hermits?! Among this pantheon of musical gods?! No way! Firing squad is ready... aim... fire!

How's it going everyone? Where the hell did this investigation come from? There ain't NOTHING to solve! THE BEATLES ARE THE GREATEST BAND THAT EVER WALKED THE FACE OF THE EARTH as well as THE GREATEST BAND THAT MUSIC EVER PRODUCED! Mystery solved! LONG LIVE THE BEATLES! Rock on!

btw ~ Let's not forget the element of race here. It didn't hurt that the Beatles were four white guys. Black artists were very popular and making some great music in the early 60s... some would argue they were the only ones making great music before the British Invasion happened (with an exception here or there)... yet we all know that Smokey, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, etc. never would have been able to become the superstars that our boys became in 1964. It wasn't until the Beatles, Stones, etc. helped make slightly suggestive rock 'n' roll more palatable to white society that the road to acceptance was paved.

John said it himself. I'll look for the quote, but it was something to the effect of, "Being white really helped our type of music to be widely accepted. And the fact that we were British (i.e., even more white) helped even more."

Originally Posted by Maia 66

btw ~ Let's not forget the element of race here. It didn't hurt that the Beatles were four white guys. Black artists were very popular and making some great music in the early 60s... some would argue they were the only ones making great music before the British Invasion happened (with an exception here or there)... yet we all know that Smokey, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, etc. never would have been able to become the superstars that our boys became in 1964. It wasn't until the Beatles, Stones, etc. helped make slightly suggestive rock 'n' roll more palatable to white society that the road to acceptance was paved.

John said it himself. I'll look for the quote, but it was something to the effect of, "Being white really helped our type of music to be widely accepted. And the fact that we were British (i.e., even more white) helped even more."

Hi Maia 66! How are you? I remember John's quote and it is true to an extent. Is it also true that no British act has ever succeeded in making here in the U.S. prior to THE BEATLES? Capitol did not even want to release a BEATLES album here in the U.S. because THE BEATLES were British despite EMI (EMI owned Capitol Records) demanding that the U.S. release a BEATLES album. Capitol Records was already writing off THE BEATLES. It took sneaking import 45 RPM's of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in the U.S. and America's demand for it, that Capitol Records would finally take THE BEATLES seriously. With the right timing, along with 73 million viewers watching the Ed Sullivan show, THE BEATLES not only made world history, they saved Rock n' Roll! Before setting foot on American soil, THE BEATLES were America's number one band and the rest is Rock n' Roll history. Rock on!

Originally Posted by Maia 66

This is where you lost me, yol... Herman's Hermits?! Among this pantheon of musical gods?! No way! Firing squad is ready... aim... fire!

Glad to see you're paying attention, Maia. Well, they weren't the worst; indeed, they had a good number of hits in their short time. I didn't intend to rank them as equal with the others mentioned, merely to point out some successful bands from the 60s.

The chemistry among the boys worked well and helped catapult them into stratospheric popularity. You needed all 4 of them, Ringo, Paul, John and George to get that old Beatle magic working! That and the talent. Pure talent.

I'm sorry but all this studying, or whatever you want to call it doesn't wash with me. For me the reasons The Beatles succeeded was that we were young and fresh and so were they, end of story.

I was use to the likes of Cliff Richard/Shadows, Bobby Vee, Brian Hyland, Chubby Checker, Bobby Darin and of course Elvis, plus many others. All good in their own right, but The Beatles were not them, nor did they ever want to be.

You can ponder all you like but I can say I was there at the time and it mattered not one iota when they started to rule the world with their music, I just wanted the next single/EP/LP because it was what I liked, and obviously, millions of others.